Men are disadvantaged in 91 countries compared to 43 nations for women
The UK, the US and Australia all discriminate against men more
Italy, Israel and China are harder environments for women, according to study
Scientists created the Basic Index of Gender Inequality to assess inequality
Closer the BIGI score is to zero the greater the level of equality is in the country
Women are better off in more countries than men are, a new study has found.
A method that assesses the forms of hardship and discrimination facing men and women has revealed males have it harder in 91 countries out of 134.
Women were disadvantaged in only 43.
A study looked at 6.8 billion people around the world and scientists developed a new way of measuring gender inequality.
The UK, the US and Australia all discriminate against men more whereas Italy, Israel and China are harder environments for women, according to the study.
Researchers say this is due to men receiving harsher punishments for the same crime, compulsory military service and more occupational deaths than women.
. . . .
1 Italy M 0.00021
2 Israel M 0.000626
3 Saudi Arabia F -0.001554
4 Azerbaijan F -0.002668
5 Indonesia F -0.003089
6 Singapore M 0.003147
7 Turkey F -0.006155
8 China M 0.00626
9 Macedonia M 0.006834
10 Malta F -0.007316
11 Switzerland F -0.007938
12 Bahrain F -0.007938
13 Madagascar M 0.009967
14 Zimbabwe F -0.010275
15 Kenya M 0.011129
16 Belgium F -0.011181
17 Guatemala M 0.012198
18 Albania F -0.012889
19 Bulgaria F -0.012899
20 Germany F -0.012993
21 Montenegro F -0.013121
22 Bosnia and Herzegovina F -0.013867
23 Canada F -0.014173
24 Great Britain F -0.014545
25 Kyrgyz Republic F -0.015089
26 Sweden F -0.015749
27 Netherlands F -0.01585
28 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) M 0.016475
29 Georgia F -0.016536
30 Serbia F -0.016696
31 Lebanon F -0.016971
32 New Zealand F -0.017086
33 Austria F -0.017387
34 Ireland F -0.017437
35 Iceland F -0.017683
36 Czech Rep. F -0.018326
37 Peru M 0.018633
38 Greece F -0.019161
39 Norway F -0.019498
40 Ecuador F -0.020118
41 Slovak Republic F -0.021043
42 Luxembourg F -0.021134
43 France F -0.021771
44 Slovenia F -0.02206
45 United Arab Emirates F -0.022441
46 Denmark F -0.023474
47 Hungary F -0.023612
48 Mauritius F -0.023808
49 Australia F -0.024204
50 Romania F -0.024549
51 Ukraine F -0.024807
52 Cyprus F -0.025501
53 Vietnam F -0.025981
54 El Salvador F -0.026453
55 Burundi M 0.027321
56 Croatia F -0.028319
57 Iran (Islamic Republic of) F -0.028983
58 Spain F -0.029903
59 Kuwait F -0.031057
60 Moldova (Republic of) F -0.032404
61 United States of America F -0.032937
62 Jordan F -0.03303
63 Chile F -0.033213
64 Egypt M 0.033329
65 Mexico F -0.035445
66 Malaysia F -0.035954
67 Kazakhstan F -0.035984
68 Paraguay F -0.035997
69 Rwanda M 0.036707
70 Brazil F -0.036775
71 Syria M 0.036803
72 Finland F -0.038021
73 Bangladesh F -0.038924
74 Russia F -0.039489
75 Botswana F -0.039531
76 Tajikistan M 0.039583
77 Lithuania F -0.039616
78 Korea (Republic of) F -0.041126
79 Algeria M 0.042841
80 Japan F -0.042856
81 Costa Rica F -0.043729
82 Latvia F -0.045333
83 Belarus F -0.045669
84 Uganda M 0.045679
85 Honduras F -0.046228
86 Estonia F -0.046312
87 Belize F -0.047942
88 Trinidad and Tobago F -0.048587
89 Panama F -0.049067
90 Cambodia M 0.049407
91 Poland F -0.050899
92 Tanzania (United Republic of) M 0.05197
93 Tunisia M 0.053817
94 Cameroon M 0.053832
95 Morocco M 0.053859
96 Ghana M 0.054422
97 Colombia F -0.055583
98 South Africa F -0.055597
99 Portugal F -0.056756
100 Sri Lanka F -0.057614
101 Jamaica F -0.058214
102 Namibia F -0.058658
103 Qatar F -0.059365
104 Argentina F -0.059598
105 Thailand F -0.061156
106 Armenia F -0.065226
107 Dominican Rep. F -0.066269
108 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) F -0.066533
109 Nicaragua F -0.06813
110 Malawi M 0.071353
111 Uruguay F -0.073659
112 Mongolia F -0.076926
113 Angola M 0.077184
114 Nepal M 0.081468
115 Zambia M 0.082919
116 Suriname F -0.084422
117 India M 0.084774
118 Yemen M 0.090227
119 Mauritania M 0.090505
120 Nigeria M 0.090757
121 Philippines F -0.09874
122 Bhutan M 0.109755
123 Senegal M 0.110049
124 Pakistan M 0.116173
125 Ethiopia M 0.116469
126 Cote d?Ivoire M 0.119953
127 Burkina Faso M 0.12362
128 Mozambique M 0.128963
129 Lesotho F -0.152642
130 Guinea M 0.153464
131 Liberia M 0.157644
132 Mali M 0.160473
133 Benin M 0.187256
134 Chad M 0.231138
December 29, 2018/0 Comments/in Featured Articles /by Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.
Editor’s note: Andrew Joyce has been permanently banned from Twitter for posting some of these names—just the names, no comments. Because of new software, he has been unable to start an account even other other pseudonyms.
Go to Part 1.
Jewish Representation in Secular Contemporary Refugee and Migrant Organizations.
In contrast to the modest overrepresentation of Jews in anti-immigration groups (around 5%), Jews are nothing short of prolific in influential senior roles in contemporary refugee, asylum, and pro-migration organizations. Significantly, Jews occupy the leadership of all four of the largest and most influential (and nominally secular) organizations active in America today, the International Rescue Committee (President and CEO David Miliband), Refugees International (President Eric P. Schwartz, formerly of HIAS), International Refugee Assistance Project (Director Becca Heller), and Human Rights Watch (Executive Director Kenneth Roth, and Deputy Directors Iain Levine and Fred Abrahams).
The International Rescue Committee (IRC) is one of the most significant organizations bringing migrants to the United States. In their countries of origin, refugees and their families are assisted by the IRC to prepare their cases to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), compiling personal data and background information for security clearance. Once their cases are approved, refugees are usually greeted at the airport by case workers from the IRC. The IRC then provides these migrants with a home, furnishings, food, and any other assistance that might be required. The IRC operates 27 offices across the United States, each offering food, housing, educational, and medical assistance. It also works closely with the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) Division of Refugee Assistance, which was reported in August 2018 as quietly removing its staff directory page. Consultations with the Internet Wayback Machine revealed the Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement to be one Carl Rubenstein, an alumnus of Tel Aviv Law School. In 2017, the IRC, in conjunction with Rubenstein’s ORR, resettled more than 51,000 migrants to the United States, and is currently a staunch lobbyist against current restrictions imposed by President Trump.
ews are very prominent in the leadership of the IRC. In addition to President and CEO David Miliband, there are at least 30 Jews in senior positions within the organization including Morton I. Abramowitz (Overseer), Madeleine Albright (Overseer), Laurent Alpert (Board Member), Clifford Asness (Board Member), Betsy Blumenthal (Overseer), Alan Batkin (Chairman Emeritus and Board Member), Michael W. Blumenthal (Overseer), Susan Dentzer (Board Member), Evan G. Greenberg (Overseer), Morton I. Hamburg (Overseer), Leila Heckman (Overseer), Karen Hein (Overseer), Marvin Josephson (Overseer),Alton Kastner (Overseer and former Deputy Director), Henry Kissinger (Overseer), David A. Levine (Board Member), Reynold Levy (Overseer), Robert E. Marks (Overseer), Sara Moss (Overseer), Thomas Nides (Board Member), Susan Petricof (Overseer), Gideon Rose (Overseer), Thomas Schick (Chairman Emeritus and Board Member), James Strickler (Overseer), Sally Susman (Board Member), Mona Sutphen (Board Member), Merryl Tisch (Board Member), Maureen White (Board Member), Jonathan Wiesner (Chairman Emeritus and Board Member), William Winters (Overseer), and James D. Wolfensohn (Overseer).
The Board of the IRC is comprised of 30 individuals, 12 of whom are Jewish, giving a Jewish representation at senior board level of 40%. The Board of Overseers consists of 78 individuals, of whom at least 25 are Jewish, giving a Jewish representation at this level of just over 32%. Since Jews occupy the position of CEO at the IRC, as well as 40% of the senior board and 32% of the lower board, it would be reasonable to assert that they enjoy a dominant role within the organization. This dwarfs any Jewish representation seen in anti-immigration groups.
The International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) came to national prominence when Director Becca Heller brought a class action suit against Trump’s January 2017 travel ban on individuals from certain Muslim countries. Heller, who has described herself as an “intensely neurotic Jew,” was active from the very earliest airport detentions, and was assisted by former Yale law professor Michael Wishnie, also Jewish and a former member of Jews for Economic and Social Justice. Wishnie assembled “a group of students to draft a class action suit to represent not just IRAP’s two clients but anyone who had been detained.” The case was later also supported and taken up by the Immigrant’s Rights division of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) at the direction of its two Deputy Directors, Lee Gelernt and Judy Rabinowitz, both of whom are Jewish. At IRAP, there are three Jews on the board of the International Refugee Assistance Project: Jon Finer, David Nierenberg, and Carl Reisner. The board consists of 12 members, giving a Jewish representation of 25%. Aside from the board, other influential positions in the organization are held by Jews, including Deputy Legal Director (Lara Finkbeiner), and legal fellow (Julie Kornfeld). Again, this is significantly greater than any Jewish representation seen in anti-immigration groups.
Who punishes promiscuous women? Both women and women, but only women inflict costly punishment
Across human societies, female sexuality is suppressed by gendered double standards, slut shaming, sexist rape laws, and honour killings. The question of what motivates societies to punish promiscuous women, however, has been contested. Although some have argued that men suppress female sexuality to increase paternity certainty, others maintain that this is an example of intrasexual competition. Here we show that both sexes are averse to overt displays of female sexuality, but that motivation is sex-specific. In all studies, participants played an economic game with a female partner whose photograph either signalled that she was sexually-accessible or sexually-restricted. In study 1, we found that men and women are less altruistic in a Dictator Game (DG) when partnered with a woman signalling sexual-accessibility. Both sexes were less trusting of sexually-accessible women in a Trust Game (TG) (study 2); women (but not men), however, inflicted costly punishment on a sexually-accessible woman in an Ultimatum Game (UG) (study 3). Our results demonstrate that both sexes are averse to overt sexuality in women, whilst highlighting potential differences in motivation.
Yoram Hazony Retweeted Julia Ioffe
I sympathize. Christmas didn’t make me happy when I was in the US either. But I choose to live in Israel where the holidays are from the torah. You *choose* to live in America. Why would you want to tell the Christian majority how “wearying and alienating” their holiday is?
Yoram Hazony added,
Verified account @juliaioffe
(For the record, I always say “Thank you. You, too.” But the omnipresence of Christmas for a whole month is deeply wearying and alienating to some of us who do not celebrate. If you want me respect you, please respect me, too.)
Show this thread
12:44 PM – 20 Dec 2018
Destroyer of Worlds 🏋🏽♀️
santa los 🎅🏽🇨🇴
The Ghost of Megyn Kelly 🇮🇪🇩🇪✈️
31 replies 198 retweets 647 likes
Crypto Lions Tweet text
4h4 hours ago
Isn’t there some level of common decency that requires the respect of majority customs? Shouldn’t Jews want to avoid giving unnecessary insult? I just don’t get it.
10 replies 31 retweets 196 likes
4h4 hours ago
And I don’t buy the facile equivalence of “respect me if you want me to respect you.” Although most Christians I know try very hard to be sensitive in dealing with Jews, there is no chance that they will ever be sensitive enough to make Christmas an easy time for Jews.
5 replies 6 retweets 69 likes
4h4 hours ago
Partly that’s because of the nature of the historic divisions between Jews and Christians. Partly it’s because there’s a limit to how far any majority can go in accommodating minority customs that are unfamiliar to them. That’s just what it’s like to be a Jew among gentiles.
2 replies 7 retweets 78 likes
4h4 hours ago
I think that before you go demanding more respect from Christians, you might consider whether telling them what you feel about their holidays in a public forum is a likely way of gaining that extra helping of respect you so crave.
3 replies 9 retweets 104 likes
3h3 hours ago
My guess is that you would feel less weary if you focused less on how alienated you are as a Jew in a Christian country at Christmas time—and more on the generous offer of home that this American Christianity has extended to Jews for centuries.
In this video by Willem Petzer we see Daniel Friedman, the editor of the Citizen, who is also a part time comedian, who thought it would be hilarious to do a comedy scene mocking the victims of South African farm attacks and farm murders.
This is nauseating and appalling to any decent person and his content is disgustingly horrific. And this from an editor in a mainstream news outlet. Makes one wonder if the 12 year old boy who was drowned in boiling water after seeing his parents brutally murdered would have also found it hilarious. And if other victims who were brutally tortured and murdered would also find it funny. Or if a small child who was dragged through her parents blood by her hair found it funny before she was shot.
Willem Petzer exposes this horrific human being for what he is and shares information regarding his left wing opinions. Daniel Friedman has regularly and incorrectly, without factual substantiation, reported false information and fake news about AfriForum and others.
Published on Dec 10, 2018
Aaron Dugmore, nine, found hanged at Birmingham home by his mother
Believed to be Britain’s second youngest ‘suicide’ caused by bullying
The schoolboy was rushed to hospital but died of suspected cardiac arrest
Family claim Aaron was being tormented by bullies at his new school
Atlanta Doctors Twerk & Sing Over Unconscious Patients, She Even Cuts Her Patient Open To The Beat Of O.T. Genasis’ “Cut It!” ATLANTA – Dr. Windell Boutte’s website calls her “Atlanta’s most experienced cosmetic surgeon,” but a Channel 2 Action News consumer investigation discovered she also had plenty of experience dealing with malpractice cases. Boutte refused to answer consumer investigator Jim Strickland’s questions about seven lawsuits against her, and more than 20 YouTube videos featuring the dermatologist dancing and singing around exposed, unmoving patients. Some show Boutte making incisions while she sings and cavorts to the camera. One of those lawsuits was filed by 26-year-old Ojay Liburd. He agreed to talk to Strickland about his mother’s visit to Boutte’s Gwinnett County office, because his mother no longer can. According to court WSB-TV records Liburd’s mother, Icilma Cornelius, saw Boutte for a tummy tuck and liposuction in 2016. It was weeks before her wedding and she was credits away from earning her Ph.D. “She just wanted to be perfect for her wedding dress,” Liburd told Strickland. “She had everything going for her.” She never got the chance to wear her wedding dress. After a more than eight-hour procedure, Cornelius’ heart stopped. She suffered permanent brain damage and will need care for the rest of her life.
Ron Unz has an important article on Jewish overrepresentation in the Ivy League. Essentially the subterfuge was likely counting only religious Jews as Jews which resulted in a sudden very large drop in Hillel’s claims about Jewish enrollment in the Ivy League. As Unz notes, this is beautifully reminiscent of Jewish strategizing to avoid the charge of Jewish overrepresentation among Bolsheviks during the horrors of the first decades of the Soviet Union: The ADL and other Jewish organizations simply claimed that Bolshevik Jews, being godless Communists, were not really Jews at all. This is why Chapter 3 of The Culture of Critique is concerned with showing that Jewish Bolsheviks and other Jews on the left in the diaspora in the West not only identified as Jews but also saw communism as “good for the Jews,” as the saying goes. And of course, it was good for the Jews: Yuri Slezkine provides a great deal of corroboration that indeed Jews became an elite—a hostile elite—in the Soviet Union during the most murderous decades of the regime.
Notice also that non-Jewish Whites and Asians of high academic ability are also discriminated against by this Jewish strategizing — and this despite well documented decline in Jewish academic performance compared to their upwardly mobile parents and grandparents. As Unz found in his 2012 paper, non-Jewish Whites are underrepresented by a factor of 15, Asians by a factor of 7. As I noted,
But the numbers for Jewish overrepresentation compared to Whites are even more striking. Corresponding to the collapse of Jewish academic achievement has been an increase in the percentage of high-performing Whites in math and science competitions. And whereas the performance of Jews has declined dramatically, the performance for Whites has stayed approximately the same—an amazing and very heartening finding considering the corrosive effect of the MTV culture and a public school system whose main function would seem to be spewing multicultural propaganda and White guilt rather than academic rigor. “Based on the overall distribution of America’s population, it appears that approximately 65–70 percent of America’s highest ability students are non-Jewish whites, well over ten times the Jewish total of under 6 percent.”
So instead of constituting 65–70% of the student body at elite universities, non-Jewish Whites average around 23% for elite universities while Jews, constituting less than 6% average around the same.
However, needless to say, only the Asians have sued—and they may well win. If (in an alternate universe) non-Jewish Whites were to sue, it would be quickly thrown out because Jews are considered White. As Unz notes, if Jews and Whites are included in the same category, there is no evidence of pro-White discrimination.
However, there are several reasons to reject the argument that Jews should be included in the White category:
Population genetic data indicate that Jews are a Middle Eastern group and that there is substantial genetic distance between Europeans and Jews.
Jews typically do not identify with the people and culture of Christian Europe and its offshoots; traditional Jewish attitudes conceptualize Judaism as separate from White, Christian society; partly because of their lack of identification with non-White Christian culture, Jewish groups have led the campaign to remove Christianity from the public square;
There is a long history of very mainstream Jewish activism and identity that sees Christian Europe as an evil outgroup responsible for a long history of persecuting Jews; an important aspect of Jewish self-conception in America—apparent in much of the material reviewed by Unz, such as Jerome Karabel’s work—is that Jews were subjected to quotas at Ivy League universities until after World War II;
Jews are a relatively powerful group that has often been in competition with non-Jewish Europeans; Ivy League enrollments may be seen as one aspect of that competition;
Jewish ethnic activism typically excludes non-Jewish Whites and favors Jews, as in the appointment of Elena Kagan and the Jewish campaign to increase Jewish enrollment in Ivy League universities mentioned above;
As a result, the distinction between Jew and non-Jewish White is of considerable real world importance.
But such an argument would be strenuously resisted by the powers that be.
These are the last two pages of Unz’s recent article, slightly abridged.
In general, classifying an individual as Jewish has a rather protean nature, with somewhat overlapping definitions based on religion, ethnicity, and full or partial ancestry, allowing it to be drastically expanded or contracted for various reasons. I suspect that Baytch’s confusion on this matter was entirely sincere, related to the obsessive tendencies she exhibited in real life. But others may employ these shifting definitions based upon more pragmatic considerations.
It is well known that for many decades the American Communist Party and especially its top leadership was overwhelmingly Jewish, even at a time when Jews were just 3% of the national population. But Jewish community leaders were not pleased with this situation, and they sometimes flatly denied the reality, insisting that there were actually no Jewish Communists whatsoever—how could there be, when Communists were hostile to all religious belief?
Similarly, my findings that Jews were apparently enrolled at Harvard and other elite colleges at a rate some 1,000% greater than white Gentiles of similar academic performance must surely have set off alarm bells within the leadership of Jewish activist organizations, who wondered how best to manage or conceal this potentially dangerous information. With a high-profile Asian discrimination lawsuit wending its way through the courts and my own unsuccessful 2016 attempt to run a slate of candidates for the Board of Harvard Overseers, the likelihood of growing public scrutiny surely loomed very large.
Baytch’s apparent confusion between having Jewish ancestry and practicing the Jewish religion would have been well-known in these circles, and offered an obvious solution. If Jewish numbers were suddenly narrowed to only include those students who claimed to follow Jewish religious practices, the flagrant over-representation of Jews on elite campuses would be greatly reduced. Meanwhile, large numbers of lesser-qualified applicants of Jewish ancestry but no religious belief could continue to gain unfair admission by writing essays about their “Holocaust grandmas” with America’s 98% Gentile population being none the wiser.
For whatever reason, Hillel seems to have recently adopted this practice, drastically reducing its published estimates of the Jewish enrollment at Harvard and other elite colleges, thus eliminating a glaring example of ethnic bias by a simple act of redefinition. For example, the Hillel website now claims that merely 11% of Harvard undergraduates are Jewish, a huge reduction from the previous 25% figure, and a total suspiciously close to the Crimson survey of a few years ago which counted Jews only based upon their religious beliefs. The Hillel figures for Yale, Princeton, and most other elite colleges have experienced equally sudden and huge declines.
One very strong clue regarding this new definition of Jewish enrollment comes from Caltech, an elite science and engineering school which is quite unlikely to attract Jews professing religious faith. According to the Hillel website, the Jewish enrollment is 0%, claiming that there absolutely no Jews on campus. Despite this, the website also describes the vibrant Jewish life at Caltech, with Caltech Jews involved in all sorts of local activities and projects. This absurd paradox is obviously due to the distinction between individuals who are Jewish by religion and those who are Jewish by ancestry.
As the 1999 media firestorm engulfing Princeton demonstrated, in the past even slight and gentle declines of Jewish enrollment over a fifteen year period would provoke massive controversy and angry denunciations from Jewish organizations. The absolute lack of any organized response to the recent sudden disappearance of nearly 60% of Harvard’s Jews certainly suggests that little more than a mere change in definition had occurred.
I gradually noticed that the huge and continuing increase in the enrollment of non-white and foreign students at our most elite universities had caused a complete collapse in the enrollment of white American Gentiles, but oddly enough, no similar reduction in Jewish numbers. It was well-known that Jewish activists had been the primary force behind the establishment of Affirmative Action and related policies in college admissions, and I began to wonder about their true motivation, whether conscious or unconscious.
Had the goal been the stated one, of providing educational opportunities to previously excluded groups? Or had that merely been the excuse used to advance a policy that eliminated the majority of white Gentiles, their primary ethnic competitors? With the Jewish population numbering merely 2%, there was an obvious limit as to how many elite college slots they themselves could possibly fill, but if enough other groups were also brought in, then Gentile numbers could easily be reduced to low levels, despite the fact that they constituted the bulk of the national population.
Asians represented an interesting test-case. As their numbers rapidly grew, white Gentiles were consequently pushed out, and this process was celebrated across the academic community. But by the late 1980s, Asian numbers had increased to such an extent that they inevitably began to impinge upon elite Jewish enrollment as well and future increases would surely worsen the situation. And at that point, the process suddenly halted, with Asian numbers being sharply reduced and thereafter permanently capped. The implications of this situation were already in the back of my mind when I published my 1998 Wall Street Journal column describing some of these striking racial facts.
The current high-profile trial in Boston is widely portrayed by the media as a conflict between Asian-American group and black and Hispanic groups, whose numbers might be sharply reduced under some proposed changes. Whites are largely portrayed as bystanders, with Harvard indicating that their numbers would scarcely shift even under drastic changes in admissions policy. But the term “white” encompasses both Jews and Gentiles, and thus may conceal more than it reveals.
The implications of my 2012 Meritocracy analysis are certainly well-known to all of the prominent participants and observers in the ongoing legal battle, but the fearsome power of the ADL and its media allies ensures that certain important aspects of the current situation are never subjected to widespread public discussion. Asian advocates rightly denounce the unfairness of the current elite academic admissions system, but remain absolutely mute about which American group actually controls the institutions involved.
Throughout the enormous media controversy surrounding the Harvard trial in Boston, all sides are doing their utmost to avoid noticing the 2% elephant in the room. And that fact provides the best proof of the tremendous size and power of that elephant in today’s American society.
Bladensburg Peace Cross, located at west entrance to city on MD 450.
In Bladensburg, Maryland, there is a memorial to the 49 men from the area who died in WWI. It was erected in 1925 by the American Legion.
The memorial is known as the Peace Cross and is forty-feet in height.
The American Humanist Association is a group representing people who believe in “being good without a god.” They regard the memorial as unconstitutional because it is a religious symbol giving the impression that it is only honoring servicemen who were Christians.
In 2014, they filed a lawsuit which demanded that the memorial is destroyed, changed or taken away. On Wednesday that suit received a ruling from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that agreed with their stance. The court ordered the memorial must be taken down because it is shaped like a cross.
According to the ruling, the cross is the “core symbol of Christianity,” and therefore a government-sanctioned memorial in that shape is a breach of the separation of church and state. The court in its 2-1 ruling stated that an observer would conclude from the memorial that the government endorsed Christianity.
The ruling reverses a prior decision in 2015 that determined the purpose of the cross was not primarily religious and that the site had mainly been used to celebrate federal holidays, not religious holidays.
The memorial was placed at the intersection of Route 450 and Alternate US 1. It stands on a rectangular base that has the words Valor, Endurance, Courage, and Devotion inscribed on it.
According to Roy Speckhardt, the executive director of the American Humanists Association, a government war memorial should be respectful to all veterans, not just those from a particular religious group.
Chief Judge Gregory dissented. In a separate document, he wrote that the memorial was dedicated to the character of the deceased soldiers who bravely fought for their country and the liberty of others during the war. He believes that a monument dedicated as such cannot violate the Constitution that those men defended.
The site is owned and maintained by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. They have spent $117,000 maintaining and repairing the monument. The commission was created by the Maryland General Assembly in 1927 to serve the Montgomery and Prince George’s county areas.
The commission has the option of appealing to the Supreme Court. First Liberty Institute lawyer Hiram Sasser said that the ruling was a “dangerous precedent” because it ignores history and could lead to the destruction and/or removal of memorials across the nation. First Liberty Institute and the Jones Day law firm are representing the American Legion in the legal battle.
Michael Carvin is a lawyer for Jones Day. He said that removing the memorial would be a dishonor to those who died in WWI. He added that the memorial has stood for nearly 100 years and is protected by the First Amendment.
The First Liberty Institute is a group from Texas whose mission is “to defend and restore religious liberty across America.” They look to protect religious expression in all areas of US life.
Who’s in control of that?
A Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) host has a long history of anti-white racism and calling for the genocide of white people, evidenced by multiple Tweets sent from her personal account.
“We anti-whites are coming for you,” Lindsay Ellis Tweeted in 2017. “We know where you live.”
She then replied to her own tweet, saying that she gets “really excited about white genocide.”
“It’s going to be the best genocide ever,” according to Ellis. “I made a pinterest board for it.”
Trending: SHOCK PHOTOS: Kavanaugh ‘Protesters’ Caught Getting Paid Hard CASH
Ellis hosts a show called “It’s Lit!” on PBS.
“It’s Lit! is a series of smart, funny video essays from PBS Digital Studios about our favorite books and why we love to read,” the show’s description says. “Hosted by Lindsay Ellis, the series delves into topics like the evolution of YA, how science fiction mirrors our own anxieties, and why the book is sometimes just a _bit_ better than the movie.”
Her Twitter account is peppered with anti-white Tweets.
“White genocide sounds rad,” she said in 2015. “How do we make it happen sooner?”
The American Civil Liberties Union will weigh its interest in protecting the First Amendment against its other commitments to social justice, racial equality, and women’s rights, given the possibility that offensive speech might undermine ACLU goals.
“Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed,” wrote ACLU staffers in a confidential memo obtained by former board member Wendy Kaminer.
It’s hard to see this as anything other than a cowardly retreat from a full-throated defense of the First Amendment.