The Great Negotiator


Justin Smith and many Conservatives looking at President Trump’s willingness to negotiate on allowing illegal aliens to remain in America is viewed as a betrayal of one his campaign promises.

 

In my humble opinion some kind of give and take is necessary to end legislative gridlock. So, if illegals are proven working individuals that pay taxes, I don’t have a problem with amnesty. HOWEVER, if illegal aliens are living on taxpayer social programs, those illegal aliens need to receive the boot.

 

ALSO, if the Dems will not negotiate on effective border control – e.g. A WALL – Then blame the Dems and give all illegal aliens the boot. If illegal aliens cry racism, they should direct their anger toward recalcitrant Dems.

 

Thus, I am not totally on board with Justin, but in some ways, I am willing to be harsher with the blame falling squarely on the Dems.

 

JRH 1/14/18

Please Support NCCR

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

The Great Negotiator

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 1/13/2018 4:28 PM

 

The negotiations on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), opened under a false sense of urgency by President Trump, the “stable genius” and “great negotiator”, and sixteen senators and seven House members, on Tuesday January 9, 2018 in an ineffectual move to protect 800,000 DACA recipients from potential deportation, once DACA ends on March 5th. These negotiations represent the lowest moment of the Trump presidency, nothing more and nothing less than another amnesty for illegal aliens and the Democrats’ first step towards a full amnesty for nearly forty million illegal aliens (government stats 11 to 12 million), a betrayal of America.

 

If the proposed Dream Act of 2017, the replacement bill of choice, introduced by Senators Dick Durbin (D-ILL) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is any indication of the legislative “solution”, America will be forced to give 3.3 million illegal aliens a conditional lawful permanent resident status. Roughly 1.8 million would certainly become naturalized citizens over the next decade, if not sooner, with voting rights.

 

What happened to President Trump’s 2016 campaign promise to deport all illegal aliens?

 

The switch came after his advisors told him that this DACA amnesty is popular with both Democrats and liberal Republicans. He probably also noted left-leaning polls, like in Politico, that show 54 percent of Americans want to give the “Dreamers” a path to citizenship.

 

I stated in October 2015, that “Trump’s values shift like the changing of one’s underwear from day to day, depending on his personal agenda and who had his ear at the moment”. Ann Coulter, a conservative journalist, seemed to concur, as she recently stated, “The president cares only about his press, has no grasp of details of policy, and simply agrees with the last person to speak.”

 

Under no illusions, one might wish to see our leaders vote to deport all illegal aliens, but the reality of the matter suggests some form of amnesty will be passed eventually, unless there is a loud and massive opposition immediately voiced. While House Republicans are forcefully pushing President Trump’s demands on the wall and heightened security, along with the addition of thousands of federal immigration enforcement officers and judges and E-Verify, through the Goodlatte-McCaul bill, the Senate is prepared to give amnesty in exchange for nothing.

 

The Goodlatte-McCaul bill also ends chain migration and the diversity visa lottery, which allowed the last two Islamic terrorists into the country and the attacks on New York City. It allows the Justice Department to withhold grants from sanctuary cities too.

 

It should also be noted, that after the Department of Homeland Security detained a DACA recipient with gang ties, early in 2017, it acknowledged revoking the DACA status of over 1500 recipients, due to criminal conviction or gang affiliation. How many other criminals have evaded the department’s scrutiny?

 

To his credit, President Trump stated: “It has to be a bill where we’re able to secure our border. Drugs are pouring into our country at a record pace. A lot of people coming in that we can’t have.”

 

Congress could accomplish the same things, without granting a blanket amnesty, if they really wanted to do so, couldn’t they? But the liberals of both parties aren’t working for America, are they?

 

Curiously, the Great Negotiator’s negotiating skills are less than impressive, given Republicans hold the House, the Senate and the presidency. It is the Democrats, not the president, who are driving a hard bargain.

 

The Dreamers have no right to be here in the first place, since they or their parents broke U.S. law, and they deserve that right even less, when they display 1794 maps of Mexico and wave the Mexican flag in our streets. They have no say over anything America chooses to grant them; and yet, these Dreamers beseech our Congress for America’s solicitude and benevolent care, while standing on the steps of our state houses and at the Capital in D.C. and demand that any DACA replacement legislation be a “clean” bill.

 

During the meeting, when Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asked President Trump if he would “be agreeable” to a “clean” bill, it was obvious that he didn’t understand that meant leaving out his demands, like more border security and the wall, because he replied: “Yeah … I would like to do that. Go ahead. I think a lot of people would like to see that, but I think we have to do DACA first.”

 

Representative Kevin McCarthy, a liberal Republican, interceded, fortunately. He clarified for the President that he was, in fact, acquiescing to an amnesty bill absent any border security provisions.

 

Later, flanked by Senator Dick Durbin (D-ILL) and Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD), President Trump said: “We’ll do DACA and we can certainly start comprehensive immigration reform the following afternoon. Okay? We’ll take an hour off and then we’ll start.” Whether the president understood it or not, “comprehensive immigration reform” stands for amnesty.

 

To be clear, Congress has no moral or legal obligation or responsibility to grant amnesty to anyone who violated our immigration laws or knowingly put their children in an awful legal predicament. Let the March 5th deadline pass, let deportations proceed, and let the Dreamers sort it out, case by case, in immigration court, like they should have done over all these years.

 

Complicating negotiations further is a decision by a liberal activist judge in San Francisco on Tuesday evening, January 9th, that temporarily banned the Trump administration from ending DACA. Until Congress takes immigration policy matters out of the Courts’ jurisdiction, invoking that right under Article III of the Constitution, our borders will never be fully secured and illegals will continue to arrive at our borders en masse.

 

This DACA bill and any general amnesty for the total millions of other illegal aliens helps and benefits the illegal alien population and the Democratic Party only. Within a year of being granted residency or a path to citizenship, activist judges will grant full citizenship, and the bulk of these illegals will expand the Democratic voter base, setting aside all of Trump’s “wins” and border security gains; and Democratic Socialists will get to take permanent control of U.S. elections, laws and governments, for decades to come.

 

A recently leaked memo from the Center For American Progress reads, in part: “The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also  a critical component to the Democratic Party’s electoral success … “.

 

An attempt to destroy our borders forever more is still underway as “elite” liberals from both parties, backed by U.S. and global billionaires, seek to force American citizens towards a regional and then global governance. They present America a false solution, in these DACA proposals, on the pretext it serves America’s interests and does not harm our society at large, for their own self-interest, and these members of Congress, who are supposed to represent Americans, not illegal aliens, are eroding and undermining the sanctity of the entire legal system and, by extension, our Republic.

 

By Justin O. Smith

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

All Muslims Are Potential Terrorists


I have a politically incorrect attitude toward Islam and hence those that practice the theopolitical faith. I have mentioned in numerous blog posts that Islam’s revered writings deny Jesus is the Son of God, was Crucified to death on a Cross and arose bodily with a glorified human body sitting at the Right Hand of the Father. These denials make Islam an Antichrist religion. Ergo, for me, the totality of Islam is Antichrist evil.

 

1 John 2: 18, 22-23 (NKJV):

 

18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the[a] Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.

 

22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

 

On the other hand. I realize under the Religious Freedom of the First Amendment, Muslims have a right to practice their Antichrist faith. EXCEPT or UNLESS a practicing Muslim insists on non-assimilation to the point of disregarding the U.S. Constitution. Actively disregarding the Constitution is an act of sedition against the rule of law in the American Republic and should be dealt with accordingly.

 

THAT MEANS preventing Muslims from coming to America that actively support the contradictions inherent in Sharia Law against U.S. should be refused immigration and refugee status. AND Muslims residing in the U.S. as citizens or immigrants but illegally working against the Constitution MUST be prosecuted accordingly.

 

Justin Smith addresses this Islam/Muslim incompatibility with the Constitutional rule of law in America.

 

JRH 1/8/18

Please Support NCCR

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

All Muslims Are Potential Terrorists  

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent January 5, 2018 5:50 PM

 

Muslims are the only people committing global wholesale murder in the name of Islam. They are the only people who openly proclaim their desire to kill Jews and Westerners, and Muslims are the only people vowing to conquer the world: These facts are not irrelevant to America’s immigration policy.

 

Now, a large Muslim population is here in America. They are here in a target rich environment and surrounded by those they seek to force to convert and submit or murder for Allah, and their mission is closer to fulfillment, no longer separated by thousands of miles, with only a thin imaginary line of “security” — nothing — between them and their next chosen victims, when next they choose to strike. They have made themselves at home, here in America, the land they call “the Great Satan”.

 

One of the most recognized peaceful verses from the Quran states “God invites you into the abode of peace” –10:25. However, the following passages are some of those most accepted by the majority of Muslims world-wide, including here in America: “Fight against such as those… as believe neither in Allah nor ‘The Last Day’… and do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.” – Sura 9:29…. “When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads… bind your captives firmly..” -Sura 47:4….”Do not befriend them (Christians, Jews, infidels) until they have fled their homes for the cause of Allah. If they desert you seize them and put them to death wherever you find them.” -Sura 4:89

 

If one looks at the Muslim community of 6-10 million (depending on whose statistics one believes) within America, we find a community reticent to help law enforcement and intelligence officers locate and capture terror suspects. Information is rarely received from a Muslim informing on another Muslim. Then, when one looks at the largest concentration of Muslims living in the U.S., 250,000, in Dearborn, MI [Blog Editor: The stats I found on Dearborn estimates the 2017 population total for Dearborn is about 98,153], one sees a community that, time and again, almost annually attempts to insert Sharia Law principles into their city codes, []

 

[Blog Editor: In Googling “almost annually attempts to insert Sharia Law principles into their city codes”, I discovered Googles devotion to Multiculturalism. The search results were dominated by Leftist MSM and Muslim Apologists indignantly proclaiming there is no Sharia in Dearborn, MI. There might be no civil codes instituting Sharia, but there are plenty of instances where Sharia influences show up. Here is one title demonstrating the prevention of the exercise of the 1st Amendment: “Dearborn, Michigan: First City In The US To Enforce Sharia Law”. An example of Dearborn Police preventing Christian Free Speech:

 

VIDEO: David woods story of sharia law in America!

 

AND HERE:

 

VIDEO: the islamization of dearborn michigan

 

And Muslims pelting Christians with heavy objects in Dearborn:

 

VIDEO: Muslims Stoning Christians in Dearborn, Michigan

 

Justin Smith paragraph continues …]

 

[…] even as Jessica Mokdad was murdered in an “honor killing” near the city limits. Even moderate Muslims tend to protect the most radical within their ranks from an ingrained at birth sense of loyalty to the “ummah” … the world-wide Muslim community.

 

How can imams reconcile the Islamic view of dar al-Islam, the territory of Islam, and dar al-Harb, the territory of war which includes all states and communities not under Muslim rule, in conjunction with the aforementioned Sura verses and Our U.S. Constitution? I do not believe they can, nor in all too many instances do they desire any peaceful cooperation and solutions.

 

From 1993 until 2001, the triple agent Ali Mohamed compromised U.S. intelligence as he worked for Al Qaeda. Mohamed was a former Egyptian captain turned CIA operative, who also became a U.S. Special Forces advisor and an FBI informant. He penetrated the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center at Ft. Bragg, while simultaneously training the cell of Islamic terrorists from the Farouq Mosque in Brooklyn that detonated the first bomb at the World Trade Center in 1993. In 1998 he trained bin-Laden’s bodyguard and took surveillance photos that bin-Laden used to bomb the U.S. Embassy in Kenya.

 

History does not detail any example — not one — of large numbers of Muslims ever assimilating into a non-Muslim culture. In fact, just the opposite occurs. As the Muslim population grows, it strives for preeminence and the domination of its host nation, just as witnessed in India, Cyprus, Lebanon, Nigeria, Serbia and many other nations.

 

In nations where huge Muslim majorities already exist, where are the Christians? Where are the Jews?

 

Resettle these “refugees” and “immigrants” in Muslim majority nations. Let them go to Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Emirates, the five wealthiest countries on the Arabian Peninsula, which have not accepted a single refugee to date.

 

Consider the violent nature at the heart of Islam. Consider that Islam is beyond reformation during this century. Consider that moderate Muslims are simply terrorists in a queue waiting for their imams’ call (fatwa) to “holy war” and martyrdom; that many mosques, such as the Islamic Center of Boston and Nashville and Orange County, California, all carry and advocate Islam’s message of hate and violence. Consider the decades long list of Muslim immigrants, Muslim converts and U.S. born Muslims – second and third generation – who have plotted and committed acts of terrorism against America and U.S. soldiers serving across the Middle East, from Ramzi Yousef, Anjem [Adnan] Shukrijuma and Adam Gadan [or Gadahn] to Mir Amal [or Aimal] Kansi [aka Mir Qazi, Aimal Khan Kasi], Anwar Awlaki and on to the Tsarnaev brothers and Syed Farook, and one can only determine that Muslim immigration should be halted immediately and permanently.

 

Understand the prevalence of the “eye for an eye” philosophy ingrained in Islamic culture and applied against any perceived wrong, at the slightest provocation, across the entire world, from France to Mali, despite the fact their Islamic doctrines have created their own misery. And then, rather than open the door to thousands of more potential and active terrorists, remember American parents and children murdered on 9/11 and at Boston — American children orphaned — and act forcefully and effectively to ensure something similar or worse will never happen on our watch again: Press America’s leaders to halt all Muslim immigration now.

 

By Justin O. Smith

________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by bracket and all source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

How Many More Americans Must Die


It is my humble opinion there are two threats to the culture that has made America great in the past: 1) Leftist transformist ideology abandoning Christian morality and Constitutional Originalism and 2) Islamic intolerant theopolitical supremacist ideology.

 

Justin Smith passionately writes of the Islamic threat to America via the idiotic immigration rules supported by Transformist Leftists.

JRH 12/30/17

Please Support NCCR

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

How Many More Americans Must Die

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 12/28/2017 8:10 PM

 

America cannot allow a dangerous club of Islamic appeasers, apologists and willing accomplices in the federal courts and the ranks of Congress, to stay the course with their constipated logic, or their treason, and refusal to employ common sense regarding Muslim immigration into our country. They have brought a steady flow of Muslims to America, since the first World Trade Center Bombing in 1993, that has been accompanied by a constant, steady stream of Islamic terror attacks, from the 9/11 WTC attacks to Ft Hood, the Boston Bombing and more, and Americans would be well within the Constitution to demand that this club cease sheltering terrorists, terrorist candidates, and future terrorists, these sons of Mohammed.

 

Last January, every Democrat and 22 Republicans in the U.S. Senate, opposed President Trump’s travel ban imposed on terror sponsoring nations. And recently, on December 22nd 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court blocked it for the third time.

 

In November 2017, America witnessed Sayfullo Saipov, an Uzbekistan national and a Muslim, ruthlessly murder eight people on a New York City bike path. This was soon followed on December 11th 2017 by Akayed Ullah, a Bangladeshi national and a Muslim, attempting to detonate a suicide bomb in New York City; it partially exploded and injured five people.

 

How many more Americans must die before Americans stand together and deport all non-citizen Muslims and halt all Muslim immigration?

 

The truth is recognizable and exists for those informed analysts and others capable of cogent thought, regarding Islam. Islamic migration is impossible to fully integrate into American society, and Muslims are not capable of assimilating into Western civilization [HERE & HERE], holistically speaking.

 

Sayyid Qubt, one of the foremost founding fathers of prevailing Islamic thought, stated: “A Muslim has no country except that part of the earth where the Sharia of Allah is established … a Muslim has no nationality except his belief … There is only one place on earth which can be called the home of Islam, and it is that place where the Islamic state is established and the Sharia is the authority and Allah’s limits are observed …” [Similar English translation HERE – “Allah’s” translated as “God’s”].

 

An August 2011 PEW study, entitled ‘Muslim Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support in Extremism’, noted that 65 percent of Muslims in America do not think of themselves first as Americans and only second as Muslims. This same study revealed that approximately 567,000 U.S. Muslims support terrorism, as a political tool, to a fair or great degree. Together with this, it is no wonder sixty percent of respondents stated that America would soon witness Islamic terrorism rise in America.

 

Quoting the “prophet” Mohammed from the Hadith: “I charge you with five of what Allah has charged me with: to assemble, to listen, to obey, to immigrate and to wage Jihad (Holy War) for the sake of Allah.”

 

In 1998, speaking before a packed crowd at the Flamingo Palace in Fremont, California, Omar Ahmad, founder of the Council for American-Islamic Relations, stated: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith but to be dominant …”. His closing words stated that Islam should be the only accepted “religion” on Earth.

 

During a 2015 interview of some local Somali Muslims in Cedar Riverside, Minnesota, several Muslim men told journalist Ami Horowitz that they preferred Sharia law over U.S. law. They also wanted to suppress free speech and any criticism of Islam or the “prophet” Mohammed. One man even told her that it is right to kill anyone who insults the “prophet” Mohammed.

 

Muslims often boast that they love death more than Americans love life, but Muslims really just hate life. Although the number of Muslims willing to blow themselves up in order to murder non-Muslims seems to be small, the number of Muslims willing to condemn these terrorists is even smaller, and many Muslims cheer for the terrorists daily and each time they murder a European, Israeli or American, in this culture that refers to Adolph Hitler as “Islam’s Favorite Infidel“.

 

Hitler- Islam’s Favorite Infidel. Photo by Bosch Fawstin

 

Whether the majority of Muslims are truly “peaceful” or simply dormant, less devout Muslims, or violent fundamentalist Muslims is irrelevant, since nearly every recent terrorist seemed peaceful, until he wasn’t. Objectively good human beings, who identify as Muslim, give Islam a far better face than it deserves, and this creates a false sense of security for many Americans, and it also allows for the growth of a large, stealth jihadi terrorist population, which schemes to Islamicize America and destroy Her Republic through politics, immigration and terrorism. So, we are left a game of Muslim roulette, while our intelligence communities tackle the near impossible task of differentiating between “good Muslims” and those trying to murder us.

 

Every person can follow his own conscience in America, so long as it doesn’t interfere with sane reason or bid him act against the liberty of others. However, Islam, the Koran and the Hadith, where the true meaning of Islam can be found in practice today, as it has been for over 1400 years, embraces and commands the murder of non-Muslims and infidels, censorship, anti-Semitism, pedophilia, misogyny and wife beatings and honor killings. This is evil and the supremacist ideology of Islam sanctions every bit of it.

 

There is nothing in Islam that stays the hand of Muslims seeking to murder non-Muslims and Americans.

 

Five days after two Muslims murdered fourteen people in San Bernardino, on December 2nd 2015, the campaign team for Donald Trump stated, “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

 

On July 6th 2017, President Trump spoke before the Polish people and stated: “While we will always welcome new citizens who share our values and love our people, our borders will always be closed to terrorism and extremism of any kind.”

 

It doesn’t take a genius to “figure out what is going on”, with centuries worth of evidence revealing Islam’s evil modus operandi of conquest and its continuous attacks against the West, and it is past time to close our borders and America to all Muslims. Many will call this “wrong” or “un-American”, because many already suggest that Americans must work harder to coexist with Muslims, who reject the voices of reason. Work harder towards what end? Any time we spend working with a culture that calls for our destruction, we are working towards our own destruction.

 

Too many of America’s leaders, such as National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, do not understand, or they choose to ignore the fact, that a Muslim Crusade is underway, a war between civilizations and a war of religions, the Muslims call “Holy War”, Jihad. They don’t want to understand that for the Muslims and their Crusader Jihadis, America and the West is a world to conquer and subjugate under Islam.

 

Americans must demand that the current Congress exert its rightful control over policy matters, along with President Trump’s rightful authority, to remove the Court’s jurisdiction regarding immigration matters constitutionally under Article III. If this Congress will not, America must elect new people in 2018 who will.

 

Despite President Trump’s best efforts, today, there still exists the fraudulent mockery promoted by Leftists and Muslim appeasers and apologists, that reveres the Muslim “refugee” and immigrant invaders and slanders the defenders of America, absolves the terrorists and condemns the victims, weeps for the Taliban and curses Americans. In their effort to equate Islam’s “freedom” by way of submission to Allah to America’s real freedom and individual liberty, they essentially compare a tent in the desert to our Capitol Building and the White House.

 

Islamic ideology that devalues human life, through its belief that Paradise awaits those who “kill and are killed” for Allah (Koran 9:111) and calls openly for Israel’s destruction, this is the ideology that makes it impossible for Americans and Muslims to live in peace. This violent, evil ideology of Islam has no place for Americans or non-Muslims or Europeans and Muslims to live together, alongside on another, in peace on an indefinite basis as equals.

 

America is ours, and it cannot be for all, so long as billions of people live, who do not love freedom and constitutional governance, like most Americans do. We must see the enemy clearly in this war against Islam, since America’s survival depends on the will of Her people to prevail over Islam. We must gather the will to demand that America’s borders and citizens are protected, while we fight to defend our traditions, principles and virtues at any cost, preserving our culture and way of life in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it. Our American way of life is worth defending with our lives.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Any text enclosed by brackets and all source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

A Recognition of Reality


VIDEO: Trump Recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital

Justin Smith writes about the obvious fact that Leftists and Muslim apologists have been in denial for decades. Namely, that Jerusalem is the Capital city of the Jewish State of Israel. Whiners cry recognizing Jerusalem as the Capital city will harm or end the peace process. Just as Justin Smith correctly points out, “What peace process?

 

Israel has bent over backwards for decades to allow a sovereign Palestinian State – even though undeserved. The so-called Palestinian leadership has torpedoed every too generous Israeli offer. They refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish State while unofficially (except Hamas which officially) wants to the total destruction of Israel and the death of its Jewish citizens (See Also HERE).

 

JRH 12/10/17

Please Support NCCR

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

A Recognition of Reality

A Historical Injustice Corrected

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 12/9/2017 2:15 PM (updated 12/11/17)

 

Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel, according to President Donald Trump, who declared it so on December 6th 2017, rewarding our close ally Israel and correcting a historical injustice, although any sane person already understood this fact and the historical record removes all doubt. President Trump’s declaration sounded the death knell on the seven decades long world delusion that Muslims and the ideology of Islam somehow have any claim to any part of Jerusalem, which is a critical component of the mythical “palestinians’” simple ploy to undermine and ultimately destroy Israel, a sovereign Jewish state in the middle of the Islamic world, which is viewed in their eyes as an insult to Islam.

 

Along with this declaration, President Trump announced the plan to move the U.S. Embassy, from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem over the next few years, to ultimately fulfill the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act, signed by President Bill Clinton, which originally called for this to be completed by 1999. A waiver signed by President Trump has delayed the move for six months, until a review can present an efficient and viable plan for the move.

 

President Trump was cautioned against this move, by Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who feared it would enrage the Islamic world. While it did result in an immediate blowback, President Trump is convinced that this will aid the peace process in the long term; and even if this is not the case, God will bless him and America for his courageous and righteous decision.

 

Representative John Culberson (R-TX) told ‘The Hill’: “America should never change our foreign policy based on an assumption that we’re going to offend a group of Islamic radicals. America should always do the right thing and stand by our allies, and America has no stronger ally on earth than the people of Israel.”

 

Justifying his decision, President Trump mentioned the Parliament, Supreme Court and the prime minister’s home in West Jerusalem, as locations within the Old City, including Al Aqsa mosque. A bright, glaring focal point, he made no mention of any Palestinian rights to East Jerusalem.

 

Today, the Jewish Temple Mount is the third holiest site in Islam, behind Saudi Arabia’s Mecca and Medina. Muslims believe once they claim a piece of land, it belongs to Islam forever.

 

However, there has never been a “Palestinian” state with Jerusalem as its capital, or a palestinian language or culture. There was not any such thing as a “palestinian” people, prior to 1948. They were ethnic Arabs and Muslims, who created the myth as a political tool to use against an unwanted Jewish state in their midst.

 

For the past three thousand years, since 1000 B.C., there has been an uninterrupted Jewish presence in the city of Jerusalem, which is the religious and cultural home for the Jewish people and their historic capital. Jews, wherever they are in the world, face Jerusalem when they pray, and each year at Passover, their hopeful prayer is recited, “Next year in Jerusalem”.

 

The Bible mentions the City of David, Jerusalem, more than 600 times, and Jerusalem is mentioned hundreds of times in the Prophets (Nevi’im) and Writings (Ketuvim). The Psalms 137:5 state, “If I forget thee Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its skill“. Out of all the cities in the world, the Bible only calls on us to pray for the welfare of Jerusalem, but not once is Jerusalem mentioned in the Koran.

 

In Mohammed’s lifetime, Jerusalem was an unimportant city in the Byzantine Empire and a Christian city without a single mosque. The Al Aqsa mosque is a conquest mosque [Tov Rose & CBN] built atop the ruins of the Church of Saint Mary of Justinian. And, although Islamic tradition says Mohammed ascended into Heaven from Al Aqsa mosque, there is no record of Mohammed having ever been to Jerusalem.

 

President Trump rightfully noted: “This is nothing more or less than a recognition of reality. It is also the right thing to do. It’s something that has to be done.”

 

Many professional “peace experts” contend that President Trump’s capital idea will kill any chance for a negotiated settlement between the Palestinians and Israel. Palestinian Authority president-for-life Mahmoud Abbas, an old terrorist himself, characterized the move as America’s “declaration of withdrawal” from the “peace process”.

 

What peace process?

 

For nearly a decade, Abbas has refused to engage in direct talks, despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s open invitation, but no negotiation is better than the bad faith negotiations of the Palestinians. In 1993, under Yasser Arafat, they accepted extremely generous deals in the Oslo Accords and right away committed wave after wave of terrorist attacks, in an effort to force more concessions from Israel and the West.

 

And now, President Trump has sent the unmistakable message that murder will not be rewarded. No longer will violence over Jerusalem be tolerated.

 

Calls for Muslims to engage in “three days of rage” immediately sounded over mosque loudspeakers in Gaza, and hundreds moved on the Israeli border, after Trump’s speech, throwing stones and chanting, “We don’t need empty words, we need stones and Kalasnikovs”, while other clashes broke out in Hebron and Bethlehem. Thirty-one Palestinians were wounded on Thursday, and Friday after prayers was like all other Fridays, with the usual protests and anger.

 

The Palestinians don’t want to peacefully coexist beside Israel, in a two-state solution. They seek a one state solution and an Islamic State that exists in the place of Israel, and they cling to their fantasy of eradicating the Jewish state. To achieve this, they have created a campaign to revise history, and they attempt to erase the undeniable Jewish connection and birthright to Jerusalem.

 

Reprehensibly, on May 2nd of this year, near Israel’s Independence Day, the U.N.’s cultural body, UNESCO, passed a series of resolutions that stated Israel hasn’t any legal or historical rights anywhere in Jerusalem. Largely comprised of an anti-Israel majority, the votes against the resolution came from the U.S., U.K., Italy, Germany, Ukraine, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Greece, Paraguay and Togo.

 

In the moments after the vote passed, Israel’s ambassador to UNESCO, Carmel Shama-Hacohen, draped in a large Israeli flag, addressed the meeting: “Even now, after this miserable vote, this blue and white flag is flying high above the Temple Mount and throughout Israel’s eternal capital city, Jerusalem, waving in the wind, saying to all ‘here we are, and we are here to stay'”.

 

Denying reality is how this game has long been played. For seventy years the world has pretended that Jerusalem wasn’t the capital of Israel. We even witnessed the U.N. become the poster child for the absurd, when it declared East Jerusalem “occupied territory”, on December 23rd 2016, because of President Obama’s anti-Israel sentiment. This advanced the insane and ignoble fantasy that, as a matter of international law, the Western Wall, and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem too, really belongs to the Palestinians. President Donald Trump just put an end to their game, with his acknowledgement of fact and his brave act and moral courage.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_____________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links as well as text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

The Murder of America’s Sons and Daughters


Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, even after confessing to the murder of Kate Steinle, was found not guilty on November 30, 2017. If the Left is looking for an indictment of wrong doing, they need to look in the mirror, illegal immigration, sanctuary cities and Left-Wing unjust judiciaries.

 

Justin Smith writes with the obvious sense of injustice resulting to Zarate’s verdict. When there is no justice, what is an end result? Vigilantism?

JRH 12/4/17

Please Support NCCR

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

The Murder of America’s Sons and Daughters

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 12/2/2017 9:33 PM

 

A San Francisco jury engaged in a gross, outrageous miscarriage and travesty of justice and denied Kate Steinle and her family justice, on November 30th, when they delivered a “not guilty” verdict to her murderer, Garcia Zarate, an illegal alien from Mexico. The integrity of the law was destroyed by this jury nullification, which abandoned facts, reason and the truth, and these jurors sent a clear message to America that a criminal illegal alien’s life was more important than Kate Steinle’s life and those of America’s own sons and daughters.

 

Partly to blame, the Court itself exhibited just how broken our system really is. The five previous deportations of Zarate and his seven previous felonies were left out of the case, even though Ms. Steinle’s murder and Zarate’s illegal alien status had sparked a national debate on the country’s illegal alien problem.

 

However, on the barest facts of the case, the jury should have easily been able to arrive to a “guilty” verdict on involuntary manslaughter, at the very least, unless they held the typical liberal anti-“white privilege”, pro-sanctuary city Democratic Party line of most of the area’s populace. This jury was a cross-section of an area that is thirty-percent foreign born and seemingly 100 percent ignorant of U.S. law, or simply predisposed to dismiss America’s age old shared principles and common national sentiment.

 

Any reasonable person, who has a cogent thought process, would have immediately seen through Zarate’s lies and continuously changing story. If he’d been shooting at a sea lion, as asserted, with the gun he supposedly “found”, the bullet would have been travelling away from Ms. Steinle and the crowded section of Pier 14. If he’d simply stepped on the gun, a weapon the quality of the Sig Sauer P239 would not have discharged on its own, as asserted, nor would it have fired without the trigger being purposely pulled by him, since the Sig would have had anywhere between 4.4 and 10 pounds of trigger pull, depending on its original owner’s preference.

 

A check of the firearm by the Bureau of Land Management in April 2015, three months before the shooting, found it was in perfect working order, which was noted by Assistant District Attorney Diana Garcia. Explaining further, the DA stated: “It’s not the kind of gun that’s going to go off by accident. He knew all along what he was doing.”

 

It’s undisputed that the gun was in Zarate’s possession, and witnesses saw him spinning on a bar chair pointing the gun down the pier. Zarate’s own statement is basically a confession, through his own claim the shooting was an accident, even though he fired towards multitudes of people on the pier that day, without any due caution and circumspection. At the very minimum, this fits the precise definition of “involuntary manslaughter”.

 

It’s also undisputed that Zarate should not have been in America in the first place. If the Sheriff’s Department had turned Zarate over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, as required by federal law, instead of simply releasing him back to San Francisco’s streets, Kate Steinle would be alive today.

 

How could this jury not convict Garcia Zarate, especially with the understanding that Kate Steinle could have been one of their own daughters, and as they witnessed her family’s pain?

 

Jim Steinle said: “We’re just shocked — saddened and shocked … There’s no other way you can coin it. Justice was rendered, but it was not served.”

 

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions was quick to say, “I urge the leaders of the nation’s communities to reflect on the outcome of this case and consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement officers.”

 

One should note, FBI statistics show 67,642 murders in the U.S, from 2005 through 2008 and 115,717 from 2003 through 2009. The General Accounting Office attributes 25,064 of these murders to criminal illegal aliens, which means, by extrapolating the stats, that 3.5 percent of this population in America committed twenty-two percent to thirty-seven percent of all murders in the nation.

 

Ninety-five percent of approximately 1500 outstanding homicide warrants in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens. About 67 percent of LA’s 17,000 outstanding felony warrants are for illegal aliens, and 4.5 million pounds of cocaine worth $72 billion are smuggled across the southern border every year.

 

Kate Steinle was thirty-two years old at the time of her death, blonde and beautiful and already successful in her career. She was also an adventurer and had already traveled overseas to Barcelona, Dubai and South Africa. Just days before her death, Kate had written, “Whatever is good for your soul — do that.”

 

Kate, her father and a family friend were enjoying an outing and taking pictures of birds, boats and each other on Pier 14, in the Embarcadero district, on July 1st 2015, when Zarate’s bullet struck her back and pierced her aorta. As she lay dying in her father’s arms, she gasped her last words, “Dad, help me, help me.”

 

Kate’s vibrant life was taken far too soon, but Zarate gets to rise each day and continue his life to whatever miserable end finally finds him, after he completes a two to three year sentence on the felony weapons charge. He will be returned to Mexico upon release, and that’s not justice.

 

America must force our leaders to fully enforce existing immigration law aimed at halting illegal immigration. No longer should the nation bear any tax burden either for sanctuary cities, that ignore these laws. Detain and deport anyone entering America illegally, regardless of their criminal or innocent intentions, and imprison repeat offenders for enough years to send a message to others and deter them from entering illegally. Build the wall and secure our borders, because Kate Steinle and other Americans murdered by illegal aliens deserve no less.

 

And perhaps, America needs a victim veto set in U.S law, for instances of jury nullification and a defendant’s obvious guilt, so the victim’s family can say: “Judge, I can’t live with this miscarriage of justice. This man murdered my daughter. I cannot possibly let this go unanswered. Let the judge make the final ruling.”

 

As the father of two daughters, in the absence of a punishment that fit the crime, a sense of being avenged and then to witness the criminal go free, without paying any real price, my own outrage would be such, if I were in Jim Steinle’s position, that I would make it a point to kill Zarate upon his release, because a criminal, especially a killer, must face a day of reckoning and receive his due.

 

The death penalty, life or twenty-five years in prison without parole could never redress the harm Zarate’s actions brought to the Steinle Family, but to let him go without finding him guilty of involuntary manslaughter is an intolerable moral violation. If the principles of the U.S. Constitution applied equally to protect victims, as much as the accused, it would be cruel and unusual punishment to deny the victims any real semblance of justice, that accompanies the rightful punishment of those who have done them or their families harm. And, as in this case, justice denied is no justice.

 

By Justin O. Smith

____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links 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

Coexistence With Islam Is A Sham


Multicultural Leftists constantly brainwashing Americans that bringing Muslim immigrants into America in the name of diversity are destroying the meaning of “melting pot.” The concept of melting pot is that many diverse peoples, nationalities, religions, ideologies and races; come to America to become ONE people. If anybody has a belief system that totally prevents melting into unity, they need not live in the USA.

 

E PLURIBUS UNUM – Out of many, ONE!

 

E Pluribus Unum; By Charlie Daniels; CNS News; 9/16/14 10:44 AM EDT

 

E Pluribus Unum; The Bradley Project Press Release; American Renaissance; 7/7/08

 

E Pluribus Unum Vs. Multiculturalism; By Dan DeRoeck; Western Journalism; 7/7/16 10:54am

 

Justin Smith doesn’t specifically address the E Pluribus Unum vs. Multicultural Diversity issue, nonetheless the points he makes about the idiocy of allowing Muslim immigration en masse should make you think about the issue.

 

JRH 11/5/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Coexistence With Islam Is A Sham

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 11/4/2017 12:31 PM

 

Guarantees in life don’t really exist for anything, not even one’s own safety, but Americans cannot continue their foolhardy abandonment of all reason and common sense, in favor of the sick, delusional, anti-American and dangerous politically correct doctrines of the Leftists and apologists for Islam. Americans place concerns for Muslims’ hurt feelings over America’s safety and national security at their own peril, since Islam’s false peace is a covert tactic for war, and many thousands more of our countrymen will die in our streets, just as we witnessed on October 31st, 2017 and many other days of terror. America absolutely cannot “coexist” with Muslims, who seek our deaths.

 

At 3:05 PM on October 31st, Sayfullo Saipov, an Uzbekistan national in America on a Diversity Visa Lottery green card, entered the bicycle path on Houston St. in Lower Manhattan, and he proceeded to run over innocent people, in his rented pick-up truck, for nearly one mile. His murderous act of terror was stopped, when he collided with a school bus full of children.

 

As reported by Daniel Arkin of NBC News, NYC Police Officer Ryan Nash, 28, confronted Saipov, who was holding a paint ball and pellet gun and screaming “Allahu Akbar” – “Allah is greater”. Nash shot him in the abdomen, after he refused to drop the realistic looking “guns” and arrested him.

The attack left eight dead and eleven injured. Five of the dead were from Argentina. Two were Americans identified as Darren Drake, 32, of New Jersey and Nicholas Cleves, 23, of New York City. The last casualty was Ann-Laure Decadt, 31, of Belgium, who was also the mother of two young boys, one three years old and one three months old.

 

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said, “It’s a very painful day in our city … this was an act of terror, and a particularly cowardly act of terror.”

 

According to the criminal complaint, several notes were found in Saipov’s truck. One written in English read “ISIS lives forever.” Another note handwritten in Arabic read, “No god but god and Mohammed is his prophet”; and, “Islamic supplication. It will endure.”

 

Of some great significance, one must understand that Masjid Omar Mosque in Paterson, New Jersey, located around the corner from Saipov’s apartment, was attended by Saipov. This mosque has been under NYPD surveillance, since 2005, and it is suspected of being at the center of several terrorist conspiracies.

 

Investigators also found 90 ISIS propaganda videos and 3800 images on Saipov’s cellphone, that explained how to carry out similar terrorist attacks, as Colleen Long and Jennifer Pelz detail for the Associated Press. Saipov, who entered the United States in 2010, began planning his attack approximately one year ago.

 

On November 1st, John Miller, deputy commissioner of intelligence and counterintelligence of the NYPD, stated [NBC News]: “He appears to have followed almost to a ‘T’ the instructions that ISIS has put on its social media channels … on how to carry out such an attack.”

 

Along with Saipov’s truck attack, Americans suffered the November 2016 car attack by Abdul Artan, from Somalia, at Ohio State and the March 2006 car attack by Mohammed Taheri, from Iran, at the University of North Carolina, and America has suffered scores of other horrific terrorist attacks and plots against our people, from the murderous attacks in Ft. Hood, the deadly Boston bombing and the Orlando massacre to the San Bernardino slaughter and the Chattanooga ambush. Whether it’s Ft. Hood or New York City, these homicidal, monstrous sons of Allah maim and murder Christians, Jews, Westerners and non-Muslims, in keeping with the directives of the Koran, just like their brethren who beheaded American Nick Berg, and their screams of “Allahu Akbar” send a clear message to “kill all infidels”.

 

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper recently made the asinine suggestion that we needed to “get inside” these terrorists’ minds. No logical person accepts this nonsense, because we already know that Muslims are motivated by the doctrine of Islamic supremacy, the Koran and the words of Mohammed and their desire to recreate the Caliphate, much along the lines of the old Ottoman Empire.

 

The last thing America needs is to allow more Muslims into Her lands, on a “merit based” program or any other program, but it seems we must not alienate our local Muslim terrorists. Political correctness dictates we need to allow more of the Muslim terrorists into America, so they can warn us about all the other terrorists in our country.

 

Before they can destroy the foolish apologists, and any unfortunate innocents, they must blind America, so the Muslims say, “Let us coexist in peace.” Through the myth of coexistence, Islam makes use of taqiyya and every lie and deceit to conquer a people.

 

Does a husband say to his wife, “Let’s coexist”? New York doesn’t say to New Jersey, “Let’s coexist”. America doesn’t say to Canada, “Let’s coexist”.

 

Muslims use “coexistence” to stall for time, until they see the time is right to strike. The principles of peaceful relations that exist between free and loving people, in Western societies, who believe in real peace and justice, cannot be applied to Muslims anywhere, who believe that peace and justice is only achieved once the world is dominated by Islam. And in this sense, “coexistence” is only a sham, a snare and a delusion.

 

At the very least, America must immediately commit to an intense surveillance of the Muslim community and the mosques, and America must commit to President Trump’s ban on Muslims and any “refugees” from terror prone regions with active terror groups, and activist judges be damned. It’s better to be politically incorrect and make a few Americans feel “uncomfortable”, than to see anymore Americans murdered in the future by Muslims, who decide the time is now for Islam.

 

However, as Dan Bongino, a former United States Secret Service agent told Tucker Carlson on Fox News: “You have an American political party … that’s absolutely committed to the idea that we should never surveil, God forbid, in a mosque, because that may upset some people … a mosque should not be some kind of protected space.”

 

With cowards in abundance in Congress, are there not any true American patriots left? Who will loudly declare that the solution to our terrorist problem is to stop giving them entrance to America? Who will move for the expulsion of all non-citizen Muslims and any U.S. citizen Muslim with known terrorist ties? Stand up and SPEAK OUT.

 

Life is like a morning mist that soon vanishes, so free, loving Americans, free people everywhere, cherish it. Any logical people do not wish to see their final day’s arrival hastened by a Muslim terrorist, who loves death more; and as such, any delay and obstruction, in efforts to halt all Muslim immigration to the U.S., puts the murders of Americans squarely on the weak backs of those Democrats, RINOs, activist judges and failed Christian pastors, who preach “coexist” and “Islam is a religion of peace”. The grave stones of thousands of Americans murdered by Islamic terrorists demand the lives of America’s children be safeguarded, and these grave stones prove that coexistence is a sham and delusion.

 

By Justin O. Smith

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

A majority of source links are by Justin Smith with a few additions by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith