Supreme Court to DoJ: Fourth Amendment Is Not a “Useless Piece of Paper”

A big win for personal liberty and the Bill of Rights EVAN BERNICK.

Any news that the Fourth Amendment is still being actively enforced by the courts is good news. At oral argument in Rodriguez v. United States, a case involving drug-sniffing dogs, Justice Sotomayor urged that if the arguments made by the Justice Department’s lawyer were accepted, the Fourth Amendment would become “a useless piece of paper.”

On Monday, in an engaged opinion written by Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme Court rejected those arguments and breathed some life into an essential check on government power.

The facts of the case: On March 27, 2012, Nebraska police officer Morgan Struble stopped Dennys Rodriguez for swerving once towards the shoulder of the road. After questioning Rodriguez and issuing him a written warning, Struble asked permission to walk his drug-sniffing dog around the outside of Rodriguez’s vehicle.

When Rodriguez refused, Struble made him exit the vehicle and wait for backup to arrive. Roughly eight minutes later, a second officer showed up, and Struble led his dog around the car. The dog gave an “alert” for illegal drugs, and a subsequent search turned up a bag of methamphetamine.

The Supreme Court held in Illinois v. Caballes (2005) that the use of drug-sniffing dogs during routine traffic stops does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the stop is not “prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission.” In this case, however, the “mission” was already complete because Officer Struble had finished all of the inquiries and paperwork associated with the traffic stop itself.

The question for the Court was thus whether police can begin another mission — that is, an investigation not associated with the violation that occasioned the stop — without reasonable suspicion that the driver (or a passenger) has committed some separate offense.

At oral argument, the Justice Department’s lawyer, Ginger Anders, contended that the fact that the initial mission (writing Rodriguez up for crossing the white line) was complete should not preclude the officer from embarking on another mission. She added, “From the officer’s perspective, I think there’s an interest in officers having some leeway to sequence the stop.”

Such unwarranted “leeway” was not forthcoming.

In her opinion for the Court, Justice Ginsburg drew a principled distinction between “highway and officer safety” interests implicated by routine traffic stops and interests in “detect(ing) crime in general or drug trafficking in particular.” She determined that the dog sniff was not related to the former interests and, therefore, was not within the scope of the initial traffic stop.

Ginsburg summarized the government’s arguments thus: “(B)y completing all traffic-related tasks expeditiously, an officer can earn bonus time to pursue an unrelated criminal investigation.” But pursuit of the unrelated investigation, as Ginsburg explained, would be unreasonable if it were not supported by individualized suspicion because it would extend the seizure beyond the amount of “time reasonably required to complete (the stop’s) mission.”

The Fourth Amendment has not weathered the past half-century well. The Court’s embrace of balancing tests tied to “reasonable expectations” of privacy that “society” is “prepared to recognize as legitimate” has resulted in an an expanding zone of government intrusion.

Although the Fourth Amendment was designed to act as a bar against searches and seizures absent individualized suspicion, it has been construed to permit precisely such searches and seizures in the context of so-called “administrative inspections,” a broad category which encompasses inspections of buildings and workplaces, “administrative searches” of people and their possessions, and searches of businesses in “closely regulated” industries.

The Fourth Amendment’s decline has been abetted as well by the Court’s reflexive deference to law enforcement and its willingness to create doctrines out of whole cloth to ensure that police officers enjoy far more leeway than doctors, pilots, and others who routinely make life-or-death decisions under stressful conditions. The judicially-created doctrine of qualified immunity has effectively insulated police from liability for Fourth Amendment violations and ensured that victims bear the burden of their own injuries.

Monday’s decision, with its insistence upon individualized suspicion, is a welcome return to first principles. Public officials are our servants, not our masters, and they must be held accountable for the responsible exercise of the limited authority delegated to them. Any intrusion upon a person’s liberty without a rational, evidence-based justification is one that that the Constitution does not tolerate.

Justice Sotomayor’s criticism of the government at oral argument brought to mind the words of James Madison, who argued in Federalist 48 that mere “demarcation on parchment” of constitutional limits would be insufficient to secure liberty. InRodriguez, the Court adhered to its duty to give effect to those barriers.

Evan Bernick

Evan is the Assistant Director of the Center for Judicial Engagement at the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm.

How Elena Kagan helped “queer” Harvard Law School

Will she now help “queer” the US Supreme Court’s decisions?

On April 28, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the “same-sex marriage” case. Federal law states: “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Last September, Kagan performed a same-sex “wedding”.But that’s just the latest of a long history of Kagan’s GLBT activism. The evidence presented below is overwhelming. Justice Kagan is hugely biased on GLBT issues and must recuse herself.

[Note: This was originally published shortly before Kagan’s 2010 confirmation hearing. It has been updated and expanded with new information.]

by Amy Contrada and Brian Camenker, MassResistance with Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth about Homosexuality (c) 2010, 2015 MassResistance


Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is committed to the radical campaign pushing acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism as “civil rights.” Her unprecedented activism supporting that view as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003-2009) calls into question her ability to judge fairly and impartially on same-sex “marriage” and other homosexuality- or transgender-related issues that may come before the nation’s highest court.

Kagan’s record while Dean of Harvard Law School (HLS) demonstrates her agreement with the goals of the radical GLBT (gay lesbian bisexual transgender) movement and her solidarity with those activists. Working hand in hand with students to expel military recruiters in protest over the Armed Forces’ ban on homosexuals (a “moral injustice of the first order,” she wrote) is only the most obvious example of Kagan’s passionate dedication to this controversial and immoral agenda.

Kagan’s celebration and active promotion of the radical homosexualist and transgender worldview has profound implications. As a Supreme Court Justice, she could be expected to overturn traditional law and understandings of family, marriage, military order, and even our God-given sex (what transgender radicals call “gender identity or expression”). She is a most dangerous nominee who must be opposed by all who care about religious freedom, the preservation of marriage and traditional values.

There should be grave concern over Kagan’s issues advocacy concerning “sexual orientation.” Even before her nomination to the Court, her enthusiastic and committed pro-homosexuality activism at Harvard (including her recruitment to the faculty of radical “gay” activist scholars like former ACLU lawyer William Rubenstein and elevation of radical out lesbian Professor Janet Halley) was highly significant for the nation. Now, it is imperative that Senators and the U.S. public gain an accurate understanding of the radical, pro-homosexual environment that was Kagan’s home at Harvard – and the GLBT legal agenda that Kagan herself helped foster as Dean.

Kagan did her best to change a generation of Harvard-educated lawyers. Will she do the same to America?

Highlights of Elena Kagan’s Record as Dean at Harvard Law School, 2003-2009 (documentation in following section):

  • Kagan accelerated and legitimized the GLBT “rights” concept and law studies at Harvard Law School and in the larger community.
  • Kagan recruited former ACLU lawyer (and former ACT-UP activist) William Rubenstein, an expert on “queer” legal issues. Few Americans can comprehend the radical nature of “queer” academics. Rubenstein described one of his courses as taking up “newer identities (bisexuality, trans, genderfuck)” as well as “polygamy, S&M, the sexuality of minors.”
  • Kagan promoted and facilitated the “transgender” legal agenda during her tenure at Harvard. In 2007, HLS offered a Transgender Law courseby “out lesbian” Professor Janet Halley and Dean Spade, a transsexual activist attorney. (Halley’s extremism and contempt for natural gender boundaries is illustrated by calling herself a “gay man.”) Kagan also brought in Cass Sunstein (Obama’s regulatory czar, 2009-2012) who has written in support of free-for-all marriage relationships.
  • Kagan encouraged Harvard students to get involved in homosexual activist legal work. At a time when she as Dean pushed students to engage in “public interest law” and to get “clinical” legal experience, the Harvard Law School established the LGBT Law Clinic. How could a “Justice Kagan” on the Supreme Court be impartial involving cases brought by “gay” legal activists — when she so openly advocated for homosexual legal goals and integrating homosexuality into legal studies and practice at Harvard?
  • Kagan engaged in ongoing radical advocacy opposing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and demanding an end to the ban on homosexuals serving in the military. Her highly partisan actions are unbecoming of a future judge – especially one who would be called upon to adjudicate such weighty and divisive matters.
  • Even after Kagan and Harvard lost their legal campaign to ban military recruiters and Harvard Law School was forced to let them back on campus, she encouraged ongoing student protests against them — deputizing the radical Lambda group to come up with ideas of how to harass the recruiters legally. Kagan’s actions blatantly disrespected our military and exposed her as the out-of-touch, socially leftist academic that she is.
  • Kagan attended functions of radical homosexual (GLBT) groups at Harvard University, absorbing and apparently agreeing with their goals. She followed the wishes of campus homosexual organizations — within a month of meeting with a Harvard Law School GLBT student group, she was agreeing with their demand to ban military recruiters on campus. She moderated a panel on GLBT law at the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Caucus’s 25th anniversary celebration in 2008.
  • Radical “trans” activism at Harvard: Kagan’s active promotion of the GLBT agenda at Harvard likely accelerated the campus environment so “tolerant” of homosexuality and gender confusion that there was even a campaign (during her tenure) to make the campus “trans inclusive” — using Harvard’s “gender identity” non-discrimination policy (in place since 2006). This included discussions between GLBT student activists and the law school administration (i.e., Kagan) “to make our restrooms safe and accessible for people regardless of their gender identity or expression.” (Meaning, allowing men who identify as “women” to use female restrooms and locker rooms, etc.)
  • Thanks in part to engagement by Kagan (and other administrators), Harvard has become so committed to radical transsexual activism that its health insurance policy now [2010] partially covers “sex-change” breast “treatments” for transsexuals (either men taking hormones to develop breasts, or women having their healthy breasts removed to become the “men” they believe they are).  Where does Kagan stand on transgenderism and transsexuality and the law today?  It’s very possible this question will come before the courts as trans activists make their demands on government health care.
  • Elena Kagan was a member of the Diversity Task Force of the ultra-leftist Boston Bar Association during the time of its activism in support of “gay marriage” and advocacy for “transgender rights.” Clearly, she was in agreement with its support for radical GLBT “rights.”


The following is a more in-depth treatment of the pro-homosexuality and pro-transgender activism that took place during Kagan’s tenure as Dean of the Harvard Law School (2003-2009):

I. Kagan accelerated and legitimized the GLBT “rights” concept and law studies at Harvard Law School — and in the larger legal community.

On February 5, 2004, Kagan moderated a “Dean’s Forum” on the Massachusetts “same-sex marriage” ruling. This was just months after the state’s Supreme Judicial Court issued its Goodridge opinion in November 2003. (A tape of the event exists in the Harvard Law School archives, but Kagan’s comments have not been publicly reported.)

In October 2004, Dean Kagan presented a HLS “public service award”to HLS alumna and GLBT activist, Sheila Kuehl, then a California State Senator. The likely reason for this award was Kuehl’s election as the first open homosexual to the California legislature, and her authorship of the law banning discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation” in California schools. (No record of Kagan’s remarks is available.)

In September 2008, Kagan moderated a panel on “LGBT law” at the gala Harvard Gay and Lesbian Caucus 25th anniversary event, billed as“A Celebration of LGBT Life at Harvard.” She was moderator for their panel discussion on “The State of the Law: Reflections on the Past Twenty-Five Years and Thoughts about the Future — A discussion of LGBT legal developments and trends by leading legal scholars.” Note that “trends” were discussed along with “developments” — which likely included these hot-button issues: “gay marriage,” adoption by homosexuals, overturning remaining state anti-sodomy statutes, pushing for more “anti-discrimination” statutes and ordinances, overturning the ban on homosexuals in the military, “transgender rights,” the role of federal courts in promoting LGBT “rights,” etc. (No record of her comments is publicly available.)

Among the panelists at that HGLC 25th Anniversary discussion were Georgetown Law Professor Chai Feldblum, an open lesbian and leading GLBT legal strategist, and radical queer Harvard Law Professor William Rubenstein (more on him below). Feldblum (who graduated from Harvard Law School the year before Kagan) claims advocating for homosexuality is a “moral” issue. She openly advocates legalizing polygamous households. Feldblum also ran a website devoted to overturning the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy and the ban on homosexuals in the military. President Obama appointed her to be a Commissioner on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Feldblum admits that the battle for legal rights between pro-homosexual advocates and people of faith is a zero-sum game. She has stated that she can think of few situations in which religious rights (when acting on one’s opposition to homosexuality) would triumph in the courts over homosexuals demanding their “rights” based on “sexual orientation non-discrimination.” Her outlook has been summarized as, “Gays win, Christians lose.”

Does Kagan subscribe to Feldblum’s view that homosexuality-based “rights” take precedence over the liberty of people of faith to act on their belief that homosexual practice is wrong?

Re-shaping the Law School curriculum

In her role as Dean, Kagan oversaw the HLS curriculum and new faculty appointments. Thus, she must have endorsed the following HLS offerings as legitimate subjects and viewpoints (i.e., “gay rights” and “transgender rights” are true civil rights; any disagreement or disapproval is therefore illegal discrimination). One of her major efforts as Dean was “modernizing” the curriculum including eliminating a required Constitution course, and instead requiring international law courses.

“Queer theory” legal scholar William Rubenstein

Kagan brought a pioneering GLBT legal advocate and “scholar”William B. Rubenstein, to HLS from UCLA, first as a Visiting Professor, then as atenured professor. (Both he and Kagan were HLS Class of 1986.)

In a memoir -– also the keynote speech he delivered at the September 2003 HLS GLBT reunion (with Kagan apparently in the audience), Rubenstein waxed poetical about his sexual experiences, desires, and scholarship. He describes his involvement with ACT-UP in the 1980s. (He later gave a lectureat Harvard’s Kennedy School in conjunction with a celebratory Harvard Museum exhibit on ACT-UP in 2009.) He explained how he had to alter his planned GLBT law course at HLS (Spring 2004) after the Lawrence v. Texasand Massachusetts “gay marriage” rulings:

In my new guise, I was hired on May 19, 2003 by the Harvard Law School as a visiting professor to teach a January 2004 course on sexual orientation law. … it was with mixed feelings that I reorganized my Hardwick-centric course away from its gay focus. Labeling the new product Law & Sexuality, I took up newer identities (bisexuality, trans, genderfuck), as well as the gauntlet thrown down by Justice Scalia, dissenting inLawrence (polygamy, S&M, the sexuality of minors). … And yet Harvard Law School itself has not retained many of its alienating features of old. My own classmate Elena Kagan is now Dean; another classmate, Carol Steiker, who had written her journal Note arguing for heightened scrutiny of classifications based on sexual orientation, now a professor; and one of my own students from a 1995 Yale course on Queer Theory, Ryan Goodman, now a member of the Harvard faculty. Fifty-four Harvard Law professors signed an amicus brief challenging the Solomon Amendment, Congress’s insistence that the military be permitted to recruit at the law school, recruit, that is, in direct violation of the law school’s, the university’s, the city’s, and the state’s anti-discrimination policies. No longer do gay law books represent the occasional oasis in the Saharan library. (Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, Vol. 39, 2004 pp. 330-1, emphasis added.)

More important, in his 2003 reunion speech, Rubenstein challenged the Harvard Law School to work harder to “queer” its curriculum and culture:

And so my message, to collect the lessons: our [gay] children, figuratively speaking, come to Harvard seeking a home; they bring with them a wondrous spirit that renews the life of the community regularly; but what they “go into” here at Harvard is not what it is at other institutions around the country. Whose law school is it? Why not ours?

Imagine the possibilities: student scholarships; fellowships for graduates to work on queer issues or to assist them in becoming legal scholars; funds to expand Harvard’s collection of gay materials; funds to support scholars to come to Harvard to teach and write; research and travel money to facilitate the efforts of Professor Halley and other Harvard faculty working on these issues; an endowed speaker series providing a forum for the exchange of ideas among scholars, lawyers, judges, and law students; a chair. Such programs would both make Harvard a more welcoming place and help Harvard contribute more to intellectual discourse on gay issues. Harvard should aspire to lead, and we alums should aspire to make sure that happens. After all: Aren’t we enlarged by the scale of what we’re able todesire? Still time. Still time to change…. (p. 333, emphasis added.)

Did Elena Kagan hear and accept his challenge?

Here’s the description of Rubenstein’s 2007-08 course, “Sexual Orientation and the Law.”

Janet Halley and transgender law

Professor Janet Halley (an “out” lesbian who self-identifies as a “gay man”) was elevated to a named chair professorship under Dean Kagan.Halley may have provided the inspiration to Kagan to go after the military recruiters in her 1999 book on “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”: Don’t: A Reader’s Guide to the Military’s Anti-Gay Policy. She teaches family law, discrimination, and legal theory. She has also taught a course entitled “The Poetics of Sexual Injury.”

Professor Rubenstein described Halley in his 2003 speech cited above:

Most importantly, Harvard’s faculty now includes the country’s single most interesting and provocative queer law scholar, Janet Halley, hired away from Stanford.

Professor Halley identifies herself as a member of the LGBT community in the law professors’ directory—the first full member of the Harvard faculty to do so. Professor Halley’s work, however, challenges the identity-based nature of social movements, investigating whether identity is not, ultimately, as imprisoning as it is liberating. In a unique demonstration that the personal is political, Professor Halley refers to herself as a “gay man.” (pp. 331, emphasis added.)

HLS offered a Transgender Law course (in 2006) taught by Halley andDean Spade, a transsexual activist attorney from the national Lambda Law organization:

As evidence of the increasing visibility of transgender people, Harvard Law School is offering a seminar on transgender law next spring taught by [out lesbian] Professor Janet Halley and [transsexual] Dean Spade, founder of the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, which is dedicated to serving the needs of low-income people of color who are transgender, intersex, or gender non-conforming. (“Lambda lawyer discusses challenges facing transgendered,” Harvard Law Record, April 29, 2005; emphasis added.)

Catharine McKinnon — course on rape, lesbianism, gay rights, prostitution, transgenderism, etc.

Kagan brought radical feminist Catharine McKinnon to Harvard asVisiting Professor in 2007-8 for an “inquiry into the relationship between sex inequality in society and sex equality under law… Concrete issues—employment discrimination, family, rape, sexual harassment, lesbian and gay rights, abortion, prostitution, pornography — focus discussion through cases. Racism, class, and transsexuality are considered throughout.”

Michael Klarman, another legal scholar interested in “gay marriage” and “gay rights,” was hired in 2008 as full professor. Later, in 2012, he published From the Closet to the Altar: Courts, Backlash, and the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage. “He is currently working on a revisionist history of the Founding.”

LGBT Law Clinic and “Career Guide”

The LGBT Law Clinic of HLS was apparently established during Kagan’s tenure as Dean. Kagan encouraged students to engage in “public interest law” and “clinical” experience.” The LGBT clinic was one recommended choice. Its director, Robert Greenwald, also taught courses at HLS including (in 2009) Family, Domestic Violence and LGBT Law”.

HLS issued its “LGBT Rights Law: A Career Guide” in 2007 during Kagan’s tenure as Dean. It lists recommended courses to take for a career in LGBT law, and organizations around the country supporting sexual radical causes.

HLS hosted forum on hate crimes and transgender issues for Democrat Mass. Governor candidates (Sept. 2006).

Mass. Governor Candidates Chris Gabrieli (L) and Deval Patrick (R) at GLBT Forum, Harvard Law School, Sept. 12, 2006 (Bay Windows photo)

Also at HLS while Kagan was Dean, Lambda (the student GLBT organization) co-sponsored a forum with the Massachusetts Democrat Governor candidates, along with InNews Weekly (a defunct radical GLBT Boston newspaper), and the Boston [GLBT] Pride Committee. It was covered by the National Association of Lesbian and Gay Journalists. The focus was “hate crimes” and transgender issues — once again demonstrating the extremism of HLS Lambda. (MassResistance blog, September 14, 2006.)

II. Kagan took part in functions and forums of radical GLBT groups at Harvard University – and apparently followed their lead on issues from banning military recruiters on campus, to increasing GLBT “visibility” in the HLS curriculum.

Kagan attended the first HLS GLBT Alumni reunion in 2003.

Kagan attended the first reunion of HLS GLBT alumni in September 2003, organized by the HLS GLBT student organization Lambda. (Note the inclusion of “T” for “transgender” alumni.) Reportedly, it was the first event of its kind in the nation.

Kagan graduated from Harvard Law School in 1986. Did she attend as a GLBT alumna, or in her role as Dean? She was, at least, at the reunion’s concluding dinner, according to the Harvard Crimson. The Crimson described the event:

Celebratory at times, solemn at others, alumni and current students marked the anniversary Saturday with anecdotes about the personal challenges they faced, the battle they continue to fight to keep military recruiters off campus and the need for classroom instruction in legal issues pertaining to homosexuality.

During the second discussion, titled “Lambda Today: Current Issues and Challenges Facing GLBT Students at HLS,” a student panel expressed their dissatisfaction with the efforts that the faculty and administration are making to address issues facing GLBT students. They highlighted the University’s decision to continue to allow military recruiters on campus, even though their presence violates Harvard’s non-discrimination policy…

At the reunion’s final event, a dinner held at the Hyatt Regency hotel, HLS Dean Elena Kagan renewed her commitment to improving student life for all students on campus … (“HLS Holds Nation’s First Ever GLBT Reunion,”Harvard Crimson, 9-22-03; emphasis added.)

What role did Kagan play at this event? (Kagan noted no recording or transcript of her formal comments in her Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire.)

Kagan at HLS LGBT reunion 2003 (source: Harvard University Gazette)

Within a month, Kagan was agreeing with the demand made by the GLBT students at that reunion: to ban military recruiters on campus.

Notably, the keynote speaker for that HLS GLBT reunion was radical queer legal scholar and Kagan’s Class of 1986 classmate, Professor William Rubenstein (then at UCLA, but about to teach a course at HLS on sexual orientation and the law as Visiting Professor). In his speech noted above, “My Harvard Law School ” (available on a Harvard Law School journal website), he challenged the school to “queer” its curriculum and culture.

In March 2005 Kagan welcomed attendees at a conference of the leftist HLS student journal, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, and in April 2007 delivered “remarks” at another of their events. The journal features “gay rights” issues. (She reported to the Senate Judiciary Committee that no records of her comments exist.) The Review was founded as a “journal of revolutionary constitutional law” and is now “the nation’s leading progressive law journal.” In 2007, the journal published radical homosexual HLS professor William Rubenstein’s ramblings on queering legal education (discussed above).

Kagan attended the university-wide Harvard Gay & Lesbian Caucus’s 25th Anniversary celebration. (See also above.) Events included a panel discussion which Kagan moderated on LGBT legal developments and trends, and other diversions.

The HGLC banner notes the group is dedicated to “Organizing, Serving, and Advocating for the Harvard Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Community” — which is exactly what Kagan was doing when she appeared at their event: advocating for their causes. HGLC’s 25th Anniversary Celebration listings included an LGBT Film Festival, “LGBT Highlights of the Harvard Art Museum,” “Gaydalus” after-party, and panels entitled “Jihads of Love,” “That’s Ms. Dyke to You,” “Naked and Queer,” “Trans America,” and “The Fight for Marriage.” Barney Frank gave the keynote at the gala dinner.

Just how radical is the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Caucus (HGLC)?

  • In 2007 HGLC gave its “Respect Award” to Kevin Jennings, Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” with a long record of homosexual activism targeting schoolchildren. The group credits him with leading the fight to get the gay students’ rights bill passed in Massachusetts. He is also described as a leader in radicalizing Harvard University, organizing the first “open” reunion events specifically for GLBT alumni. “Kevin has changed the face of American education,” said the person introducing him.
  • In 2002, they gave porn promoter Frank Kameny their achievement award. The bio at HGLC refers to Kameny’s heroic past, including his arrest in Lafayette Park across from the White House, “a popular gay cruising area.” Kameny started the D.C. chapter of the Mattachine Society, founded by NAMBLA supporter Harry Hay. Kameny “was instrumental in getting the American Psychological Association to declare that homosexuality is not a mental illness.” He was a founder of the extremist National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which promotes sexual sadomasochism.

(Note: HGLC has been renamed the Harvard Gender & Sexuality Caucus,now serving the “BGLTQ” community. The use of the broader word “sexuality” — rather than specifically “lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender” — is significant as it implies the pansexual directions in which the radicals will likely move, much as Justice Antonin Scalia warned in 2003.)

Kagan attended forums held by HLS Lambda, the radical GLBT student group, on banning military recruiters. (See detail in Section III below.)

Note on the above items: Attending a dinner, moderating a panel, or delivering “remarks” to a group pushing controversial goals indicates sympathy with the viewpoint of group, and is not akin to a simple “welcome” to an uncontroversial group or eminent speaker. In fact, when Kagan fulfilled her administrative duties at a group’s event she did not approve of, here’s what happened:

At the [conservative-leaning Federalist Society] banquet in a downtown hotel, Kagan rose to speak the host institutions’ [sic] words of greeting to the thousand or so Federalists assembled from every corner of the country. She was greeted by a long and raucous ovation. With a broad grin and her unmistakable Upper West Side twang, the former Clinton White House official responded: “You are not my people.” This brought the dark-suited crowd of Federalist students to their feet in a roar of affectionate approval. [HLS Professor Charles Fried, “Everyone’s Dean,” New Republic, April 19, 2010.]

III. Kagan engaged in radical advocacy opposing the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy and demanding an end to the ban on homosexuals serving in the military.

While Dean at Harvard Law School, Kagan allied herself with the radical GLBT student organization, Lambda. Her questionnaire for the Senate Judiciary Committee and press reports reveal at least seven events where she lent her credibility to their causes and demands, including ending the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy. Here is the chronology of those meetings:

  • September 2003: Kagan attended the first Harvard Law School GLBT alumni reunion organized by the HLS student organization Lambda. The event “highlighted the University’s decision to continue to allow military recruiters on campus, even though their presence violates Harvard’s non-discrimination policy.”
  • October 2003: Invites Law School students via official email to Lambda October 10-11 conference on military policy re: homosexuals. Kagan speaks at the conference (press report below).
  • 10/15/04: Kagan made “remarks” at Lambda event (press report below), and joined students in protest on steps of Law School.
  • 9/19/05: Meets with Lambda group before publicly announcing HLS policy reversal (press report below).
  • 10/12/05: Made “remarks” at Lambda event (no record); works with the group that fall to develop resistance tactics (press report below).
  • March 2006: Kagan issues statement urging students to demonstrate vs. military recruiters after Supreme Court ruling against her position on recruiters on campus (press report below).
  • 4/8/06: Kagan moderated LAMBDA student organization panel on “relationship between law schools and the military” (no record).
  • 3/3/07: Kagan moderated panel at HLS Lambda conference on “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (transcript provided to Senate Judiciary committee).

Shortly after becoming Dean, in September 2003 Kagan dived right into the conflict over military recruiters at Harvard Law School.

The Harvard Crimson reported in September 2003:

Harvard is not among the law schools under the umbrella of FAIR [suing the federal government over the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy], according to a statement released by HLS Dean Elena Kagan on Saturday. “Harvard Law School is not a member of this organization, but I share its commitment to nondiscrimination,” Kagan said in the statement. “I look forward to the day when all Americans—regardless of sexual orientation—can serve their country with honor and distinction.”

At the first HLS reunion of gay, bisexual, lesbian and transgendered alumni on Saturday night, Kagan further addressed the issue of military recruitment on the HLS campus. “The military policy that we at the law school are overlooking is terribly wrong, terribly wrong in depriving gay men and lesbians of the opportunity to serve their country,” she said. “The need to create this exception makes me and makes almost all the members of the Harvard Law School community profoundly unhappy.”

She appeared at an October 2003 conference held by Lambda, the GLBT group at the Law School, delivering the welcoming remarks. She had evenencouraged students to attend the conference via official email. Kagan wrote on October 6, 2003:

I abhor the military’s discriminatory recruitment policy. The importance of the military to our society — and the extraordinary service that members of the military provide to all the rest of us — makes this discrimination more, not less, repugnant. The military’s policy deprives many men and women of courage and character from having the opportunity to serve their country in the greatest way possible. This is a profound wrong — a moral injustice of the first order. And it is a wrong that tears at the fabric of our own community, because some of our members cannot, while others can, devote their professional careers to their country.

The Law School remains committed to the principle of equal opportunity for all persons, without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. As a result, the Law School remains opposed to the military’s discriminatory employment practices.

I invite all of you to email me if you have any questions or comments on this important matter. I also invite you, if you wish to learn more about these issues, to attend a conference sponsored by Lambda on the military’s recruitment policies and the Solomon amendment, to be held on October 10 and 11.

The editorial page editor of the Harvard Law Record criticized Kagan’s email as inappropriate coming from the Dean:

The text of Dean Kagan’s notice moved far beyond her role as the Dean of the Law School. Her admonition was an abuse of her position of academic (but certainly not moral) authority, and it should give students pause to consider whether their new dean is capable of understanding the difference between her, the office she occupies and the school that she leads. [Quoted inAccuracy in Academia.]

The Harvard Law Record reported on Kagan’s comments at the conference:

… much of what Kagan said was a recital of her personal abhorrence for the military discriminatory policy. She said, “I am committed to working with Lambda and others … on making progress for the elimination of” discriminatory policies in the military…. Kagan’s public statement was in fact her welcoming remarks for the two-day Lambda conference, titled: “Solomon’s Minefield: Military Discrimination after Lawrence and the Coming Fight over Forced On-Campus Recruiting.” … The conference included panel discussions on “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” in the wake of Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court decision last summer that struck down sodomy laws across the nation…

Dean Elena Kagan appears before a conference organized by HLS Lambda, October 2003. (Harvard Law Record photo.)

In October 2004, Kagan appeared at a student rally against “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and military recruiters. According to the Harvard Law Record:

The LAMBDA-sponsored rally on the steps to the library on Friday brought almost 100 students and numerous professors …”I’m very opposed to two government policies that directly violate our policy of nondiscrimination and directly impact our students,” stated Dean Kagan at the rally. “The first is ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell.’…. The second is the Solomon Amendment which effectively forces educational institutions to make exceptions to their nondiscrimination policy when it comes to the military and military recruitment.”

Kagan on Harvard Law School steps during Lambda rally against military recruiters, October 2004. (Harvard Law Record photo)

In September 2005, Kagan even met with the Lambda group before announcing HLS’s policy reversal (allowing recruiters back on campus) to assure them she still shared their views.  Kagan would surely have agreed with Professor Alan Dershowitz’s sign at the HLS rally in October 2005:“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Codifies Homophobia.” [Bay Windows, October 13, 2005, p. 18.] A student at the same rally holds a sign reading: “Racist Sexist Homophobic Recruiters OUT of Harvard.”

Kagan then went on to encourage ongoing disrespect for the military recruiters once HLS let them back on campus, deputizing the radical Lambda group to come up with ideas of how to harass them legally. (Clearly, she was meeting with group members outside their public events.) The groupstated it had Kagan’s support. In the fall of 2005,

… Law School Dean Elena Kagan appointed a “Solomon amelioration” task force, headed by Lambda—the school’s gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender student group—to examine methods in which the school could curb the effects of the statute. … In October, Lambda members staged a “sit-in” at the Law School student center, Harkness Commons, to voice their opposition to the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. And in the past … Law School students have protested recruitment by signing up for interviews with recruiters in order to waste the military officers’ time. (“Solomon Law Might Not Bar Jeering,”Harvard Crimson, December 13, 2005, emphasis added.)

In March 2006, Kagan

… encouraged students to demonstrate the presence of recruiters. Her statement came one day after Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. ’76 ruled that “law schools remain free under the [Solomon Amendment] to express whatever views they may have on the military’s congressionally mandated employment policy, all the while retaining eligibility for federal funds.” … Kagan wrote in her message that she hopes “many members of the Harvard Law School community will accept the Court’s invitation to express their views clearly and forcefully regarding the military’s discriminatory employment policy.”

… the co-president of Lambda, Jeffrey G. Paik ’03, said yesterday. “I’m also glad that she acknowledged the right of students to protest and make their views known; it says a lot to the students when the dean comes out and supports them.” (“HLS to abide by Court’s decisions,” Harvard Crimson, March 8, 2006.)

In April 2006, Kagan moderated a Lambda panel on the “relationship between law schools and the military.” (No record.)

In March 2007, Kagan doubled down on her advocacy, actually chairing a panel discussion at the HLS Lambda conference focused on “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

Saturday morning’s panel, “The Contours of Judicial Deference to Military Personnel Policies,” looked at the tradition of judicial deference to Congress, and how that deference applies in the case of military affairs. Moderated by Dean Elena Kagan, the panel included Bakken and Delery, along with Diane Mazur, Professor of Law, University of Florida College of Law; and Laurence H. Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University Professor, Harvard University.

Discussion involved whether a court would overturn “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” considering all of the fact-finding that Congress engaged in during its codification of the policy in 1993 …

In addition to stimulating discussion of legal issues facing the LGBT community, the conference is also intended to provide a networking environment for the law students and practitioners interested in engaging in dialogue on topics in this area. The presence of HLS alumni, respected scholars and authorities in the field created a vibrant discussion in the “off times” during lunches and breaks. (“Lambda Conference Examines ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’,” Harvard Law Record, March 8, 2007; emphasis added.)


IV. Did Kagan’s engagement with GLBT groups help accelerate the transgender movement at the University?

“Our mission is not simply to train lawyers; more broadly, we must seek to train leaders—visionary thinkers and practitioners capable of designing new institutions to meet individual and societal needs,” Kagan wrote. (“As Harvard Law Dean…,” CNS News, May 28, 2010, emphasis added.)

Student and staff GLBT groups wanting to design “new institutions” (“gay marriage” for example) — including HLS Lambda and the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Caucus, both of which Kagan supported publicly — pushed for the most radical transgender demands and clearly had influence with Kagan. “One of the central goals of Lambda [was] to raise the profile of out queer students at the law school and dismantle the homophobic and hyper-masculine culture of a law school that first graduated women in 1953.” (“Cleaning Out the Closet,” Harvard Crimson, September 24, 2008.) They found an ally in Kagan.

For years before the university’s 2006 inclusion of “gender identity” non-discrimination, the “Trans Task Force” had been working hard “behind the scenes” talking with administrators all over the university.

To what extent was Kagan involved as an administrator, and does she agree with these radical transgender demands?

How are these demands playing out [in 2010] at the University?

During Kagan’s tenure the movement was already gaining steam:

  • In April 2005, HLS Lambda sponsored two forums on transgender issues, one with a transsexual activist (whose group is pushing the “Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes” bill in the Massachusetts legislature), and one with an attorney from the national group Lambda Legal. [Harvard Law Record, “Lambda lawyer discusses challenges facing transgendered,” 4-29-05]
  • In April 2006, HU added “gender identity” to its non-discrimination policy, leading to granting transgender demands on bathroom and locker room use, dormitory housing, hormone treatments (beginning in 2006), and counseling supporting the individual’s chosen “gender identity.”  “2006 was a major year for trans activism, education, and visibility at Harvard, sparking much discussion both within the student body and between students and administrators,” according to the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Caucus. (It’s notable that a 2005 Harvard Law School graduate and former HLS Lambda activist, Noah E. Lewis, has led the charge for these benefits at Harvard as staff attorney for the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund.)
  • The radical GLBT groups worked with administrators throughout the university to promote their cause (Harvard Crimson). HLS Lambda was one of those groups. What was Kagan’s involvement and position on their trans demands?
  • Professor Janet Halley’s 2007 transgender law course is noted above.
  • In early 2008, HLS Lambda hosted its third annual Harvard Lambda Legal Advocacy conference, and it focused on transgender legal issues. A conference organizer said:

“This is absolutely cutting edge in the legal world, and it’s also something that doesn’t get enough attention in LGBT advocacy” … Mara Keisling, [male-to-female transsexual] executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, will kick off the conference with a welcome lunch Feb. 29. The conference will also feature panels on everything from trans youth and family issues to healthcare to sex segregation and gender regulation in the law.  (“Harvard Lambda conference to focus on trans issues,” Bay Windows, February 21, 2008.)

    • In 2008, Lambda’s stated focus was discussions on “gender identity” and making the Law School

… campus truly trans inclusive. Building on the significant efforts of the Trans Task Force [which made a big push in 2006] and the undergraduate bathrooms campaign, Lambda has begun conversations with the law school administration [i.e., Kagan] to make our restrooms safe and accessible for people regardless of their gender identity or expression. (“Cleaning Out the Closet,” Harvard Crimson, September 24, 2008.)

So … Does Elena Kagan subscribe to the view that Americans should be granted “rights” based on gender confusion? Should transgender or transsexual persons be allowed to serve in the military?

Note: See Trannys Talk Back (2005 and later) and the Harvard trans community’s online publication, quench zine, for a taste of the juvenile, irrational and disturbing extremism of these groups’ demands. (See also MassResistance blog, “Harvard, Truth and Transgenderism,” September 15, 2006.)

Speaker at “Transgender Rights” rally at Harvard, 4-19-06. Note T-shirt message: “Fags Hate God”. (Photo: InNews Weekly.)

V. Kagan’s advocacy in the wider Massachusetts community: She noted in her Senate Judiciary questionnaire that she was a “member of Boston Bar Association Diversity Task Force.” Clearly then, she would support and promote their public positions on “gay marriage,” DOMA, “transgender rights,” etc.

This was a period of radical action by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the legislature. The Goodridge opinion (claiming the state constitution required allowing “gay marriage”) was issued in November 2003. In May 2004, the “marriages” began. In the years to follow, GLBT radicals pushed for “transgender rights” and national action to overturn DOMA.

What did the Boston Bar Association promote in the name of “diversity”?From its website:

  • 2002 “The BBA files an amicus brief (filed jointly with the Mass. Lesbian and Gay Bar Association) in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health in support of same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue, stating that discrimination against gays and lesbians is unacceptable and unconstitutional. Depriving same-sex couples the right to marry violates their equal protection under the law and denies them the rights, benefits, and privileges afforded to opposite-sex married couples.” The brief states, “The denial of the right to marry … deprives same-sex couples in Massachusetts of equal protection under the law, as a matter of statutory and constitutional law.” (p. 3)So it would seem Elena Kagan’s mind is already made up on the issue of “gay marriage.”
  • 2003 BBA adopts a diversity statement including non-discrimination re: “sexual preference.”
  • 2006-2008 The Diversity Task Force makes recommendations focused on “race, ethnicity, gender, and LGBT issues in the profession.”
  • 2007 “BBA Supports Equal Rights for Transgender Individuals.”
  • 2010 BBA institutionalizes partnership with Massachusetts LGBTQ Bar Association.
  • 2012 The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) receive the third annual Beacon Award (from BBA) for their work to defeat the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
  • 2013 “The BBA underscores its support for marriage equality and joins a coalition of bar associations, civil and human rights groups, and public interest and legal services organizations in signing onto amicus briefs in United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry.

15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution

When the Court traded law and liberty for political expediency by SEAN J. ROSENTHAL.

What makes a Supreme Court decision bad? And what are the worst precedents handed down by our highest court?

I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently, and here are my nominees for the worst SCOTUS opinions to date.

The standard I’m using for “worst” is three-fold:

  • First, the holding of the case is unambiguously still guiding precedent.
  • Second, the holding of the case is inconsistent with the Constitution.
  • Third, the case either A) has egregious consequences for individual liberty or B) is clearly ideological- or policy-driven rubbish as a matter of constitutional law (whether or not I happen to like the consequences).

Under the first prong, I will exclude from consideration a number of infamously horrific decisions: Dred Scott (ruling black people aren’t citizens), Plessy v. Ferguson (allowing separate-but-equal), Buck v. Bell (permitting compulsory sterilization), and Korematsu v. United States (upholding Japanese internment camps).

Dred Scott and Plessy have been clearly overruled. Buck and Korematsu may not be technically be overruled, but I think the reason is just that a similar case hasn’t provided the opportunity. I may be wrong about that for Buck andKorematsu — I hope not — but I am making the assumption that they’re not good law anymore.

Using the second and third prongs, I think the case that wins the “honor” for the worst active Supreme Court decision in American history is Helvering v. Davis (1937). Helvering upheld the constitutionality of Social Security on the basis that Congress has a general power to spend on whatever it deems to be in the general welfare.

This ruling completely upended the system of enumerated powers, in which Congress only had the powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and eviscerated the Tenth Amendment that restricted the federal government to its defined roles.

Since Helvering, Congress can spend money on anything it wants, facilitating the welfare state and the immense growth of the federal government in the last 80 years. If I had to make a rough estimate, I’d say about 75% or more of the spending currently done by the federal government relies on this holding inHelvering, making the overwhelming majority of what the federal government does unconstitutional.

Thus, Helvering is the central case that flipped the system from limiting the government to what is explicitly allowed to permitting anything that isn’t explicitly banned — effectively ending federalism.

Here are various runners-up, in approximately chronological order:

  1. Slaughter-House Cases / United States v. Cruikshank (1873 / 1875)
    Rulings: Eviscerated the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, preventing the Amendment from broadly protecting individual rights to this day.
  2. Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889)
    Ruling: Upheld the Chinese Exclusion Act on the basis that Congress has an inherent power to restrict migration into the United States, despite Congress not actually being enumerated this power.
  3. Hans v. Louisiana (1890)
    Ruling: Declared that the symbolic meaning of the 11th Amendment prevents citizens from suing their states, even though the text makes no such reference, and thus inadvertently damaged the 4th Amendment by foreclosing the most effective means of enforcing it.
  4. Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1934)
    Ruling: Allowed states to alter banking contracts after the fact and thus effectively eliminated most of the Contracts Clause that prevents states from impairing private contractual obligations.
  5. United States v. Carolene Products / Williamson v. Lee Optical (1938 / 1955)
    Rulings: Removed virtually all protection for unenumerated rights, particularly economic liberties, and granted the government nearly unlimited power to blatantly and unambiguously promote special interests at the expense of the public.
  6. Wickard v. Filburn / Gonzales v. Raich (1942 / 2005)
    Rulings: Allowed Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce to be used to regulate purely local and essentially non-commercial activities, and thus empowered Congress to regulate essentially anything it wants.
  7. Baker v. Carr (1962)
    Ruling: Declared that a “One Person, One Vote” standard is essential to democracy, despite the fact that the Constitution doesn’t follow OPOV in elections for the Senate or the presidency; facilitated gerrymandering by requiring every state to redo its districts every census to comply with OPOV.
  8. Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. / Runyon v. McCrary (1968 / 1976)
    Rulings: Declared that Congress’s power to ban slavery includes a broad power to ban virtually anything that could conceivably be deemed discriminatory, including private individuals refusing to sell private houses or admit students to private schools based on race, and thus transformed the power to stop slavery into a broad power to restrict private and voluntary choices.
  9. Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
    Ruling: Granted broad deference to Congress on campaign finance restrictions that limit political speech, despite the 1st Amendment’s core protection being for political speech.
  10. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984)
    Ruling: Granted administrative agencies broad deference in creating regulations based on administrative interpretations of laws and thus granted administrative agencies of the executive branch broad lawmaking powers.
  11. McCleskey v. Kemp (1987)
    Ruling: Declared that Georgia’s application of the death penalty did not violate its victims’ Equal Protection rights, despite admitting that racism played a substantial role in determining who received the death penalty and, by implication, insulated the entire criminal justice system from any obligation not to be discriminatory in effect or operation.
  12. Morrison v. Olson (1988)
    Ruling: Allowed Congress to create an independent counsel with the power to investigate and prosecute people independent of the president, even though the president is vested with executive power, and prosecutions are purely executive powers.
  13. Kelo v. City of New London (2005)
    Ruling: Declared that using the power of eminent domain to take property from poorer people and give the property to large corporations (who pay more taxes) to be a “public use” under the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment.
  14. NFIB v. Sebelius (2012)
    Ruling: Allowed Congress to force people to buy health insurance from private companies on the basis of the regulation being a “tax,” by implication allowing Congress do virtually anything with the taxing power that no independent power, even the expansive Commerce Clause, would allow.

I could think of a few other cases, but I feel like the worst ever and 14 runners-up are at least a pretty good start.

Feel free to disagree with any choice and add your own nominees for badly decided cases in the comments.

Sean J. Rosenthal

Sean J. Rosenthal graduated from Georgetown University with a major in history and mathematics in 2011. He will be graduating from Boston University School of Law with a J.D. and an LL.M. in Banking and Financial Law in May 2015.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment: Understanding the Court’s Landmark Decisions

Time to Remove Satan from the Public Square

In June of 1962 the U.S. Supreme Court in the Engel v. Vitale case ruled:

Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law “respecting an establishment of religion,” which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school day — even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited.

This SCOTUS decision has had far reaching effects leading to: a misinterpretation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, God being removed from the public square, religious liberty being threatened and the potential for marriage to be redefined. As God was gradually removed from the public square the void was filled by Satan.

It is time to remove Satan from the public square?

real nature of religion book coverRebecca Bynum believes so. Bynam’s book “The Real Nature of Religion” believes that perhaps it is time to set public standards on religion. Bynum takes on issues such as the soul, science, morals, values, goodness, evil, mortality  and immortality in her short but compelling book.

Bynum notes, “Certainly it is a symptom of the decline of [Western] civilization that our [secular] culture is not providing people a reason to go on living, let alone a reason to cultivate our inner lives [soul] in hope that something real will live on in a future existence [life everlasting].” Bynum writes, “Moral feelings goes all the way down to the essence of what it is to be human.”

Satan takes away the “essence of what it is to be human.”

In Chapter 7: Religion and the Law Bynum asks: How should religion be defined? Bynum writes, “The time has come to robustly and honestly discuss and define the real nature of religion. All Americans must certainly admit the necessity of allowing only those religions (both new and old traditions) which are beneficial to our society to grow and flourish. Those harmful to our social unity should not be given free reign to grow in influence and power, for the day of reckoning will surely come.”

Bynum believes, “Defining true religions for First Amendment protection could be easily done in neutral language and religions and religious sects could be subject to a simple test.” Bynum’s simple test consists of five questions:

  1. Is love, the progressive experience of God, encouraged?
  2. Are the fruits of the spirit, (truthfulness, joy, peace, loyalty, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance) encouraged?
  3. Is loving service to humanity, without prejudice, encouraged?
  4. Are hatred, selfishness, intolerance, intemperance, deceit and violence discouraged?
  5. Is violent coercion employed?

Bynum believes by using this simple test U.S. Courts “[W]ould not be required to prove or disprove the validity of any set of religious beliefs [see U.S. v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1943)] but it can set standards on what true religion should do for mankind and judge the fitness of different religions to come under the protection of the First Amendment…”

Bynum notes, “Just as early scientists argued that doctrine cannot deny experience (specifically, observation and experiment), neither should a scientific materialistic doctrine [liberalism, socialism] deny the plain fact of the everyday human experience of the non-material-specifically mind and soul.”

Who will lead the fight in the battle to deny Satan the public square?

The leaderhip must come from the pulpit. From the Pastors, Ministers, Priests, Bishops, the Pope and Rabbis and from those who “seek God and forsake self.”

As Bynum notes, “Religious liberty is at the heart of freedom. Men either choose to seek God and forsake self, or they choose to forsake God and elevate self. This is the very essence of freedom. No one can force another to love. Conformity is no antidote to sin and forcing conformity is a sin in itself.”

Jesus said, “Think not that I come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” Matthew 10:34

His sword is Truth!


Angie’s List CEO Resigns After Stirring Controversy Over Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law

What You Need to Know About Gay Marriage and the Supreme Court

To Protect Religious Freedom, Republicans Attempt Historic Move Against D.C.

Florida 2016: E-verify Constitutional Amendment Ballot Petition Started

Floridians for E-Verify Now have begun to collect the 683,149 petitions needed to place mandatory e-verify constitutional amendment on the 2016 ballot.

If passed the amendment would take effect on July 1 of the year following passage by the voters. The amendment requires that all Florida employers who hold business licenses shall verify the employment eligibility of all new employees through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s E-Verify system. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation shall administer this amendment through regulations, random audits, investigations of complaints, and enforcement actions. Authorizes penalties for violations of this amendment. Provides definitions.

Dr. Frank Morris, the former Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and former Dean of Graduate Studies at Morgan State University, speaks on why Floridians need to Amend the Florida Constitution to prohibit illegal alien hiring:

Key provisions of the proposed Florida constitutional amendment are:

  • Mandates that all employers use the Federal E-Verify program to verify the employment eligibility of all new hires.
  • Prohibits the hiring of illegal aliens
  • Provides for penalties to employers that violate provisions of the amendment. Violators of this amendment can face suspension of their business license.
  • Mandates that the state enforce this amendment through regulations, random audits, investigation of complaints, and other enforcement actions.
  • Any Florida citizen has standing to seek judicial relief to compel the state to meet its constitutional obligation to enforce compliance with this amendment.

Click here to read the full text of the e-verify constitutional amendment.

Those interested in putting this amendment on the 2016 ballot may download the ballot petition at

Guardianship: ‘A Crime Against Humanity’

I have written about the Florida guardianship process and the danger it poses to the individual, and their family and the corruption in the system. I used two (Al Katz and Marie Winkelman) of the thousands of cases probated in Florida’s courts to show just how the system easily takes the person, their freedom and their property and leaves them, and their estate, empty.

The probate court system creates its own term of art “incapacitation”. Probate courts use the magic phrase “incapacitation” to cash in on Guardianships by illegally imprisoning tens of thousands of American citizens each year. This video explains why the term is the password to these criminally imposed “guardianships”:

Mary G. Sykes in an email writes, “I argue that it is [a crime against humanity].  Seniors railroaded into guardianships and forcibly evicted by the police from their homes (RLVN, Gore, Wyman, et alia), or by a relative (Sykes), homes sold, personal property plundered without accounting (Wyman, Sykes, RLVN, Reichert, et alia), seniors isolated from former family and friends and ‘caretakers’ that are really bodyguards or lootguards put in place (Stone, Reichert, et alia) and they they are forcibly drugged with dangerous psychotropic drugs so that if they did not have dementia before, they will get it in a few short months (Frake, Stone, Col. Smith, et alia).”

Kenneth Ditkowsky notes, “The guardianship for profit industry coupled with their elder cleansing operation is a major revenue source for the most corrupt of our political people.  The Gulag is America’s dirty secret!”

What is sad is Florida is supposed to be a great retirement magnet for the elderly – the sunshine state. The truth, in some elderly cases, is that it is anything but that. Florida can be a very dark place for our elderly.

Razing the Bar: The bar exam protects a cartel of lawyers, not their clients by Allen Mendenhall

The bar exam was designed and continues to operate as a mechanism for excluding the lower classes from participation in the legal services market. Elizabeth Olson of the New York Times reports that the bar exam as a professional standard “is facing a new round of scrutiny — not just from the test takers but from law school deans and some state legal establishments.”

This is a welcome development.

Testing what, exactly?

The dean of the University of San Diego School of Law, Stephen C. Ferrulo, complains to the Times that the bar exam “is an unpredictable and unacceptable impediment for accessibility to the legal profession.” Ferrulo is right: the bar exam is a barrier to entry, a form of occupational licensure that restricts access to a particular vocation and reduces market competition.

The bar exam tests the ability to take tests, not the ability to practice law. The best way to learn the legal profession is through tried experience and practical training, which, under our current system, are delayed for years, first by the requirement that would-be lawyers graduate from accredited law schools and second by the bar exam and its accompanying exam for professional fitness.

Freedom of contract

The 19th-century libertarian writer Lysander Spooner, himself a lawyer, opposed occupational licensure as a violation of the freedom of contract, arguing that, once memorialized, all agreements between mutually consenting parties “should not be subjects of legislative caprice or discretion.”

“Men may exercise at discretion their natural rights to enter into all contracts whatsoever that are in their nature obligatory,” he wrote, adding that this principle would prohibit all laws “forbidding men to make contracts by auction without license.”

In more recent decades, Milton Friedman disparaged occupational licensure as “another example of governmentally created and supported monopoly on the state level.” For Friedman, occupational licensure was no small matter. “The overthrow of the medieval guild system,” he said, was an indispensable early step in the rise of freedom in the Western world. It was a sign of the triumph of liberal ideas.… In more recent decades, there has been a retrogression, an increasing tendency for particular occupations to be restricted to individuals licensed to practice them by the state.

The bar exam is one of the most notorious examples of this “increasing tendency.”

Protecting lawyers from the poor

The burden of the bar exam falls disproportionately on low-income earners and ethnic minorities who lack the ability to pay for law school or to assume heavy debts to earn a law degree. Passing a bar exam requires expensive bar-exam study courses and exam fees, to say nothing of the costly applications and paperwork that must be completed in order to be eligible to sit for the exam. The average student-loan debt for graduates of many American law schools now exceeds $150,000, while half of all lawyers make less than $62,000 per year, a significant drop since a decade ago.

Recent law-school graduates do not have the privilege of reducing this debt after they receive their diploma; they must first spend three to four months studying for a bar exam and then, having taken the exam, must wait another three to four months for their exam results. More than half a year is lost on spending and waiting rather than earning, or at least earning the salary of a licensed attorney (some graduates work under the direction of lawyers pending the results of their bar exam).

When an individual learns that he or she has passed the bar exam, the congratulations begin with an invitation to pay a licensing fee and, in some states, a fee for a mandatory legal-education course for newly admitted attorneys. These fees must be paid before the individual can begin practicing law.

The exam is working — but for whom?

What’s most disturbing about this system is that it works precisely as it was designed to operate.  State bar associations and bar exams are products of big-city politics during the Progressive Era. Such exams existed long before the Progressive Era — Delaware’s bar exam dates back to 1763 — but not until the Progressive Era were they increasingly formalized and institutionalized and backed by the enforcement power of various states.

Threatened by immigrant workers and entrepreneurs who were determined to earn their way out of poverty and obscurity, lawyers with connections to high-level government officials in their states sought to form guilds to prohibit advertising and contingency fees and other creative methods for gaining clients and driving down the costs of legal services. Establishment lawyers felt the entrepreneurial up-and-comers were demeaning the profession and degrading the reputation of lawyers by transforming the practice of law into a business industry that admitted ethnic minorities and others who lacked rank and class. Implementing the bar exam allowed these lawyers to keep allegedly unsavory people and practices out of the legal community and to maintain the high costs of fees and services.

Protecting the consumer

In light of this ugly history, the paternalistic response of Erica Moeser to the New York Times is particularly disheartening. Moeser is the president of the National Conference of Bar Examiners. She says that the bar exam is “a basic test of fundamentals” that is justified by “protecting the consumer.” But isn’t it the consumer above all who is harmed by the high costs of legal services that are a net result of the bar exam and other anticompetitive practices among lawyers? To ask the question is to answer it. It’s also unclear how memorizing often-archaic rules to prepare for standardized, high-stakes multiple-choice tests that are administered under stressful conditions will in any way improve one’s ability to competently practice law.

The legal community and consumers of legal services would be better served by the apprenticeship model that prevailed long before the rise of the bar exam. Under this model, an aspiring attorney was tutored by experienced lawyers until he or she mastered the basics and demonstrated his or her readiness to represent clients. The high cost of law school was not a precondition; young people spent their most energetic years doing real work and gaining practical knowledge. Developing attorneys had to establish a good reputation and keep their costs and fees to a minimum to attract clients, gain trust, and maintain a living.

The rise in technology and social connectivity in our present era also means that reputation markets have improved since the early 20th century, when consumers would have had a more difficult time learning by word-of-mouth and secondhand report that one lawyer or group of lawyers consistently failed their clients — or ripped them off. Today, with services like Amazon, eBay, Uber, and Airbnb, consumers are accustomed to evaluating products and service providers online and for wide audiences.  Learning about lawyers’ professional reputations should be quick and easy, a matter of a simple Internet search.  With no bar exam, the sheer ubiquity and immediacy of reputation markets could weed out the good lawyers from the bad, thereby transferring the mode of social control from the legal cartel to the consumers themselves.

Criticism of the high costs of legal bills has not gone away in recent years, despite the drop in lawyers’ salaries and the saturation of the legal market with too many attorneys. The quickest and easiest step toward reducing legal costs is to eliminate bar exams. The public would see no marked difference in the quality of legal services if the bar exam were eliminated, because, among other things, the bar exam doesn’t teach or test how to deliver those legal services effectively.

It will take more than just the grumbling of anxious, aspiring attorneys to end bar-exam hazing rituals. That law school deans are realizing the drawbacks of the bar exam is a step in the right direction. But it will require protests from outside the legal community — from the consumers of legal services — to effect any meaningful change.

Allen Mendenhall

Allen Mendenhall is the author of Literature and Liberty: Essays in Libertarian Literary Criticism (Rowman & Littlefield / Lexington Books, 2014). Visit his website at

Lawsuits filed to determine Effectiveness of Women in Combat

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has filed two different Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits in different federal district courts to obtain results from testing women for direct combat roles. One lawsuit was filed against the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and the 2nd lawsuit was filed against the Department of Army in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Both lawsuits were filed on behalf of Elaine Donnelly and the Center for Military Readiness (“CMR”) to obtain records related to the effectiveness of women in direct combat roles which should have been provided as a result of previous Freedom of Information Act requests.

Thomas More Law Center Files Two Lawsuits to Obtain Military Documentation on Effectiveness of Women to Close-In and Kill the Enemy

Since the founding of CMR in 1993, Elaine Donnelly, as its president, has been researching and reporting on various aspects of social policy in all branches of military service. TMLC’s Senior Trial Counsel, Erin Mersino, has been assisting Donnelly’s efforts by filing numerous FOIA requests on all branches of military service. Commenting on the two lawsuits filed yesterday, Mersino stated, “Adherence to the FOIA is crucial because it allows the public access to our government.  The documents we requested under FOIA are time sensitive.  Permanent decisions regarding women in the infantry are projected to be made as soon as January 2016.  The public should be informed of such important matters that directly affect our national security.”

CMR has already prepared an analysis of the study conducted by the British Ministry of Defense, which tears to shreds the case for women in ground close combat.  One of the findings of the study was that under conditions of high intensity close quarter battle, “team cohesion is of such significance that the employment of women in this environment would represent a risk to combat effectiveness and no gain in terms of combat effectiveness to offset it.” The entire analysis can be found at:

In January of 2013, the Obama administration announced its decision to make female military personnel eligible for assignment to direct ground combat units, including the infantry, by January of 2016.  Since then the various departments of the military have been collecting data concerning the safety and effectiveness of women on the front lines. TMLC has submitted numerous FOIA requests on behalf of Elaine Donnelly and the CMR in an effort to obtain information prior to the conclusion of the military’s studies in January 2016.  The recent FOIA requests to the Army and to SOCOM were part of that concerted effort.

Although a small group of service women initially volunteered for tests, that number has dwindled.  Obtaining the documents asked for in the lawsuits will allow Elaine Donnelly to analyze the safety and effectiveness of allowing women in the infantry and provide its findings and analysis to the public and to the military at a crucial point in time.

Of particular interest to the Law Center is the attempt by the Pentagon to insert women into the one of the most grueling training regimens in the entire military establishment, the U.S. Army Rangers.  The deep concern now is that the Pentagon will reduce the physical requirements so that women will pass.

Richard Thompson, TMLC’s President and Chief Counsel, commented:

“The question is not whether women should serve in combat, they already do, and admirably. The question is whether women should purposely be placed in situations where they must close with the enemy in extremes of physical endurance, climate and terrain, brutal and violent death, injury, horror, and fear, just to satisfy the feminist agenda. Too many generals in the Pentagon know better, but they succumb to political pressure acting more like politicians than true military leaders. They already know that the end result will be compromised standards, destruction of the effectiveness of units like the Rangers and Navy Seals, and disruption of the warrior spirit and ethos so carefully nurtured over the years.”

Why Natural Born Citizen is Non-Negotiable

Not so long ago, Americans placed little faith and trust in ambulance chasers (a.k.a. lawyers) or politicians, and wisely so according to our Founders who had no faith or trust in any person seeking power and dominion over others. Now, too many Americans place all of their faith in people seeking power and dominion over others, and even worse, a class of people who have already proven most dangerous to the Constitutional Republic and Rule of Law… the lawyer law-makers…

Ever since Barack Obama stole the show at the Kerry Convention in 2004 and rocketed from total obscurity to the most powerful political office in our land four years later, the subject of Article II requirements for the Oval Office has been a subject of great debate, all over three simple words, natural born Citizen (NBC), aka “True Citizen.”

Where did it come from, what does it mean, why did our Founders limit access to only two political offices in our nation to no one other than a natural born Citizen, and what do we do now that we know Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the United States? These questions have been the source of much political debate, confusion and anxiety, now threatening the GOP as a result of numerous potential 2016 GOP candidates also failing to meet the requirement.

Some of the most blatantly insane arguments have been floated…

“Well, the constitution does not provide a definition for the term”… which is of course true, since the U.S. Constitution provides no definition for any word found in the document.

“Our naturalization laws define natural born Citizen” (when in fact our naturalization laws only pertain to naturalized citizens, immigrants seeking basic citizen rights from congress).

“The courts will have to tell us what the term means”… despite knowing that it is the courts that created terms of art like “undocumented citizen” (a.k.a. illegal alien) and “Constitutional Rights for non-citizens and even enemy combatants” (while denying American citizen any constitutional protection of natural rights at all) and “social justice” (the opposite of real justice under Constitutional Law).

Others rely upon “legal scholars” also known as lawyers of the political class in line for political appointments and eager to please those in positions to help them ascend to those lofty positions in the judiciary, ignoring the reality that these scholars have powerful political motivations for the opinions they write, and that no opinion has the power to amend the U.S. Constitution except by amendment process.

The simple truth is that Article II of the U.S. Constitution has only been amended once in U.S. history, by Amendment XII extending the requirements for President to the Vice President as well. It has not been otherwise amended, despite at least eight failed attempts by Congress to eliminate the natural born requirement for high office. Further, no amendment has ever mentioned, changed or in any way altered the original meaning of natural born Citizen as intended by our Founders and ratified by all fifty states.

So, the term natural born Citizen means the same today as it did in 1787 when the Founders placed that requirement in Article II… unless you buy into the notion that naturalization statutes or amendments, or scholarly legal arguments carry with them the legal force to amend the constitution – in which case, the term has no meaning at all, and neither does anything else in our Founding documents.

Before Barack Obama arrived on the scene, the nobody from nowhere with a blank résumé and no verifiable past, not too many Americans ever thought about the term. Most Americans assumed that no one would ever be bold enough to attempt such a massive fraud by falsely claiming natural born eligibility, and they assumed that if anyone ever did make such an attempt, our strict election laws, free press and national security agency oversight would surely catch it, expose it and stop it from happening. These assumptions have proven to be wrong… in fact, such attempts are now becoming common place. Barack was the first, but now there are others…

Most Americans have entered the discussion from a purely political purpose, attempting to either qualify their political messiah of choice, or disqualify another. But the natural born Citizen concept is actually far more important to our society than merely who can and cannot hold the office of Commander-in-Chief.

I was recently asked a question I have been asked literally thousands of times since I started writing on the subject, how do I know for sure what the Founders meant by natural born Citizen?

How do we know what any word or phrase means? Most people reach to their book shelf and grab a dictionary when they want to know the true definition of a word of phrase. Most people have never come upon a word or phrase that they needed a lawyer, or a court, or anything more than a dictionary to properly interpret… I find this to be the case here as well.

People don’t have any trouble understanding the word “born” (the moment of birth) or the word “citizen” (a legal member of a society). The word people seem to struggle with is “natural.”

At this moment, a collective effort is underway to claim that the following three words are synonymous… natural – native – naturalized…. Which would make anyone eligible for the Oval Office, including the courts new citizen class the “undocumented citizen.”

People trying to disqualify John McCain in 2008 decided that natural and native are synonymous terms and people now trying to qualify Obama, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are claiming that natural, native and naturalized are all synonymous terms of art. Before they can eliminate the NBC requirement from Article II, they must first make the term ambiguous, potentially having more than one meaning… of course…

Any dictionary will disagree with these claims…

Naturalized – “to admit (a foreigner) to the citizenship of a country.”

Native – “being the place or environment in which a person was born.”

Natural – “existing in or formed by nature.”

Clearly, these three words have three very different definitions and meanings, only one of which is related to the Constitutional requirement for the Oval Office… “Natural.”

As a simple dictionary review confirms, these three words are in no way synonymous. It is not possible for the following three terms to be synonymous, natural born, native born and naturalized. Yet, many will continue to make the false claim that they are… because they believe these claims to suit their political agenda of the moment.

Many know exactly what natural born Citizen means, and still, for political expediency, they refuse to stand on this truth. Just this morning another “political commentator” wrote me this…

“NATIVE BORN CITIZENS ARE DIFFERENT… .. I see the reference to the father’s citizenship alone as determinING the birthright of the child… BUT YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO THAT AINT GONNA FLY today NO MORE THAN DENYING WOMEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE. YOU WILL ALIENATE HALF THE COUNTRY WITH SUCH NONSENSE” – Scott Rohter (exactly as sent to me, yelling caps and all)

As you can see, Mr. Rohter first confirms that he is aware of the truth, before shifting to all CAPS to scream his refusal to stick to the truth, referring to that truth as “nonsense” because that truth will offend some who do not like this truth. It is this practice which has made the NBC term appear “ambiguous,” opening the door for the lawyer law-making political class to enter the discussion with new invented definitions of the term.

As Mr. Rohter confirmed in our exchange, we agree on 99% of the issues… unfortunately, the 1% we disagree on is the most important – of critical importance, especially at this moment in history, when every American must deal only in truth. Mr. Rohter is not alone in his position. Numerous others have made the same false claims for exactly the same reasons.

The Harvard Lawyers are intentionally lying to the people when claiming NBC is synonymous with naturalized citizen at birth. But people like Rohter are also intentionally lying to the people for their set of political reasons. Both are responsible for allowing unconstitutional candidates to seek and hold the most powerful office in our land, that of Commander-in-Chief.

The term natural born Citizen is based on historical concepts as old as all recorded time. If you want to know where and why the Founders borrowed the term for Article II, I cover that in this piece… and if you want to know the true historical definition of the term, I cover that in this piece.

Natural born Citizen is a term based in biblical teachings based upon the concepts of a patriarchal society wherein in the Father is the head of the family unit. The intentional destruction of the family unit has greatly complicated the discussion with scholarly changes in the definition of words like marriage, family and shifting gender roles forced by liberal restructuring of American society, also for political purposes.

14th Naturalization Amendment terms like “citizen at birth” and “birthright citizenship” have been intentionally been tossed into the mix to further complicate the understanding of three basic English words defined in every English dictionary. The purpose of all these efforts is to eliminate the NBC requirement for office by simply redefining the term. But that is not the only purpose…

Setting politics aside for a moment, natural born Citizenship is the inalienable natural right of every child to inherit the country of their natural birth father upon birth, not only due to no application of man-made statute or legal opinions, but inalienable by these means.

When people begin to play with definitions, it is an overt effort to alter our Founding principles and values and Constitutional protections of all inalienable Natural Rights as guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is a much larger issue than who can or cannot occupy the Oval Office, although this is indeed an issue paramount to the sovereignty and security of these United States.

Contrary to the intentional mis-education of American society, we do not enjoy “constitutional rights.” We have long enjoyed “constitutionally protected Natural Rights.”

Beginning in 2008, when folks were trying to disqualify John McCain, born the son of American parentage stationed abroad in Panama on the service of our country with the U.S. Navy, some plucked a single sentence from the proper source of the Founders NBC term, The Law of Nations by Vattel, as if they believe that it was unnecessary for Vattel to take great care to write an entire chapter on the subject, when a single sentence says it all.

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

As already demonstrated above, natives and naturals are in fact two different things, which confirms that the structure of this single sentence is not the definition of any one thing, but rather a general statement about more than one thing… Reference to “parents” does not mean both parents within the family unit, but rather all citizen family units which bear “citizen” children.

Why did these individuals not pluck any of the following single sentences from Vattel, appearing in the same paragraph Section 212 of Chapter XIX of the Law of Nations?

“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

Or this one – “as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.”

Or this one – “The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”

Or even this one – “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

When trying to sum up natural born Citizen using a single sentence from Vattel, any of the four sentences above would be accurate. So, why didn’t the people who cherry-picked the unrelated general sentence pluck any of these other single sentences from the same paragraph?

There are two reasons… first, the truth did not suit the political agenda, which was to disqualify John McCain on the basis that although he was born to a citizen father (and mother), he was born in Panama, not on U.S. soil – and second, because the progressive shifting definitions of marriage and family, along with gender roles lead many to believe that the original definition and Founders intent of the term are antiquated and outdated. It leads many to falsely think it is some offense to women’s rights…

The Citizenship Act of 1934 pertaining only to “naturalized citizenship” is the cornerstone of today’s effort to destroy the NBC term and thereby eliminate the requirement from Article II. FDR’s Naturalization Act was the result of an international treaty from a Pan American conference of December 26, 1933, essentially agreeing that there should be no distinction between the sexes as it related to nationality under legislative processes. Of course, this pertained only to “naturalized citizenship” under congressional naturalization legislation.

Still, it has since been improperly used to claim that citizenship and even natural born Citizenship can pass from either Father or Mother, as a matter of alleged gender equality. Yet, this claim pertains only to naturalized citizenship, which is mutually exclusive of natural born Citizenship.

As all governmental power in the United States is limited in nature and derived from the people, nothing beyond what which was ratified by the people in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is under the consent of the people. The people have not consented to any alterations of Article II requirements for high office, so no alterations have been legally made.

Why natural born Citizen is non-negotiable

Much more than a political ambition or agenda is at stake here… The Natural Right of every child to inherit the condition of their birth family, specifically that of the Father (patriarch), the head of the family, is a constitutionally protected Natural Right.

Americans must understand that everything our Founders created was based upon inalienable Natural Rights, not man-made laws via legislative process or judicial review. When anyone begins to mess around with natural born, they are in fact messing around the Natural Law and all Natural Rights, the cornerstone of our Founders creation and any form of freedom and liberty.

If a child born to an American Father is stripped of their Natural Right to inherit the country of their Father, what other Natural Rights can be stripped from the child or the parent by mere man-made statute, court interpretation or Harvard Law Review? The answer is all of them…

In my personal opinion, the three most important words in all of the U.S. Constitution are natural born Citizen… because all Natural Rights flow through this patriarchal social concept and the sovereignty and security of our Constitutional Republic are protected from foreign invasion at the highest level by these three simple words, natural born Citizen.

Once any citizen of any type, by any means, including “undocumented citizens” can occupy the Oval Office, then any foreign entity can occupy that office, controlling the future of this nation and form of freedom and liberty itself as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force on earth.

Mere momentary political interest is not enough reason to let everything die…

I pray that Americans will cease to be so blind and foolish…. quickly!

RELATED ARTICLE: Media Repression on the Question of What is a “natural born Citizen?”

Religious Freedom & Gay Marriage: More than 60 briefs urge court to keep Gay Marriage bans

Happy Easter Monday to everybody! WOW What a phenomenal Holy Week! From the powerful Chrism Mass on Tuesday at the Cathedral (where we had a record number of clergy on hand: 150 priests/ 45 deacons); to the beautiful “Lord’s Supper Mass” on Holy Thursday with our beloved Bishop Barbarito; to the awesome Passion Meditation on Good Friday by “Battle Ready” Doug Barry at the “House that Molgano Made Holy & Bold”; to our Grand Finale of “40 Days for Life” on Sleepy Saturday (where we had over “100” Pro-Lifers in attendance; and finally, a beautiful Easter Sunday Mass at the Cathedral with our beloved pastor, Father Tom Barrett (where I did not recognize 85% of the “Chreaster Families” who showed up for this yearly event). Those are families who show up twice a year – Christmas & Easter. I even had a couple, who arrived late, ask me if we were handing out palm fronds before or after the service??? Lord, have mercy on us…Here’s your sign…

But, it was that Good Friday event that had me up for the rest of the week. Unlike Jesus, who rested in the tomb on the second day of the Triduum (Sleepy Saturday) – I stayed up all the way through Easter Sunday. That is how powerful EWTN’s Doug Barry’s performance was on Good Friday.

Friends: It was not the stunning performance that he put on during his intense Passion Meditation (which ran for 77 minutes & was even more powerful than last year’s performance) – but, it was the 45 minute “Battle Ready” sermon that he delivered before his performance that had everybody’s undivided attention. I mean everybody. I only wish we could have video-taped every minute of it because the Nebraska native covered it all. I almost felt like he was reading from my e-mails & articles as Doug covered it all – from the atrocities of Abortion; to the Curse of Common Core; to the disgusting topic of Gay Marriage; to the under-handed H.H.S. Mandate; to some powerful statements about the liberal political arena we face in our country every day; to the persecution of Christians all over the world (where he spoke about the horrors of the brutal murders by al-Shabab at the university in Kenya last week and the disappearance & kidnapping of the 200 plus girls in Kenya by Boko Haram…And, his theme was: WE BETTER PUT ON OUR ARMOR AND GET READY FOR THE BATTLE…

What I would give to have that 45 minute “beyond bold” sermon spoken in every Catholic church in this country today. I wish we had a DVD of it so that we could show it at all of our churches as part of the Sunday Homily. That is the type of Homily that needs to be delivered in every Catholic church in every diocese and every church in America. Delivered in that bold fashion, with no holding back. Covering every controversial issue that 95% of Catholics are afraid to hear about and that so many of our church leaders and clergy are petrified to even mention. I honestly felt like I was dreaming…This taking place in one of our Catholic parishes in our Palm Beach Diocese…It takes a gutsy, Pro-Life pastor like Father James Molgano – who walks the walk with those big, size 13 black shoes – to host a gutsy, Pro-Life evangelist like Doug Barry in his parish, and I will be forever indebted to these two Real Catholic Church Militants for doing what they did for us on a most appropriate day – Good Friday…

Yes, it took a gutsy, Pro-Life devout father-of-5 to deliver this critical message to the 170 who were in attendance. And, it only took 22 minutes of this powerful sermon to have three ladies get up and leave the church in an abrupt manner. Only 3…I was waiting for more. If that’s what it takes to clean the Lord’s House of hypocrites who do not want to hear the TRUTH – then, we need more house-cleaning in our churches. I, myself, got up 3 times – but, that’s because I could not keep my excitement in. I had to get up…Mr. Barry was speaking to me…and, at times, about me…beyond humbling…

My dear friends: It was more than humbling to have a world renown evangelist like Doug Barry unexpectedly mention my name quite a few times during his talk when he spoke about being “Bold for our Faith” and standing up for our religious freedom by putting my life on the line for our beloved faith day in and day out. Totally unexpected, folks. Publicly claiming that he reads all of my bold e-mails and saying what he said on Friday night is more than enough to give me the fuel, motivation and fire to take my fight against these intrinsic evils even up a notch or two. How does one put a price tag on a spiritual pep rally like that? We all need to hear that powerful message and we all need to act on it. Thank you, brother Doug. I am truly humbled by your encouraging words…

Which leads me to why I am sending this powerful e-mail out to you. It covers a lot of what Doug Barry spoke about on Good Friday and these two articles gives us a different perspective of what is taking place in our beloved country right now as we speak. With this Gay Marriage debacle going in front of the Supreme Court this June – we Pro-Life / Pro-Traditional Christians in this country better be “battle ready” to step it up. It’s time we become more Pro-active as opposed to being Re-active. That is the precise problem with the Holy Catholic Church today. Everything the Church has done since Vatican II has been “Re-active”. January 22nd, 1973 is a perfect example where the Catholic Church needed to flex her holy muscles and say NO to abortion – and Roe v. Wade would have become a footnote – not a death sentence…56 million dead with no birth or death certificate to show for…

The Curse of Common Core is following in the same footsteps as the abortion atrocity. And, the Catholic Church is right smack in the middle of it again – watching it all unfold right before our very own eyes – while jumping on the Bill Gates band wagon and reaching out for those “30 pieces of silver”…Almost makes one want to hang himself from a tree…the kiss of death…the future of our kids.

With 1.2 billion Catholics in the world and over 70 million right here in America – we can no longer afford to be re-active and quiet. WE NEED TO BE PRO-ACTIVE!!! WE NEED TO BE PRO-LIFE!!! We are the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church – the ONLY one that Jesus instituted, Himself! We cannot settle for mediocrity. We can no longer do business with the devil. We need to do business with Saint Michael the Archangel – the one who defends us in battle and serves as our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil, himself. We need to pray that prayer over and over again – and we need to prepare ourselves for an all-out battle. And, we need to be spiritually ready for what’s coming this Sunday – Divine Mercy Sunday – the best kept secret in the entire Catholic Church. (More on Divine Mercy Sunday in up-coming e-mails this week)…Stay tuned…

We should all be praying the 9 day Divine Mercy Novena that kicked off on Good Friday and runs through Divine Mercy Sunday (April 12th). Like Doug Barry & Father James say time and again – “We need to pray; go before the Blessed Sacrament for Adoration; pray before our Blessed Mother to intervene; go to confession; fast; and pray even more for conversion of our beloved country”…

Friends: With what is going on all around the world today and with the upper hierarchy of the Catholic Church not heeding the cry of Our Lady of Fatima to consecrate the country of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Jesus (that originally took place over 98 years ago) – we will continue to see more and more self destruction in our world. More suffering, more pain, more sinning. If we do not do these things that Father James & Doug Barry continue to ask us to do on a daily basis, we can all kiss our Holy Rosaries good-bye and continue to repeat over, and over, and over again.


More than 60 briefs urge court to keep gay marriage bans

by Richard Wolf, USA Today

WASHINGTON — Republican officials and religious organizations dominate a growing list of more than 60 groups urging the Supreme Court to uphold state bans against same-sex marriage.

The flood of “friend of the court” briefs arriving at the court by Friday’s deadline easily made the upcoming case the most heavily lobbied in the court’s recent history. Earlier this month, more than 70 briefs were filed by proponents of gay marriage, including one signed by more than 200,000 people.

Sixteen states led by Republican governors were among those calling for the bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee to be upheld. Among them were nine states where same-sex marriage bans have been struck down by federal courts — an indication that the battle there and elsewhere will be renewed if the justices uphold the bans.

“How much better for this issue to play out, state-by-state, with citizens locked in urgent conversation,” one of the briefs says. “That is precisely what was happening before the courts began to intervene two years ago. The court should let that process of self-governance continue.”

States opposing gay marriage include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia, where federal appeals court rulings have struck down state bans. The Supreme Court refused to reconsider most of those decisions in October.

Read more.


Now Is the Time to Talk About Religious Liberty

by Charles J. Chaput, Robert P. George, William E. Lori, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., and Russell Moore
within Religion and the Public Square

For many religious believers, Passover and the Easter season are cornerstones of the year. Thus our hearts have been especially troubled in recent days by the acrimony and lies surrounding legal efforts, in Indiana and elsewhere, at ensuring religious liberty for people of all faiths.

As Americans commemorate their respective holy days, we urge all our fellow citizens to remember the moral roots of their constitutional system, and to engage in a sensible national conversation about religious liberty. Even those who are not religious have a stake in seeing that our “first freedom”—religious freedom; freedom of conscience—is protected in law.

In recent days we have heard claims that a belief central to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—that we are created male and female, and that marriage unites these two basic expressions of humanity in a unique covenant—amounts to a form of bigotry. Such arguments only increase public confusion on a vitally important issue. When basic moral convictions and historic religious wisdom rooted in experience are deemed “discrimination,” our ability to achieve civic harmony, or even to reason clearly, is impossible.

America was founded on the idea that religious liberty matters because religious belief matters in a uniquely life-giving and powerful way. We need to take that birthright seriously, or we become a people alien to our own founding principles. Religious liberty is precisely what allows a pluralistic society to live together in peace.

Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Philadelphia

Robert P. George
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence
Princeton University

William E. Lori
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Baltimore

Albert Mohler, Jr., President
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Russell Moore, President
Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
Southern Baptist Convention

The Quest for True Equality

During the past two weeks Americans have lost their minds regarding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that was passed and signed into law by Indiana governor, Mike Pence. My readers know I do not support homosexual marriage or the homosexual agenda of being legally protected as a class based on their sexual preferences.

My purpose with this column is to bring some sanity to the debate swirling around the issue of religious freedom. I want to remove all emotion from the debate and discuss the facts.

The bill in question was Indiana Senate Bill 101, titled the “Religious Freedom and Restoration Act.” Pence signed the bill into law and all hell broke loose. Opponents said the bill would allow businesses to discriminate against homosexuals; supporters said it would protect business owners from doing things that would put them at odds with their religious beliefs.

The bill was three pages long and never mentioned the words homosexual or gay; thus the homosexual community went out seeking a problem where none existed.

The homosexual community is masterful at PR. When you don’t have public support for your position, many times a good PR campaign can usually do the trick. As I have written many times in previous columns, Republicans are horrible when it comes to PR and communications, even when they are right on the issue.

Gov. Pence in particular and Republicans in general showed total incompetence in dealing with this issue. They should have anticipated this type of reaction from the radical left. This was so obvious that even Stevie Wonder could have seen this coming.

Nineteen other states have passed similar laws, with several others considering the same. So you mean to tell me that almost half of America believes in discrimination? I don’t think so!

This whole debate has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with forcing Americans to accept the homosexual lifestyle and their intolerant agenda. Homosexuals don’t deserve special treatment because of their sexual preferences; but they do deserve equal treatment because of their humanity.

They would argue how could I, as a Black man who has experienced discrimination, support the discrimination that they suffer because of their sexual preferences? Their plight, according to them, is the Civil Rights of our day. STOP right there!

I find it extremely offensive for homosexuals to attempt to equate the two. Blacks fought for rights that were already enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution granted us citizenship, equality, and the right to vote; the Constitution just wasn’t being enforced. Thus, the need for civil disobedience, political and legal action.

There is no such accommodation for homosexuality, NONE. That’s what this fight is all about. They want to be “legally” codified as a protected class strictly based on their sexual preferences and gender identity.

Now, let’s assume for this discussion that you are a Christian and that you believe homosexuality is a sin, thus is wrong. Homosexuals would argue, and rightfully so, sin is sin. How is homosexuality any different than lying, adultery, murder, cheating, stealing, etc.? Great question. I have an answer that homosexuals don’t want to deal with.

Name me one state in the U.S. where they are trying to legalize lying, adultery, murder, cheating, or stealing? Homosexuality is the only sin that people are trying to codify as legally and morally permissible. Can someone please reconcile this for me?

Homosexuals have been successful at getting many courts to recognize them as a protected class even though there is no legal basis to recognize someone based on their sexual preferences. It takes a lot of legal creativity to create a protected class out of nothing.

I find it quite interesting that, as a heterosexual Black male, that I would not be allowed to join a lesbian group or sit on the board of a homosexual chamber of commerce (yes, they do exist). Is this not also hateful, bigoted, and discriminatory?

Why is it necessary for everyone to know your sexual preferences? If I go to my workplace and tell women that I am heterosexual and like women; I will be rushed down to the HR department and possibly fired. But, if I go to the same workplace and announce that I am homosexual, they close early and the CEO buys a big cake and we celebrate my courage for stating my sexual preference publically (i.e. would be N.F.Ler., Michael Sam)

Courage is stating that you are homosexual in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Courage is sitting at a Woolworth lunch counter and knowing that you are going to get the hell beat out of you because you are Black.

On a homosexual’s worst day, they have nothing to fear in America; on their worst day, nothing they go through can ever compare to what Blacks went through from slavery until the present. We didn’t get sold into slavery because we were homosexual; homosexuals never get pulled over by police because they are homosexual; homosexuals never get shot by police because they are homosexual; they don’t get denied bank loans because they are homosexual. So please dispense with the odious comparisons.

Blacks never sought special recognition as a class, we simply wanted recognition.


Jindal defends Indiana Religious objections law

Congressman: ‘Disturbing’ for Military Chaplains to Be Punished Over Views on Sexuality

Thomas More Law Center Files SCOTUS Brief Defending Marriage Between One Man and One Woman

TMLC Logo(1)Today, the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national, nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI filed an amicus brief (friend of the court brief) in the U.S. Supreme Court defending traditional marriage.  This is the seventh brief that the Law Center has filed nationally in its fight to preserve marriage and in opposition of marriage redefinition.  The brief, which was filed on behalf of the National Coalition of Black Pastors and Christian Leaders (Coalition), supported the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision, which upheld constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman in the states within its appellate jurisdiction: Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky.

The traditional definition of marriage represents the will of the overwhelming majority of voters in those states: fifty-nine percent in Michigan; seventy-four percent in Kentucky; sixty-two percent in Ohio; and eighty percent in Tennessee.

The Sixth Circuit Court’s decision gave the correct deference to state voters and the laws they enacted that define marriage as exclusively the union of one man and one woman.  The Sixth Circuit Court ruled that all four marriage amendments before it, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, passed constitutional review.

This latest TMLC brief is the pinnacle filing in its effort to stem the judge-led onslaught to redefine marriage by ignoring well-established precedent and the will of the overwhelming majority of voters.  TMLC’s effort involved forming a legal team consisting of TMLC’s senior trial counsel, Erin Mersino, and Co-counsels William R. Wagner and John S. Kane of Lansing, MI.  TMLC has been filing briefs on behalf of the Coalition in significant cases involving traditional marriage.  One of the purposes of TMLC’s brief is to negate the homosexual community’s fallacious argument that discrimination because of one’s sexual preference is the same as racial discrimination.  Erin Mersino states, “the National Coalition of Black Pastors’ viewpoint is one not often reported in the media.  The pastors were able to share with the Law Center first hand experiences, and the brief captures their unique voice.”

Excerpts from TMLC’s brief:

“Comparing the dilemmas of same-sex couples to the centuries of discrimination faced by Black Americans is a deceptive distortion of our country’s culture and history. The disgraces in our nation’s history pertaining to the civil rights of Black Americans are unmatched. No other class of individuals, including individuals who are same-sex attracted, have ever been enslaved, or lawfully viewed not as human, but as property.”

As our tradition recognizes, some truths are self-evident.  Among them are that men and women are different.  In fact, it is clear from our very existence that men are made for women, and women for men.  None of us would be here but for that truth.  The Sixth Circuit properly recognized that “[i]t is not society’s laws or for that matter any one religion’s laws, but nature’s laws (that men and women complement each other biologically), that created the policy imperative.” 

“There is no surer way to destroy an institution like marriage than to destroy its meaning.  If ‘marriage’ means whatever a political activist, a cherry-picked plaintiff, or a politically unaccountable appointed judge wants it to mean, it means nothing.  If it has no fixed meaning, it is merely a vessel for an unelected judge’s will.  It is a subterfuge for judicial legislation.  And as Montesquieu observed: “There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.”

“Finally, we protest Petitioners’ [homosexual marriage proponents] attempt to equate this case to Loving under the banner of ‘marriage equality.’  Petitioners essentially claim that their proposed redefinition improves marriage by adding a necessary element of ‘equality’ to it.  This is certainly a clever ploy, for who can oppose equality?  But that is all that it is, a ploy.  It is not a valid point.”

Marriage already has all the equality it can contain without destruction of its meaning, purpose, and proper boundaries.  Any legally competent man can marry any legally competent woman, regardless of his or the woman’s race, religion, national origin, or even sexual preference, and vice versa.  The problem Petitioners claim this Court must resolve is one that does not exist.  True marriage equality already exists.”

“What Petitioners actually seek is not equality but instead a self-indulgent form of inclusiveness that demands acceptance, and indeed support, of a wide variety of sexual conduct.  And once Petitioners’ inclusiveness camel gets its nose in the marriage tent, marriage will not be a better tent; it will be trampled and destroyed.”

Click here to read TMLC’s entire brief

Texas: Muslim charged with aiding Afghan jihad groups

In what way is Muhanad Mahmoud al Farekh a “Texas man”? He was born there. Yet it is unlikely that he has anything but contempt for many, if not most, of his fellow Texans — those who would not wish to see Texas become an Islamic state. It is unlikely that Muhanad Mahmoud al Farekh has any regard for Texas’ history and heritage — that is alljahiliyya, the worthless trash that one finds in the society of unbelievers.

But the Los Angeles Times, like the rest of the mainstream media, is determined to ignore what this conflict is really all about. It can’t call Muhanad Mahmoud al Farekh a Muslim, even if Islam motivated and incited his jihad action in this case, as it seems to have done. But to refrain from identifying why Muhanad Mahmoud al Farekh did what he did, even though it is standard mainstream media practice, is only to ensure that there will be others like him in the future. “Texas man charged with aiding anti-U.S. terrorist groups in Afghanistan,” by Tina Susman, Los Angeles Times, April 2, 2015:

A Texas-born man was charged Thursday with conspiring to aid militant groups fighting U.S. forces in Afghanistan, becoming the latest American to be prosecuted in federal court on suspicion of assisting terrorist cells overseas.

Muhanad Mahmoud al Farekh faces 15 years in prison if convicted of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists. He appeared in federal court in Brooklyn on Thursday afternoon following his deportation from Pakistan and was being held without bail.

Farekh, who was not asked to enter a plea, is next due in court in May.

The announcement of the charges against Farekh came on the same day that federal prosecutors in New York announced the indictment of two Queens, N.Y., women on charges of plotting to build a bomb for use against U.S. targets.

That case is unrelated to Farekh’s, but prosecutors said the cases underscored the broad reach of terrorist threats against U.S. targets, including by American citizens.

According to a 13-page criminal complaint, Farekh began plotting with two co-conspirators in December 2006 to travel to Pakistan “with the intention of training for violent jihad against U.S. military personnel operating in Afghanistan.” At the time, Farekh was a student at the University of Manitoba in Canada.

One of his suspected co-conspirators was Ferid Imam, a Canadian citizen who has been charged in separate terrorism cases in Canada and New York. The other alleged conspirator, a Canadian who has provided information to prosecutors, was not identified, nor were other witnesses cited in the complaint….


NSA CRASH SUSPECTS: Transgender Man Who Was Shot Dead Was A ‘Homeless Prostitute Facing Jail Time’

Nigeria: Islamic State-linked Boko Haram used children as human bombs

New York jihadi Muslimas were “devoted to Islam”

New York City: Two Muslim women inspired by Islamic State arrested for trying to build bomb

U.S. Muslim Population to Triple by 2050 and Here’s What it Means for America

Overdue Recognition: Investigating Shariah Courts in the UK

British MPs and Peers may now have abandoned Parliament to campaign in our impending elections, but in doing so, they left one rather gaping hole in terms of public policy on counter-extremism.

The Parliamentary session was supposed to have broken with a new counter-extremism strategy having been published. It was to be put in place in order to ensure that the new government and Parliament will have a template on how to deal with one of the key issues of our time.

However, there have been a series of frustrating delays, and the full strategy is yet to be launched. This week, a key part was finally revealed. A cursory examination of this shows it encompasses many of those things which a counter-terrorism strategy really has to cover. But it crucially also included the proposal of something potentially more contentious: launching an investigation into the activities of sharia courts in the UK.

Hitherto the UK government has focused primarily on the violence problem. Yet now, a significant shift has occurred so that officials must also consider the extent to that there is also a non-violent problem. Women in the UK in the 21st century being subjected to sharia law is now to be appraised as part of the problem. People being taught to live segregated lives is now a criteria to consider as part of the problem. It has taken a long time to acknowledge this.

For years the presumption has been that stopping bombs is the role of counter extremism but that stopping the emergence of a divided and parallel society within our society is not. But violent extremists do not come from nowhere. They come from a place which encourages their us-and-them mindset, a mindset which portions of society have not only tolerated but even encouraged.

There are many fights left to win and many problems which remain to be addressed. Fortunately we now have one fewer to contend with.

The Founders’ Worst Fears

As the Founding Fathers met at Independence Hall in Philadelphia in 1778, producing word-for- word the greatest governing document in all of recorded history, they were haunted by a number of major concerns.  Among their most critical concerns was the long term sustainability of the constitutional republic they were creating.  How could they prevent it from being subverted?

General George Washington, president of the Constitutional Convention, read a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay, a member of the Continental Congress, who would later become the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.  It was just five years and eleven months since Lord Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown and Jay was concerned that the administration of our federal government might one day fall into the hands of a man who might find it difficult…  because of divided loyalties… to always do what was in the best interests of the country.  He was especially concerned over what might happen if command of our Army and Navy should ever fall into the hands of such a man.

In his letter, Jay wrote:

“Permit me to hint whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the commander-in-chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen (emphasis added).”

In Federalist Paper No. 68, Alexander Hamilton expressed the widely-held concern of foreign influence in the affairs of government.  He wrote:

“These most deadly adversaries of republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.) might actually have expected to make their approach from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.  How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the Chief Magistracy of the Union?”

Taking into account the concerns expressed by Jay and Madison, it is easy to understand why the Founders produced a constitution under which only two of the 145,400,000 jobs in the United States… public sector and private sector combined… require the incumbents to be “natural born” citizens.  Those two jobs are president and vice president of the United States.  So, precisely what was it that the Founders found so worrisome about future presidents… so worrisome that they placed such tight restrictions on access to the position?

The Founders rightly understood that the most influential factor in a child’s upbringing is the parenting he/she receives as a child, and that the fundamental cultural, philosophical, political, and religious influence of a child’s parents establishes the direction of his/her future conduct.  Accordingly, what the Founders feared most was the danger that a future president… during his formative years and during the years in which he was developing intellectually… would be exposed to an environment in which he would come to reject the values and the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution.  Although they were not alive to see it, their worst fears were realized in 2009 when Barack Hussein Obama occupied the White House.

Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States.  However, under the tutelage of her liberal Democrat parents she grew up to be a radical leftist, while his father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., was a devout Kenyan-born socialist.  Obama spent most of his formative years as a citizen of Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation on Earth, where his name was changed to Barry Soetoro and his school records list his religious preference as Islamic.  Then, upon returning to Hawaii at age 10, he was mentored during his teen years by a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA, Frank Marshall Davis.  It was not the sort of environment conducive to the political and intellectual development of a man who would one day follow in the footsteps of patriots such as Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan.

Obama went into office promising the most transparent administration in history, and that he would bring an end to the revolving door of lobbyists moving into and out of the White House.  Instead, the revolving door at the White House has been set spinning with lobbyists coming and going, while even the most liberal media outlets insist that his is the least transparent, the least responsive, and the most secretive administration in history.

He went into office promising to depolarize American politics and government and to reach across the aisle to work with Republicans.  Instead, he pokes his thumb into the eyes of Republicans at every opportunity, and what has always been a healthy mistrust between the major parties now approaches bitter animosity.

He went into office promising to reduce unemployment and to spur economic growth.  Instead, he has steadily shrunk the size of the U.S. workforce, increased the ranks of the unemployed, and, with little understanding how the U.S. economy works, stymied economic growth.

He promised to provide healthcare insurance for some 30 million uninsured, while improving the quality of healthcare and reducing the cost of healthcare for everyone… and all of that without increasing the number of doctors, nurses, and hospitals.  Instead, many workers have lost their insurance, doctors are giving up their practices, and employers are reducing the working hours of employees so as to avoid paying the burgeoning cost of healthcare benefits.

He went into office promising to close the budget deficit and reduce the national debt.  Instead, in the six years he’s been in office, he has not produced a single balanced budget and the national debt has increased from $9 trillion to $18 trillion… more than all previous presidents combined.

He went into office promising to reduce poverty and to shrink the income disparity between the rich and the poor.  Instead, the number of Americans living below the poverty line has gradually increased, nearly 50 million Americans are on food stamps, and the wage gap between the rich and the poor has steadily widened.

He went into office promising to heal the scars of racism and to bring our people together.  Instead, he has played the race card at every opportunity and race relations are now more tenuous than at any time in the past one-hundred years.

He went into office promising to solve the illegal immigration problem by first securing our borders.  Instead, millions upon millions of illegals from Mexico and Central America stream across our borders, while he uses every conceivable device to insure that the invaders can stay in the U.S. and that they will one day become reliable Democratic voters.

He went into office promising to improve relations with the Russians; to bring peace to the Middle East; to draw “red lines” in Libya and Syria that radical Islamists would not dare cross; to promote friendship and cooperation throughout the Arab world; and to heal any rifts that may have developed between us and our allies.  Instead, relations between the U.S. and Russia are at an all-time low; every nation in the Middle East is either at war or about to be at war; “red lines” were crossed but Obama failed to respond as threatened; our enemies throughout the Middle East are emboldened; the most dangerous purveyor of state-sponsored terror is just weeks or months away from having a nuclear weapon; our Arab allies no longer trust us; and our long-time allies in Israel and in Europe must now face a dangerous world without our leadership.

In short, Barack Obama is precisely what the Founders feared most when they wrote Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, limiting access to the presidency only to those who are natural born citizens.  In just six short years, Obama has become the “poster boy” for national suicide.

Unfortunately, the intellectually lazy in both major parties, representing the entire ideological spectrum from left to right, have failed to satisfy themselves of Obama’s eligibility.  Those on the left were so anxious to recapture the White House, especially with a young attractive black man as their standard bearer, that they paid no attention whatsoever to warnings that he was lacking in qualifications.  While on the right, it is all but impossible to find a conservative commentator or a political leader with the courage to challenge the bona fides of a black Democrat… horrified at the prospect of having to defend themselves against charges of racism.

Hence, what they have done is to create a de facto amendment to the U.S. Constitution without going to the trouble of consulting the provisions of Article 1, Section 3; Article II, Section 1; or Article V of the Constitution.

Now, because of the duplicity of the left and the cowardice of the right, we are confronted with a potential constitutional crisis involving the candidacies of Senator Ted Cruz (D-TX), Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) and Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)… all prominently mentioned as potential presidential nominees in 2016, but none of whom are eligible for that office because they fail to meet the “natural born” requirement of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Will Democrats, knowing that they supported and elected a usurper in 2008 and again in 2012, allow Republicans to do the same in 2016?  Are we to simply accept that two wrongs make a right?  Anyone who believes that Democrats are not so duplicitous as to glorify Obama’s illegal presidency while crucifying a Republican candidate guilty of the same offense, simply does not know Democrats.  Some liberals and Democrats are already clamoring for Ted Cruz’s long form birth certificate.  The wisest course would be for Cruz, Jindal, and Rubio to do what is best for their party and their country by removing themselves from consideration.

The worst fears of the Founders have been realized in Barack Obama.  Republicans should not repeat the outrage.