Time to Take the Grassroots Gloves Off


I am on the ACT for America email list. The list is fantastic for getting updates on how radical Islam is affecting America on a stealth level. As you know, belonging to any kind of list typically means you’ll get fund raising emails as well.

 

The ACT email I received on 12/7 is actually a fund-raising effort. HOWEVER, Brigitte Gabriel brilliantly lays out how radical Islamic organizations deceiving us about peaceful moderation, Leftists that support Islamic lie (she mentions the SPLC and George Soros), Deep State obstructionists supporting Crooked Hillary and trying a coup against President Trump, as well Deep State Communists like violent ANTIFA bullying Americans to discard Making America Great Again.

 

Gabriel’s exposing of American enemies is done so well editorially, it makes the email worth the read. Contribute or not, but read this citizen’s indictment against those devoted to transforming America into a diluted values Leftist state.

 

JRH 12/8/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Time to Take the Grassroots Gloves Off

 

By Brigitte Gabriel

Sent 12/7/2017 5:36 AM

Sent via ACT for America

 

Between radical Islamic front groups like CAIR, their leftist enablers at the SPLC, and violent anarchists like ANTIFA, our country is under assault in a profound way.

 

The ultimate goal is to destroy America from within, and with President Trump in office, they’re more determined than ever to succeed!

 

They hate this country, and those of us who take pride in being American.

 

And don’t even get me started on the corrupt lamestream media….

 

Their pathetic attempt to explain away the defeat of Hillary Clinton last November is beyond absurd. They were so embarrassed that even with all their propaganda, they were flat out rejected at the polls.

 

So, what did they do? Teamed up with lawmakers and the Deep State to push a baseless narrative about Russia rigging the election results.

 

Right, like Vladimir Putin was in millions of voting booths and putting a gun to people’s heads, unless they voted for President Trump.

 

Hillary didn’t lose because of Vladimir Putin, she lost because she was another corrupt, politically correct robot, programmed to regurgitate useless clichés about “tolerance” and “diversity,” instead of getting serious about the threats facing this nation.

 

That’s why our enemies are more determined than ever to silence those who speak out against their PC worldview.

 

President Trump won because he spoke directly to the American people, without interference from the lamestream media.

 

These radicals know they can’t compete in the forum of open ideas, so they use terms like “Islamophobic” to bully those they disagree with into silence.

 

Meanwhile, ANTIFA serves as the radical left’s goon squad, by attacking innocent patriots, and lining the streets with blood.

 

ANTIFA threatened us with violence while organizing a patriotic rally for America on the weekend of the anniversary of September 11th this year.

 

We outsmarted their attempt to intimidate us into submission by holding an online Day of Action, which revolutionized the grassroots model with groundbreaking technology, and reached millions of supporters all across the globe.

 

That’s the type of power we yield when we stick together, and that’s why ACT for America is supercharging our activist model for 2018!

 

We’re not going to sit back and continue to allow terror-linked groups like CAIR to infiltrate American schools and political offices unopposed.

 

While you’d think with an America First President that Hamas-Front groups would tone down their anti-American propaganda, they’ve actually dug in deeper than ever before.

 

The George Soros cartel is pushing open borders now more than ever, and terrorist entities are pouring millions into PR campaigns to defend the image of CAIR, ISNA, and Muslim Advocates.

 

They attack with words like “Islamophobia” and “Hate,” and defend with code words like “Diversity,” “Tolerance,” and “Multi-Culturalism.”

 

We know their game, because they have no other strategy.

 

What they do have, is money, and plenty of it!

 

With mid-term elections right around the corner, this could be our last chance to roll back the damage done to our nation during the reign of Obama.

 

With over 800,000 members strong, ACT for America has the power to get the job done.

 

Our most recent High Priority legislative victory came just this week, when the House passed the Taylor Force Act, a bill which defunds the Palestinian Authority, for subsidizing the families of terrorists who kill Israelis and Americans.

 

ACT for America led the grassroots charge with this bill by utilizing our allies on Capitol Hill, and unleashing a tsunami of phone calls, emails, and media engagement to see that it passed the House.

 

These are the type of grassroots victories we need to see again and again in 2018.

 

We need an all hands on deck approach to defend this nation from its enemies within.

 

But we cannot do it alone. We need the support of freedom-loving patriots like you to power our efforts.

 

As a non-profit charitable organization, ACT for America does not accept a dime of taxpayer funds. We rely solely on the generosity of our patriotic members to help the cause.

 

That’s why I’m turning to you, the real heart of America. The America the media despises, and shamefully attacks.

 

To fully-fund our supercharged activist war chest in 2018, we must raise $72,217 before the end of the year.

 

Can I count on you to chip in $25, $50, $100 or more towards our cause?

 

When I was a little girl, Beirut, the Capital of my home country of Lebanon, was dubbed “Paris of the Middle East.” Now, Paris is the Middle East of Europe.

 

What happened? Radical Islamic infiltration.

 

The writing is on the wall unless we stick together.

 

This could be our last chance.

 

Do we want to be like France? A country in which suicide bombings are becoming a regular occurrence? How about Sweden, where sexual assaults have skyrocketing due to open borders? Not on our watch!

 

Please use this secure link to make a special, tax-deductible donation to help ACT for America take the fight to our nation’s well-funded enemies.

 

Remember, we must raise $72,217 online by December 31st so we can be properly prepared for the tidal-wave of attacks coming early in 2018.

 

Thank you in advance for your continued support and generosity.

 

P.S. 2018 will be the biggest battle yet, and our enemies are all-in. That’s why the ACT for America must raise $72,217 online by December 31st to fill our grassroots war chest. Your generous support today will empower us to do what we do best, protect the country we love.

Always Devoted,

 

 

______________________

ACT for America · 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 190, #614, Washington, DC 20004, United States

 

Keep up with Brigitte Gabriel on Twitter or Facebook.

 

About Brigitte Gabriel

 

Brigitte Gabriel quote

 

Brigitte Gabriel is one of the leading terrorism experts in the world providing information and analysis on the rise of global Islamic terrorism. She lectures nationally and internationally about terrorism and current affairs. Her expertise is sought after by world and business leaders.

 

She has addressed the United Nations, Australian Prime Minister, members of The British Parliament/House of Commons, members of the United States Congress, The Pentagon, The Joint Forces Staff College, The US Special Operations Command, The US Asymmetric Warfare group, the FBI, and many others.

 

In addition, Gabriel is a regular guest analyst on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, and various radio stations daily across America. She serves on the board of advisors of the Intelligence Summit.

 

Ms. Gabriel is Founder and Chairman of ACT for America, the largest national security grassroots organization in the U.S. with over 500,000 members and 1,000 chapters nationwide dedicated to preserving national security and promoting Western values. She is the author of two New York Times Best Sellers, BECAUSE THEY HATE: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America. And THEY MUST BE STOPPED: Why we must defeat radical Islam and how we can do it.

  

Ms. Gabriel was knighted in Europe in 2016 for her international work on fighting terrorism and standing up for Western Values. She joins a long list of knights including former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Nelson Mandela, Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Henry Kissinger, and others.

 

Ms. Gabriel is named one of the top 50 most prominent speakers in America. She speaks Arabic, French, English, and Hebrew.

 

PEGIDA Canada Fights for Canadian Freedom while facing Antifa and Communists


Paul Sutliff is one of my favorite Counterjihad writers and speakers. Paul has a webcast on Blog Talk Radio a part of Global Patriot Radio. As of today on his Civilization Jihad Awareness podcast was posted on 11/22/17. The podcast begins with some annoying intro music until you actually listen to the lyrics, then you should be amused. Paul also is the blog journalist for Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad. If you want some excellent Counterjihad education, Paul’s blog is a fantastic place to go to bone-up on the parts of Islam that Islamic Apologists and Multiculturalists will not admit to.

 

In an email update I was informed Paul was an invited speaker at a PEGIDA-Canada event in London, Ontario. Below are three videos of that event along with some transcript below the videos.

 

(Americans may not be aware that “PEGIDA” is an acronym originating in Europe [via Wikipedia – not always friendly to Counterjihadists]:

 

Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West (Occident) (GermanPatriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes), abbreviated PEGIDA or Pegida, is a German nationalist, anti-Islamfar-right political movement.[3][4] It was founded in Dresden in October 2014. Pegida believes that Germany is being Islamicized[5] and aims to oppose Islamic extremism. Pegida wants to curb immigration, and accuses authorities of not enforcing existing laws.[6])

 

Just a heads up. You will probably to be very patient watching the videos. Commie-Antifa was at the outdoor ANTIFA-Canada rally making all sorts of very loud noise. This is why Paul’s mini-transcript is important. Do me a favor though. Go to Paul’s Youtube link for each video and give it a thumbs-up to stick it in the eye of Antifa anarchists.

 

JRH 11/27/17

Please Support NCCR

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

PEGIDA Canada Fights for Canadian Freedom while facing Antifa and Communists

 

By Paul Sutliff

November 26, 2017

Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad

 

On November 26, 2017 I was in London, Ontario, Canada standing with my Canadian brethren of PEGIDA Canada. Once again Antifa and local college Communists appeared to protest. This time the police mostly kept us safe.  Below you can find videos of Jenny Hill’s speech a video of Mark Vandermaas’ speech and a video of my speech with the copy of my speech below the video.

 

VIDEO: PEGIDA Canada in London November 25 2017

 

[Posted by Paul Sutliff

Published on Nov 26, 2017

 

Jenny Hill speaks for PEGIDA Canada while Antifa attempts to stop free speech proving themselves the real fascists!]

 

Mark points out the Commie and Antifa Violence.

 

VIDEO: Mark Vandermass speaks at PEGIDA Canada in London Ontario Nov 25 2017

 

[Posted by Paul Sutliff

Published on Nov 26, 2017

 

Mark Vandermaas speaks for PEGIDA Canada while Antifa attempts to stop free speech proving themselves the real fascists!]

 

VIDEO: Paul Sutliff speaks at PEGIDA Canada event London Ontario 11-25-17

 

[Posted by Paul Sutliff

Published on Nov 26, 2017

 

Paul Sutliff speaks at PEGIDA Canada event on November 25, 2017 while Antifa attempts to stop free speech proving themselves the real]

 

Speech London, Ontario, CANADA—-for PEGIDA CANADA and Every Canadian:

 

Fight for your freedom!

 

I am once again here in Canada to express my concern that YOUR FREEDOM will soon be gone. Your freedom of EXPRESSION is being stolen AND the fascists want that! Who are these fascists? The very ones who encouraged Antifa to come out each and every time PEGIDA Canada makes a stand.

How many Canadians here like the idea of protecting only ONE religion from being insulted? Protecting it to the point that the members of this religion become special reporters that the police must respond to and investigate those not of this religion. You would think in Canada this was not possible. But Canada unlike America can make laws regarding religion.

 

Let’s examine just a few of the definitions of Islamophobia that Parliamentarian Scott Reid wrote about on November 15th.

 

Sept. 18:

 

1.Mr. Arif Virani, MP said “Islamophobia, to me, means uttering death threats, assaulting, hatred, threats of violence towards people, and vandalism of their places of worship.

This sounds like concern over hate speech that Canadian law already covers.

 

2. Parliament Member Iqra Khalid said, “The definition of Islamophobia I subscribe to is an irrational fear or hatred of Muslims or Islam that leads to discrimination.

 

So according to this definition what they want to outlaw is irrational thought. Does that mean they will now put all persons who have never committed an actual act of hatred against Islam, and only have thought that Islam is bad in an Insane Asylum???

 

3. Parliamentarian Dan Vandal shared the definition the Canadian Race Relations Foundation as “expressions of fear and negative stereotypes, bias, or acts of hostility towards the religion of Islam and individual Muslims

 

So once again you arrest people for what they think. Not what they do. Is this what you call freedom in Canada? I know it would not fly America. But if Canadians accept this I am scared for your loss of freedom. Are you ready to be reported by any Muslim who simply makes a claim that you thought something? You don’t have to prove anything in this case. You are automatically guilty because you thought something!

 

  1. On October 4thDr. Sherif Emil of McGill University said “‘Phobia’ is a medical term, implying a pathological and irrational fear. As far as I know, the only religion it has been applied to is Islam. The proper definition of Islamophobia, therefore, is not ‘irrational hatred of Muslims’ but ‘irrational fear of Islam’.

 

Under this definition you would be arrested for having an irrational fear not hating. Once again they lock you away in the psych ward for your thoughts that are claimed to be irrational. This would require a psychological evaluation in order to be freed.

 

I do not believe Canadians want this at all. But your Parliamentarians are discussing this as something to outlawing fear of a religion? Why? Who brought this topic to Canada? It was not the Buddhists, it was not the Sikhs, It was not the Ammadiya Muslims, nor was it the Hindus, not the Jews even though they are 10 times as likely to be assaulted than a Muslim, and not the Christians! So who is pushing this?

 

THE ANSWER:

 

Sunni Muslims affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. The very group that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Bahrain declared a terrorist entity! Now I ask you is this an act to take away your freedom? Who wins if this passes? It is not you is it! Only the Muslims win if this passes. So, does using logic make me Islamophobic? Does using history make me Islamophobic? I fear for you my friends. I fear you will lose more than you can understand if this motion becomes a law.

 

______________________

Edited John R. Houk (actually via spellcheck suggestions)

Text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Paul Sutliff

 

About Paul Sutliff

 

BA Religion and Philosophy from Roberts Wesleyan College, MSED from Nazareth College of Rochester, currently a post-graduate student at Henley-Putnam University.

 

If you want a copy of my book, contact me on LinkedIn or here [Perhaps the comment section of Paul’s blog] and I will send you one for $15 plus shipping.

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

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

Veterans Day salute from Brigitte Gabriel


Brigitte Gabriel represents one of the largest independent Counterjihad organizations in America – ACT for America. Brigitte gives a very impassioned tribute to American veterans and the active military.

 

JRH 11/11/17

Please Support NCCR

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

VIDEO: Veterans Day salute from Brigitte Gabriel

 

Posted by ACT for America

Published on Nov 10, 2017

 

http://www.actforamerica.org

_____________

About Brigitte Gabriel

 

Brigitte Gabriel is one of the leading terrorism experts in the world providing information and analysis on the rise of global Islamic terrorism. She lectures nationally and internationally about terrorism and current affairs. Her expertise is sought after by world and business leaders.

 

She has addressed the United Nations, Australian Prime Minister, members of The British Parliament/House of Commons, members of the United States Congress, The Pentagon, The Joint Forces Staff College, The US Special Operations Command, The US Asymmetric Warfare group, the FBI, and many others.

 

In addition, Gabriel is a regular guest analyst on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, and various radio stations daily across America. She serves on the board of advisors of the Intelligence Summit.

 

Ms. Gabriel is Founder and Chairman of ACT for America, the largest national security grassroots organization in the U.S. with over 500,000 members and 1,000 chapters nationwide dedicated to preserving national security and promoting Western values. She is the author of two New York Times Best Sellers, BECAUSE THEY HATE: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America. And THEY MUST BE STOPPED: Why we must defeat radical Islam and how we can do it.

  

Ms. Gabriel was knighted in Europe in 2016 for her international work on fighting terrorism and standing up for Western Values. She joins a long list of knights including former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Nelson Mandela, Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Henry Kissinger, and others.

 

Ms. Gabriel is named one of the top 50 most prominent speakers in America. She speaks Arabic, French, English, and Hebrew.

 

Matt Barber: 27 church members slain were Martyrs for Christ


Jesus said:

 

12 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father. 13 And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask[a]anything in My name, I will do it. (John 14: 12-14 NKJV)

Have you heard of or perhaps remember Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt, PhD? Dr. Klingenschmitt served as a Navy Chaplain. In 2006 Dr. Klingenschmitt prayed “in Jesus’ Name” as the Lord Jesus told His disciples to do.

 

Klingenschmitt, as WND has reported, has fought an extended battle with the Navy over its restrictions on religious expression by its chaplains. He appeared and delivered a public prayer “in Jesus’ name” at a White House rally last winter and was court-martialed for that. The Navy convicted him of failing to follow a lawful order because his superior didn’t want him praying “in Jesus’ name.” (NAVY DISMISSES CHAPLAIN WHO PRAYED ‘IN JESUS’ NAME’; By BOB UNRUH; WND; 01/12/2007 1:00 AM)

 

Dr. Klingenschmitt chose to obey the Lord over an absurd Navy order and got his walking papers for doing so. The silver lining was Congress passed legislation to pray in the Name of Jesus in 2007 (Ibid.). The bad news was the Navy never reinstated his commission as a Chaplain.

 

Anyone that stands with the principles of over any civil employer, government employer and/or military employer; is awesome.

 

In saying all that, I received Dr. Klingenschmitt’s newsletter today. The subject matter is about the Sutherland Springs Massacre, the victims’ faith and an interview with Matt Barber over the atrocity.

A heads up: the good chaplain fund raises by suggesting you join a mass fax of which money is required to send.

 

JRH 11/9/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Matt Barber: 27 church members slain were Martyrs for Christ

 

From Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt, PhD

Sent 11/9/2017 7:18 AM

Sent via Pray in Jesus Name Project

 

Please select here to sign urgent petition, and we will fax all 100 Senators (saving you time!) to PROTECT MILITARY CHAPLAINS RIGHT TO PRAY “IN JESUS’ NAME” or according to their conscience.  Or sign free option here.

 

I just had the privilege of interviewing Christian attorney Matt Barber about the horrific shooting and death of 27 Christians in Texas, killed because of their Christian faith.

Matt Barber explained on our TV show several things:

 

1)  The victims were martyrs for Jesus Christ, including the 14-year old pastor’s daughter.
2)  The atheist shooter Devon Kelley hated Christians and repeatedly said so.
3)  The neighbor hero Stephen Willeford was a first-responder who shot the bad guy.
4)  The left blames the NRA but Kelley was not NRA and Willeford was.
5)  The left shoots Christians and then demands Christians disarm without self-defense.

 

Watch!  Dr. Chaps’ new TV interview with Matt Barber about the Texas shooting

 

Posted by Gordon James Klingenschmitt

Published on Nov 7, 2017

 

Sadly, this is a time of great mourning.

As the Bible says in Ecclesiastes 3, there is a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance… a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.

 

We choose to love and forgive our enemies, and yet as we mourn, we also arm ourselves in self-defense to prepare for the left’s coming war against God and the Church.

If only the shooter Kelley had heard the gospel of Jesus’ love from a chaplain before his bad-conduct discharge.  Let’s petition Congress for chaplains rights to pray “in Jesus’ name”:

Please select here to sign urgent petition, and we will fax all 100 Senators (saving you time!) to PROTECT MILITARY CHAPLAINS RIGHT TO PRAY “IN JESUS’ NAME” or according to their conscience.  Or sign free option here.

Atheist shooter hated Christians, killed 27 in Texas Church

Interviews with those who knew the Texas church shooter now reveal his beliefs.

“According to former classmates of Devin Patrick Kelley, the 26-year-old man who killed 26 people and injured over 20 others in a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas on Sunday was an avowed atheist who mocked those who believed in God,” reports DailyWire.

“DailyMail.com spoke with former classmates who attended New Braunfels High School with Kelley. They all told a similar story: Kelley — who had a history of violence and was given a ‘bad conduct’ discharge from the Air Force — ‘preached atheism,’ acted ‘creepy’ and ‘weird,’ and seemed to hold a ‘very negative’ worldview.

“He had a kid or two, fairly normal, but kinda quiet and lately seemed depressed,” Kelley’s former high school classmate Patrick Boyce told DailyMail.com. “He was the first atheist I met. He went Air Force after high school, got discharged but I don’t know why. I was just shocked [to hear the news].”

 

Devin Patrick Kelley

“Another former classmate, Nina Rose Nava, told the outlet that Kelley ‘was different in school and creeped me out,’ but she added that she ‘never’ would have thought he would do ‘such a horrific thing.’…It’s not something I expected from him. He was an outcast but not a loner. He was popular among other outcast[s].”

“Though Nava said the two hadn’t spoken in person since high school, until recently they had been friends on Facebook. In a post, she said she had ‘just deleted him’ from her Facebook account because she ‘couldn’t stand’ his insulting posts.

“[I]n complete shock! I legit just deleted him off my [Facebook] cause I couldn’t stand his post,” wrote Nava. “He was always talking about how people who believe in God [were] stupid and trying to preach his atheism.”
On Sunday, Kelley — armed with a Ruger rifle and several rounds of ammunition and wearing black tactical gear and a ballistic vest — opened fired during the 11 a.m. service at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, killing 26 and injuring 24, making it the deadliest mass shooting in the history of Texas. His shooting spree came to an end when a heroic armed man got into a shootout with Kelley and forced him into a high speed chase. Kelley died of what authorities believe to be a self-inflicted gun wound.

[Dr. Chaps’ comment:  If only a chaplain had reached this confused man in the Air Force with the power of Jesus’ name.  Atheists like Kelley believe there is no God, no consequence for sin, and no ultimate justice for the victims of this horrific murderer.  They will discover they’re wrong, and there is a God, and His justice will prevail.]

Let’s petition Congress for chaplains rights to pray “in Jesus’ name”:

Please select here to sign urgent petition, and we will fax all 100 Senators (saving you time!) to PROTECT MILITARY CHAPLAINS RIGHT TO PRAY “IN JESUS’ NAME” or according to their conscience.  Or sign free option here.

God Bless you, in Jesus’ name,

 

Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt, PhD
_________________________

Donate to Pray in Jesus Name Project

 

Prefer to donate by mail?  Please write:  The Pray In Jesus Name Project, PO Box 77077, Colorado Springs, CO  80970.  

 

Who is Dr. Chaps?   Read bio here.

 

“A voice calling out in the wilderness of this world, Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt, PhD is a man on a mission.  As a statesman and Christian activist, ‘Chaps’ wants to liberate the world with no-nonsense messages of truth and prayers of discernment.  Through his strong personal convictions and direct communication style, he reaches into the hearts of people to help them become active disciples of Jesus, through television, prayer, petitioning, political activism, and education, drawing others toward their highest purpose and destiny.”

 

PhD Theology, National TV host, Political Activist, College Faculty, former State Legislator, and the former Navy Chaplain who dared to pray “in Jesus’ name.”

 

Dr. Chaps is TV news anchor of PIJN NEWS, a daily 1/2 hour show that reports the news, discerns the spirits, and prays the scriptures, in Jesus’ name

 

Read full Klingenschmitt Curriculum Vitae and Resume here

 

SUMMARY: Gordon James Klingenschmitt (aka “Dr. Chaps”) is the national TV show host of PIJN NEWS on the NRB network which airs in 54 million homes daily, former State Representative having won election to the Colorado legislature, occasional affiliate faculty at Colorado Christian University, Air Force Academy graduate in Political Science, and made national headlines as the former Navy Chaplain who dared to pray “in Jesus’ name.”   An ordained Pentecostal minister, he earned his PhD in Theology from Regent University and is ranked among “the top 1% most endorsed in United States for Preaching” by Linkedin in 2013.

 

He is now a motivational speaker, telling his true story of READ THE REST

 

A Knesset Committee Hearing


Antisemitism is in a troubling upsurge in America and Europe. If you are a student of history, you should realize the Antisemitism in pre-WWII USA and Europe that reached a zenith with Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany, appears to be history repeating itself in this present time.

 

Ari Bussel sent me a bit of editorial of the issue of Antisemitism and the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) against Israel. Ari found out that Israel’s version of Congress or Parliament – Knesset – had a Committee hearing on Antisemitism and BDS in America and Europe, exploring how such Jew-hatred affects Israel.

 

Ari notes the Committee met under the inspiration of the pro-Israel NGO known as Stand With Us.

 

JRH 11/7/17

Please Support NCCR

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

A Knesset Committee Hearing

[Antisemitism and BDS]

 

By Ari Bussel

Sent 11/5/2017 2:55 PM

 

Dear Friends,

 

The invitation by the Government Press Office to the Foreign Press Corps (please see below) sparked my interest:   hearing at the Israeli Parliament titled “Upsurge in Anti-Semitism in the US and Europe” at the initiative of Stand With Us.

 

SWU

 

Stand With Us is a 510(c)(3) educational organization that works tirelessly on US campuses and beyond to inform and educate the public about Israel, its past and present.  The organization was founded a decade and a half ago in Los Angeles, and the same people who founded it are still at the helm, dedicating their lives to being at the forefront of the Public Diplomacy Front on behalf of the Jewish People.

 

The organization has grown tremendously, it now has offices throughout the world and a very impressive annual budget.  Some of the major donors are based in Los Angeles, providing the necessary fertile ground on which action sprouts, grows and expands.  It is absolutely impressive.

 

In Israel the organization has presence on all university campuses, graduating hundreds of students from its programs every year, training them to be “soldiers on the front lines, ambassadors of the Jewish State of Israel.”

 

The organization’s current offices in Jerusalem host some 20,000 people a year, yielding them a street sign (close to YMCA):

 

Stand With Us Office Sign in Jerusalem

 

I have witnessed the work of Stand With Us first hand since its inception, and I could not resist going to Jerusalem for the hearing by the Knesset Immigration Absorption and Diaspora Affairs Committee.  SWU, Knesset, Jerusalem – an irresistible mix!

 

Ineffective Work

 

I wanted to know what will be presented, and more interestingly, what might be the reaction.  I remember having attended a similar hearing, same venue, same Committee, on 5/17/2011.  The subject matter was how does Israel and the Diaspora deal with the “Palestinian Narrative” about the formation of the modern State of Israel.  (The years passed, and the situation only deteriorated.  Thus, in the report card it is pointed out that Israel is failing in practice in its public diplomacy efforts.)

 

That meeting was chaired by Danny Danon, today Israel’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations.  I was astonished then to see a room full of experts in their respective fields, and yet not one person from the “Diaspora.”  And how does a country fight at the Public Diplomacy Front when not a single soldier from the front line is present to report and participate?  Think of General Headquarters, completely disconnected from what is happening on the ground.

 

Committee hearings are dangerous, for they provide a false sense of activity and reassurance, when in reality such crucial and existential subject matters cannot be addressed in a short period of time (usually a couple of hours at most).

 

BDS

 

Why is it important to know what is happening on the ground?  One could learn a bit about the spread of the “Palestinian Narrative” when, for instance, Bargouti, the “doctoral student from Apartheid University Tel Aviv” came to Los Angeles.  He is the founder of the single most successful movement of the 21st Century – other than Daesh (ISIS) – which is commonly known today as “BDS” (Boycott, Divest, Sanction Israel).

 

Echoes of the strength and success of this movement have even reached the Committee Hearing’s floor as the representative of one of the Government ministries informed all those present how successful its ministry’s cooperation and support of numerous organizations (none of which elects to be known by name) in defeating the BDS movement.

 

Fantastically and most encouragingly spoken, by a person who thus understands not in what the movement is all about.  Given that a ranking Deputy Minister (in charge, under the PM, of Foreign Affairs) repeats the same mantra, saying the obvious that the BDS efforts to harm Israel economically are unsuccessful, there is a basic misunderstanding in Israel about what the BDS movement is all about.

 

[Blog Editor: Ari doesn’t provide the name of the photo I presumed to “Deputy Minister (in charge, under the PM, of Foreign Affairs)”. I looked the Minister and I think the photo is of Tzipi Hotovely (Haaretz & Wikipedia). But I’m not certain. I am guessing if I am incorrect Ari will send an email pointing out my mistake.]

 

Let us recall, for a moment, the Mavi Marmara and the Turkish Terrorist Flotilla of Lies.  The organizers knew they are unlikely to break the blockade by Egypt and Israel over Gaza.  (Remember, the naval blockade was designed, inter alia, to prevent armament and experts from Iran to arrive en masse.)

 

But the calculation by the organizers – as reported by anti-terrorism expert Steve Emerson – was clear:  If Israel lets us through, we win, and if Israel tries to harm us, we win!

 

Likewise with the BDS movement – it is a win-win situation.  Economic warfare is just a byproduct.  If it happens, it is a bonus.  But this is not the intention of the BDS movement, that was designed to spread lies and deceit, repeat them often enough and create not only confusion but a parallel reality which the world will assume is truth, the whole truth and nothing by the truth.

 

It seems that Israelis have not yet internalized this threat.  For them, the BDS movement does not achieve its namesake (“Boycott, Divest, Sanction”) so it must be a failure (i.e. Israel has the upper hand).

 

* Israel is Apartheid (one needs not even know what is Apartheid, it sounds “evil” enough).  Note also the equal sign:  Israel is the equivalent of something horrible, something that sounds very bad and distasteful.

* Israeli soldiers are the New Nazis.

* Gaza is an open air ghetto, its people being slowly starved to death by Israel.

* Israel steals the water of the Palestinians.

* Israel waters cotton and banana plantations (notorious for their high consumption of water) with drinking water.

* Israeli settlers contaminate the environment by discharging waste in the open.

* Israelis harvest organs of young Palestinian males and throw the men then, still half alive, like garbage.

* Israeli soldiers do not rape Palestinian women, since they view them as sub-human.

* Israel has developed a super large cat, that targets only Muslim Arabs in East Jerusalem.

* Israel demolishes 24,000 houses (of Muslim Arabs) every year.

* The Settlements are the root-cause of all evil.

 

And it continues on and on, ad nauseam, to the point that we start believing all these blood libels and feel the urge to go and correct the wrongs by the Jews, rid the world of that problem once and for all and bring peace and tranquility and an end to all the world’s problems with a hand wave:  JUST ELIMINATE THE JEWS!  They are imperialists-colonialists-zionists – they must return to their countries of origin, for they stole and occupy a land that was never theirs.  They are pigs and apes!

 

This is the real threat of the BDS movement, that feeds from and thrives upon pure hatred, the ancient Anti-Semitism.  An endless supply of fuel to the chimneys, that one day soon will once again spew ashes into the air, night and day without rest.

 

Kristallnacht, 2017

 

Those who have not been exposed to the work on the ground may be alarmed or dismiss the entire description as “right wing extremism” (or, worse as Islamophobia!)  But it is sufficient to experience what is happening on college campuses in the USA, in inter-faith meetings and all other opportunities to realize how dangerous the situation, how it prepares the groundswell to action the likes of which the world has experienced some eight decades ago (79 years ago this Thursday and Friday).

 

We are told:  It is not Anti-Semitism, but legitimate criticism of the State, its government and policies.  Except, Israel is singled out, and as the allegations and lies sink in, it becomes permissible – even necessary – to act against the perpetrators, those bloody Israelis.  From that point, the jump into action is easy, and everything is then excusable, including murder and mayhem.  Jewish blood must be spilled to avenge all the wrongdoings by the Jews.

 

My parents survived the Holocaust.  They were young children and did not experience the 30s or Kristallnacht.  Remember how it all started:  First it was legitimate to burn books.  The leap from burning books to burning people was made without an effort and the chimneys did not stop spewing human dust. [Bold Text Blog Editor’s]

 

All that the BDS movement is doing (and achieving with great strides) is preparing the ground that anything that will happen to the Jews is both warranted and acceptable.  The Jews deserve the fate that is in store for them.  So was in the past; so in present time.

 

A Knesset Committee Hearing

 

I was intrigued this time around to hear what would be reported about the US – an area where I have some limited expertise – and in Europe.  Thus, full of energy and anticipation, I ascended unto Jerusalem.

 

The entire hearing is available on the Knesset website and the Knesset channel (http://main.knesset.gov.il/Activity/committees/Immigration/Pages/CommitteeTVarchive.aspx) [Blog Editor: If you speak English me, you’ll have to use some kind of translator for the Knesset.gov link], and the full transcript will be available (in Hebrew) in a few weeks’ time.  In my upcoming column (in print in Los Angeles this week), I point out the main impression of that entire morning:  The European ambassadors are taking the subject matter of fighting Anti-Semitism extremely seriously.  Each, in his turn, gave a brief overview of his government’s current actions and activities.  This was most impressive and reassuring.

 

For a preview of the column, please visit:

 

http://www.news1.co.il/Archive/0026-D-123967-00.html

 

[Blog Editor: at this Ari has several photos of his visit to the Knesset Committee in Jerusalem. I am only including the photos presented with a caption.]

 

The Austrian Ambassador, Martin Weiss, previously the Consul General in LA

 

The German Ambassador, Dr. Clemens von Goetze

 

The UK and French (L to R) representatives

 

MK Dr. Anat Berko

 

Committee Chair, MK Dr. Avraham Neguise

(In this Apartheid country, there is no differentiation in the skin color of a person; there are Muslim members of the Supreme Court and Arab members of the Knesset; there are Arab doctors and nurses and professors; minorities are protected and enjoy equal rights only in one place in the entire Middle East and the African continent!)

 

MK Dr. Nachman Shai (L) with the European Ambassadors of Germany, Austria and the EU

 

European Action –

Never to Forget

 

We know that seven decades after the end of WWII, the world has started to forget, to doubt and to raise questions.  A day will come, not so distant, when my parents’ generation will no longer be here – the last Survivors of the Holocaust.  A young person will ask his smart gadget “tell me what was the Holocaust,” and the answer will be “A sovereign country convened a scientific conference that concluded it was just a Zionist lie to cause the world to acquiesce to the Jews stealing and occupying a land not theirs.”  This conference, apparently was then followed by an international competition of cartoons, all belittling and countering the notion of a “holocaust.”

 

There will be no more Survivors.  There will only be doubts.

 

Thus, standing steadfast and resolute with utter determination is crucial, for otherwise we will succumb to the same notion that “maybe there was no Holocaust” and “maybe it was not really what we are taught” and “maybe there is more hype than reality” in all those stories, for “it cannot be….”

 

It is quite amazing to see countries like Germany, Austria, France, Great Britain and the European Union taking relentless action, safeguarding the lessons of the Holocaust.  Alas, it is exactly Germany, under Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has been a steadfast, true friend of Israel.

 

Noticeably Absent

 

There are those, both during the Committee Hearing and afterwards in the media, who tried to politicize and sensationalize the absence of the US Ambassador.

 

The US neither slumbers nor sleeps in its activities against racism and bigotry of all kinds, and specifically against Anti-Semitism.  Actions talk louder than words, and the US Ambassador may have felt there is no need to defend or even present what is so obvious back at home.

 

Or maybe the Ambassador could not have shown up to a meeting initiated by a NGO in the USA, lest he be seen as promoting the organization.

 

Whatever the reason, given the presence of his fellow Ambassadors, I felt Ambassador Friedman’s presence would have added and brought balance, since the USA continues to be at the forefront of fighting Anti-Semitism and protecting civil liberties.

 

Instead, his absence created an opportunity to, once again, attack our President, what has turned to a national pastime since President Trump’s election to the highest office of the land.

 

The Right of Return Home

 

Interestingly, during the hearing (luckily after most of the Ambassadors have left), there was some finger pointing whose essence:  It is their governments’ responsibility to protect their Jewish citizens.  The contrast between the Jewish organizations and the representatives of the different Government Ministries and the European representative was striking.  The latter took a few minutes each to give a list of actions being carried out.  It was a report of doing.  It was a very focused, no-nonsense, most-serious approach to a heavy burden carried.  All the while, the Israelis and Jewish participants engaged in a game one may call “passing the Buck.”

 

The message should have been clear:  There is ONE Jewish homeland, it is called Israel.  Since its rebirth seventy years ago, Israel has absorbed Jewish immigrants from all over the world:

 

* Hundreds of thousands who were expelled from the Arab countries who refused to recognize the rebirth of the Jewish State.  

 

* The remnants of the ashes of the Holocaust.  

 

* Later the massive immigration from the former Soviet Union.  

 

* And the Ethiopian immigration.  

 

* They were then followed by the Jews of Venezuela (but they stopped in Miami and in Spain and did not arrive en masse to Israel), and

 

* The Jews of France who fled France for fear of their lives (one can hear so many people speaking French in Israel, and there are entire cities where the French bought condos for a rainy day).

 

Jewish refugees and immigrants alike were all absorbed.  They all assimilated.  They are all one – “Israelis.”

 

By law, every Jewish person can come home to Israel.  It is the shelter and the homeland.  One country in the entire world that is a Jewish state and the only homeland of the Jewish people.

 

Looking Forward

 

Once, eight decades ago, there was no Israel, just a dream and a yearning to go back, to revive the ancient land.

 

Today, there is Israel.  She has the Israel DEFENSE Forces.  She is a member of the family of nations, and she will do all it takes to protect her people, wherever they are.

 

Things are very different, yet they are so similar.  The same trends.  The same undercurrents.  The same blood libels.  The same ancient hatred.

 

Israel needs to focus and prepare.  There will be new waves of immigration, people fleeing due to the rise of Anti-Semitism.  This is Israel’s responsibility, not the EU’s, the USA’s or that of any other foreign entity.

 

All the rest must pay close attention, for maybe we have not learned some lessons of the past:  History tends to repeat itself.  What is effective against the Jews, is also effective against others – Christians, various minorities and, yes, even Muslims (in the hand of Muslims).  When we do not stand up and take action when someone else is being targeted, we may find ourselves being targeted without anyone standing up to protect and defend us!

 

(Below you will find an article about Christian persecution in Muslim countries – “We are going to burn you alive.”)

 

The Committee Hearing took place just before the 100 year mark of the Balfour Declaration and a week before the 79th anniversary of Kristallnacht.  Let us remember, and let us not sit idle as evil, once again, is rearing its ugly head in preparation for the blood it can only smell!

 

Tonight, Sunday, 11/5/2017, Israel’s tenth President Rivlin met with leaders of Spain’s Jewish community and here are some of his remarks, most pertinent to the discussion carried herein.

 

President Rivlin: “We must not surrender to anti-Semitism, we must fight it. I am pleased that the Spanish government is taking steps in legislation and enforcement against this ugly phenomenon. We must not be ashamed of or hide our identity. We will fight these challenges together.”

 

“We love and respect every Jew, wherever they are, but you will be welcome always should you choose to come to your home in the State of Israel.”

 

“The State of Israel today operates an extensive network to combat anti-Semitism disguised as the delegitimization of Israel, to fight hatred of Jews disguised as a criticism of Israeli Government policy: these bodies are at your disposal, they are also here for you.”

 

“We are brothers, let us stand together.”

 

“We are together in the war against anti-Semitism, and today we are stronger than ever.”  The President went on to note that the campaign to boycott and impose sanctions on Israel was, “an expression of anti-Semitism”.

 

 

So let us give thanks that there is Israel – for the Jewish People and for the entire world, and may we all say

 

SHALOM!

 

Always,

 

Ari Bussel
bussel@me.com 

 

Below:

 

1) Invitation for the Hearing

 

2) “Trump Administration Takes Firm Stance against Anti-Semitism” by Ari Lieberman

 

3) “We are going to burn you alive” by Raymond Ibrahim

 

4) “Turks, Arabs Welcomed the Balfour Declaration” by Prof. Efraim Karsh

 

5) “The Balfour Declaration at 100 and how it redefined Indigenous people” by Prof. Judea Pearl (the father of Daniel Pearl z”l)

 

#

Knesset to Hold Discussion on Upsurge in Anti-Semitism in the US and Europe

(Communicated by the Knesset Immigration, Absorption and Diaspora Affairs Committee Spokesman)

 

The Knesset Immigration, Absorption and Diaspora Affairs Committee will, on Monday, 30 October 2017, at 10:00, in the Knesset Negev Hall, at the initiative of StandWithUs, hold a discussion on the upsurge of anti-Semitism in the US and Europe. The committee will – inter alia – hear new testimony on recent incidents on US college campuses, from students who have specially come for this meeting. European ambassadors will also discuss the actions of their respective governments in combatting anti-Semitism.

 

Attending the discussion will be the ambassadors from the EU, Germany and Austria, and representatives from the UK, France and Russia, as well as representatives from various government ministries, relevant NGOs and Jewish community organizations.

 

The discussion will be broadcast live on the Knesset Channel.

 

The meeting is open to coverage upon prior coordination with Knesset Immigration, Absorption and Diaspora Affairs Committee Spokesman Yigal Amitai at 050-6238671 or yigala@knesset.gov.il.

 

#

[Blog Editor: At this point Ari included several other articles relating to the Trump Administration and Antisemitism by Ari Lieberman; the Gatestone Institute on Muslim persecution of Christians by Raymond Ibrahim; a Middle East Quarterly relating to the Balfour Declaration; an article from the Jewish Journal by Judea Pearl also on the Balfour Declaration; a load of source links; and Palestine Solidarity Campaign smearing the Holocaust and the Balfour Declaration from “RichardMillet’s Blog”. All are worthy of a cross post. I am going to share some but I’m not sure if all or a few chosen.]

_________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Content enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Ari Bussel

 

Ari Bussel Bio via Saybrex International

 

Ari Bussel is Vice President of Operations at Saybrex International, a privately held family business specializing in the distribution of fine wines and spirits. He is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the company and has held various positions in the company since 1993.

 

Prior to joining Saybrex, Mr. Bussel served as First Lieutenant in the Center for Systems Analysis at General Headquarters of the Israel Defense Forces, where he led the implementation of the Logistics War Doctrine in the Computerized Wargame Program.

 

Mr. Bussel is involved in a variety of philanthropic and civic activities. Mr. Bussel completed the Team Beverly Hills Leadership Program and served on the Environmental Sustainability Topic Committee of the City of Beverly Hills. He was a member of the Steering Committees of former Beverly Hills Mayor MeraLee Goldman and the current Beverly Hills City Treasurer, the Hon. Eliot Finkel. Mr. Bussel also completed and participated in the Community Emergency Response Training Program of the City of Beverly Hills as well as the Crisis Response Team of the Maple Counseling Center.

 

Mr. Bussel was among the founding members and served on the boards of Gen. Shimon Erem’s Israel Christian Nexus, the Western Region of Friends of Israel Firefighters and the Israel Institute for Alternative Energy Advancement. He completed the Salvin Leadership Program of the Anti-Defamation League.

 

Mr. Bussel writes regularly. For the past decade, his weekly columns appeared in print in Israel Jewish Life, Shalom LA, Muslim World Today and Israeli Week. Mr. Bussel’s articles appear on numerous websites, including Canada Free Press, Free Republic, NewsBlaze, SlantRight and OpEdNews. He is a member of the Los Angeles Press Club.

 

 

Mr. Bussel received a Master of Science in Operations Research from Stanford … READ THE REST