Dems Celebrate NOT Realizing the Mud on Their Faces


John R. Houk

© December 3, 2017

 

If you pay attention to Mainstream Media (MSM) on television or print (Internet or otherwise), you are probably a foolish fellow for believing the anti-Trump jubilation that Mike Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.

 

REMEMBER, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller mandate is to investigate if Donald Trump and campaign colluded with Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016 election to Trump’s favor.

 

Has ANY of Mueller’s prosecutorial indictments thus far had anything to do with the Trump campaign directly colluding with Russia on the election? NOPE!

 

Indicted so far:

 

  1. Paul Manafort

 

Manafort is accused of concealing from the United States his work as an agent of the Ukraine, and hiding tens of millions of dollars he received. He allegedly hid the payments and laundered more than $18 million through different U.S. and foreign corporations, partnerships and banks, and failed to report these accounts to his tax preparers. He also allegedly used the money from these off-shore accounts to pay for his personal expenses, including real estate, luxury goods and services for himself and his family. (A Full List of All the Charges Filed in Mueller’s Russia Probe; By EILEEN RESLEN; Esquire; 12/1/17)

 

Time frame of accused Manafort crimes:

 

According to the indictment, reviewed by Fox News, between at least 2006 and 2015, Manafort and Gates acted as unregistered agents of the Government of Ukraine, the Party of Regions, a Ukrainian political party whose leader Victor Yanukovych was president from 2010 to 2014, and the Opposition Bloc. (Paul Manafort, Rick Gates indicted by federal grand jury in Russia probe; By Brooke Singman; Fox News; 10/30/17)

 

  1. Richard “Rick” Gates

 

Since Gates was charged with many of the same counts as Manafort, several of the allegations are the same. The indictment states that Gates conspired with Manafort in a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign in the U.S. in favor of the Ukraine government. He also allegedly created a false cover story and did not report foreign bank accounts. Gates was also accused of using this money to fund personal expenses, including real estate properties. (A Full List of All the Charges Filed in Mueller’s Russia Probe; By EILEEN RESLEN; Esquire; 12/1/17)

 

Time frame of accused Gates crimes:

 

Similar to Manafort: 2006 – 2015 & 2010 – 2014

 

  1. George Papadopoulos

 

… the special counsel announced the guilty plea of George Papadopoulos — which apparently happened on or about October 5 — to a single count of making false statements to government investigators. … Papadopoulos was a low-level Trump-campaign adviser. He had contacts with Russians who claimed to have close connections to the Putin regime.

As outlined in a 14-page “Statement of the Offense,” Papadopoulos’s principal offense was to lie to the FBI about when these contacts occurred. He told the FBI they happened before he joined the campaign; in fact, they happened not only after he was aboard but only because he was aboard. Upon close examination, the story unfolded in the offense statement is actually exculpatory of Trump and his campaign.

 

Papadopoulos is a climber who was clearly trying to push his way into Trump World. …

 

 

While living in London in early March 2016, he spoke with an unidentified Trump-campaign official and learned he would be designated a foreign-policy adviser to the campaign. These arrangements are very loose. Papadopoulos was a fringe figure, not plugged into Trump’s inner circle.

In London, Papadopoulos met an unidentified Russian academic (referred to as “the Professor”), who claimed to have significant ties to Putin-regime officials and who took an interest in Papadopoulos only because he boasted of having Trump-campaign connections. There appears to be no small amount of puffery on all sides: Papadopoulos suggesting to the Russians that he could make a Trump meeting with Putin happen, and suggesting to the campaign that he could make a Putin meeting with Trump happen; the Professor putting Papadopoulos in touch with a woman who Papadopoulos was led to believe was Putin’s niece (she apparently is not) …

 

In the most important meeting, in London on April 26, 2016, the Professor told Papadopoulos that he (the Prof) had just learned that top Russian-government officials had obtained “dirt” on then-putative Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. The dirt is said to include “thousands of emails” — “emails of Clinton.” The suggestion, of course, was that the Russians were keen to give this information to the Trump campaign.

 

Notice that Mueller did not make Papadopoulos plead guilty to collusion with Russia. For a prosecutor, there is nothing better than getting a cooperating accomplice to admit guilt to the scheme the prosecutor is investigating. It goes a long way toward proving that the scheme existed. Once you’ve got that, it’s much easier to prove that the cooperator’s confederates are guilty, too. But even though there’s a great deal of evidence that Papadopoulos colluded with Russia, there’s no charge along those lines. There’s just a single false-statement charge on which, according to the plea agreement, he’s probably looking at no jail time, and certainly no more than six months. Why no collusion charge? Because collusion is not a crime.

 

First, it underscores that, whatever “collusion” might have happened, at this point there is no criminal-conspiracy case. …

 

Second, the offense statement supporting the plea also helps Trump politically. There is an interesting footnote on page 8. Here’s the context: On May 21, 2016, Papadopoulos emailed an unidentified top Trump-campaign official, explaining with urgency that Russian officials (presumably including Putin, at least in Papadopoulos’s mind) wanted to meet Trump and “have been reaching out to me to discuss.” Mueller then drops this footnote:

 

The government notes that the official forwarded defendant PAPADOPOULOS’s email to another Campaign official (without including defendant PAPADOPOULOS) and stated: “Let[’]s discuss. We need someone to communicate that DT is not doing these trips. It should be someone low level in the campaign so as not to send any signal.

 

… Trump has no intention of meeting with Russians, and if there are going to be meetings at all, it must be at a low level so the Russians do not construe Trump to be making any commitments or accommodations. (The Papadopoulos Case; By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY; National Review; 10/30/17 8:03 PM)

 

I spent more time laying out Papadopoulos’ guilty plea because the time frame indicates his idiocy was actually during the 2016 campaign. Yet as Andrew McCarthy indicates, Papadopoulos was such a low hanging fruit that the Trump campaign staff REBUFFED his self-initiated Russian contact. Hence, no Trump crime here. As we hear the Dems say about real crimes, Trump can truly say, “Move along – nothing to see here”.

 

And now the Mike Flynn guilty plea that has the Dems and MSM all a twitter with glee that President Trump is about to be deposed. But first, let’s begin with this ABC News moron getting caught spreading Fake News against President Trump – Brian Ross:

 

Brian Ross

 

ABC’s Brian Ross suspended over erroneous Flynn report

 

By Axios News Desk

12/2/17

Axios

 

ABC News investigative reporter Brian Ross was suspended for four weeks without pay tonight over his incorrect report that Michael Flynn was prepared to testify that Donald Trump told him to contact the Russians during his presidential campaign.

 

Why it matters: It was a huge error that moved markets and damaged the network’s credibility. The report was also passed along by Axios and other news outlets. In a statement, ABC News apologized and said the report “had not been fully vetted through our editorial standards process.”

 

The network later corrected the report to say that Trump gave him that instruction as president-elect — which is a big difference, since there’s nothing unusual about newly elected presidents contacting foreign governments.

 

The full text of ABC’s statement:

 

“We deeply regret and apologize for the serious error we made yesterday. The reporting conveyed by Brian Ross during the special report had not been fully vetted through our editorial standards process. As a result of our continued reporting over the next several hours ultimately we determined the information was wrong and we corrected the mistake on air and online.

“It is vital we get the story right and retain the trust we have built with our audience –- these are our core principles. We fell far short of that yesterday. Effective immediately, Brian Ross will be suspended for four weeks without pay.”

 

So, take that idiot Left! Still no proven Trump collusion with Russia in the election!

 

  1. Mike Flynn:

 

As previously reported General Michael Flynn will plead guilty to lying to the FBI deep state operatives in the ongoing Trump witch hunt today.

 

Once again — this verdict has NOTHING TO DO with Trump-Russia collusion.


It’s just a way for the Democrat media and Deep State to erase an election and eliminate Donald Trump.

 

Flynn’s conversations to the Russian ambassador were not a crime.

Not disclosing this information to the corrupt FBI was his crime.

 

On Friday ABC News reported that General Michael Flynn will testify against President Donald Trump in the Russian collusion scandal.

 

President of Judicial Watch Tom Fitton blasted Mueller and the Deep State operatives targeting Trump’s camp simply for the crime of Donald Trump winning the Presidential election.

 

“Sally Yates, Andrew McCabe, and James Comey improperly targeted General Flynn. And Mueller got him. Deep State victory. @RealDonaldTrump should consider a pardon. The Mueller special counsel continues to be unconstitutional and out of control. Shut it down,” Fitton tweeted. (Tom Fitton Unleashes on Mueller and Deep State For Targeting General Flynn “SHUT IT DOWN”; By Cristina Laila; The Gateway Pundit; 12/2/17)

 

It is apparent that retired 3-Star General and fire National Security Advisor Mike Flynn has the character flaw of lying to protect himself even when no self-preservation is needed. President Trump the flaw latter than sooner and fired him. Lying to the FBI is what Flynn pled guilty to not for some conspiracy with the Russians to meddle in the elections.

 

In saying all that, it is Mueller, Comey, Lynch, Crooked Hillary, probably Obama and a host of other Dem/Leftist playing a Deep State role that should be investigated for real crimes that the Dem Alliance tries to pooh-pooh away when actual links to illegalities can be seen by any honest person not corrupted by Fake News propaganda.

 

There are a few Conservative Commentators that point the ZERO Trump/Russian link that the Left pushes as actual. One is Andrew McCarthy at the National Review writing, “There’s less to the news than meets the eye”. There is also Rowan Scarborough writing for the Washington Times, “Source close to president’s legal advisers say Flynn has nothing to incriminate Trump”. McCarthy and Scarborough are quite erudite journalists with good opinions. But a post at The Last Refuge (aka TheConservativeTreeHouse.com) spells out Mueller going after Flynn in layman terms that all Americans can understand.

 

JRH 12/3/17

Please Support NCCR

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

President Trump: “It’s a shame” Michael Flynn Lied “There Was Nothing To Hide”

 

By sundance

December 2, 2017

The Last Refuge

 

President Trump sends antagonistic media into spastic fits, and pearl-clutching circle-running, with a single tweet about Michael Flynn.  Epic:

 

Trump Tweet Screen Capture

 

Praetorian professional punditry immediately jump into their “he can’t” routine, filled with protestations about poor judgement and the risk of commenting on an on-going investigation, and such… blah, blah, blah…  However, what seemingly never crosses their mind is that: A) Everything asserted is 100% factual; and B) When there’s nothing to hide, there’s no risk.  D’oh, dummies.

 

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the President-Elect’s Transition Team talking to any foreign government, or any official within any foreign government. Ever. Period.  Actually, that’s exactly what transition teams are supposed to do; they reach out and receive information from foreign government officials as the starting point to communication with a new administration.

 

Many people have asked the question why would Michael Flynn have lied about talking to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the first place?

 

It’s a great question.

 

The Occam’s Razor answer is the toxic political environment that existed in January 2017, where the administration was being hammered by a tsunami of media narratives and political opposition claiming that any scintilla of contact with anything Russian meant that Putin and Trump were “colluding” BFFs,…. and Flynn didn’t want to fuel that nonsense.

 

That’s really the only reason to mislead about Russian contacts.

And/or once Vice-President Mike Pence made the statement that Flynn had no contact with anyone from Russia etc. any contradictory statement from Flynn would make Pence appear compromised; so Flynn had to stick to it without clarification.

 

Reminder:

 

  • Sunday January 15th– VP-elect Mike Pence appears on Face The Nation. [Transcript Here]

 

JOHN DICKERSON: But there’s a distinction between that feeling about the press and legitimate inquiry, as you say, that the Senate Intelligence Committee is doing. Just to button up one question, did any advisor or anybody in the Trump campaign have any contact with the Russians who were trying to meddle in the election?

 

MIKE PENCE: Of course not. And I think to suggest that is to give credence to some of these bizarre rumors that have swirled around the candidacy. (link)

 

[*NOTE* Notice the narrative questioning at the time (early Jan) was framed that ‘any contact’ with Russians was evidence of meddling/election-collusion with Russians.]

 

  • Friday January 20th– Inauguration

 

  • Tuesday January 24th– Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn was interviewed at the WH by the FBI.  [Either Flynn contradicts Pence, or he tells a lie, those were his options.]

 

  • Wednesday January 25th–  The Department of Justice received a detailed readout from the FBI agents who had interviewed Flynn. Yates said she felt “it was important to get this information to the White House as quickly as possible.”

 

  • Thursday January 26th– (morning) Yates called McGahn first thing that morning to tell him she had “a very sensitive matter” that had to be discussed face to face. McGahn agreed to meet with Yates later that afternoon.

 

  • Thursday January 26th– (afternoon) Sally Yatestraveled to the White House along with a senior member of the DOJ’s National Security Division, Bill Priestap, who was overseeing the matter.  This was Yates’ first meeting with McGahn in his office, which also acts as a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF).

 

Yates said she began their meeting by laying out the media accounts and media statements made by Vice President Mike Pence and other high-ranking White House officials about General Flynn’s activity “that we knew not to be the truth.

 

According to Sally Yates testimony, she and Bill Priestap reportedly presented all the information to McGahn so the White House could take action that they deemed appropriate.  When asked by McGahn if Flynn should be fired, Yates answered, “that really wasn’t our call.”

 

Yates also said her decision to notify the White House counsel had been discussed “at great length.”  According to her testimony: “Certainly leading up to our notification on the 26th, it was a topic of a whole lot of discussion in DOJ and with other members of the intel community.”

 

  • Friday January 27th– (morning) White House Counsel Don McGahn called Yates in the morning and asked if she could come back to his office.

 

  • Friday January 27th– (late afternoonAccording to her testimony, Sally Yates returned to the White House late that afternoon.  One of McGahn’s topics discussed was whether Flynn could be prosecuted for his conduct.

 

Specifically, according to Yates, one of the questions McGahn asked Yates was, “Why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another?” She explained that it “was a whole lot more than that,” and reviewed the same issues outlined the prior day.

 

McGahn expressed his concern that taking action might interfere with the FBI investigation of Flynn, and Yates said it wouldn’t. “It wouldn’t really be fair of us to tell you this and then expect you to sit on your hands,” Yates had told McGahn.

 

McGahn asked if he could look at the underlying evidence of Flynn’s conduct, and she said they would work with the FBI over the weekend and “get back with him on Monday morning.”

 

  • Friday January 27th– (evening) In what appears to be only a few hours later, President Trump is having dinner with FBI Director James Comey where President Trump asked if he was under investigation.

 

Now, accepting the politicization of the entire Russian Conspiracy Narrative that was leading the headlines for the two months prior to this dinner; and knowing moments earlier your Chief White House counsel informs you that two political operatives (Yates and Priestap) within the DOJ were providing classified intelligence reports about General Flynn; and knowing the prior months (Nov/Dec/Jan) were fraught with leaks from intelligence reports identical to those discussed;  wouldn’t you perhaps think that any action you take could be utilized to add fuel to this Russian narrative?  And/Or be used by these same leak facilitators to make something seem like something it is not?

 

Think about it.

 

Trump Thinking About It

 

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has charged Flynn (full pdf below) with falsely telling FBI agents that he did not ask the ambassador “to refrain from escalating the situation” in response to the sanctions.

 

According to the plea, while being questioned by FBI agents on January 24, 2017, Flynn also lied when he claimed he could not recall a subsequent conversation with Kislyak, in which the ambassador told Flynn that the Putin regime had “chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of [Flynn’s] request.”

 

Furthermore, a week before the sanctions were imposed, Flynn had also spoken to Kislyak, asking the ambassador to delay or defeat a vote on a pending United Nations resolution. The criminal information charges that Flynn lied to the FBI by denying both that he’d made this request and that he’d spoken afterward with Kislyak about Russia’s response to it.

 

There was nothing wrong with the incoming national-security adviser’s having meetings with foreign counterparts or discussing such matters as the sanctions in those meetings. However, lying to the FBI is the process crime that has led to Flynn’s admissions herein:

 

 

 

As we have shared from the beginning – this is all about DC politics, not judicial crimes in the same vein as everyone else would be charged.

 

You cannot view the current action through the transactional prism of modern judicial proceedings as they relate to you and me. These are political struggles taking place inside the venue of the legal system. The players use the legal system to game out the optics and narrative of political battles for ideological wins and losses.

 

In essence, this is about leverage for political use.

 

Nothing about the current dynamic is factually encompassing President Trump; it is all about optics, narratives and political leverage. However, everything about this dynamic is factually encompassing the existential threat that outsider Trump represents to the established way of life in the DC Swamp.

 

Again, if you drop the legal prism and review everything from the perspective of gaining or losing political leverage it all makes sense.

____________________

Dems Celebrate NOT Realizing the Mud on Their Faces

John R. Houk

© December 3, 2017

_______________

President Trump: “It’s a shame” Michael Flynn Lied “There Was Nothing To Hide”

 

About The Last Refuge

 

The Conservative Tree House may be called a Last Refuge for each of us for different reasons. Whatever trail through the woods brought us here, we have shared the turmoil of storms as we have been finding our voices as individuals in this growing community

Perhaps you’ve had some truly shockingly cruel things said to you purely because you believe in limited government and fiscal conservatism. Perhaps you not only believe that we should be self-reliant and personally responsible, but also believe that when we are allowed to depend on ourselves, we are stronger, more successful, take greater pride in ourselves and our work, and are more likely to make positive contributions to society. And then we are happier people, or at least more likely to be happier.

 

Which lends to the following theory: Fear is at the core of liberalism, and love/trust is at the core of conservatism. Liberalism is about control. Conservatism is about self-empowerment.

 

Control is a reaction to fear. Think in terms or politics and society – the fear behind liberalism is the fear that someone might withhold things (opportunities, money, whatever) from me, fear that if you live your life in a way I dislike that it might affect my life, fear that if you get that job, there will be nothing left for me. Fear that if you make tons of money, it’s means there’s less money out there for me. So people who believe in liberal ideologies seek control as a means of trying to create guarantees and safeguards against those circumstances they fear. Liberals try to control the world and people to enable their comfort and happiness. Which, as we know, is an endless quest. Trying to control others does nothing in the way of making oneself happy. By extension, voting in this mindset so that government can try to control others will also – shocking – not lead to a happier, more comfortable life.

 

The conservative (and moderate, independent, but for the sake of expediency, the conservative), on the other hand, relies on himself to meet his own needs. And the trade off of being free to live his life as he wishes is also understanding that he has to make peace with READ THE REST

 

Poland Withstand Muslim Invasion Like Yesteryears


John R. Houk

© December 2, 2017

 

You don’t hear too much in the American Mainstream Media (MSM) about the European Union’s (EU) devastating problems with Muslim immigrants (legal and illegal) as well as next generation Muslims from those immigrants. What are those problems? Simply put: It is the crimes of theft, assault, rape, rioting and Islamic Supremacism in general.

 

The sad part of these problems is that the EU Multiculturalist elites are doing their best to cover-up most of the illegal excursions of Muslims causing problems. The cover-ups are a part of the Multiculturalist efforts to brainwash their original citizens to accept the Muslim migration with open arms. The Elites have been doing a pretty good snowball sell to their communities planting sympathy with the altruism of humanitarianism.

 

Yet, even with the cover-ups and brainwashing, EU citizens are catching on to the societal disruption Muslims are causing as the Western EU voters are electing more and more power to anti-immigrant politicians. Eastern EU voters so far have been very convincing as a constituency with Eastern European governments refusing Muslim immigrants entry have zero intention to conform to Western cultural norms and laws.

 

There are a number of Eastern European governments on the anti-immigration boat. Poland got my attention today from a post by Ann Corcoran on her Refugee Resettlement Watch blog. Corcoran is actually introducing an American Thinker short post about Poland refusing Muslim immigration to the political displeasure of Western EU power-elites especially in Germany.

 

Corcoran picked up on Poland’s historical legacy of King Jan (John in English) III Sobieski leading a multinational European force against Muslim invading Ottoman Turks that had made it to Vienna (now in Austria). The Ottomans were about to breach Vienna’s walls when the multinational force came to save the day beating back the Muslim invaders in 1683 A.D. (Anno Domini – in the year of the Lord):

 

John III Sobieski (PolishJan III SobieskiLithuanianJonas III SobieskisLatinIoannes III Sobiscius; 17 August 1629 – 17 June 1696), was King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania from 1674 until his death, and one of the most notable monarchs of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.

 

Sobieski’s military skill, demonstrated in wars against the Ottoman Empire [Sobieski vs Ottomans], contributed to his prowess as King of Poland. Sobieski’s 22-year reign marked a period of the Commonwealth’s stabilization, much needed after the turmoil of the Deluge and the Khmelnytsky Uprising.[1] Popular among his subjects, he was an able military commander, most famous for his victory over the Turks at the 1683 Battle of Vienna.[2] After his victories over them, the Ottomans called him the “Lion of Lechistan“; and the Pope hailed him as the savior of Christendom.[3] (John III Sobieski; Wikipedia; last edited on 11/19/17 12:33)

 

And thus, the moral of the story is Poland was responsible for protecting Europe’s Christian heritage against invading Muslims in the past and has no intention of anti-Christian/anti-Western Muslims at this present time.

 

This cross post will use Corcoran’s intro then I’ll go strait to the American Thinker short article.

 

JRH 12/2/17

Please Support NCCR

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

The Poles remember their history, saved Europe from Muslim horde in 1683….

 

Posted by Ann Corcoran

December 1, 2017

Refugee Resettlement Watch

 

Sobieski’s Winged Hussars: “the badass Polish King Jan Sobieski led the single hugest and most balls-out cavalry charge in history.” http://www.badassoftheweek.com/hussars.html

 

….so they see very clearly their job today!

 

Longtime readers know all about the Polish King Jan Sobieski and the battle at the Gates of Vienna in 1683, but we get new readers every day and I need to continue to educate newbies.

 

We have an extensive archive on the ‘Invasion of Europe’ (mostly the modern day invasion), but it is important to repeat that Poland has a really good reason for resisting the migrants that both the EU and Mama Merkel would like to foist on the country.

 

Here it is, mentioned again in an article about Germany’s political difficulties at the moment, at America Thinker.

___________________

For Eastern Europe, Germany Is the Trouble

 

By Alex Alexiev

December 1, 2017

American Thinker

 

The inability of Angela Merkel and her putative partners to form a government has given rise to persistent calls, including from the chancellor herself, that what Europe needs now is a strong Germany. In fact, it is Germany’s unquestioned strength and willingness to throw its weight around that are to blame for much of Eastern Europe’s unhappiness with the European Union at the moment. A case in point is the growing rift between Berlin and its eastern EU neighbors on some of the issues discussed by Merkel and her potential government partners.

 

Take for instance Merkel’s position claiming that the Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline is simply a commercial project. To most of her eastern neighbors, this is nothing if not crass German hypocrisy designed to further German business, while facilitating  the monopolistic endeavors of Vladimir Putin and Russia’s energy monopoly, Gazprom, at the expense of Eastern Europe. Or the willingness of Germany’s Free Democrats to give Russia a pass on Crimean annexation, which suspiciously sounded like an apologia of the old “might is right” axiom. Or the asinine suggestion of the Greens to settle entire Syrian villages in Eastern Europe to make the migrants feel more comfortable and the locals less so.

 

Beyond these specific disagreements, there are fundamental, perhaps irreconcilable, differences between Eastern Europe and Germany on at least two issues – defense policy and migration. Regarding the former, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany, Berlin seems to have decided that there would never be another war in Europe and it stopped spending money on defense. As a result, in a short time the German military was transformed from being the second most powerful in NATO to a weakling spending barely 1.2% of GDP on defense instead of the 2% agreed minimum. Its personnel collapsed nearly four-fold (600,000 to 177,000) and it has glaring equipment shortfalls that make its functioning as an integral force very doubtful. According to Jane’s, close to half of its Leopard 2 tanks (95 of 244) are not combat ready, and neither are 28 of its 75 Tornado combat aircraft, nor are 41 of its 79 Eurofighters, nor are four out of ten Patriot air-defense systems.

 

More troublesome than these capability issues is Germany’s unwillingness to determine where the threat to Europe may be coming from. Unlike Eastern Europe, which invariably sees Russia as a clear and present danger, Berlin appears not to be sure. During the recent election campaign, Merkel’s socialist coalition partners called for disarmament and the withdrawal of American nuclear weapons from Germany, in the face of blatant Russian aggression in Ukraine and elsewhere. This fundamental divergence in threat perceptions also results in stark differences in attitudes toward defense spending, the United States and NATO priorities. There is a palpable and growing fault line between East and West Europe on defense matters that does not bode well for NATO.

 

There is also a huge gulf in attitudes toward migration. Western Europeans cite the easterners’s refusal to take any migrants as a sign of lack of solidarity, populist prejudice and perhaps racism.  The easterners respond that nobody asked their views on opening the borders and point out the failure of western societies to integrate the migrants as a reason to not rush into this experiment. They point out that Muslims that have lived for decades in Europe, yet nonetheless voted for the Islamist dictator Erdogan in much greater numbers than their fellow Turks at home. There are also spiking numbers of migrant crimes and sexual assaults.

 

here is another powerful reason for Eastern Europe’s reluctance to accept Muslim refugees that is seldom discussed, though it is important and it has to do with the region’s historical experience with Muslims. Very few in Western Europe are aware of it, but every child in Poland knows that Jan Sobieski saved Europe and Christendom from the Ottomans at Vienna in 1683. They also know that much of Eastern Europe, including the Balkans, Hungary, Podolia in Poland, Wallachia and Moldavia were for centuries under the Ottomans and subject to infidel taxes, rapacious military levies, the boy tribute, and the depredations of the slave raiders. It was not a happy experience and many historians trace the backwardness of Eastern Europe compared to the rest of it to its unfortunate experience with Muslim obscurantism. Not an experience that is easily forgotten.

 

Alex Alexiev  is chairman of the Center for Balkan and Black Sea Studies (cbbss.org) and editor of bulgariaanalytica.org. He tweets on national security at twitter.com/alexieff and could be reached at alexievalex4@gmail.com.

___________________

Poland Withstand Muslim Invasion Like Yesteryears

John R. Houk

© December 2, 2017

___________________

The Poles remember their history, saved Europe from Muslim horde in 1683….

 

About RRW

 

Update[d] April 26, 2015:

 

A few months ago A year ago  Two Three years ago, Six years Seven Eight years ago it came to our attention in Washington County MD that a non-profit group (Virginia Council of Churches) had been bringing refugees into the city of Hagerstown (county seat) for a couple of years. Some problems arose and citizens started to take an interest and ask questions about how this federal program works. Our local paper had no interest in finding the facts, so we decided to find them ourselves.

 

One of the many startling things we found out about this very quiet effort is that these non-profit groups bring to the US on average each year 15,000 (FY90-FY03) Muslim refugees from the Middle East, Africa, the Balkans, etc, almost completely funded by the US Government through grants and contracts to these non-government agencies. Of the 168 refugees brought to our county since 2004, 125 are Muslim. Although we all have sympathy for persecuted and suffering people there are real questions to be answered about the wisdom of this policy.

 

It turns out that there are hotbeds of this refugee resettlement controversy throughout the US.  We have identified some of those.   Because the issue is much more complicated than we initially realized, we have set up this online community organizing center at https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/.

 

READ THE REST

___________________

For Eastern Europe, Germany Is the Trouble

 

© American Thinker 2017

 

About American Thinker

 

American Thinker is a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans. Contributors are accomplished in fields beyond journalism and animated to write for the general public out of concern for the complex and morally significant questions on the national agenda.

 

There is no limit to the topics appearing on American Thinker. National security in all its dimensions — strategic, economic, diplomatic, and military — is emphasized. The right to exist and the survival of the State of Israel are of great importance to us. Business, science, technology, medicine, management, and economics in their practical and ethical dimensions are also emphasized, as is the state of American culture.

 

READ THE REST

 

Time to Examine Moore Accusers’ Recollection of 40 Years


John R. Houk

© November 25, 2017

 

It is my humble opinion that Democrats lie for the sake of pushing a Left-Wing agenda. if accomplishing a Left-Wing agenda means smearing the political opposition with lies and half-truths (remember – if it is half a truth it is half a lie), the Dems will pour on the disinformation until it is believed as a total fact.

 

I begin this way due to the sexual harassment accusations 40 years ago aimed at Roy Moore from girls then ranging from 14 to 18 or so. Until the alleged accusations Roy Moore has had an impeccable career with the only criticism by Leftist Dems and Establishment Republicans was a refusal to submit to SCOTUS over whether or not the Ten Commandments should remain at the Alabama Supreme Court property. This ludicrous SCOTUS ruling on the Ten Commandments when the Federal SCOTUS building is littered with art of religious works relating to law influences:

 

VIDEO: American Heritage-Religious Images in our US Capitol and Supreme Court [Particularly at about the 3:20 mark]


 

Posted by  nvsvictor

Published on Jul 15, 2008

 

Much more American Heritage videos can be found here:

 

http://www.ahs.honradeus.com/

 

D7-P1-2:20

 

National Statuary Hall In the current house chambers, it says “In God We Trust” Time: 0:57

 

There are images of prominent lawgivers in history. Moses is displayed in the middle of them with a full-face view. He was the only lawgiver from the Bible. Time: 1:06

 

“Separation of Church and State has separated us from our heritage because we can’t teach about religious happenings in our history. The meaning of this phrase has been re-interpreted to mean something else. Time: 1:57

 

The US capitol is filled with religious scenes. Time: 2:25

 

In the Supreme Court, statue of Moses is told on tours to be holding the “Bill of Rights” instead of the Ten Commandments. Attempts to remove any religious presence in the Court. Time: 3:32

 

Many appearances of Biblical excerpts throughout the READ THE REST

 

When a guy takes a moral stand when the rule of law is blatantly manipulated contrary to the Constitution’s Original Intent and the Will of the Creator, that guy is a moral hero.

 

How does the Left smear a man’s character like that? They look as far back into a guy’s past as possible to manipulate the creation of an egregious story line without physical proof but based on I suspect gratuitously planted memories.

 

When the lack of evidence and a lack of credibility begins to enter in, a more salacious effort is made.

 

In the case of Roy Moore, so far, the Left has drudged up nine accusers from about 40 years ago:

 

  • Leigh Corfman: Claims Moore provided her with alcohol and sexually assaulted her when she was 14 years old.

 

  • Wendy MillerClaims Moore asked her out on a date when she was 16 years old and he was 32. Her mother said no.

 

  • Debbie Wesson Gibson: Claims she dated Moore for roughly three months in 1981 when she was 17 years old. … She said he kissed her twice during the time they dated. He was 34 at the time.

 

  • Gloria Thacker DeasonClaims she dated Moore on-and-off again when she was 18 and he was 32 after an initial meeting at the Gadsden Mall in 1979. Deason said their physical relationship never went further than kissing and hugging.

 

  • Beverly Young NelsonClaims Moore sexually assaulted her in 1977 when she was 16 years old. (This is dubious Yearbook signature gal with all sorts of contradictions in her story.)

 

  • Tina JohnsonClaims Moore groped her in his office in 1991 when she was 28 years old.

 

  • Kelly Harrison ThorpClaims Moore asked her out in 1982 when she was a 17-year-old waitress at Red Lobster.

 

  • Gena Richardson: Claims Moore pursued her relentlessly in 1977 when she was an 18-year-old high school senior. Richardson said she met Moore at the Gadsden Mall, … Richardson said he then called her when she was in trigonometry class and asked her out on a date. … After their first date, she said, Moore gave her an unsolicited, “forceful” kiss, which prompted her to break off further contact with him.

 

  • Becky Gray: Claims Moore repeatedly asked her out on dates when she was 22 years old he was 30. “She told the Post that his advances crossed the line from weird flirting to harassment.” “I’d always say no, I’m dating someone, no, I’m in a relationship,” … Gray told the paper Moore was “persistent in a way that made her uncomfortable.” (List of nine excerpted from: A rundown of all the women who’ve accused Roy Moore of sexual misconduct; By Becket Adams; Washington Examiner; 11/16/17 4:10 PM)

 

Leigh Corfman- Then & Now

Criticizing Leigh Corfman’s account based on a timeline of her accusations. I begin with Corfman going on ABC’s Today Show making the effort to contradict Roy Moore’s denials:

 

VIDEO: Leigh Corfman on her encounter with Roy Moore at age 14 [1:05 of interview. 9-minute version HERE]

 

Posted by Guardian News

Published on Nov 20, 2017

 

The woman who first spoke out to accuse Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore of sexually assaulting her when she was 14 said on Monday it took her a long time to get her self-esteem back after she blamed herself for what she says happened. Leigh Corfman was 14 in 1979 when she alleges Moore, then 32, took her to his house, removed most of her clothes, groped her and put her hand on his genitals. He took her back to her home when she told him she was uncomfortable and wanted to leave, but she was emotionally scarred for decades after, she said. Moore denies the allegations.

 

Roy Moore sexual assault accuser tells of struggle to regain self-esteem.

 

Corfman’s timeline credibility problem:

 

 

Regarding the original court hearing where Corfman says that Moore asker her for her number while Wells went inside the courtroom, the Post reported that it “confirmed that her mother attended a hearing at the courthouse in February 1979 through divorce records.”

 

A thorough search of court documents finds one court case in February 1979—a case that took place on February 21, 1979.  The Post failed to tell readers that at that February 21, 1979, court case Wells voluntarily gave up custody of Corfman to Corfman’s father, Robert R. Corfman.  The two had been divorced since 1974.  The custody case was amicable and involved a joint petition by both parents.

 

The Post further did not tell readers that as a result of the joint petition to change custody, the court ordered the 14-year-old Corfman to move to her father’s house starting on March 4, 1979.  Court documents show the father’s address in Ohatchee, and not in Gadsden, where her mother lived and where Corfman says the meetings with Moore took place.

 

This would mean that from the court hearing on February 21, 1979, until Corfman was ordered to move to her father’s house, Moore would only have had 12 days, including the day of the court hearing, to have repeatedly called Corfman at her mother’s Gadsden house, arrange two meetings, and attempt another. Moore has strenuously denied the accusations.

 

While that timeline is theoretically possible, the Moore campaign stressed in a press conference today it is unlikely.

 

…  the February 21, 1979, case was the only court movement to have taken place that month. Breitbart News also could not find another court document from that month in 1979.

 

The disclosure raises questions about why that twelve-day window was not mentioned in the Post story or by Wells or Corfman in subsequent interviews.  Neither Corfman nor Wells publicly mentioned the change in custody during the critical period where Moore was said to have arranged meetings with Corfman outside her mother’s home.

 

 

Breitbart News reviewed the custody and divorce documents in full. The custody arrangement allowed for “reasonable rights of visitation” for Wells, including on alternate weekends and full custody for one week starting on December 24.  However, that one week of custody in December does not fit into the timeline of Moore allegedly arranging meetings days after the February hearing.

 

There is another detail in the custody documents that raise questions about Corfman’s story.

 

The Post strongly implied that the alleged encounter with Moore caused Corfman to exhibit reckless behavior in her teenage years.

 

 

The Post failed to mention that the very reason for the February 21, 1979, court hearing where Moore allegedly met Corfman was because, according to the court documents, Corfman had exhibited “certain disciplinary and behavioral problems.” In other words, Corfman evidence behavioral problems prior to the alleged encounters with Moore.

 

Indeed, those stated “disciplinary and behavioral problems” were cited in the joint petition to change custody as the cause for both Wells and Corfman’s father agreeing that Corfman would be better served living with her father.  The parents signed a “consent decree” going along with the change in custody.

 

Over one year later, on May 5, 1980, which would have been after any alleged encounters with Moore, Wells filed a new petition to take back custody of her daughter. That petition stated that Corfman’s “disciplinary problem has improved greatly.”  The stated change in behavior is important since Corfman’s “disciplinary and behavioral problems” were cited as the reason for the father taking custody.

 

The improvement in behavior described by Wells seems to conflict with Corfman’s claim to the Post that after the 1979 encounter her “life became increasingly reckless with drinking, drugs, boyfriends, and a suicide attempt when she was 16.”

 

The judge apparently agreed with Wells’ assessment of Corfman’s improved behavior and granted Wells custody on October 15, 1980.

 

… (Court Documents Raise Significant Questions About Leigh Corfman’s Accusations Against Roy Moore; By AARON KLEIN; BreitbartBig Government; 11/21/17)

 

See Also:

 

Nolte: Shaky Allegations Against Roy Moore Are Not Enough to Disqualify Him; By JOHN NOLTE; BreitbartBig Government; 11/24/17)

 

Chip Brownlee reporting for Alabama Political Reporter acquiesces to Aaron Klein’s discoveries writing for Breitbart but believes an “11 days” period was ample time for Moore to call on Corfman. You get to decide who is guessing better.

 

Moore campaign fires back at Leigh Corfman; By Chip Brownlee; Alabama Political Reporter; 11/22/17)

 

John Nolte notes a very important fact about sixteen-year-old gals in Alabama lost on the MSM and Leftist Dems:

 

Nevertheless, the age of consent in Alabama is and was 16. That is a decision the people of Alabama have made, which means that even if Moore did seek to date girls as young as 16, there was nothing illegal about it.

 

More importantly, though, is the fact that 40 years ago in the South, the idea of a 30 year-old man looking for a much younger wife was not at all uncommon. In other words, this behavior was not only legal, it was not a violation of social mores. (Bold Text is this Blog Editor’s)

 

Ergo any of the allegations made against Moore by alleged 16-year old victims that did not include forced sex or unwanted fondling was a normally accepted social construct 40 years ago.

Wendy Miller- Then & Now

Wendy Miller Accusation: “Claims Moore asked her out on a date when she was 16 years old and he was 32. Her mother said no.” According to Alabama law – SO WHAT!

Debbie Wesson Gibson

Debbie Wesson Gibson Accusation: “Claims she dated Moore for roughly three months in 1981 when she was 17 years old. … She said he kissed her twice during the time they dated. He was 34 at the time.” According to Alabama law – SO WHAT!

Debbie Wesson Gibson

Debbie Wesson GibsonAccusation: “Claims she dated Moore on-and-off again when she was 18 and he was 32 after an initial meeting at the Gadsden Mall in 1979. Deason said their physical relationship never went further than kissing and hugging.” According to Alabama law – SO WHAT!

Beverly Young Nelson- Then & Now

Beverly Young Nelson Accusation: “Claims Moore sexually assaulted her in 1977 when she was 16 years old. (This is dubious Yearbook signature gal with all sorts of contradictions in her story.)

 

Refuting Nelson:

 

A man claiming to be the stepson of the woman who accused Roy Moore of sexually assaulting her when she was 16 years-old does not believe any of her allegations are true.

 

“I don’t believe it,” Darrel Nelson said in a video he posted to Facebook, questioning the accusations leveled against the Alabama GOP Senate candidate by his stepmother, Beverly Young Nelson.

 

 

“My stepmother is wrong for what she done,” he said, accusing her of “reading form a script” at the press conference on Monday and that her attorney, Gloria Allred told her what to say.

 

“I’ve known the woman, she married my father many, many years ago. I’ve known her for a while now, and I truly do not believe that she’s being honest about this,” he said.

 

 

He believed that the backlash from his family was worth the trouble if he was able to clear up any false allegations, stating that Moore “has been an outstanding pillar of the community” and is “God-fearing.”

 

“I don’t believe a word she says, but I do believe he is innocent,” Nelson said.

 

Click here to read more. (WATCH: Darrel Nelson, Stepson of Roy Moore Accuser, Does Not Believe Allegations Are True; By BCNN1; Black Christian News Network 1; 11/15/17)

++++

VIDEO: Breaking Darrel Nelson Official Statement on Beverly Nelson’s Claims against Judge Roy More [*** Warning: Stepson uses a bit of profanity in talking about stepmother Beverly]

 

Posted by Cool Hand Luke

Published on Nov 14, 2017

 

Listen to this NOW! Video from Beverly Nelson step-son! He says #RoyMoore is telling truth but she is lying!

 

Direct Link to Facebook Video: https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t42.1790-29/10000000_540892529595551_7885617095700905984_n.mp4?efg=eyJ2ZW5jb2RlX3RhZyI6InNkIn0%3D&oh=149838a0818e6f0ba67e08e8c9415940&oe=5A0BA24D [Link Expired]

 

Archived Link to His Page: https://archive.is/9tudF

 

See Also Charisma News on the issue: https://tinyurl.com/y7785xdv

++++++

 

More possible holes in the most serious sexual misconduct allegations against Judge Roy Moore, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Alabama, began to emerge this week.

 

VIDEO: Janet Porter MSNBC Roy Moore

 

Posted by Indiana Liberty

Published on Nov 20, 2017

 

… Allred, who also represented women alleging still unproven sexual misconduct allegations against President Donald Trump, is refusing to hand over the pivotal yearbook Nelson claims Moore signed. Nelson’s own stepson and a high school boyfriend have already cast doubt on her accusation.

 

Potential problems emerged in Nelson’s account Monday when Moore’s campaign released a list of seven of what they describe as inconsistencies that “completely bust” the accusation. The release quotes Rhonda Ledbetter, who claims to have worked at Olde Hickory House, where the assault allegedly occurred, for nearly three years surrounding the dates in question.

 

 

When I heard Beverly Nelson’s story, there were several details that were different from what I remember. I was nervous at coming forward because of all the attention this story has gotten, but as a moral and ethical person I had to speak up about what I know to be true. I was a waitress at Olde Hickory for almost three years from 1977-1979, and I never saw Roy Moore come in to the restaurant. Not one time. And I would have noticed because most of our customers weren’t wearing suits, especially not at night.

 

 

I came forward because from what I’ve seen, the media is only interested in reporting one side of this story. In fact, Dixon Hayes from WRBC in Birmingham asked for former employees to contact him but never responded when I told him I never saw Roy Moore come into Olde Hickory House during the three years I worked for.

 

Ledbetter went on to recount what she sees as questionable elements of Nelson’s story, including that she was able to start work at the restaurant at age 15 when Ledbetter recalls a 16-year-old minimum, that Nelson claimed the restaurant closed at 10 p.m., when Ledbetter never recalled it doing so, and the position of the dumpsters as she remembered them making the geometry of the assault impossible as Nelson described it:

 

 

Another Olde Hickory House waitress, Renee Schivera, similarly questions Nelson’s account, saying:

 

was a waitress at the Olde Hickory House during the summer of 1977, before my senior year of high school. When I heard Beverly Nelson’s story the first thing that stuck out to me was that I don’t remember Roy Moore ever coming into the restaurant. I also don’t remember her working there

 

Finally, Moore’s release quotes Johnny Belyeu Sr., described as “a former police officer with over two decades of experience with the Etowah County Sheriff’s Department and the Gadsden Police Department,” who told the Moore campaign in a statement, “I was a regular customer at Olde Hickory House, and I never once saw Judge Moore come in there. If he had I would have immediately recognized him.” He added, “I also never met Beverly Nelson during any of the many times I frequented the restaurant, and I can’t say that she even worked there.”

 

(Roy Moore Campaign Claims to ‘Completely Bust’ Accusations as Details Emerge; By IAN MASON; Breitbart; 11/21/7)

 

Tina Johnson- Then & Now

Tina Johnson Accusations: “Claims Moore groped her in his office in 1991 when she was 28 years old.”

 

70news quotes AL.com that Johnson said this about Moore butt-grab:

 

After her mother walked through the door first, she said, Moore came up behind her. It was at that point, she recalled, he grabbed her buttocks.

 

“He didn’t pinch it; he grabbed it,” said Johnson. She was so surprised she didn’t say anything. She didn’t tell her mother.

 

She said she told her sister years later how Moore had made her feel uncomfortable during that meeting. Her sister told AL.com she remembers the conversation. (Bold text is Editor’s)

 

Take note that Johnson told AL.com that “She didn’t tell her mother.” Listen to what Johnson tells CNN’s Ellen Burkett at about the 2:12 mark about her mother:

 

VIDEO: Tina Johnson share details of an alleged incident with Roy Moore

 

Posted by USA News

Published on Nov 19, 2017

 

Tina Johnson share details of an alleged incident with Roy Moore

 

Notice that Tina Johnson told Burkett her mother was flattered Moore “flirted” with her daughter and went home and told everybody. This indicates Mom didn’t a flirtation as unwanted sexual harassment. This is the case even though the entire Burkett interview is a display of unwanted sexual groping. SOMETHING IS OFF with Tina Johnson.

 

 

A criminal record adds to the lack of veracity of Johnson’s accusation:

 

But most of the doubt on the claim against Johnson comes from her past.

 

Before the alleged situation with Moore, Johnson had been arrested for writing bad checks, and for third degree theft.

 

The reports show that she had stolen from her own family.

 

… (The Secret A Roy Moore Accuser Is Praying Never Gets Revealed; American Patriot Daily; [perhaps] 11/25/17)

Kelly Harrison Thorp

Kelly Harrison Thorp Accusation: “Claims Moore asked her out in 1982 when she was a 17-year-old waitress at Red Lobster.” According to Alabama law – SO WHAT!

Gena Richardson- Then & Now

Gena Richardson Accusation: “Claims Moore pursued her relentlessly in 1977 when she was an 18-year-old high school senior. Richardson said she met Moore at the Gadsden Mall, … After their first date, she said, Moore gave her an unsolicited, “forceful” kiss, which prompted her to break off further contact with him.” The date part as noted earlier by John Nolte, the age of consent in Alabama 40 years ago and now is age 16. AND the social mores 40 years ago were a common instance of older men seeking matrimony of younger even teen age girls. So the question about “unsolicited” is: Does that mean Richardson was expecting simple smooch on the lips that turned to tongue? OR did Moore whip his hands around Richardson’s head unexpectedly and force his tongue down her throat? The first instance is an oops of communication, the latter instance is actual force and sexual misconduct. That boils down to he said/she said and each person’s perception.

Becky Gray- Then & Now

Becky Gray Accusations: ‘Claims Moore repeatedly asked her out on dates when she was 22 years old he was 30. “She told the Post that his advances crossed the line from weird flirting to harassment.” “I’d always say no, I’m dating someone, no, I’m in a relationship,”’

 

The rumor Roy Moore was banned from the mall in Gadsden, Alabama comes from Becky Gray because she was employed at the Pizitz department store in the Gadsen [sic] Mall in 1977. Gray’s account:

 

An Alabama woman who has accused Republican U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore of sexually harassing her in the late 1970s said he was banned from the mall where she worked after she complained about his repeated, unwanted advances toward her.

 

“I went to my manager and talked to him about it and asked him, basically, what could be done,” Becky Gray told ABC News late Wednesday night. “Later on, he…came back through my department and told me that [Moore] had been banned from the mall.” (Roy Moore accuser: I got him banned from the mall; By CHRIS FRANCESCANI; ABC News; 11/16/17 12:16 PM ET)

 

The verifiable truth from AL.com:

 

The three statements from former mall employees quoted in the Moore press release:

 

  • “In my 26 years working at Gadsden Mall, I never heard anything about Roy Moore being banned from the mall or any other mention of issues concerning him. As the Operations Manager overseeing Mall Security, I would have been aware of something like that.” – Johnny Adams, employed by the Gadsden Mall for 26 years and was the Operations Manager for 14 years, overseeing mall security.

 

  • “As an employee of the Gadsden Mall for Morrison’s Cafeteria Corporation from the late 1970’s through the mid-2000’s, I would like to put forth a statement in regards to the allegations against Judge Roy Moore. During my time at the Gadsden Mall, I formed many lifelong relationships including one with Barnes Boyle and his wife, Brenda. Barnes Boyle was manager of the Gadsden Mall and Brenda was my manager at Morrison’s Cafeteria for many years. Because of this relationship, I was abreast on the latest situations that happened throughout the Gadsden Mall during that time period. There was a prominent man of Etowah County, whom is now deceased that was banned for reasons such as the allegations against Judge Moore. However, due to respect for the family, I decline to reveal his name. Despite allegations against other patrons of the mall, I never heard of Roy Moore’s name come in conversation with any such misconduct against women or a supposed banning from the Gadsden Mall.” – Johnnie V. Sanders, employee of Gadsden Mall from late 70’s to mid-2000’s.

 

  • “We did have written reports and things. To my knowledge, he {Moore} was not banned from the mall.” – Barnes Boyle, Former Manager of the Gadsden Mall (1981-1986).

 

Said Doster in the statement, “The people of Alabama are tired of false accusations and one-sided reporting from the liberal media. “Truth matters or it doesn’t and the Moore campaign will deliver the truth about the character of Judge Roy Moore to affirm what the people of Alabama are already convinced of.” (Roy Moore campaign disputes reports he was banned from mall; By Paul Gattis; AL.com; 11/20/17)

 

Did Moore sexually harass Becky Gray? Since Moore was never banned from the Gadsden Mall, I have some suspicions her claims are at best exaggerated or at worst a downright Dem coached lie.

 

The most egregious thing Roy Moore in his thirties had male hormones for teenagers of the legal age of consent in Alabama. Leigh Corfman is the ONLY accuser that was underage according to Alabama law and her story is tainted in her timeline and for being troubled teen too hard to handle by her mom. Hard enough to transfer custody to Corfman’s father – the mother’s ex-husband – for a more disciplined hand which apparently worked out long after Corfman’s accusations against Roy Moore.

 

If anyone can actually find verifiable evidence sexual harassment or assault from forty years ago, I say fry Roy Moore so he can never serve in any form of Public Office again. Nothing verifiable? Then dear God, it’s the American Left (MSM and Dems) trying to keep a Conservative out of the Senate. The latter is what I currently believe. If you are a Conservative residing in Alabama, ignore the unverifiable and elect Roy Moore as your next Senator.

 

JRH 11/25/17

Please Support NCCR

 

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

Looking at Leftist Deep State


Crooked Clintons, Dems, Obamunists, Uranium One, Fusion GPS, Russia Collusion and Probably MORE

 

John R. Houk, Editor

Posted November 13, 2017

 

It’s time to look at some anti-Trump Deep State horse pucky the Leftist Mainstream Media (MSM) is ignoring and yet still fabricating Trump/Russia collusion and calling for President Trump’s impeachment based on ZERO legal reasoning.

 

Let’s begin with a Wikileaks TV video posted on 11/10/17. (Hat Tip: G+ Community Conservative Against Liberal Media (C.A.L.M.) on 11/12/17)

 

JRH 11/13/17

Please Support NCCR

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

VIDEO: JUST IN …HOUSE FREEDOM CAUCUS ORDERS FOR IMMEDIATE ARREST OF HILLARY CLINTON

 

Posted by wikileaks tv

Published on Nov 10, 2017

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

Fusion collusion with Veselnitskaya proves Trump, Jr. meeting was a set up

 

By press

November 7, 2017

Americans for Limited Government

 

Nov. 7, 2017, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement reacting to the revelation that Fusion GPS CEO Glenn Simpson met with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya both before and after her meeting with Donald Trump, Jr. in June 2016:

 

“Today’s report that Fusion GPS CEO Glenn Simpson met with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya both before and after her meeting with Donald Trump, Jr. in June 2016 is breathtaking. It is clear the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign paid for a consultant who was using Russians in an attempt to create the appearance of collusion through false offers of dirt on Hillary Clinton. Even the Closseau-like Robert Mueller should be able to piece this together and see that Fusion GPS is at the center of his investigation into the 2016 election.

 

“It is also reasonable to assume that the Clinton campaign did not receive any information from that meeting that they deemed relevant in the campaign, except for the meeting itself, or else they would have used it. If taking a meeting with Russians is deemed a criminal act, then Simpson and everyone else who used Russian sources for the dossier, including the Clinton campaign since they paid for it, should apparently be in jail. It should also be clear to anyone with an ounce of honest blood flowing through their veins that the entire foundation of the Mueller investigation is based on a manufactured concept. If taking a meeting is criminalized, no one in Washington, D.C. can be exempt from Mueller’s witch hunt. It’s time to close Robert Mueller’s desperate search for criminality where none exists.”

 

Attachments:

 

“Why did the Russians try to deliver ‘dirt’ on Hillary Clinton to the Trump campaign—three times? And what did Fusion GPS know about it? Was the Trump campaign being set up?” By Robert Romano, Oct. 31, 2017 at http://netrightdaily.com/2017/10/russians-try-deliver-dirt-hillary-clinton-trump-campaign-three-times-fusion-gps-know-trump-campaign-set/

 

Interview Availability: Please contact Americans for Limited Government at 703-383-0880 ext. 100 or at media@limitgov.org to arrange an interview with ALG experts.

++++++++++

 

 

I want Truth. Hillary- I deleted Truth

 

Is the Clinton Cartel about to take a fall?

FBI Provides Necessary Documents to Prosecute Crooked Hillary Clinton

 

Posted by Dee Fatouros

Posted on November 8, 2017 5:51:00 AM   

The Realistic Observer

 

Original Posting:

By Kevin Jackson

Nov 7, 2017

The Blacksphere

 

It’s finally underway. The unraveling of the Clintons.
With no James Comey to protect her, and a complicit crooked president to provide cover, Hillary Clinton finds herself naked and standing before the man.

 

“Spread your butt-cheeks,” yells her jailer, as he waters her down, and checks for a “keestered” weapon.

 

According to The Hill, the unraveling of the Clinton Cartel has begun:

 

The FBI has begun turning over to Senate investigators hundreds of pages of memos regarding the bureau’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s private email server, sources told The Hill.

The sources said the Justice Department notified the Senate Judiciary Committee late Friday and the FBI began transmitting memos soon after to assist Congress in its review of former Director James Comey’s handling of the Clinton email case.

The memos detail how and when the bureau’s leadership declined to pursue criminal charges against Clinton for transmitting classified information on her private email server as secretary of State, an investigation that has remained controversial since the 2016 presidential campaigns.

FBI officials declined to comment. “We don’t have any information for you,” spokeswoman Carol Cratty told The Hill.

The Senate committee has been seeking the memos for some time as it investigates whether Comey chose to absolve Clinton of criminal liability before the election-year probe was complete and before she was even interviewed. Comey ultimately concluded that while Clinton’s handling of classified emails was careless, there was not enough evidence of intent to warrant criminal charges.

 

Despite David M. Hardy running interference for the Clintons, the records are now available.

 

READ THE REST

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

Fusion GPS official met with Russian operative before and after Trump Jr. sit-down

 

By Catherine Herridge, Pamela K. Browne, Cyd Upson

November 7, 2017

Fox News

 

The co-founder of Fusion GPS, the firm behind the unverified Trump dossier, met with a Russian lawyer before and after a key meeting she had last year with Trump’s son, Fox News has learned. The contacts shed new light on how closely tied the firm was to Russian interests, at a time when it was financing research to discredit then-candidate Donald Trump.

 

The opposition research firm has faced renewed scrutiny after litigation revealed that the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid for that research. Congressional Republicans have since questioned whether that politically financed research contributed to the FBI’s investigation of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign – making Fusion’s 2016 contacts with Russian interests all the more relevant.

 

The June 2016 Trump Tower meeting involving Donald Trump Jr. and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya occurred during a critical period. At that time, Fox News has learned that bank records show Fusion GPS was paid by a law firm for work on behalf of a Kremlin-linked oligarch while paying former British spy Christopher Steele to dig up dirt on Trump through his Russian contacts.

 

But hours before the Trump Tower meeting on June 9, 2016, Fusion co-founder and ex-Wall Street Journal reporter Glenn Simpson was with Veselnitskaya in a Manhattan federal courtroom, a confidential source told Fox News. Court records reviewed by Fox News, email correspondence and published reports corroborate the pair’s presence together. The source told Fox News they also were together after the Trump Tower meeting.

 

Simpson’s presence with Veselnitskaya during this critical week in June — together with revelations about Fusion’s simultaneous financial ties to the DNC, Clinton campaign and Russian interests — raise new questions about the company’s role in the 2016 election.

 

READ THE REST

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

Podesta Email: “And Then The Bundys Showed Up”

 

By TIM BROWN

NOVEMBER 9, 2017

Freedom Outpost

 

In the pile of emails released by Wikileaks, there was one from American Progress Action to Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta that contained a brief reference to the Bundys.

 

The email address progress@americanprogressaction.org sent Podesta an email on January 11, 2016 with the subject line: And then the Bundys showed up.

 

The text of the email read as follows: After years of conflict, residents of Harney County, Oregon had finally begun to rebuild ties between ranchers and the federal government. Then the Bundys showed up. And, President Obama is leaving a seat open for shooting victims at tomorrow’s State of the Union address. In case you missed it, gun violence survivors speak out in this powerful video (editor’s note: tissues recommended).Additionally, there was a list of articles linked to Think Progress and at the top of the list was one titled How The Bundy Standoff Could Screw Over Ranchers. The article has been removed and has not been archived. [Blog Editor: web cache version courtesy Google]

 

Keep in mind, this email was sent less than 2 weeks before Oregon State Troopers, alongside the FBI shot and killed LaVoy Finicum, also a rancher who stood alongside the Bundys at Bundy Ranch in Bunkersville in 2014 and at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon in late 2015 and 2016.

 

This may also be insightful since we know from texts and emails that the White House, at the time, was in communication with the Oregon governor and helping to orchestrate the takedown of men who were simply exercising their constitutional rights, even to the point of killing one of them.

 

I reported on those documents in March 2016:

 

…Northwest Liberty News radio show, a bombshell from documents Jim White and I obtained indicates that the entire operation of January 26, 2016 goes up not only to Oregon Governor Kate Brown’s office, but even to the White House. Because of the language that was used in the documents by the officers, we speculated along with Red Smith of ShastaLantern.com and Paul Preston of Agenda21radio.com that the White House orchestrated the entire thing and that when it comes to calling the shots, we don’t look to Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah, but rather to Obama’s mama, Valerie Jarrett.

 

First, let me remind you that there are over 600 emails and texts that indicate the Governor Brown was in the loop on everything that was going on in Oregon during the protest at the Malheur Refuge, including some emails and texts that were directly from her. Second, due to newly released documents, we know that at least one Oregon State Trooper specifically acknowledged that the county to which the protesters were traveling on the day of LaVoy Finicum’s murder was a well-known “UN free zone.” The officer made the statement as though it was common knowledge, so does that mean that Harney County is not a “UN free zone”?

 

However, in those same documents, we have run across even more chilling and telling statements concerning where the command for the roadblock and the ambush came from.

 

If you pick up the radio show at the 7:00 mark here, then you will hear Red Smith detail what is in the documents.

 

 

Additionally, I would encourage you to watch this video by Lo K and check out the documentation below listed in the video and connect that dots.

 

 

 

  • Mueller is planning to conspire in the cover-up of James Comey, Peter Comey, The Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, Loretta Lynch, Ron Wyden, Adam Wyden, Jeff Merkley, Steven E Grasty, Brent Grasty, Neil Kronze, Gregory Kronze, Harry Reid, Rory Reid, George Soros, Barrack Hussein Obama and others for TREASON. Mueller Hires 13 Lawyers, Including One Who Represented Hillary! – BB4SP https://bb4sp.com/mueller-hires-13-lawyers/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

READ ENTIRETY

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

Grassley: Special Counsel Should Investigate ‘Potentially Criminal’ Uranium One Deal

 

As seen on Fox & Friends

Oct. 26, 2017 9:10am

Fox News Insider

 

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is calling for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the Obama-era Uranium One deal.

 

Uranium One refers to the name of a Canada-based company with mines in the U.S. that was bought by Rosatom, a company backed by the Russian state. The State Department, then led by Hillary Clinton, was one of nine U.S. government agencies that had to approve the controversial 2010 deal, which gave Russia control over more than 20 percent of U.S. uranium supplies.

 

Republicans have raised concerns about Russian efforts to influence Clinton to sign off on the deal – citing donations to the Clinton Foundation as well as a $500,000 speaking fee received by former President Bill Clinton.

 

 

 

On “Fox & Friends,” Grassley said that if a special counsel was necessary to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election, then one is also necessary to look into these “potentially criminal, fraudulent money laundering activities.”

 

He said he’s looking forward to hearing from a former FBI informant, who claims to have information about efforts to bribe the Clintons involving the uranium deal.

 

The Justice Department said Wednesday night that it had lifted a gag order the informant, clearing the individual to speak to Congress.

 

“We ought to know about [what he knows], because transparency brings accountability,” Grassley said, explaining that READ THE REST

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

Surprise! Big Media Ignores the Real Russian Scandal

 

By Susan Stamper Brown

Oct 23, 2017 6:57 AM

Townhall

 

 

Additionally, the chairman of Uranium One is a close friend of the Clintons and is on the board of the Clinton Foundation, according to Peter Schweizer, author of “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.”

 

Fast forward to now.

 

Enter: Rod Rosenstein, Andrew McCabe, Robert Mueller and James Comey –the same folks investigating the so-called Trump-Russia collusion investigation were also involved in Uranium One.

 

DOJ documents disclose the investigation was ultimately supervised by Rosenstein and  McCabe. Robert Mueller was FBI director when the probe began and James Comey was director until Trump fired him.

 

We now know the FBI was aware of multi-faceted Russian wrongdoing long before the Uranium One nuclear deal was approved.

 

The Hill reports the “FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.”

 

Investigators also knew “Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns,” The Hill reports.

 

Apparently, the Obama administration was desperate to keep this under wraps and allegedly threatened an FBI informant to remain silent. Fox News reports that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa has asked the DOJ to “lift an apparent ‘gag order’ on the FBI informant who “allegedly was ‘threatened’ by the Obama administration to stay quiet.”

 

All that, while we were told there was nothing to see here.

 

READ ENTIRETY

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

New Memos Reveal Obama Admin Lied About “Uranium One” Exports

 

By Brian Thomas

November 3, 2017

The Federalist Papers

 

Despite the mainstream media’s best efforts to dismiss and ignore the Uranium One bribery scheme, newly released memos show that the Obama Administration worked hard to deceive Americans into thinking the sale wouldn’t result in uranium exports.

 

The Uranium One deal landed the Clinton Foundation roughly $145 million, but former President Obama approved of the obvious bribe.

 

 

But the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission repeatedly assured Congress that U.S. uranium reserves wouldn’t be exported.

From the Hill:

 

“No uranium produced at either facility may be exported,” the NRC declared in a November 2010 press release that announced that ARMZ, a subsidiary of the Russian state-owned Rosatom, had been approved to take ownership of the Uranium One mining firm and its American assets.

 

A year later, the nuclear regulator repeated the assurance in a letter to Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican in whose state Uranium One operated mines.

 

“Neither Uranium One Inc. nor AMRZ holds a specific NRC export license. In order to export uranium from the United States, Uranium One Inc. or ARMZ would need to apply for and obtain a specific NRC license authorizing the exports of uranium for use in reactor fuel,” then-NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko wrote to Barrasso.

 

 

The 2011 Barrasso letter makes it clear that Rosatom didn’t have an export license and explained why such a liscense is of value to the “common defense and security of the United States.”

 

 

Freshly released Nuclear Regulatory Commission memos, however, prove that exports were approved.

 

Yellowcake uranium was exported from the U.S., regularly between 2012 and 2014.

 

To cover their tracks, Obama signed a waiver which allowed the uranium to be first driven to Canada, where it would then be exported to Europe.

 

The Hill continues:

 

Yet NRC memos reviewed by The Hill show that it did approve the shipment of yellowcake uranium — the raw material used to make nuclear fuel and weapons — from the Russian-owned mines in the United States to Canada in 2012 through a third party. Later, the Obama administration approved some of that uranium going all the way to Europe, government documents show.

 

NRC officials said they could not disclose the total amount of uranium that Uranium One exported because the information is proprietary. They did, however, say that the shipments only lasted from 2012 to 2014 and that they are unaware of any exports since then.

 

NRC officials told The Hill that Uranium One exports flowed from Wyoming to Canada and on to Europe between 2012 and 2014, and the approval involved a process with multiple agencies.

 

Rather than give Rosatom a direct export license — which would have raised red flags inside a Congress already suspicious of the deal — the NRC in 2012 authorized an amendment to an existing export license for a Paducah, Ky.-based trucking firm called RSB Logistics Services Inc. to simply add Uranium One to the list of clients whose uranium it could move to Canada.

 

The license, reviewed by The Hill, is dated March 16, 2012, and it increased the amount of uranium ore concentrate that RSB Logistics could ship to the Cameco Corp. plant in Ontario from 7,500,000 kilograms to 12,000,000 kilograms and added Uranium One to the “other parties to Export.”

 

Uranium left U.S. shores after all, and the efforts to cover up the move left Congress in the dark for years.

 

The Hill received an email from “Uranium One’s American arm” admitting that uranium was trucked to Canada to be exported throughout Europe and Asia. According to the letter, the move technically complies with federal law.

 

READ ENTIRETY

+++++++++

Mueller Now Connected to a Covered-Up Bribery Scheme Involving Hillary Clinton

 

By amorgan

November 11, 2017

ConsJournal.com

 

Well, well, well.  It looks as if former FBI director Robert Mueller, who is now special counsel in charge of the Justice Department’s Russia investigation, allegedly hid evidence that was collected as early as 2009 which shows Russian officials were involved in a bribery scheme with Hillary Clinton’s charity in order to expand their atomic energy business within the U.S.

 

According to The Hill:

 

Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.

 

Rather than bring immediate charges for the scheme though, the FBI and Justice Department decided to continue “investigating” the issue for four more years – leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefiting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.

 

The details were revealed in a report earlier this week.  Apparently, the evidence was withheld from lawmakers while they were questioning the Obama administration’s approval of the sale of Uranium One to Russia’s nuclear giant Rosatom in 2010, which ultimately led to Russian control of 20% of U.S. uranium supply.

 

Then, in 2011, the administration approved Tenex, a subsidiary of Rosatom, in partnership with the United States Enrichment Corp., to sell commercial uranium to U.S. nuclear power plants.  Prior to that, Tenex was only allowed to sell reprocessed uranium recovered from dismantled Soviet nuclear weapons under the 1990s “Megatons to Megawatts” peace program U.S. nuclear power plants.

 

An anonymous person who worked on the case informed The Hill, “The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions.”

 

READ THE REST

++++

Ned Ryun: Stronger Evidence Of Russian Collusion Between Fusion GPS, DNC, And Clinton Than Trump

 

By Ian Schwartz 

November 8, 2017

Real Clear Politics

 

[Blog Editor: RCP post a 56 second video of Trish Regan and Ned Ryun discussing the issue of a criminal cover-up in the Obama Administration. There was no embed at RCP. But I did find a Facebook on Trish Regan’s video page. I’ll embed that first followed by a more detailed similar version I found a Youtube video of Regan and Ryun on the same subject but four-minutes in length.

 

Trish Regan Facebook VIDEO: RPT. Russian Lawyer Met with Fusion GPS Before & After Trump Jr. Meeting

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FRealTrishRegan%2Fvideos%2F847750472069276%2F&show_text=0&width=560

 

VIDEO: What did Russia do with US uranium imports?


 

Posted by Fox Business

Published on Nov 3, 2017

 

American Majority CEO Ned Ryun on the Uranium One deal and Russia reportedly exporting U.S. uranium to Canada and Europe.]

 

American Majority CEO Ned Ryun talks to FOX Business Network’s Trish Reagan about the Russian connection between Fusion GPS, DNC, and the Clinton presidential campaign. Ryun also said the meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer smells like a setup.

“This Russian lawyer we will discover that she was actually one of the unnamed sources for the Russian dossier,” Ryun said Wednesday on FOX Business. “The thing that is amazing to me in all of this is we have seen harder and stronger evidence over the last two weeks for Russian collusion between Fusion GPS, the DNC and Hillary Clinton with Russia than we have any evidence for the Trump campaign and Russia for the last year.”

“The reason I think the Intelligence Committee is trying to get ahold of all of their bank records — I think Fusion GPS was actually paying journalists to promote their manufactured news,” he said. “And so you asked if there was anything illegal. We’ll have to find that out and that’s why I want to see the DOJ to go under the RICO statutes and look what Fusion GPS has done. It’s highly unethical.”

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

Uranium One and New START

 

By Bill Gertz

November 1, 2017

Washington Times

 

Some U.S. national security officials are urging an investigation of the burgeoning Uranium One scandal to focus on whether the New START arms treaty with Russia was compromised by Moscow payoffs and not just by Obama administration policies that sought to curry favor with the Kremlin.

 

The Obama team, through the Treasury Department-led Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), approved the 2010 sale of 51 percent of Canada-based Uranium One to JSC Atomredmetzoloto, or ARMZ, the mining arm of Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear energy agency. The merger gave Russia control of some 20 percent of U.S. uranium extraction capability.

 

In 2015, it was revealed that nine lobbyists for Uranium One paid the Clinton Foundation, Bill and Hillary Clinton’s charitable organization, $145 million before, during and after the deal was approved. Bill Clinton also traveled to Moscow, where he was paid $500,000 by a Russian government-linked bank for a speech.

 

Last month, the Uranium One case resurfaced when news reports revealed that the FBI apparently covered up information about illegal Russian attempts to lobby then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

 

The deal was approved by senior Obama officials, including Mrs. Clinton, apparently without knowledge of an FBI probe that led to the conviction of a Russian lobbyist linked to the deal who was found guilty of bribery and kickbacks. A confidential source used in the prosecution was forced to remain silent and only recently revealed details of the payoffs.

 

Since the disclosures, Congress has jumped on the Uranium One deal and is investigating, including potential links between conciliatory policies toward Moscow by the Obama administration and the New START treaty.

 

 

Mark Schneider, a former Pentagon nuclear official, said there are national security implications to the Uranium One deal — but not much linkage to New START.

 

“Russia has enough plutonium and highly enriched uranium for a nuclear force vastly larger than the one it can possibly produce in the next two decades,” he said.

 

“We have killed our uranium enrichment capability, which in turn has killed our tritium production capability. The emerging tritium crisis eliminates any potential to hedge against a greater-than-expected threat, and we will soon start losing capability that even the Obama administration thought was necessary.”

 

Uranium One will solidify Moscow’s hold on the uranium enrichment market and will increase leverage on nations that use low-enriched uranium-powered reactors.

 

“Uranium One is a symptom of Third World corruption coming to the United States,” Mr. Schneider said.

 

“The Russians bought the secretary of state with massive bribes — $500,000 for a speech and $145 million for the Clinton Foundation, their personal piggy bank,” he said. “The Democrat leadership in the Congress does not care. Unless they are punished, this is just the beginning.”

 

READ ENTIRETY

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Any information enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

Typically, I display the copyright of each cross post. Not today. Go to the linked webpage to realize I did not write it. 😊

 

The Bolshevik Revolution Reveals Six Phases From Freedom To Communist Misery


Communist genocide/murder in the 20th century is only dwarfed Islamic genocide/murder Muslims committed from days of its founder to the present. Stella Morabito writing for The Federalist says Communist 20th century regime victims numbered to the rounded number of 100 MILLION. Bill Warner of Political Islam estimates 270 MILLION jihad victims died in 1400 years at the hands of Islamic theopolitical Muslims.

 

Just think! In about a hundred period Communist regimes kill a little more than one-third the victims of Islam motivated butchery. Keeping that in mind, November 7 will mark the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution that produced the first dedicated Communist nation.

 

Morabito has some thoughts about that anniversary. Read her essay by keeping in mind the modern Communist movements in America deluding their adherents about Marxist proclivities: Antifa, Refuse Fascism, Black Live Matter (BLT), New Black Panthers, SPLC to name a few and let’s include the Democratic Party pretending to care about the poor and American minorities.

 

JRH 11/6/17

Please Support NCCR

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

The Bolshevik Revolution Reveals Six Phases From Freedom To Communist Misery

A hundred years on from the Bolshevik Revolution, we’d do well to study the stages and trends that put free societies on the path to totalitarianism.

 

By Stella Morabito

NOVEMBER 6, 2017

The Federalist

 

Photo Wikimedia / public domain

 

Scarcity, terror, and the mass murder of more than 100 million victims are communism’s main contributions to human history. As we mark the centennial of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia on November 7, we should never forget that legacy. Communism is a fount of human misery and death. Few today really understand what that system of so-called government is all about.

 

In a nutshell, communism enforces a privileged elite’s centralization of power. This means it always puts too much power into the hands of too few people. They tend to weasel their way into power as their ventriloquized agitators use talking points like “justice” and “equality” while promoting a false illusion of public support.

 

So, how would it ever be possible for a free society like America to succumb to such tyrannical forces? I think we’ve spent precious little time trying to dissect and understand this process. So, in this three-part series, I hope to map out six stages that lead us into this dangerous direction. Within each phase, several trends take hold. I’ll discuss the trends in more detail in parts II and III.

 

There is a lot of overlap among the phases, but I think they can be roughly identified as: 1.) Laying the groundwork; 2.) Propaganda; 3.) Agitation; 4.) State takeover of society’s institutions; 5.) Coercing conformity; and 6.) Final solutions. But first let’s look a bit more closely at what communism really means for human beings.

 

‘Power Kills. Absolute Power Kills Absolutely’

 

Thousands of texts examine and analyze communism ideologically, historically, economically, and so on. It always amounts to a bait-and-switch scheme hatched by egomaniacs who want to dictate to everybody. Why? Because it’s all about the consolidation of power by a tiny elite—in Vladimir Lenin’s words, “the vanguard”—who claim to promote equality and justice and blah, blah, blah.

 

But once communism gets its foot in the door and you don’t get with their program, it promises you death in a variety of forms: economic death, social death, and literal death. That’s predictable whenever you put too much power into the hands of too few people. And that’s why we should always firmly oppose any system that demands the consolidation and centralization of power.

 

Although communist and socialist governments murdered well more than 100 million people in the course of the twentieth century, that number spikes even further when you include the practical bedfellows of communism, like Nazism and fascism, for example. According to the calculations of Professor R. J. Rummel, author of “Death by Government,” totalitarian regimes snuffed out approximately 169 million lives in the twentieth century alone. That number is more than four times higher than the 38 million deaths—civilian as well as military—caused by all of the twentieth century wars combined.

 

As Rummel states: “Power kills. Absolute power kills absolutely.” The common thread that runs through communist and fascist ideologies is their totalitarian nature, which means they control people by breeding scarcity, ignorance, human misery, social distrust, the constant threat of social isolation, and death to dissenters. All in the name of justice and equality.

 

They cannot abide any checks or balances, particularly checks on government power as reflected in the U.S. Bill of Rights. They fight de-centralization of power, which allows localities and states true self-governance. Such restraints on the centralized power of the state stand in the way of achieving the goal of communism: absolute state power over every single human being.

 

Lenin’s Blood-Soaked Legacy

 

It should astonish us to realize that the obsessions of a few wild-eyed revolutionaries can blue-pill whole populations of peaceful citizens. But it’s all a matter of conjuring up illusions and mass delusions, no matter the brand of totalitarianism. Lenin was a fiery orator of propaganda, as was Adolph Hitler.

 

To achieve absolute power, Lenin focused on fomenting a class war, while Hitler set his sights on a race war. Either way, the divide-and-conquer modus operandi of fascist and communist demagogues is pretty much the same, no matter what each side might claim about the other. Their propaganda content may differ, but not so much their divide-and-conquer methods. Attitudes of supremacy come in a virtual rainbow of flavors and colors.

 

As Saul Alinsky taught and the agitprop [Blog Editor: I don’t know about you, but I had uncertainty about the definition of “agitprop.” Here is a definition at the end of this paragraph next to asterisk (*).]of groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center illustrates so perfectly, the goal of all such radicals is to seize power by fueling resentment and hatred among people through various forms of “consciousness”—particularly class and race consciousness. That’s what identity politics is all about. That division is a key tool for totalitarians in their conquest of the people. Once their organizations breed enough ill will, the “masses”—made up of mostly alienated individuals—can be baited and mobilized to do the bidding of power elites, with a rhetorical veneer claiming justice and equality.

 

*agitprop:

 

Noun

1. Agitation and propaganda, especially for the cause of communism.

 

2. (often initial capital letter) an agency or department, as of government, that directs and coordinates agitation and propaganda.

 

3. Also, agitpropist. A person who is trained or takes part in such activities. (Dictionary.com)

 

Most of today’s enlisted rioters—groups that call themselves things like “Indivisible,” “Anti-Fascist,” “Stop Patriarchy,” “Black Lives Matter,” “Refuse Fascism,” or moveon.org—are pretty much unabashedly communist (or just plain fascist) in their goals and aims and tactics. The chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party of the USA, for example, founded Refuse Fascism. It’s a pro-violence group that planned street theater on November 4, with the stated goal of overturning the 2016 election and taking out the Trump administration.

 

If you’re a true student of history, you can see that this is an old movie: mobs of disaffected, alienated people being exploited and mobilized by power elites. Unfortunately, very few Americans today, especially younger generations, are inquisitive students of history.

 

Certain sports figures, for example, claim to be exercising their First Amendment rights by showing hostility towards the American flag during the national anthem, based on a superficial understanding of history. They don’t realize the net effect of their actions is to show hostility against the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, for which the flag stands. Perhaps they don’t understand how their actions are easily exploited by those who would ultimately deprive everyone, including themselves, of all freedom of expression. Without freedom of expression, we all become slaves to the forces of tyranny. Sadly, using freedom to destroy freedom is an old tactic of all totalitarians.

 

Six Phases to Unfreedom

 

Many of the social trends we see today point to dangerous conditions in which a totalitarian system like communism can rear its ugly head again. If enough folks don’t push back against these developments, tyranny can secure a foothold. So let’s try to clarify some of these patterns so we might better confront them and preserve freedom for everybody.

 

At least two dozen major trends have unfolded over the years and continue to unfold that indicate an erosion of human freedom and the growth of a centralized power. I’ve grouped them into six different phases, even though there is a lot of overlap. I’m sure you can add many more major developments to the list. Below are summaries of the phases as well as the trends within each phase, as I see them.

 

  1. Laying the Groundwork

 

This is usually a generational or decades-long process, in which minds can be closed to reason and more influenced by emotion and propaganda. This happens in many ways: through the mass bureaucratization of life that allows for policies that promote polarization, dependency, and human isolation; through disabling independent thinking by educational fads that actually cultivate ignorance and shun content knowledge; through the attack on the humanities in both K-12 and higher education; and through the lack of general knowledge about how mass psychology works.

 

All the while, as new communications technologies develop and proliferate, they are embedded into the groundwork that promotes tyranny over liberty. Through the effects of these trends, people become less open to logic, and more persuaded by the proliferation of images and emotional appeals, cemented by groupthink.

 

  1. Manufacturing Propaganda

 

Propaganda has always been with us, and always will be. But as people become less able to discern fact from fiction, propaganda feeds on itself more intensely. As emotions trump facts, propaganda tends to become more forceful and more focused on driving people to agitate for collectivist agendas. It takes a multitude of forms, but the Orwellian manipulation of language is always the key to thought reform.

 

Then, journalists increasingly become propagandists, and promote illusions of alternative realities. This includes the revision of history, as well as trends such as gender ideology, which pushes to de-sex everybody in the eyes of the law. As propaganda takes the form of political correctness, it threatens people with social rejection if they don’t conform to the politically correct agendas. In this way, it induces self-censorship and preference falsification to create the illusion of public opinion support for its agendas. Political correctness is the sort of agitprop that can grow a cult mindset in the population.

 

  1. Agitating the Masses

 

Once the groundwork has been laid and propaganda absorbed by enough people, agitation can proliferate. As Lenin made clear, agitation and propaganda go together and are absolutely essential to communist revolutions. As that sort of agitation becomes more prevalent in public life, there’s more speed on the road to totalitarianism.

 

Agitation can involve protests, parades, marches, and demonstrations. It also involves organized shout-downs of legislators and a hundred other means of trying to affect public policy by influencing public opinion. During this phase, imitative behaviors proliferate (such as we’ve seen among NFL players during the national anthem). It seems that hatred and frustration are more palpable everywhere in the society.

 

Indeed, the media, Hollywood, and academia—and the Southern Poverty Law Center—would have us focus on nothing else. We see iconoclasm in this phase, as in the defacing of public statues and national monuments. The education establishment becomes involved in politically agitating children, creating confusion and frustration, and even cultivating hostility towards their parents if they aren’t with the program.

 

  1. Consolidating the Takeover of Society’s Institutions

 

About 100 years ago, the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci introduced his theory of “cultural hegemony,” which cast cultural institutions as the enemy, claiming they were used to maintain power. So the key to achieving communism in the West was through destroying its culture, not through promoting socialist economic policies that had little appeal in the West. This would require a “long march through the institutions” of society, destroying them from within so communism could fill the vacuum.

 

Radicals of the 1960s like Herbert Marcuse and Alinsky picked up on this theme, noting that “the system” (i.e., American freedom) could only be destroyed from within once radical operatives had control over society’s institutions. The deep state is one example that’s been building through decades of bureaucratic bloat, with operatives embedded throughout the government, including in the military and intelligence agencies. And, of course, the cultural takeover of the media, academia, and entertainment is both broad and deep.

 

But, most importantly, the mediating institutions have been relentlessly attacked. Those are the institutions that protect the individual from encroachment by the state, particularly the family, the church, and all voluntary and civic associations. We can see and feel especially how the family has been eroded today. All of these institutions have been deeply affected by statist forces, rendering them more vulnerable than ever to total absorption by the mass state, a prerequisite for communism.

 

  1. Forcing Conformity

 

This is perhaps the most unsettling phase, when otherwise discerning people who have been duped by the rhetoric of social justice finally awaken to the deceit within the agitprop. This is the stage in which you are told to conform and convert—or else. We see small shop owners threatened with financial ruin if they don’t disavow their faith. We see Catholic nuns, like Little Sisters of the Poor, threatened for not disavowing their faith. We see echoes of Maoist-style “struggle sessions”—otherwise known as sessions of criticism and self-criticism—as college students are forced to admit to white privilege simply because they had happy childhoods.

 

False confessions proliferate, along with apologies and recantations for showing even the slightest hint of a politically incorrect viewpoint. A surveillance state can grow with new technologies being used for data mining. At the same time, human resources departments start telling employees to report for discipline any politically incorrect private conversation that they might overhear.

 

Millennial celebrity Lena Dunham modeled a Soviet-style surveillance state by tweeting to American Airlines that she overheard two flight attendants having a “transphobic” conversation for which they should be punished. The practice of ritual defamation—smears such as “bigot,” “racist,” “KKK”—become commonplace. And, perhaps most chilling, psychiatry is used as a political weapon.

 

  1. The ‘Final Solutions’ Phase

 

Of course we aren’t there. Not yet, anyway. But perhaps you’ll agree that we should always be aware of the lessons of history if we don’t want to repeat its more unsavory chapters. In the last phase, which is fast and furious, totalitarian elites let loose their inclination to brutally eliminate their perceived enemies.

 

It happens in what Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov identified as the “normalization” stage, after subversion of a nation is complete. It’s as though they can’t do anything but eliminate their perceived enemies because they just don’t know how to do anything else. The body count in the Soviet gulag state, including reigns of terrors and purges intended to rid the country of counter-revolutionaries, was in the tens of millions.

 

In this phase, violence is considered simply a necessary means to achieving the goal of centralized power. There is not even a pretense of due process or respect for free speech. Yet there are pretexts given for eliminating perceived enemies, excuses that have the perpetrators projecting their own intentions upon their victims. That’s an old and tragic story.

 

‘Confirm Thy Soul in Self-Control, Thy Liberty in Law’

 

America is still a free nation with laws on the books that protect individuals from abuses by the state. But we should be very disturbed by the emergence of trends that, if left unchecked, would lead to the consolidation of centralized power by elites who would abolish the Bill of Rights. Communism, as well as fascism and all such forms of totalitarianism, is the natural product of such unchecked trends.

 

So when people disrespect the American flag “because oppression,” they tend to be clueless that their freedom to do so is extremely fragile. Freedom must be fought for, tooth and nail. Then it must be appreciated and nurtured, never taken for granted.

 

We are still in the fight to preserve freedom. But when we review the preponderance of trends that point us in that direction, we ought to pay attention to the symptoms and work to reverse those trends. We ought to be looking hard for a cure, or at least a path to sanity and balance.

 

This means filling the vacuum of ignorance with knowledge and teaching students how to dispassionately assess information and process it on their own rather than rely on emotion and groupthink—and finding a way to do so quickly. It means cultivating respect for reality over pseudo-reality. It means reaching out in goodwill to others, no matter their political persuasion, to de-fang the polarization causing so much alienation and unhappiness in our society.

 

All of these trends, which I’ll explore in more detail in Parts II and III, will lead to absolute power, if left unchecked. Centralized power, as crystallized in the political system of Communism, has always led to scarcity, distrust, death, and just plain human misery. It really does deserve to be buried in the ash heap of history.

 

As we try to stem such tides, I hope we can take to heart these lines from the second verse of Katherine Lee Bates’ grand hymn, “America the Beautiful”:

 

“America, America, God mend thine every flaw. Confirm thy soul in self-control, Thy liberty in law.” [Bold Text Blog Editors]

 

Individual freedom cannot survive if it isn’t balanced with a widespread sense of personal responsibility, self-regulation, self-governance, and the rule of law that allows for dispassionate due process is critical to preventing the loss of liberty that comes via its abuse. In the overall pattern of human history, this is the road less-traveled. But as America has proven, it is the only road that allows for mending flaws and the pursuit of happiness.

____________

Blog Editing by John R. Houk

 

Stella Morabito is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Follow Stella on Twitter.

 

Copyright © 2017 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.

 

REGIONAL HEGEMONY


Eligah Barrett (not sure if a pseudonym or actual) uses sources to put together a profile of Iran’s agenda. As the title suggests, Iran is seeking to be a military power at least regionally. I suspect an even greater agenda with Iran’s pursuit of nukes.

 

This yet another reason to NOT TRUST Iran about any nuclear deal WHATSOEVER! Especially as negotiated by former President Barack Hussein Obama, the most corrupt President in American history.

 

JRH 10/30/17

Please Support NCCR

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

REGIONAL HEGEMONY

 

By Eligah Barrett

Oct 28, 2017

Posted on G+ Crush Jihad

 

Back in 1992, the New York Times wrote, “Becoming second to Saudi Arabia as a world oil power, IRAN EXPECTS TO FURTHER ITS GREATER AMBITION OF BEING THE MOST IMPORTANT REGIONAL POWER IN THE PERSIAN GULF, A LONG-HELD FOREIGN-POLICY OBJECTIVE” (NOV. 7, 1992).

The article examined how Iran planned to achieve this objective: More troubling to other countries in the area and to the west is the other side of Iran’s plan to achieve this objective: A HUGE REARMAMENT PROGRAM, financed largely by the New oil money.

“The Islamic Affairs Analyst of Gloucester, England, printed an article in August 1994 that said, ‘Iran is pursuing a parallel policy of surrounding Israel with implacable enemies. Turkey is moving closer to Iran. To Israel’s North, IRAN has deluged Hezbollah in Lebanon with money and weapons. With Hamas in control of Gaza, Tehran could ignite another conflict on Israel’s western and northern borders at any moment. Iran is also’ opening another front in the West Bank, which crawls with zealots sympathetic to if not in the pay of Iran. And Egypt, since the ouster of President Mubarak, is moving rapidly toward discarding its peace treaty with Israel as it moves into Iran’s camp.’” [Found at the Trumpet]

Of course, the Shiites controls Iran and are a majority 60 percent in Iraq. The U.S.’s removal of Saddam Hussein in 2003 opened the way for Iran to heavily infiltrate Iraq, providing armaments, financing and training to Shiites militias, sending thousands of operatives into the country and establishing economic ties with it. Moreover, the most powerful political party in Iraq is allied with Tehran. This could be a decisive factor causing Iraq to fall under Iran’s control.

“That 1994 Islamic Affairs Analyst article said further, starting at the foot of the Red Sea, ‘IRAN is set to increase its influence considerably in both Somalia and Yemen. … Further up the Red Sea coast, Sudan is already firmly in pro-Iranian hands with [Omar Hassan] al-Bashir’s military regime no more than a front for Hassan al-Bashir’s Islamists. And it is from bases in Sudan that Islamist fundamentalists are beginning to undermine the stability of the newly independent Eritrea, which, it should be noted, now controls all of what was formerly Ethiopia’s Red Sea coastline.’” [ibid.]

These trends continue today. Iran has continued to send arms shipments to Islamists in Somalia. In March 2008, Iran signed a military agreement with Sudan. In May 2008, it further boosted its ties with Eritrea, signing trade and investment agreements. Again, the following year, in April 2009, IRAN and Eritrea, together with Algeria, agreed to expand their bilateral cooperation. Iran has a frightening influence and control in North Africa, which greatly intensified with the unrest that began erupting in Arab states in early 2011. The Tunisian government fell in January into the hands of the radical Muslims. The Ennahda party, the Islamist party banned under the dictatorship of Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, quickly emerged as probably the most powerful political force in the country. In October 2011, the Islamists party won the nation’s first free elections since independence in 1956. That is almost exactly what happened in Egypt when its first-ever free elections ushered in the Muslim Brotherhood in 2012. However, it didn’t take long before discontent surged against the hard-liner Ennahda. Assassinations of two prominent opposition figures in 2013 threatened another revolution in Tunisia. It was only averted when rival factions negotiated a peaceful abdication of the elected Islamist government. Tunisia then elected the secular-nationalist Nidaa Tounes Party. Its candidate, Beji Caid Essebsi, became president. Essebsi, however, is a former official of the ousted Ben Ali regime. He has come under fire for Tunisia’s failing economy and for terrorist attacks that have crippled Tunisia’s tourism industry. Again, it is a scenario not much different from Egypt’s.

Iran has also heavily infiltrated Yemen and Bahrain, and it is deeply entrenched in Afghanistan. Many moderate Arab nations fear, and are afraid to offend, IRAN.

Here is what the Islamic Affairs Analyst of May 13, 1992, said: “The main strategic aim of Iran is to dominate the Persian Gulf and environs. An important step in achieving this goal is to GAIN UNDISPUTED LEADERSHIP OF THE RADICAL ISLAMIC CAMP.” Many of the good intelligence reports about Iran have proven true. Do we see just how powerful Iran is becoming militarily? Prof. Barry Rubin wrote in 2007, “IRAN tries to extend its influence in THREE ways: propaganda and incitement; the promotion of client groups, and projecting the state’s own power. Today, IRAN sponsors radical Islamist groups in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and among in Palestinians as well as in other countries. Its two most important clients are Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Palestinian Hamas group (Global Politician, July 25, 2007).” [the Trumpet]

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links and any text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Eligah Barrett