COVID Tyranny Demands Mass Resistance


Criminally elected CCP-Dementia Biden and comrades are using COVID as a vehicle to extend control over people and cement ONE-Party tyranny in all of America’s governance. Begin to peacefully throw off the bonds of despotism and prepare for Dem-Marxist violent reprisals to your Patriotic RESISTANCE. Justin Smith examines the increasing COVID tyranny in America.

JRH 4/2/21

I need your generosity in 2021 via – credit cards, check cards

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account:

Please Support NCCR

Or if donating you can support by getting in the Coffee from home business making yourself extra cash – OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee, that includes immune boosting products. Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!

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

COVID Tyranny Demands Mass Resistance  

The “New Normal” Suppresses Vaccine Dissenters – Strip Democrats of All Claims of Legitimacy 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 4/1/2021 1:38 AM

America is now at the mercy of Her COVID Idiots, unless people with common sense and viable, accurate knowledge start implementing measures to halt the madness of those people who seek to use COVID-19 as the excuse to end freedom and liberty in America, for many years far into the future, and despite all assurances by Joe Biden that he does not seek to make the COVID Vaccine mandatory, many others within his party have recently pushed to make it mandatory for military members. Many Democratic Party mayors and Governors, Marxists and Maoists of all stripes, the media and much of Corporate America too, the advocates of “the New Normal”, are pushing the mandatory vaccine movement like never before, as they mull over what is to be done with the rest of us, the “COVID deniers and those who have sworn never to take the suspect “vaccine”.

The Food and Drug Administration granted Emergency Use Authorizations for three experimental “vaccines” after less than five months of clinical trials, with most of the trial data still in the making. All three vaccines will be in clinical trial status through January 31, 2023. 

Prior to the COVID EUAs, many scientists were on the record in September 2020 and noting that no vaccine had ever been distributed on an EUA basis. As explained by Dr. Peter Hotez, regarding COVID, he states:

“We don’t do EUAs for vaccines. It’s a lesser review; it’s a lower-quality review, and when you’re talking about vaccinating a large chunk of the American population, that’s not acceptable.”

Many people who have been thoroughly frightened by Dr. Anthony Fauci’s propaganda have basically accepted that the COVID Vaccine Passport is a public health measure that will liberate America from further lockdowns, but Florida and South Dakota didn’t implement any lockdowns and both states fared far better than states that did.

Dr. Naomi Wolf warns:

I am not overstating this. I can’t say forcefully enough. This is literally the end of human liberty in the West of this plan unfolds as planned. Vaccine passports sound like a fine thing if you don’t understand what these platforms can do …

It’s not about the vaccine. It’s not about the virus. It’s about your data. And once this rolls out you don’t have a choice about being part of the system. What people have to understand is that any other functionality can be loaded onto that platform with no problem at all. What that means is that it can be merged with your PayPal account, with your digital currency, Microsoft is already talking about merging it with payment plans. Your networks can be sucked up. It geolocates you wherever you go. Your credit history can be included. All of your medical history can be included.”

On March 31, 2021; the Tennessee State Legislature advanced a bill, SB187/HB13, that prohibits government mandates for COVID-19 vaccines and allows religious exemptions, regardless of any ongoing “pandemic”, after hundreds of Tennesseans rallied in Legislative Plaza to support the initiative. The subsequent eight to one vote by the Senate Health and Welfare Committee marked a victory for Americans who support the principles of limited government and greater individual freedom. 

While several states, such as Tennessee, are moving ahead with legislation to prevent state and local authorities from forcing, requiring or coercing anyone to take the COVID vaccine against their will, America is witnessing a horrible trend occurring in other states and all across the world. New York state, under the guidance of its unindicted human rights criminal, Governor Cuomo, has just announced its COVID Vaccine Passport, the Excelsior Pass, while California and Illinois also move in this direction. And Nico Johnson, journalist for The Post Millennial, was just detained at the Canadian border and placed in a “COVID hotel”/jail for three days, at the cost of $1000, even though he tested negative when he got on his flight into Canada. These are not isolated cases or incidents. 

And yet, we see hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, shoulder to shoulder, many testing COVID positive, surging across the southern border and into Biden’s cages or flown to Northern U.S. cities and released. So, in essence, we see a bifurcation of people where, in some countries, invaders are welcomed into a country and treated with kid gloves, while in others, a citizen trying to re-enter their own country with a valid passport is detained and fined between $1000 to $2000. It just depends on whether one belongs to the privileged population or not.

Yesterday, March 30th, Aaron Sibarium reported:

President Joe Biden’s COVID team appears to have entertained an electronic test-and-trace program pioneered by the University of Illinois that would have let businesses deny services to patrons based on their health data, a PowerPoint presentation obtained by the Washington Free Beacon shows. The program has eerie echoes of China’s surveillance system, which uses data from citizens’ phones to impose quarantines.”

An in depth analysis illuminates the fact that employers are not allowed by law to arbitrarily bar employment, due to one not being vaccinated, either. Overcoming the long-standing protections of the right to the integrity of one’s own body and being informed, as well as any medical treatment requiring voluntary consent of the individual, requires articulation of the existence of an actual and imminent threat, rather than a theoretical threat presented by an unvaccinated individual in any workplace. And in conjunction with this, the CDC, the National Institute of Health and numerous other public health authorities have stated that there isn’t any evidence proving that vaccination prevents the viral COVID infection or its transmission. 

But this doesn’t help in the face of private businesses refusing service. That is a separate issue that will eventually need to be resolved in a manner that protects and defends freedom and liberty for all Americans, by Americans who still want to see a free America last long into the future. 

Regardless of where the command originates, Americans and people everywhere should refuse to take this current COVID “treatment”, that is not a true vaccine, since it is already directly responsible for 1750 American deaths in three months time, which is double the amount from all other vaccines over the past decade. This is nothing less than mass murder by a so-called “vaccine” that supposedly prevents or lessens the effects of catching COVID-19. And the powers-that-be call this “modern science”.

But then again, maybe we shouldn’t be surprised to see this sort of development and program from people who think they are smarter than everybody else and should therefore be running the world. These are people who have actually gone so far as to propose “depopulating the world”, in past statements, time and again, and yet, the Sheep of America and elsewhere gather to stand in line to receive the State’s poison for a “virus” that has never once been scientifically separated, purified, isolated and identified, or even proven to actually exist.

[Blog Editor: There is a depopulation agenda allegedly to better the existence of planet Earth (not so much Earth’s human population) by this globe’s Leftist (actually neo-Communist) Elites. Too often exposing “depopulation” is relegated as Conspiracy Theory even though the Left’s own words indict them. Since I am of the age that seems to be a target of Leftist depopulation, I am quite annoyed by ignored facts relegated to “nothing to see here” propaganda. ERGO, here are some posts on depopulation:

Posted by Chembuster

16517 subscribers – February 11th, 2021 13:30 UTC]

The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on vaccines, health care, reproductive services, we could lower that by perhaps ten or fifteen percent.” ~ Bill Gates

World population needs to be decreased by fifty percent.” ~ Henry Kissinger [Blog Editor: Found two locations of quote: Depopulation of the Masses Has Begun & The masters of the universe will decide who lives & who will die]

The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it.”  ~ Margaret Sanger

A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.”  ~ George Bernard Shaw

Population control will now become the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy.”  ~ Hillary Clinton 

Look for the death count to rise as millions more people are jabbed and receive this toxic, lethal “vaccine”. With each passing day, that the American people accept the false claim that these “vaccines” are necessary, to counter a virus with a 99.8 percent survival rate, the death count will grow exponentially larger, quite likely surpassing the number of deaths caused by COVID.

A more important issue must also be considered. Mass inoculation of children with this unstable medical treatment, this mass “vaccination” of children, must be stopped immediately, since it has been well-documented and verified that children rarely contract this “new virus” and they fight it off fairly easily when they do catch it. One must wonder how many children will die from the vaccine who would never have come remotely close to dying from COVID-19; now that’s something to think about.

No matter if the gatherings are work or celebratory or simple social in nature, businesses are now demanding proof of vaccination, from travelers and people seeking to view a public event, such as a concert, ball game and even a movie, as they advance the false narrative that once the majority of people are jabbed with one of the experimental COVID-19 vaccines, the virus will theoretically be stopped from spreading on all modes of public transportation and other mass gatherings among low-risk populations. However, all of the relevant government agencies have already clearly stated that vaccines do not prevent infection or the spread of infection, and this also exhibits further that vaccines have little to no bearing on achieving herd immunity within America.

Even the World Health Organization, a hardline advocate for the vaccines, has contradicted its own information as it recently admitted:

We do not know whether the vaccines will prevent infection and protect against onward transmission.”

There isn’t any place for people like me in this “New Normal” society, where people who resist and refuse to comply with these tyrannical moves against a once free society are viewed with suspicion by the Marxist, Maoist Cancel Culture ilk, as though we are an alien tribe of people, who just appeared in America one morning. Our ideological beliefs are those that founded America, not the truly foreign ideas of Karl Marx now being pressed forward by those currently holding our federal government in their power-hungry hands, as we are repulsed by their loyalty rituals, such as donning their useless masks and getting in line for their less than trustworthy “vaccine”.

So, they are discussing the need to segregate us, to cull us out of their elitist oriented society where Party is All and All stand together for and under the banner of the Democratic Party Communist banner. They need to expel us or end us, in order to protect their vision for society, for we are the “criminals” in their eyes, a plague and an infestation, even though they are the very people who are violating the Constitution and Our Bill of Rights and our Inalienable God-Given Rights on a daily basis. Getting rid of the unvaccinated dissenters is of the utmost importance to the growth and advancement of their tyrannical ideology. 

The-Powers-That-Be remind us that nobody is forcing us to get vaccinated, all the while they restrict everyone from normal, everyday interaction in society without it, or a “test” we have to submit to — a nine-inch swab rammed into one’s sinus cavities — in order to hopefully see a “negative” result, before we can attend a public event or enter a restaurant, a school or a playground. Pass a test and we are allowed to participate in the New Normal society, just as though we’d been vaccinated. Regardless of whether one takes a COVID swab test or the vaccine, however one looks at this mess, it’s a psychological warfare operation, for the moment, solely focused on eliciting the mindless obedience of all Americans. 

In the first few months of 2021, nothing has been made more apparent than the fact that Americans who love Freedom and Liberty will find it necessary to refuse to obey many of the institutions and leading authorities which America’s system of government has long relied upon, as oligarchs behind the curtains are manipulating it all today. The illiberal, anti-God beliefs dismiss Heaven while supplanting their “narratives” for Truth, because they have placed themselves far beyond reason and any true principle worth considering, and in the process, they have also set in motion an agenda aimed at exacting humiliations from “the Deplorables” by way of coercion, intimidation, threats and ultimately even violence. 

It doesn’t matter how daunting the task may seem to break the Communist hold on our institutions and the corporate boards, since doing nothing only ensures their consolidation of power. As bad as the penalties have been for many individuals, it will definitely only grow worse, and this demands that we, the freedom loving Americans, separate ourselves from this oligarchy of Communist elitists, by stripping them of their claims of legitimacy and breaking their hold on power through mass resistance. And regardless of whether fear makes them retreat or they resort to force to win the day, pushing it to the edge in order to restore our Liberties is preferable to simply accepting the tyranny they offer in its place, even should this result in civil war. 

America’s totalitarians of the Democratic Party will continue full steam ahead to complete the transformation of America and end our Republic, unless American Patriots soon offer up some extreme and serious resistance on all fronts. Any resistance by good, decent and fine Americans who stand for the principles and virtues of our Founding, still has a large window of opportunity and a chance for victory, but that window is closing fast, and we must all think hard on where this will eventually end, if we do not fight the good fight, with every bit of our heart and soul, on to victory for all we hold dear.

By Justin O. Smith

___________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Embedded links and text embraced by brackets are by the Edited. Bold text indicates Blog Editor with Justin.

© Justin O. Smith

Answer the Call for Liberty – It’s Not Dark Yet


This submission by Justin Smith will make big tech censors explode. Why? Smith calls on Americans – If Courts fails to adjudicate criminal Election Fraud – to RESIST a Biden/Harris Dem-Marxist Election by any means necessary. I ask, “Are you Patriot or a Sheeple?” I guess you will act accordingly.

 

JRH 11/27/20

Your generosity is needed – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee, that includes immune boosting products. Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!

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

Answer the Call for Liberty – It’s Not Dark Yet  

Down a Path to Civil War – Don’t Wait for the Butt-Stroke

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 11/25/2020 6:16 PM

 

Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow … But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join you, never comes.”  ~ Milton Mayer, ‘They Thought They Were Free’

 

America’s Constitutional pillars have slowly been chipped away and hammered into near oblivion, by the American hating Democratic Party “Progressive” Communists and those squishy, weak-kneed Republicans who prefer “business as usual” to actually making a stand for freedom and liberty. Our Republic has been so diminished by Marxist and globalist efforts that it is now a failing Republic, one that has actually been failing for the past five decades, as the sun sets on Her and freedom and an unspeakable darkness prepares to cover Her land.

 

It’s not completely dark yet, but it’s sure headed in that direction.

 

Most Americans, who love this country of ours, full well understand that this Election has been an undisguised Banana Republic style coup, and it represents the Line In the Sand for the American Republic. There isn’t anywhere left to go for anyone wishing to remain free, wishing to see their family live free, and seeking to keep America a nation where freedom will ring for many centuries to come. The road ahead is wide and is taking Us down a path straight to civil war, a total breakdown of our institutions and economic collapse of mammoth proportions, and disaster on our foreign fronts and international relations.

 

Tout Biden’s supposed 80 million votes if one so desires, but what is a “win” gained by cheating and manufacturing some 10 million votes, if nothing, nothing at all. But cheating is part and parcel for Democrats, who have no shame and repeat often they will meet their goals “by any means necessary.”

Regardless of what one understands or doesn’t, America has a sad history of so many of Her people engaging in the Communist subversion of Her institutions for over a hundred years, as they absorbed the toxic propaganda tirelessly disseminated by foreigners, and their combined evil, the lies and the hate, has brought America to its current sorry juncture in Her history.

 

With time running out, every tactical decision by President Trump, from now to December 14th, will prove critical, since he currently appears to be fighting a rearguard battle to save America’s Constitutional moorings and America’s basic law, seen in our Founding documents and the Original Intent of the Founders, noted in writings such as The Federalist papers. President Trump has sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, even though sometimes he too has been guilty of violating it; but today, plenty of reason exists for him to do so now to the best of his ability, in order to save what is left of our Republic.

 

Very few days are left to provide incontrovertible evidence before the Courts, that seem to be reticent to act responsibly where so obvious and blatant massive election fraud and treason are in plain sight for all to see. Unless the Courts properly expedite matters and act honestly, President Trump will be left a narrow gap to pull victory from the jaws of his enemies.

 

President Trump has refused to concede, and rightly so, even though so many traitors in the Republican Party have called for him to do so. He will not and he cannot, because I do believe he loves America too much to leave his presidency in such an ignominious and demoralizing manner, and he also primarily wants to put to rest this nefarious criminal manipulation of our election systems, to set a better path ahead for the country and ensure such an evil and dastardly thing can never again take place in America.

 

All Americans, who are concerned over preserving freedom and liberty in the slightest, must support him in any possible way, in this death struggle between the forces of real change and the disgusting alliance of radical Democrats and weak, cowardly (or complicit, i.e. Mitt Romney [and any of his RINO Establishment Comrades]) Republicans, who have concerned themselves only with profiting from Washington, just as usual and as they always have done, since 1961.

 

Rather than let the system drag its heels because so many entrenched politicos and judicial activists hate Trump, if Trump does not have the concrete proof to shove in their faces but knows, as we all do, the preponderance of the evidence shows the election was stolen, he could quite probably roll the dice with martial law or simply walk away from the White House, after revealing his evidence and calling on the American people to refuse to recognize the Biden regime.

 

America was founded on the best ideas that came from Western philosophers, such as Jean Jacques Rousseau, Charles Montesquieu, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Adam Smith, along with the principles of Christianity. These ideas came largely from what these men had observed around them during their lifetimes and what could readily be seen in nature, giving birth to the term “Natural Law”. And, as most of our Founding Fathers took note of a “higher power” or a “Creator” and the majority were in fact Christians, they saw fit to acknowledge in the Declaration of Independence that our rights are inalienable God-given rights; they are not granted by other men, governments or the ideas of Karl Marx and his modern day followers.

 

Where in our founding documents are ideas similar to Marxist ideology? Anyone searching won’t find anything even close.

 

Joe Biden and his Marxist and Maoist supporters do not abide by the U.S. Constitution, except whenever they can use some clause within it to defend some illiberal position or “law” that serves to undermine and abrogate it further. They do not believe in the same founding principles that most decent Americans hold to be righteous and true and serve as the foundation for every branch of our government. Their communist ideology is the exact antithesis to freedom and liberty and serves to destroy the very Founding of America, which they currently hold as their stated goal.

 

And, after watching Biden’s press event on November 24th and the naming of his Cabinet, one can only note that the worst of the worse have been gathered to take America on Her final descent into Hell and a policy disaster on all fronts, whether one speaks of foreign or domestic policy.

 

During the campaign, it became readily apparent that Joe Biden is a tyrant in the making, supported by his little small-minded, intellectually handicapped Congresswomen of “The Squad” and ready to wreak more havoc on our Bill of Rights on multiple levels, if he is inaugurated to the presidency in January, regardless of the fact that he did not “win” the election, but rather stole it through the most massive criminal endeavor and Election Fraud scheme ever witnessed in U.S. history. We will see the destruction and tyranny emerge immediately as his Cabinet Idiot, John Kerry, the “Climate Envoy”, moves to ensure the massively destructive Green New Deal goes full steam ahead and more economy destroying measures are taken, as the U.S. is moved back into the Paris Accords in order to implement the global redistribution of U.S. wealth; and, we will also see Free Speech repressed through the same tyrannical “hate speech ‘law'” that is enforced in the European Union, and our right to keep and bear arms will immediately be set upon and eradicated, as full well already acknowledged by both Biden and his VP pick, Kamala Harris. And let us not forget the coming forced national lockdowns to battle the false “COVID crisis” and mandatory masks and vaccines.

 

Elections do have consequences. But in light of the known massive fraud, anyone with half the mind that God gave a chimpanzee absolutely recognizes Joe Biden and his people stole this election. Too many statistical incongruities and too many sworn cases already point to the fact, regardless of any federal judges reluctance to do the right thing and toss out hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots that don’t have signatures, that were sent to anyone with a mailing address whether they were a citizen or not, and where signatures don’t match or the rolls don’t match the number of ballots mailed. And let’s not ignore the fact that the down ballot votes aren’t matching the Presidential votes, or all the other statistical anomalies, such as seen in places like Wisconsin, not to mention Democratic Party election officials engaging in illegal acts to sway the election to Biden.

 

And the Democratic communist mainstream media, that is now on full display for all to see, does not have any problem in the slightest with the massive election fraud. They seemingly think any amount of fraud is tolerable, so long as their masters in the Democratic Party emerge victorious and the Marxist Communist ideology is codified throughout the new emerging system, soon to be forced upon the entire population.

 

Our system was founded to protect, defend and secure our Inalienable Rights, not destroy them, and whenever any person, group, Party or entity works to so egregiously and despicably eradicate and suppress those rights, they reveal themselves to be the “Enemy From Within”, that most of Us who served in the Armed Forces took oaths to defend America against, as well as defending against Her foreign enemies. These Democratic Party communists stand in stark contravention of the Constitution and show themselves to be illegitimate “leaders”, before they’ve ever been sworn in, and they must be resisted, disobeyed and obstructed every step of the way, if not imprisoned before ever getting day one in office.

 

That they will make a mockery of taking an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution says all one need to know about them, since their very platform goes against everything in the Constitution, and their radical followers, especially those in Black Lives Matter and Antifa, have already stated their intentions to utterly destroy America’s traditions, culture and Her very Founding.

 

[Blog Editor: Know your Communist enemy:

 

 

 

What about the rights of Marxists, some might ask? They have the same rights as everybody else. They can serve in government and advocate their “free giveaways”, but by right of “winning” an election, they cannot end the Founding and transform America away from Her Constitutional mooring, unless they wish to break the Social Contract with a majority of Americans who will never accept an authoritarian Socialist or Communist regime. They are full well free to practice Marxism in their communities and states, by redistributing their own wealth they have earned, but not at the expense of the American taxpayer and all America; if they wish not to adhere to those best practices of capitalism and freedom that built America and grew the greatest economy and prosperity on earth, they are free to do so on their own, without placing their irresponsible and ignorant failed economic philosophies on the backs of all America.

 

Joe Biden and The Squad are not free to fundamentally transform America or to impose Marxism, a liberty destroying ideology, upon all America. They are not free to abrogate the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution. They are not free to infringe upon Our Inalienable God-Given Rights.

 

And if any patriot should chance to meet some cud-chewing, drooling imbecile who does not have the first clue as to what has transpired, unlike the domestic enemies who know exactly what they have done, just pass him by. Anyone who at this point still thinks they are free in the sense God intended is sleepwalking through this world and he will only awaken when he is butt-stroked across the face by Biden’s ATF agent come to steal his GranPa’s double-barrel 12-gauge shotgun.

 

Anyone worth a pound of salt should not go quietly into this dark night that America faces, and they must fight against the coming tyranny. 

 

Some say there is nothing worse than civil war, but as I look at history and the evils and millions of deaths that transpired under dictators, such as Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Pol Pot and Mao, I must beg to differ, and I would also offer the words of Russian dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s passage in ‘the Gulag Archipelago’:

 

 “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?

 

If the President and his people do have the solid, incontrovertible proof of voting machine fraud, and I’m reasonably certain they do, with every institution that is responsible for America’s security having been revealed to be suspect at best, in one form or fashion, President Trump has no choice other than to declare martial law and call on America’s patriots to support him, followed by mass arrests and confiscations of all the assets of those involved in any manner with guilty knowledge of the conspiracy. And it follows that the Biden propaganda machine of the Communist mainstream media will necessarily need to be closed for business, until it is purged. President Trump simply can’t turn the government over to a gang of criminals and traitors, if he knows for a fact what they have done, bottom line.

 

President Trump must call the entire Supreme Court to the White House and present his proof  and lay it all out immediately, if he has it, as he informs them that they can either approve his actions as a matter of national security and extreme danger to the Republic, or they will find themselves named as co-conspirators, with all it implies. Any other course would be an act of cowardice, dereliction of duty and a violation of his own oath of office.

 

Raised in a different time, when people were much more free, I barely recognize my country and this nation any longer. The America I grew to love lives only in my memories today and in whatever wisdom I was able to impart to my children and grandchildren. She isn’t coming back anytime soon, so long as our system and institutions are so easily bastardized, manipulated and politicized towards the evil men do and goals incompatible with freedom and our Founding Principles.

 

There won’t be all that many to answer the call for freedom and liberty, since combat is a younger man’s job, for the most part, than my 63 years, but I’m game, when the time arrives. Only a small percentage will join the fight, whenever the right spark sets it in motion, but if one sees America worth saving, as I do, draw the sword, pick up the rifle, and ask no quarter or mercy, for there will be no honorable ending to the next civil war, should it arrive this year, next or sometime between now and 2027, and there won’t be any reconciliation either. Should our forces of truth, life and liberty emerge victorious, every single last one of the sorry radical and red Democratic Party Communist rat bastards who brought this on must pay with their lives, or at the very least, life in prison and exile. Losing is not an option, since it won’t afford us either of the last two choices.

 

Unity? Healing? What a damned joke.

 

Intelligent Americans have seen the communist inspired violence in our streets for years, and it has grown exponentially more intense and much more widely dispersed. We see what is being done to this America we love so well, as America no longer seems to be remotely unified as a nation and the opposing political sides no longer share any common values to act as a glue to hold the nation together.

 

Some wars from history started with a single bullet. Bullet or something else, the Americans who hold traditional America most dear and sacred understand what is coming. It’s inevitable. It’s there for anyone with eyes to see.

 

For far too long, the American people have given in to the demands of the Marxists, a little bit here and there, in a sort of appeasement and in the interest of peace. But I tell anyone paying attention that peace is not so sweet, nor life so dear, as to submit to illiberal tyrants, just to be secure, and miserable. I’d prefer death if I could no longer live free.

 

By Justin O. Smith

___________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text embraced by brackets and embedded links are by the Editor. The bruised but still fighting President Trump political cartoon sent by Justin Smith.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Consider History, Racism and Redemption


Justin Smith highlights the deception the Left has to actual history. The American Left imposes the bad news over the good news of history in an effort to transform the minds and hearts of Americans through violence, intimidation, twisted facts and outright lies.

 

JRH 6/25/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee, that includes immune boosting products.

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

Consider History, Racism and Redemption

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent June 23, 2020, 02:01:18 PM CDT

 

I wonder when they will start tearing down statues of Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia who was a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, and will they destroy or rename buildings and roads bearing his name?!???

 

Robert Byrd (younger days)

 

In a letter to Senator Theodore Bilbo (D-MS) in 1944, Senator Byrd declared:

 

“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side … Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

 

On one critical issue, Byrd broke ranks with his Democratic colleagues. In 1964, when the Civil Rights Act was being considered for passage on the Senate floor, Byrd filibustered for 15 hours, declaring at one point, “Men are not created equal today, and they were not created equal in 1776, when the Declaration of Independence was written…Men and races of men differ in appearance, ways, physical power, mental capacity, creativity, and vision.” Byrd would later apologize profusely for these opinions and his participation in the KKK.

 

According to Fox News, there are no less than 20 buildings, from universities to courthouses, and three highways wearing Byrd’s name, in honor of his “accomplishments”. Multiple buildings are named for him on the campus of Marshall University alone, which is, in fact, now calling for them to be renamed.

 

Upon Byrd’s death, he had allies even in the Civil Rights movement, with the NAACP at the time praising his legacy and his transformation from a former KKK member to a “stalwart supporter” of civil rights. Byrd’s evolution, however genuine or simply for political points and show, was even honored by then President Obama, after he died.

 

Once one starts erasing history, no one is safe from the destruction.

 

You may not like what a person stood for but rather than seeing any particular statue as an idol or representative of the bad the person did, try to understand why the statue was erected in the beginning. And if there’s nothing socially redeeming about the person and his actions over a lifetime, understand him and those actions through the prism of history, as a teaching tool to build a better society and prevent a repeat of those same horrible mistakes and deeds.

 

Often times, men associated with the Civil War, such as General Nathan Bedford Forest, did a good number of fine things before and after the war. Forest actually worked towards racial reconciliation and healing in America, despite false claims that he founded the KKK.

 

[Blog Editor: One should remember history is disseminated through the eyes of the victors. Nathan Bedford Forrest benefits as a historical enigma. Since the Confederate seceding States were not obliterated but defeated with the concept of restoration to the Union, depending on historical sources Forrest was a villain or hero. In today’s Leftist revisionist history obsesses with cancelling the past, Forrest is in the villain lane. With that in mind every source I consulted places Forrest in the beginnings of the KKK yet when questioned under oath in Congress in 1871 Forrest denied KKK association yet writings and interviews at the least KKK sympathies. I am listing several biography sources that connect Forrest to the KKK in varying degrees and one source indicating Forrest a proponent of Black civil rights later in life. None of the finger-pointing KKK biography sketches talk about the Forrest efforts on behalf of Memphis Black Americans after the Civil War.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

During a recent battle over his statue in Tennessee, Tennessee Rep. Micah Van Huss was defiant in a statement written during the brouhaha: “Leftists are free to choose not to look at these glorious monuments,” he wrote. “You want to blind yourself to history? Go ahead and live in your politically correct fantasy world. I live in the real world and will represent my constituents from that viewpoint. I won’t be bullied into pandering to your fragile feelings. I will stand by my heritage and the history of the greatest nation the world has ever seen.”

 

Further, a July 5th 1875 speech that was delivered to the Independent Order of Pole Bearers, a group of black Southerners in Memphis, Tennessee, got Forrest in trouble with Southern racists at the time, mostly because he dared to kiss a young black woman on the cheek when he accepted a bouquet of flowers from her.

 

Nathan Bedford Forrest bust-statue

 

Some quotes from the speech:

 

  • “This day is a day that is proud to me, having occupied the position that I did for the past twelve years, and been misunderstood by your race. This is the first opportunity I have had during that time to say that I am your friend. I am here a representative of the southern people, one more slandered and maligned than any man in the nation.”

 

  • “I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going.”

 

  • “I am your friend … We were born on the same soil, breathe the same air, and live in the same land. Why, then, can we not live as brothers? I will say that when the war broke out I felt it my duty to stand by my people. When the time came I did the best I could, and I don’t believe I flickered. I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong. I believe that I can exert some influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power to bring about peace.”

 

  • “When I can serve you I will do so. We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment.”

 

  • “Go to work, be industrious, live honestly and act truly, and when you are oppressed I’ll come to your relief.”

 

And now they are attacking former President Theodore Roosevelt who was not really a racist in any common sense of the word. Roosevelt was certainly not a racist in the Southern tradition of hating his colored “inferiors”, oppressing them, and murdering them. The type of racism Roosevelt adhered to was common among whites, especially educated whites, that held it is the White Man’s Burden to care for and uplift blacks:

 

One view proposes that whites have an obligation to rule over, and encourage the cultural development of people from other cultural backgrounds until they can take their place in the world economically and socially. The term “the white man’s burden” has been interpreted by some as racist, or possibly taken as a metaphor for a condescending view of “undeveloped” national culture and economic traditions, identified as a sense of European ascendancy which has been called “cultural imperialism”. An alternative interpretation is the philanthropic view, common in Rudyard Kipling’s formative years, that the rich (whites) have a moral duty and obligation to help “the poor” (coloreds) “better” themselves whether the poor (coloreds) want the help or not. [Blog Editor: Similar text in paragraph scroll or page search for “From David Cody, The growth of the British Empire” at this link – http://widercontexts.gyldendal.dk/theempire/TheWhiteMansBurden/post-reading.aspx]

 

This style of racism probably shouldn’t be called racism because that is misleading. We don’t have a modern term that expresses the prevailing belief of the ruling class of the time. Roosevelt’s outlook was one of benevolence such as one has for a child. Condescending perhaps but not evil.

 

But because his statue outside the Museum of Natural History in New York City depicts him as a white man of great stature with two men subordinate and trailing behind, one black and one Native American Indian, the censors and the revisionists are demanding its removal.

 

Teddy Roosevelt on horse with Native American & Black American statue

 

And it’s a damn shame, because history is so much more complicated than just a few years out of any one person’s life, a life that holds so many different possibilities and opportunities to do the right thing for all, to never ask for forgiveness or to one day seek redemption and beg for forgiveness.

 

By Justin O. Smith

___________________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text embraced by brackets and embedded links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

The Unacceptable Cost of Refugee Resettlement


Justin Smith tackles the issue of settling refugees from cultures that have zero allegiance to American culture and heritage and idiocy of the American Left complicit in destroying our American heritage. Essentially making the Many eradicate the One – ending E Pluribus Unum.

JRH 12/31/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee.

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

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

The Unacceptable Cost of Refugee Resettlement

Refugee Resettlement Is Not America’s Obligation 

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 12/28/2019 8:19 PM

 

Americans absolutely have the right to determine who, if anyone, enters the country, and it doesn’t violate any law or the Constitution to reject anyone claiming refugee status. So-called refugees do not have any automatic right to be granted entry, despite many leftist assertions to the contrary, and many of us are sick and tired of hearing our leaders’ cliched platitudes that suggest they have a “Big Heart”, much like Governor Bill Lee (R-TN), while they allow people into the country, who come to America to avoid fighting for their own countries; and, usually, of late, these refugees hold ideas and views so anti-American and so antithetical to the Constitution, that they eventually become a great disruptive factor to any community, as they work to undermine the nation.

 

On December 18th 2019, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee announced his decision to send a letter of consent to the Trump administration, in order to accept more refugees for resettlement next year. His decision coincides with those of other Republican governors who have also stated their intent to admit more refugees, such as Kim Reynolds of Iowa, Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, Doug Ducey of Arizona, Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma, Gary Herbert of Utah and Doug Burgum of North Dakota.

 

And of course, numerous Democratic led states, such as California, New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, Virginia and others have already submitted letters of consent or are making preparations to do so. According to U.S. State Department arrival records, resettlement has occurred in the District of Columbia, every U.S. territory and state since 2003.

 

The state of Tennessee still has a high-profile Tenth Amendment lawsuit in the works, that Governor Lee has essentially undermined through his consent letter, effectively infuriating legislative leaders who had sued the federal government. The lawsuit questions the constitutionality of the refugee resettlement program.

 

House Speaker Cameron Sexton and Lt Governor Randy McNally (TN) issued a joint statement: “Our personal preference would have been to exercise the option to hit the pause button on accepting additional refugees in our state.”

 

While more than a third of Tennessee’s 95 counties are preparing to challenge any refugee resettlement, so too are other counties around America, from North Dakota to Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Indiana to Vermont, New Hampshire and Wyoming. Burleigh County North Dakota heard its chairman, Brian Bitner, voice citizens’ concerns, stating: “North Dakota is already the highest per capita state for refugee resettlement in terms of number of citizens, so in the absence of any sort of number, there’s no way we could know the cost to the state or the county, and I simply can’t support that.”

 

President Trump signed an executive order that allowed all fifty states to decide whether to accept refugees or not, in September of this year, and it requires a written letter of consent. This isn’t any guarantee that refugees won’t settle in an area that initially rejected the refugee resettlement program, since they can travel from state to state and county to county; and regardless of this, many Americans simply don’t want any more anti-American refugees, such as Somalia born Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN), or Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) — American born but raised to hate America by her “palestinian” Muslim mother, given entry to our nation, since they sound and act more like agents of Hamas, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Hezbollah and Al Shabaab than someone interested in keeping America strong and free.

 

On August 26th 2019, Representative Ilhan Omar called for the government of Somalia to protect Hormuud Telecom Company, from United Nation peace-keepers, even though HTC has been financing the Al Shabaab terrorist organization for years. This link between Hormuud and Al Shabaab is well documented in the October 19th 2019 report compiled by the International Policy Group, entitled ‘Reaping the Whirlwind — Hormuud Entrepreneurs and the Resurgence of Al Shabaab’.

 

One should note that 45 Somali Muslims left their homes in Minneapolis to join the Somali based Al Shabaab Islamic terror group or ISIS, in 2007, as documented by FBI statistics. And as of 2018, a dozen more were arrested as they attempted to leave the U.S. for their expressed purpose of fighting for ISIS.

 

According to Steve Emerson of the Investigative Project, Representative Rashida Tlaib was photographed, in January 2019, with Abbas Hamideh, a Hezbollah supporter, and again in March with Nader Jalajel, a Palestinian activist who mourned the death of a Palestinian terrorist who had murdered a Jewish rabbi the previous year.

 

America has far too many natural born citizens who seemingly hate Her to be bringing in foreign nationals who hate America too, doesn’t She?

 

Refugees come from many countries across the globe, fleeing specific danger in their homelands, although the bulk of refugees have been from Iraq, Syria and Somalia since 2015; and a large number is comprised of people who simply wouldn’t fight for their war-torn countries. They come here too often simply from necessity, in their eyes, and safety, and not out of any sense of kindred spirit or love for the American way of life, our freedom and our liberty. And so, they set about life in their own tradition, with the same associated flaws that created the troubles in their country, regardless of its unseemly and foreign nature and cloistered within an American community.

 

Americans don’t want to see their neighborhoods permanently transformed into United Nations refugee camps filled with welfare dependents, as they now find in Minneapolis where the crime rate has soared exponentially, largely due to the rapid and massive influx of Somali Muslim refugees. According to Steven Camarota‘s 2015 study (The High Cost of Resettling {Muslim} Middle Eastern Refugees), it costs taxpayers $64,370 for each Muslim refugee, which is twelve times UN estimates to care for one refugee in surrounding Middle Eastern nations. Even worse, the crime rate rose by fifty-six percent in Minneapolis, between 2010 and 2018, due to criminal activity by Somali Muslim gangs.

 

For God’s sake, what is wrong with being a bit more discerning in regards of the refugees America accepts? Why can’t we accept more like Ayn Rand, staunch anti-communist defender of liberty, Dith Pran, Pulitzer prize winning photo-journalist and translator for U.S. Military Assistance Command (Cambodia) and Albert Einstein, a genius physicist and Nobel Laureate?

 

The United States granted an astronomical number of asylum requests in September 2019 to a combined 70,246 Afghan refugees and Special Immigration Visas (Afghan “allies”) and 161,665 Iraqi refugees and SIVs. The war in Iraq ended in 2011, so there really isn’t any excuse for U.S. taxpayers to be funding new lives in America for anyone from Iraq, other than the truly persecuted Christians who are still trapped in the region.

 

America spent enormous sums of money and lost thousands of fine men and women to give Iraqis a better path forward and a new chance to govern themselves as free men and women. Is there any good reason that justifies moving tens of thousands of Iraqis, or Syrians or Somalians for that matter, to any American town?

 

President Trump is only willing to give 18,000 refugees entry to America this year, which is the lowest number authorized since the program’s inception in 1980. In contrast, President Barack Obama was willing to accept 110,000 refugees in 2017.

 

Amid the current anti-open borders sentiment in America, the open borders crowd, the Leftists of America always seem to manage to move U.S. policy in the opposite direction, just as they are currently attempting through a lawsuit filed against President Trump’s executive order on November 21st 2019. Although public support for deceasing the numbers of legal immigration of all kinds is significant, the supporters are not well organized, unlike the Leftist coalition of ethnic churches and organizations that skillfully navigates the political arena in strong opposition to any proposal restricting any segment of legal immigration, including asylum seekers.

 

The lawsuit was filed in a Maryland federal court by lawyers representing the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and Church World Service. Shortly afterwards, Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president of LIRS, stated: “This executive order is unconstitutional and compassionless, and reflects a complete misunderstanding of the refugee resettlement process in this country.”

 

Over the past decade, Ann Corcoran, a refugee law and policy expert, has given America outstanding briefings on the issue. She outlines in great detail the ultimate conflict of interest, by which refugee contractors’ entire budgets grow commensurate to the number of refugees they resettle. The more communities they get on board with refugee resettlement, the more money they receive, and so their is nearly a knock down dragged out fight over all 3007 counties across America, with the goal of moving them to send letters of consent to the State Department.

 

Unbelievable as it seems, most Republican politicians are somewhat amenable to the one-sided pressure for all the wrong reasons, and in some cases, they [Blog Editor: i.e. (alleged) Conservative] are absolutely in the pockets of Open Borders Inc. And although conservatives have ceded a great deal of America to the Left, the refugee coalition has not ceded a single county; and so, thanks to many complacent and corrupt GOP politicians, refugee resettlement has thrived in the most conservative areas of the nation. The financial and cultural costs of refugee resettlement have been unacceptable and enormous.

 

On July 5th 2017, a report, entitled ‘The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program: A Roadmap for Reform’, written by policy analyst David Inserra noted that at least sixty-one people who came to the United States as refugees engaged in terrorist activities between 2002 and 2016. The report detailed scores of other refugees who lied or took part in terror plots, as part of a study aimed at reforming the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. The report concluded there was a need to place strict limits on refugee numbers and restrictions on the refugees themselves.

 

Surely every knowledgeable American understands full well that there isn’t any universal right to migrate, and resettlement isn’t the solution to mass displacement. Our policymakers have a duty and a responsibility to make certain our nation only accepts as many refugees as can be safely scrutinized, investigated and assimilated. More importantly, America is not obligated to resettle refugees, and the ones we do resettle, America does so from a humane perspective and in hopes that such actions will also benefit our national interests.

 

So, to all the naive shmucks and corrupt, complicit liars out in Fly-Over-Country, who are playing a dangerous game with American lives, place your “Big Heart” on full display, but ignoring a moral and constitutional duty to place American interests and American lives above those of foreign nationals’ needs is unconscionable and treasonous, at its best. Pressure Saudi Arabia, the United Emirates and Qatar to utilize their millions of dollars to resettle Muslim refugees in their own nations, as America works to facilitate the integration and assimilation of refugees it already has accepted, if and when such a feat is possible.  Don’t let your “Big Heart” drive all common sense from between your ears, while your platitudes set the further destruction of America in motion, since the perpetrators of future Islamic terror attacks are already here: And as such, America would be most wise to, at the very least, halt any more Muslims from coming to America.

 

By Justin O. Smith

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

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

_______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links and text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

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

America in Crisis


trump-gamble-hillary-a-known-destroyer

America is in a state crisis. If Crooked Hillary is elected President, that crisis will evolve into the destruction of the America the Founding Fathers envisioned. Justin Smith has some details for thought.

 

JRH 10/24/16

Please Support NCCR

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

America in Crisis

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 10/22/2016 1:47 PM

 

This isn’t just the fight of my life, it’s the fight of our lives — together — to save our country … Together we will make America strong again.” – Donald Trump in Charlotte, NC on August 18th

 

The future of America is at stake, and Donald Trump is the only clear choice when compared to Hillary Clinton, who will continue Obama’s agenda and introduce new and worse policies that will certainly exacerbate this current moment of crisis in America. Whatever flaws are associated with Trump; they pale in comparison to the machinations and malevolence behind the transformation Hillary s designing for America.

 

Donald Trump loves America, Her heritage and traditions. And Hillary Clinton obviously hates America and the U.S. Constitution and America’s founding principles.

 

Early this month, a fiercely disturbing and stomach-turning speech Hillary delivered to Brazilian bankers from Banco Itau was leaked, in which Hillary confesses [Canada Free Press] that she “dreams” of a “hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders”, essentially ending U.S. sovereignty and our existence as an independent nation. She envisions a superstate rising from a merger of North, Central and South America [Fox News – Newt Gingrich].

 

Can’t everyone understand the damage this would do? America as She has stood for over two centuries and Her framework for Freedom under the U.S. Constitution would be ultimately and completely destroyed, along with the Founding Fathers’ vision of a place of never-ending all-encompassing Liberty for all, and Hillary’s fellow Commie Travelers would be ecstatic [Townhall].

 

With thousands of non-citizens found to be registered to vote in 95 counties and 38 cities across Pennsylvania and Virginia over the past few weeks, thanks to an American Civil Rights Union lawsuit, America once more sees the lengths the “progressives” and ruling elites will go to reach their goal, as they oppose photo ID laws in order to advance a globalist agenda at America’s expense [Michelle Malkin]. This alone represents an excellent reason to vote for Donald Trump, who favors photo ID laws, upholding existing immigration laws and utilizing E-Verify and intense scrutiny of immigrants from regions that breed Islamic terrorism.

 

The last chance to restore America is slipping away, as Donald Trump explained on Christian Broadcasting’s Brody File” on September 9th: “I think this will be the last election if I don’t win … because you’re going to have people flowing across the border, you’re going to have illegal immigrants coming in and they’re going to be legalized and they’re going to be able to vote, and once that all happens, you can forget it.” [Bold & Italics by Blog Editor]

 

Paying $250,000 a person [Breitbart], a thousand homos listened to Hillary speak at the LGBT Gala at Cipriani Wall Street (and progressives call me “stupid”). She called Trump supporters “the deplorables, the racists, and the haters, and the people who … think [Trump is] going to restore an America that no longer exists. … {Adding) “So, just eliminate them from your thinking.”

 

When Hillary and her plutocratic LGBT lovers laugh and mock Trump supporters, they are mocking the Silent Majority and the generation that brought America through the Great Depression and young American patriots of similar strength of character. They mock those Americans residing in red states like Tennessee, Kentucky, Texas and West Virginia, that have provided a disproportionate share of U.S. Armed Forces members who fought and died to guarantee Hillary’s freedom to receive $250 million dollars to mock them.

 

Even worse, without freedom of speech and freedom of religion, guaranteed and protected in the First Amendment to our Constitution, a path is cleared for government oppression and tyranny. And yet, Hillary Clinton has stated that she will present an amendment to the Constitution to abridge that right within thirty days of becoming President [The Nation], in order to “stand up against mean and divisive rhetoric wherever it comes from.” [Townhall] Of course, Hillary and her “progressives” will define what is or isn’t “hate-speech.”

 

And while Hillary may not admit she’s here “to take away your guns”, touting “common sense” gun laws, she does promote suing gun manufacturers [Breitbart], if a gun made by them was used in a crime, despite being sold legally. This works against the 2nd Amendment by putting gun manufacturers out of business.

 

Donald Trump may not always articulate the subjects well, but he stands strong for life and the rights of the unborn child. He advocates for the right to “keep and bear arms and the entire Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution; and, he stands for law and order, which has brought him endorsements from the U.S. Border Patrol, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Rifle association and one thousand Christian Evangelical pastors across America.

 

The latest batch of WikiLeaks emails has revealed a 2011 [Christian Post] email conversation between Hillary’s Campaign Chairman John Podesta and John Halpin from the Center for American Progress. Halpin wrote that the conservative movement within the Catholic Church is “an amazing bastardization of the faith … They must be attracted to the … severely backwards gender relations …”.

 

It’s not a leap of logic to say that Hillary quite probably agrees with Halpin, since she suggested that Christians must change their religious beliefs and accept the expansion of abortion in 2015. Clinton stated [Washington Post]: “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will … And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

 

One should note that Hillary supports partial birth abortions [LifeNews.com\. She also wants U.S. taxpayers to subsidize this atrocious social ill [LifeNews.com].

 

Hillary’s agenda attacks the very foundations of U.S. Constitutional government. She is working to end the independence for which our Founding Fathers fought the American Revolution.

 

If Trump is “a gamble” as some pundits have suggested, I’ll take that gamble today, tomorrow and everyday forward over the known quantity of evil Hillary brings to the table.

 

In every moment of crisis in America’s history, our nation has had a moment of opportunity. Donald Trump represents that moment and our one best chance in decades to shake up the status quo in D.C. and restore American leadership domestically and around the world. He will fumigate the D.C. snake-pits and make the ruling elites writhe like a beast in the throes of death. He will halt Hillary’s attempts to oppress the American people and destroy the Constitution, and in so doing, he will have preserved freedom and liberty for all, our Children and their Children’s Children.
Justin O. Smith

____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text embraced by brackets are by the Editor. Text embraced by parentheses are by Justin Smith. All links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

Judeo-Christian Values are in U.S. Constitution


Constitution for moral & religious people -John Adams

John R. Houk

© March 14, 2015

 

Below is a comment dialogue between myself and Sifu Mode from the SlantRight 2.0 post “Religion and the Constitution”. My 3/14/15 response is the meat of this post. I am guessing Sifu is one who intentionally or unintentionally supports the concept of a Living Constitution. I am definitely one who stands with the Original Intent Constitution.

 

##

Sifu Mode

Mar 5, 2015

 

Anyone who believes Constitutional rights don’t apply to any person or class is irrational and wrong.

##

John Houk

Mar 9, 2015

 

Anyone who believes the Original Intent of the Constitution changes with the whims of immoral Leftists is wrong and manipulative.

##

Sifu Mode

Mar 9, 2015

 

Original intent was that everyone is included regardless of religious beliefs so I have not advocated for changing it, you are.

##

John Houk

3/13/15 12:00 PM

 

Actually Sifu Original Intent was freedom to worship as you please (or not), but the rule of law was viewed through the Christian perspective. Read the beginning and ending of Constitution and the entire Declaration of Independence factoring in each State’s Constitution which were never Federally abrogated by the U.S. Constitution.

##

Sifu Mode

3/13/15 12:24 PM

 

+John Houk 
but the rule of law was viewed through the Christian perspective

This sentence does not make sense in context of the meaning of “rule of law”.

Rule of Law means there is NO ruler. The ruler is replaced by the law. This means nobody is above the law. All are equally subject to the same treatment by law.

Now to say that laws were often based on the values commonly taught by the Christian religion is pretty fair. To assume those values are in perfect parallel or exclusive to the Christian religion is a massive fallacy.

Edit: and the Constitution is not any part of those laws. The Constitution constitutes the creation of a federal government with ONLY an explicit set of powers limiting that government to never infringing on natural rights.

###

John Response to Sifu 3/13/15

3/14/15

 

Rule of Law means there is NO ruler. The ruler is replaced by the law. This means nobody is above the law.

 

Sifu you are sorely mistaken! The “Rule of Law” means the law rules the land as opposed to the Rule of Man which implies a man or an oligarchy of men rule the land. Men rule by a pen and a phone (edict) are not subject to laws. When law is the rule no man is above the law. In Western Culture laws are derived from a heritage. The West’s heritage is Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian influences. This heritage is the reason Western nations that don’t have a Third World element thus have evolved a Representative Democratic form of government in laws have replaced men as the ruler.

 

To assume those values are in perfect parallel or exclusive to the Christian religion is a massive fallacy.

 

Even the Democratic-Socialist Representative governments of Europe demonstrate the laws have an exclusivity to Judeo-Christianity – although that exclusivity is being eroded by culture destroying Multiculturalism. In America Multiculturalism only has a mere toe-hold because Left Wing Democrats and the Mainstream Media (MSM) have been ramming the concept down American throats.

 

As long as constitutional interpretation is via Original Intent rather than the make it up as you go along Living Constitution (Rule of Man), the Judeo-Christianity inherent in American culture and intended by America’s Founding Fathers will be preserved which has made America great.

 

Once Multiculturalism gains more than a toe-hold in America then the erosion of the Christian heritage that has made America exceptional so that the world’s poor dream of coming to America for a better life. The secularist value system promoted primarily by America’s Left is eroding American culture by a determined effort to dilute our Judeo-Christian influence to the point of actually belittling Christianity and calling Bible believing Christians bigots. Once Biblical values are replaced with the acceptance of concepts such as homosexual acceptance and allowing counter-American culture concepts such as despotic Sharia Law that is derived from a specifically antisemitic and antichrist religion known as Islam, then America’s values derived from Judeo-Christianity will cease to exist. America will cease to be exception followed by America ceasing to be great.

 

Edit: and the Constitution is not any part of those laws. The Constitution constitutes the creation of a federal government with ONLY an explicit set of powers limiting that government to never infringing on natural rights.

 

Sifu either the Constitution is wholly a part of “those laws” or it is a piece of paper that exists to provide citizens an illusion of the existence of the Rule of Law meaning the Rule of Man is the reality and America is despotic and America has never been exceptional and thus America’s greatness is an illusion. That doesn’t sound like the same America I have studied nor is it the America I have grown up in from birth to the present (58 years). AND my elementary and secondary school learning occurred prior to the American Left making their efforts to revise history in text books and in class curriculum.

 

Now the Constitution did constitute the creation of a Federal government with three Branches designed in such a way that one Branch does not dominate the other. To prevent Branch domination the Constitutional Rule of Law provides for Checks and Balances. Once those Checks and Balances are breached by any Branch then despotism will ensue that will replace the Rule of Law with an oligarchic Rule of Man.

 

Part of those Checks and Balances is the influence of Judeo-Christianity and the Constitution maintaining that laws not mandated to the Federal government is under the sovereignty of the several State governments.

 

An essay by David W. New provides an astute observation the God of Christianity and the U.S. Constitution in terms of Original Intent, State Constitutions and the Federal government:

 

Where is “God” in the Preamble to the Constitution?

 

Secularists are very quick to point out that the word “God” does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. They claim that this is highly significant. It proves that the United States should not be ‘under God’ in their opinion. Of course, they are correct in one point. The word “God” does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution or anywhere else. However, it is doubtful that this fact has the kind of significance they claim it has. Generally, the word “God” will appear in two places in most constitutions. The first place is in the preamble to the constitution. The second place is in the religion clauses in the bill of rights. For example, the word “God” appears in the preamble in eight state constitutions. In four states, the “Supreme Ruler of the Universe” is used instead. By far, the most popular divine reference in a preamble is “Almighty God.” This appears in the preamble of 30 state constitutions. In some states, the state constitution does not have a preamble. However, a divine reference can be found in the religion clauses in the bill of rights in each instance. There is only one state constitution which has a preamble that does not have a divine reference of any kind. This is the Constitution of Oregon. But here the words “Almighty God” appear in the state religion clauses. In the case of the U.S. Constitution however, no divine reference appears in either the Preamble or in the religion clauses in the First Amendment. Why is this true?

 

The most likely reason why the word “God” does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is textual. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is modeled after the Preamble in the Articles of Confederation. Since the Articles of Confederation did not use the word “God” in the Preamble, this is the most likely reason it does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The Preamble in the Articles of Confederation began by listing all 13 states. It began as follows: “Articles of Confederation and perpetual union between New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, etc. . . . . and Georgia.” When the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution was first drafted, this was the model that was used. Later, as the constitutional convention was coming to a close, a short form was agreed to. The 13 states were dropped in favor of the much simpler form We the People. Thus, rather than trying to establish a radical godless state, the most likely reason the word “God” does not appear in the Preamble was because the Articles of Confederation did not have it. It is doubtful that anyone in 1787 could have foreseen the development of radical secularists groups like the ACLU and their ‘spin’ on the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

 

Where is “God” in the First Amendment?

 

The most likely reason why the word “God” does not appear in the First Amendment is textual as well. Here however the textual reason is due to the subject matter of the First Amendment. The religion clauses in the First Amendment are very different from the religion clauses in most state constitutions. The subject of the religion clauses in the First Amendment is the government or “Congress.” This is not the case with most state constitutions. In most state constitutions the subject is the individual. This difference in the subject matter is the reason the word “God” does not appear in the First Amendment’s religion clauses. Let’s compare the religion clauses in the First Amendment with the most popular religion clause used in the United States. Most states copy from the religion clauses found in the Pennsylvania Constitution. In particular, the first sentence appears in many state constitutions which says: “All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences . . .” The subject of the clause is clear. It is “All men.” The New Hampshire Constitution which copied from Pennsylvania uses’ better wording. It says “Every individual . . .” In either case, the individual is the subject of the clause. Thus, a major difference between the religion clauses in the First Amendment and most state constitutions are their points of view. The First Amendment was written from the point of view of the government. Most state constitutions were written from the point of view of the individual. In addition, the religion clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution protects a “natural right” of an individual to worship “Almighty God” according to conscience. Since the focus of the religion clause is on the “right” of an individual, the word “God” naturally appears. This is not the case with the First Amendment. Here the focus is on the role of the government. There are two religion clauses in the First Amendment. They consist of 16 words as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ” The first clause is known as the Establishment Clause. The second clause is known as the Free Exercise Clause. The subject of the First Amendment is clearly the “Congress.” The purpose of the First Amendment is to bar the Federal Government from interfering with the freedom of religion in the United States. Congress may not establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion in America. Since the purpose of the First Amendment is to stop any abuse by the Federal Government against religion, this explains why the words “God” “natural right” “worship” or “conscience” do not appear. Rather than trying to promote a radical secularist philosophy, the most likely reason the framers did not use the word “God” in the First Amendment is because the subject is Congress.

 

Where is “God” in the Constitution?

 

The mistake modern secularists make is obvious. They take a twentieth century concept like “secularism” and read it back into the Constitution. They take a concept that didn’t even exist in the eighteenth century and attribute it to the framers of the Constitution. Unfortunately, this is a very common mistake. The fact that the word “God” does not appear in the Constitution means little. It is actually a rather shallow observation. The reality is “God” is in every word of the Constitution, including the punctuation. Below the surface of the words in the Constitution, there are a mountain of ideas that made its formation possible. The belief that God exists and that all nations of the world are subject to Him sits on the summit of that mountain. As the Supreme Court of Florida said in 1950: “Different species of democracy have existed for more than 2,000 years, but democracy as we know it has never existed among the unchurched. A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the ten commandments and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalog and the ethics of Jesus . . . No one knew this better than the Founding Fathers.” (Where is God in the Constitution? By David W. New, Esq.; posted by Ed Current; Free Republic; posted 12/10/2004, 5:38:41 PM; Originally from Faith and Action [dead link]; November 04)

 

Sifu God is in the Constitution.

 

Further Reading:

 

How Did the Bible Influence the U.S. Constitution? (eHow.com)

 

Rule of Law Legal Definition (Duhaime.org)

 

Rule of law (TheFreeDictionary.com – Legal Dictionary)

 

JRH 3/14/15

Please Support NCCR

__________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Serving The Truth


Common Core Marxist NWO

Can’t America see the alignment of Common Core “standards” with Karl Marx’s postulate on education and Obama’s desire to fundamentally transform America? – Justin Smith

 

Justin Smith exposes the Left Wing nature of Common Core State Standards as it is affecting his home state of Tennessee; however the analysis could be applicable to every State in the Union.

 

See Also:

 

Common Core is Tool to Produce a Commie Corps – 7/11/14

 

Authoritarian FantasyLand: A Place With Required Habits of Mind but Disdain for Facts – 10/24/14

 

JRH 11/30/14

Please Support NCCR

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

Serving The Truth

The Truth And An Ideological Battle

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 11/29/2014 8:30 PM

 

Many states, including Tennessee, are now attempting to extricate themselves from Common Core State Standards, after extensive research has proven them to be much more than an innocuous improvement on the long-standing public education system. The American people now see the subterfuge of CCSS and the intentions of the marxofascist Progressive Democrats to coopt the program in order to affect psychological changes and an alteration in the character of the American people through propaganda presented as fact and indoctrination.

 

In this light, the ‘Our View’ editorial from the November 23rd ‘Daily News Journal’ [Blog Editor: I could only find 11/22/14 DNJ editorial] is reprehensible and despicable. More than a simple “ideological scuffle”, as the DNJ named it, Common Core represents an ideological battle that will ultimately prove to be the most important component of the “21st century complexities of life, labor and liberty,” that they referenced. And yet, the DNJ urges TN State Rep. Rick Womick and “like-minded colleagues” not to “waste a lot of time, energy and resources” in battling CCSS and to essentially abandon the conservative ideas based on individualism, Western philosophies, Judeo-Christian principles and liberty – Our American Heritage – in favor of Progressive socialism, anti-American fallacies and false assumptions, atheism and more authoritarian, centralized government control over our lives and America’s children.

Common Core was originally intended to create new standards only in English Language Arts (ELA) and math in grades K – 12. Science standards were practically ignored. And now, in practice, CC goes far beyond just English and Math standards.

Very little research or analysis was conducted on Common Core prior to its adoption, and the members of the validation committee were required to sign non-disclosure agreements, as the public was initially kept well in the dark on CC. Of the members on the validation committee, there was one ELA expert, Dr. Sandra Stotsky, and one math expert, Dr. Jim Milgram, and neither one of them would sign off on it.

 

On November 13th, TN State Sen. Bill Ketron told an assembly of State Legislators, Murfreesboro City and Rutherford County School Board Councilmen that, during a recent conversation with Gov. Haslam, the Governor suggested he could beat any upcoming bill that attempts to remove Tennessee schools from CCSS, and Haslam had assurances from Lt Gov. Ramsey that such bills would fail. This will soon be tested, since Senate Bill 4 and House Bill 3 were recently filed in the Tennessee Legislature, in order to create “Volunteer State Standards” and stop Common Core expansion beyond this school year.

 

There exists many great reasons for all fifty states to permanently exit from CCSS, with all its flaws and predilection towards conformity, as exposed by Dr. Duke Pesta, who travels the nation speaking against Common Core, using the following example: Three students were instructed to collaborate on a math problem. One student answered correctly and two had wrong answers. The student who solved the problem correctly was marked “wrong”, because he went against the group. So, in the world of CC, consensus is everything and independent thought be damned.

 

One more enormous problem exists, because the College Board that wrote the Advanced Push U.S. History Redesign Framework is also headed by the architect of Common Core, David Coleman. Pay especially close attention to the word “redesign”.

 

The Framework omits Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Dwight Eisenhower and many other key figures, as it gives one brief mention of George Washington and refers to the Declaration of Independence in just one clause of one sentence; it casts America in a negative light and forces teachers to instruct students in a leftist blame-America first reading of history, tearing apart everything good and decent America was built upon and omitting traditional presentations of our Founding Principles.

 

Look on page 74 of the Framework and one finds that teachers are given the flexibility to use examples such as Students for a Democratic Society and the Black Panthers. On the other hand, please note that Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. are omitted from U.S. history.

 

A blatant, overt attempt to portray capitalism in a negative light is found on page 64: “A number of critics challenged the dominant corporate ethic in the United States and sometimes capitalism itself, offering alternative visions of the good society through Utopianism and the Social Gospel.”

 

George Washington doesn’t merit mention in AP U.S. History because he held slaves. This is a low and arbitrary slap in the face of all Americans and all real scholars, as cheap academics and untrustworthy curriculum become the new academic standard; the Progressives have rationalized and justified the evisceration of history, but in so doing, they put on display their own intellectual dishonesty.

 

In association with CC, the incredibly invasive Dept. of Education directive, ‘Promoting Grit, Tenacity and Perseverance’, demands public schools influence students’ non-cognitive development in dispositions, social skills and attitudes, which are independent of intellectual ability. To further this endeavor, schools are collecting more than 400 data points on every child through CC assessments, including their likes, dislikes, grade-point average, home situation and health questions from pre-K into the workforce.

 

Common Core builds a complete psychological profile. Any weaknesses in a child’s attitudes or values could be targeted for remedial indoctrination and education.

 

Can’t America see the alignment of Common Core “standards” with Karl Marx’s postulate on education and Obama’s desire to fundamentally transform America?

 

In ‘The Socialist Alteration of Man’ (1930) Lev Vygotsky, a Marxist Russian psychologist, writes, “It is education which should play the central role in the transformation of man this road of conscious social formation of new generations, the basic form to alter the historical human type … to reunite thinking and work which have been torn asunder during the process of capital development.”

 

The testimony of Lily Tang Williams, a former associate law professor at Fudan University in China and a legal immigrant living in Parker, Colorado, pounds the final nail in Common Core’s coffin:

 

“Common Core, in my eyes, is the same as the communist core I once saw in China … Nationalized testing, nationalized curriculum and nationalized indoctrination … I cannot believe this is happening in this country. I don’t know what happened to America, the shining city on the hill. Chinese children are not trained to be independent thinkers … they are trained to be massive skilled workers for corporations. And they have no idea what happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989 …”

 

Common Core proponents want students to view society’s problems and potential solutions through a collectivist worldview that serves the interests of a class, race, certain politicized groups and the State, rather than the truth, logic and rational thought. Creativity and innovation become grounded in emotion, and terms like “critical thinking skills” (red flag) become measures of a student’s acceptance or resistance to the radical changes in values, beliefs, feelings and behaviors that CCSS demands. The word “truth” ceases to have its old meaning, and it becomes something to be dictated by the State.

 

By Justin O. Smith

____________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text or links enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith