Brooklyn cop killer’s FB page: “Strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah”

Ismaaiyl Brinsley murdered two policemen in Brooklyn today, as they were having lunch. The murders are being reported as revenge for the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown. However, there appears to be more to the story. His Facebook page [above] contains a photo of Qur’an 8:60, which includes the phrase, “Strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah.”

He also identifies himself as an Arabic speaker, which is not common among gangbangers:



New York legislator gets Islamic State-style threat

Obama releases four more jihadis from Guantanamo, returns them to Afghanistan

Indonesia: Muslim group warns President not to say “Merry Christmas”

Islamic State mocks U.S. with photo-shopped Santa held hostage

 France: Muslim enters police station, screams “Allahu Akbar,” stabs officer in the face
Islamic State releases graphic images of man’s hand being amputated for theft

Vote for the “2014 Absurdity of the Year!”

Yes, folks there was an awful lot of absurd headlines in 2014. We can’t tell you how many times during last year we shook our heads and said “You just can’t make this stuff up.” To be honest, it was hard to narrow the list to just these sixteen, and unfortunately you can only vote for one.

Click on the links below if you want to refresh your memory. Then vote!

We’ll be announcing the dubious winner on December 31st, just in time for you to say good riddance to 2014 and hope for a little less absurdity in 2015 — but we’re not betting on that. Vote now!

Here are our nominations for “Absurdity of the Year.”


I don’t usually play the race card, but —

The great thing about having this website is that it’s my personal blog and shared with occasional commentary from two people – my wife Angela, with whom I will celebrate 25 years on Christmas Eve, and my editor. Here you’ll find my personal thoughts, perspectives, and insights as a private free American citizen with a singular First Amendment right of free speech.

Of course there are those of the progressive socialist left persuasion, who feel individuals shouldn’t have completely free speech unless it freely agrees with their ideology.

I offer my assessments and analyses of current events, and readers are kindly welcomed to comment, but generally, the response emanating from those on the left isn’t debate — but rather abject disdain and personal assault.

But may I remind detractors of your simple choice of free will. You don’t have to visit my website if you don’t like my thoughts.

With that being said, many on the left say we need to have a conversation about racism in America. So let’s have one.

Let me start by saying it will have nothing to with how the white man has kept me down. As a matter of fact, what I have achieved could only have happened in America.

I was born and raised in the inner city of Atlanta, Georgia, in the same 4th Ward neighborhood that claimed Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a favored son. My own elementary school, Our Lady of Lourdes, is located at the corner of Boulevard and the historic Auburn Avenue – near Ebenezer Baptist Church and Dr. King’s familial home just around the corner.

I grew up quite proud of my American black heritage and still am. I recall days walking down Auburn Ave. past the offices of black professionals — doctors, lawyers, and such — as well as black-owned small businesses on my way to the historic Butler Street YMCA where I learned to swim, play basketball, and box. Funny thing — when Dr. King was assassinated, I don’t remember anyone rioting and setting fire to businesses in my neighborhood.

I grew up in a simple two-parent home at 651 Kennesaw Avenue NE — I tell the story of Buck and Snooks West in my book, Guardian of the Republic. As it happens, Buck and Snooks were registered Democrats, and I had a blast telling Rep. John Lewis how I remembered as a boy my folks talking about him and voting for him.

My memories of the black community growing up were centered on faith, family, education, personal responsibility, self-reliance, and for my family — service to the nation in uniform. Those ladies and gents are conservative principles and values — or as I was wrote here — classical liberal principles.

My parents stressed not just to me and my brothers, but to our larger family and relations, that you should never allow yourself to be dependent upon someone else. As Mom would say, “self-esteem comes from doing ‘esteemable’ things.” She also drilled into my head that, “a man must stand for something or else he will fall for anything.”

Sadly enough today, if you are a black American standing for conservative principles and values — which are the foundation of the black community and what were once its strength — you are a target.

It’s white liberals who find themselves abhorring the existence of any minority that rejects their progressive socialist collective ideology and seeks to “think for themselves.”

You become the “uppity negro” and are derided with such loving terms of endearment as “House Ni!@er,” “Sellout,” “Uncle Tom,” and “Oreo.” Even worse, white liberals have co-opted other blacks to join in the mob-like attacks against those of us who just — well, embody those old school values in which parents (when there were a preponderance of two-parent homes) in the black community instructed us.

Then again, it was the Great Society policies of a progressive socialist big government Democrat president from Texas named Lyndon Baines Johnson that began the decimation of the black family. It resulting in today’s out of wedlock birth rate of nearly 72 percent — all because it was believed that rewarding a woman for having a child out of wedlock with a government check — as long as she kept the man out of the home — was a good thing.

So, in my black community, the venerable and strong black man who survived slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, segregation, poll taxes, literacy tests (all from the same Democrat party) was finally killed off virtually — and literally in some cases through inner city gang violence — by Democrat policy.

And so it goes that the plantation has been restored, but this time it is a 21st century economic plantation of servitude and submission to the welfare nanny-state.

The real racism comes from the new plantation masters who have riled up the masses and mob to ensure this is not lost. And therefore, woe, despair, degradation, denigration, and derision upon those who are living up to their parents’ dream — Dr. King’s dream — and have escaped the progressive socialist inner city plantation because we fought through the “pursuit of happiness” to develop the “content of our character” and not await a government granted “guarantee of happiness” due to the “color of our skin.”

And that ladies and gents truly angers those on the left — just ask the likes of Justice Clarence Thomas, Star Parker, my fellow Atlantan Herman Cain, Condoleeza Rice, Senator Tim Scott, Rep-Elect Mia Love, Shelby Steele, Jason Riley, Harry Alford, Raffi Williams, Chloe Valdary, Harris Faulkner, Deneen Borelli,AlfonZo Rachel, Janice Rogers Brown, James Golden, Amy Holmes, Niger Innis,Kevin Jackson, Armstrong Williams, Deroy Murdock, JC Watts, Jesse Lee Peterson, Ken Blackwell, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, Angela McGlowan, and Mychal Massie.

What have we all done to so anger the white progressive socialist left that we constantly draw their ire? We succeeded.

And therein lies the real racism about which the liberal media doesn’t want a conversation — black success based on fundamental American liberty and freedom enshrined in conservative principles such as individual sovereignty and free market entrepreneurship.

So someone like myself is regularly assaulted by left wing media outlets for the most insidious accusations. I remember while running for Congress in the 2010 cycle, the day my oldest daughter picked up the mail, and in it was a piece from the Florida Democrat Party which boldly displayed my social security number and my wife’s employment identification number — she is a financial broker. Why? It’s not far off from finding a burning cross in your front yard — my daughter screamed and began to cry and my wife was hysterical. And when we revealed this, the local Palm Beach Post newspaper ran a survey asking if I was making too big of a deal of this nefarious action.

Or how about a San Francisco-based far left progressive group called CREDO that showed up in the 2012 election cycle and ran a shadow campaign which included phone calls to homes stating that “did you know that Allen West beats his wife” — y’all know the typical progressive socialist attacks against black men — characterize them as violent. The truth doesn’t matter — actually the lie and deceit are the strongest tactics.

Could you imagine if a prominent black conservative owed $4 million to the IRS? Heaven knows what the liberal progressive media would say. But if you’re a progressive socialist overseer of the black community, not only do you get a national TV show, you get to visit the White House 82 times. And when was the last time a black conservative was invited into the Oval Office to sit with the “first black president?”

The real conversation about race in America needs to be about why the progressive socialist left despises black success not wedded to its ideology? Even former NBA great, Charles Barkley has come under attack for speaking his mind about certain matters on race — the real conversation that needs to be had.

What sense does it make for the black community to enslave itself to one political ideology and invest all of its political capital there? It has only led to abject disregard.

And so I conclude this essay of my thoughts — the real racism has always come from one party in America: the Democrat party. And their 21st century ” lynching” tactics and techniques are just the same but with better use of modern technology.

Unfortunately for them just as men like Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington and women like Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman took a stand, a new generation of freedom-minded blacks are stepping out of the shadows — even Dr. King’s alma mater of Morehouse College now has a Republican Club. Our voices will not be silenced, regardless of the new tactics of the same old gang.

All black lives matter, not just the ones progressive socialists use “prosecutorial discretion” to care about through the policies of economic enslavement as opposed to those black conservatives embrace — economic empowerment.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on

Senator Marco Rubio: Obama Appeasing Rogue Cuban Regime ‘at all costs’

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) issued the following statement regarding reports that President Obama is set to dramatically change U.S. policy toward Cuba following the release of Alan Gross, an American who was held hostage by the Castro regime in Cuba for five years:

“Today’s announcement initiating a dramatic change in U.S. policy toward Cuba is just the latest in a long line of failed attempts by President Obama to appease rogue regimes at all cost.

“Like all Americans, I rejoice at the fact that Alan Gross will be able to return to his family after five years in captivity. Although he is supposedly being released on humanitarian grounds, his inclusion in a swap involving intelligence agents furthers the Cuban narrative about his work in Cuba. In contrast, the Cuban Five were spies operating against our nation on American soil. They were indicted and prosecuted in a court of law for the crimes of espionage and were linked to the murder of the humanitarian pilots of Brothers to the Rescue. There should be no equivalence between the two, and Gross should have been released unconditionally.

“The President’s decision to reward the Castro regime and begin the path toward the normalization of relations with Cuba is inexplicable. Cuba’s record is clear. Just as when President Eisenhower severed diplomatic relations with Cuba, the Castro family still controls the country, the economy and all levers of power. This administration’s attempts to loosen restrictions on travel in recent years have only served to benefit the regime. While business interests seeking to line their pockets, aided by the editorial page of The New York Times, have begun a significant campaign to paper over the facts about the regime in Havana, the reality is clear. Cuba, like Syria, Iran, and Sudan, remains a state sponsor of terrorism. It continues to actively work with regimes like North Korea to illegally traffic weapons in our hemisphere in violation of several United Nations Security Council Resolutions. It colludes with America’s enemies, near and far, to threaten us and everything we hold dear. But most importantly, the regime’s brutal treatment of the Cuban people has continued unabated. Dissidents are harassed, imprisoned and even killed. Access to information is restricted and controlled by the regime. That is why even more than just putting U.S. national security at risk, President Obama is letting down the Cuban people, who still yearn to be free.

“I intend to use my role as incoming Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Western Hemisphere subcommittee to make every effort to block this dangerous and desperate attempt by the President to burnish his legacy at the Cuban people’s expense. Appeasing the Castro brothers will only cause other tyrants from Caracas to Tehran to Pyongyang to see that they can take advantage of President Obama’s naiveté during his final two years in office. As a result, America will be less safe as a result of the President’s change in policy. When America is unwilling to advocate for individual liberty and freedom of political expression 90 miles from our shores, it represents a terrible setback for the hopes of all oppressed people around the globe.”

The Catholic Clash in the Big Apple: Priests for Life vs. Cardinal Dolan

Hope all is well as we are “6” days away from the “The Most Significant Birthday Party in the World”…Yes, that little baby humbly born in a manger over 2,000 years ago changed the entire world – this one and the next one…

And, speaking of babies – let’s take a good, close look at what’s happening in the “City that never Sleeps” – New York. I said “never sleeps” – not “never sleeps around” – because with the abortion rate in the Big Apple the way it is today – somebody is doing some serious sleeping around…

Daniel Cronin, Timothy Dolan

Cardinal Timothy Dolan – Archbishop of New York.

And, because of this promiscuous lifestyle of this liberal and artistic city (which is also a leader in Gay Marriages in the U.S.) – two prominent and well-known Catholic priests have been at each other for quite some time now. Meet the bold & serious Father Frank Pavone – President of Priests for Life and known as “The most Pro-Life priest on the planet”. Meet the jovial and controversial Cardinal Timothy Dolan – Archbishop of New York and “clown prince of the USCCB”, as well as the Grand Marshall for the St. Patrick’s Day Gay Parade, to be held on March 17th, 2015.

Quite a contrast, folks. And, because of the leadership in New York City – with the Pro-Abortion Governor Andrew Cuomo and Pro-Everything Liberal, Mayor Bill Deblasio, you can just imagine how tough it is for Father Pavone to run his Priests for Life ministry in Staten Island with this background. While Father Pavone is working with Pro-Lifers in New York and trying to do away with abortion and all the other intrinsic evils that attack our church – Cardinal Dolan is hanging out with Cuomo and Deblasio, getting ready to lead the St. Patrick’s Day Gay Parade and allowing the 5 burroughs to look more like Sodom and Gomorrah. Folks, when your own archbishop of New York is just as liberal as the governor and mayor of your workplace – you’ve got your hands full and something’s gotta give…

So, take a look at the David Gibson article “Cardinal Timothy Dolan cuts ties with anti-abortion crusader Frank Pavone“, which breaks it all down for us and just see for yourself. It is a tough dilemma, as how do you punish or reprimand the most dedicated and most eccentric Pro-Life priest in our country when he truly has made such a huge difference in the Pro-Life movement in the United States? Why would his own archbishop come after him with a vengeance, question his integrity, honesty and money management, and cut him off totally and not even acknowledge his ministry any more? When a courageous priest like Father Pavone – who is doing GOD’s work to the Nth degree, in Protecting the Most Vulnerable – why would he be chastised and chased out of town when he puts his own life on the line day in and day out to save other lives?

Is this all about greed? is it about jealousy? Is it about pride? Three of the most horrific sins that confront mankind today and three of Satan’s favorite. How can two prominent, internationally known Catholic priests and leaders in their field, come to a level this low? In the end, does anybody win? Who do you think loses? You guessed it – the Innocent Unborn…

When our own Catholic leaders attack one another and lose focus on the task at hand – saving babies and saving souls – nobody wins…only the devil. This is what Satan lives for. He is the ring leader and announcer any time two Catholics step into the ring…and Satan is all about the “ring of fire” (just like the Johnny Cash classic). Whether it is a fight in New York City over personalities, money, control and power with Father Pavone & Cardinal Dolan – or a local struggle right here in our own Diocese of Palm Beach with the controversy a few years ago at Miracle House (Birthline/Lifeline vs. First Care) – nobody but the devil wins…and GOD’s creation loses…

Remember: We are all in this “Two-Gether” and it does not matter what Faith or walk of life you are from when it comes to saving babies. The goal is to save them and to do it all for His Glory.

And, fellow American citizens – until we understand that philosophy and turn from our wicked ways & humble ourselves – swallow our pride and steer away from the need for selfish motives – we will continue to work for the devil – and he will continue to cheer us on…and New York will continue to perform over 70,000 abortions per year, while our own Palm Beach County will surpass the 5,808 that were performed in 2013. That’s 5,808 innocent babies that we let down and did not come to their rescue right in our own backyard…Need I say anymore?

RELATED ARTICLE: Number of Babies Aborted in New York City in One Year Would Fill Super Bowl Stadium

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of the Religious News Service.

Mojitos in Havana?

Free movement of people and products will help liberate Cuba by ROBERT RAMSEY:

This entire policy shift … is based on an illusion, on a lie — the lie and illusion that more commerce, more access to money and goods will translate to political freedom for the Cuban people.” — Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)

I don’t know as much about Cuba as Senator Rubio does.  I am sure that his hatred of the Castro regime there is justified; in their attempts to produce a perfect and harmonious society in Cuba, they have perpetrated countless crimes against humanity — and against members of his own family. Indeed, I would consider him to be an expert on the sentiments of those opposed to Castro’s regime and its policies. But he is wrong in his belief that trade of any kind will simply result in the Castro regime becoming stronger and more entrenched.

Our current policy towards Cuba is this: cut them off completely on their island, don’t let them have any imports, and wait for the Castros to die. Then, hopefully, the Cuban citizens will rise up against their communist overlords, see that we Americans have Duck Dynasty and Taco Bell, then beg for us to come set up a government for them, or something along those lines.

We’ve been doing this for decades. There is no evidence whatsoever that this policy is working. However, there are quite a few examples of anti-US countries catching the capitalist bug and mellowing their position considerably, as well as beginning to protect human rights.  The greatest example is probably Vietnam.

Life in Vietnam in the decade following the Vietnam War was, by all accounts, horrifying. It’s a classic tale of a communist regime killing hundreds of thousands of its own citizens in an attempt to make a perfect society. Millions were displaced, and innumerable others died at sea attempting to flee in makeshift rafts. By 1986, however, the original leaders of the regime had either died or been replaced by reformers who instituted a policy of Doi Moi (open door), which slowly began to introduce reforms friendly to markets. The results have been astounding.

A picture of modern Vietnam: consistent GDP growth of around 5.5 percent for the past decade (unlike many of its neighbors, whose growth bounces up and down with every year); unemployment around 2 percent; low inflation; and a rapidly growing financial sector. As of 2007, Vietnam is a member of the World Trade Organization, and entrepreneurs have become one of the most powerful forces within the country. Quality of life has increased dramatically, and all the trappings of a modern economy can be found throughout most of the country.

Relations with the United States have improved dramatically as well: the United States is its primary trading partner. Tourism has exploded: last year Vietnam saw 6.8 million visitors, and that number shows no signs of shrinking.

Civil rights have developed to a degree, and while the country is still run much as China is, with a single socialist party and the danger of being arrested if one speaks out too much, gone are the days of mass executions. Progress in this area is thus slow, but it’s steady.

There’s no guarantee the same thing will happen in Cuba, but a little capitalism goes a long way.  It won’t be long before American tourists flock to Cuba; it’s an hour’s flight from Miami and has been recognized by Americans for well over a century now as an island destination.

Fat American tourists bring fat American wallets, and whether the Castros like it or not, a thriving economy will spring up around tourism. Even if US policy liberalization stops with ending the ban on travel — even, that is, if the foolish embargo isn’t about to be lifted — change will come to Cuba. And a freer market is going to bring it.


Robert Ramsey is the website curator at FEE. He loves cooking, writing, and hacking in his spare time.

CLICHÉS OF PROGRESSIVISM #36 – “Outsourcing Is Bad for the Economy” by TYLER WATTS

In the 2012 election, President Obama released ads accusing opponent Mitt Romney of “shipping jobs overseas” as CEO of a private-equity firm, Bain Capital. Romney responded not by denying this aspect of Bain’s operations, but rather by insisting that he was no longer actively managing the company at the time the alleged outsourcing occurred.

I can understand why a politician would downplay such charges. After all, “the economy” is almost always a top election issue. Many voters buy into the rhetoric that companies involved in outsourcing are somehow responsible for a net loss of employment opportunities in the United States.

Far from being a cause of economic trouble, outsourcing is actually part of any highly developed market economy. Outsourcing, in a fundamental sense, is the source of all wealth.

To tackle the misconceptions surrounding this controversy, let’s start with a definition. Outsourcing means “hiring foreign workers to do a particular task, as opposed to hiring domestic workers.” Now why would an entrepreneur do this? It should be pretty obvious that the foreign labor costs less. Outsourcing therefore generates some combination of lower prices for the company’s products and higher profits for its owners—indicating that the company is creating more value with the resources it uses. So, as a corporate executive might say in defense of an outsourcing announcement, “it just makes economic sense for our customers and shareholders.”

But what about the workers? The media focus on the horrid “shipping American jobs overseas” aspect of outsourcing. Even if they acknowledge the gains for consumers (lower prices) and shareholders (higher business profits), many commentators will complain these are offset by the losses to American workers.

First off, let’s recognize that, in a free society, workers aren’t entitled to their jobs; most employment is an arrangement subject to termination by either party at any time for any reason. Individual workers are always losing jobs for all manner of reasons and finding new ones—even in a recession. The mass layoffs associated with outsourcing are not economically different, just more noticeable, and therefore more subject to political demagoguery—especially in a recession.

We shouldn’t ignore this kind of labor upheaval, whatever its cause. There is obviously going to be some pain associated with the adjustment process. It’s never easy for people to find new employment opportunities, let alone a large pool of workers released onto the market at the same time. Readjustment costs are especially acute for people with strong local ties, such as family obligations. Underwater mortgages make it difficult for some people to migrate. Retraining for new industries is especially tough for older folks, and so on. Sad stories abound, which politicians artfully manipulate in order to enact laws and programs aimed at interrupting the normal market process in order to “save American jobs.”

But economic change happens for a reason. In a free market, when outsourcing becomes viable, market forces are telling entrepreneurs, workers, and resource owners, essentially, “The old ways of doing things, the old places, the old patterns that you were so accustomed to—they’re not working so well anymore. There are better ways, better places, and better patterns available. For the good of all mankind, to take advantage of the greatest possible global opportunities, we need some rearranging. A large group of people in place Z will now be able to do what people in place F used to do, but at lower costs. That means people in F need to find something else to do, whether that involves moving to place Q, joining industry Y, retraining, or what-have-you.”

Of course the market is not a person and has no motives. What we call markets are just the systematic patterns of exchange, production, and specialization that take place between and among countless individuals across the world. Yet the core insight of economics is that while people tend to pursue only their own narrow interests, “market forces” act as if they are trying to maximize the value of what is being produced across the entire market space—in our case, the whole world. Long-distance business transactions are a natural and important part of this market process. It’s only labeled “outsourcing” when it’s done by a large corporation and involves a noticeable transfer of a certain production process across an arbitrary national boundary. The term invokes images of Gordon Gekko-like corporate executives in smoke-filled boardrooms, chuckling about the fat profits to be had by transferring widget production from Chicago to Shanghai.

But in reality all economic advances involve one form or another of outsourcing. We’re all doing it all the time. When a shopper selects German beer or Colombian coffee, few people accuse her of outsourcing (hardcore “buy-local” activists notwithstanding). Yet the consumer is engaging in trade in which some production took place in a far-off location. Is it any less outsourcing when I go online and buy a book from Boston, or a suit from Seattle? Outsourcing is everywhere!

Consider what a world of no outsourcing would look like. Everything you use—and I mean everything!—must be acquired within a few miles of where you live. As economist Russ Roberts said, we’ve already tried that. It was called the Middle Ages, and life was “nasty, brutish, and short.” Indeed, economic progress in recent centuries has been marked by ever-increasing outsourcing—what Adam Smith called an ever-extending “division of labor.” We have outsourced most of our food production from the field behind our own huts to the huge farms of the corn and wheat belts, with their great farming machinery, genetic engineering, and chemical marvels, themselves all dependent on highly specialized production processes that are outsourced across the globe.

We outsourced our clothing needs from the backyard flock and the spinning wheel to the textile mill, which itself was progressively outsourced from northern England in the 1700s to New England in the 1800s, then to the southern United States in the early 1900s, and presently to parts of Asia. We outsourced entertainment from the occasional village troubadour to the big recording studios and now, with the Internet, to specialists all over the world.

I could go on, but you get the point: Throughout history the rise in outsourcing has paralleled a rise in productivity, a rise in human opportunities and accomplishments, and a rise in global living standards. This is not a coincidence; economics indicates that outsourcing is not a bane to our economic health, but a core component of economic progress.

Nothing said here, however, is meant to countenance the many government interventions, here and abroad, that distort the patterns of global commerce, making them different from those the free market would have generated.

Economics makes clear that outsourcing is not the problem; the problem is scarcity. Outsourcing is (part of) the solution. Presidential candidates or anyone interested in promoting economic progress should think about policy changes that would allow American entrepreneurs, workers, and resource owners to better integrate themselves into an increasingly interconnected global economy.


  • Outsourcing occurs when people shop around for the best deals; we do it all the time as consumers. If it produces savings, those savings can be utilized for the purchase of other things.
  • Outsourcing boosts productivity and living standards. Stopping it means compelling “shoppers” (in this case, businesses) to settle for a more costly or less desirable option.

For further information, see:

“The Benefits of Outsourcing” by Walter Block and Brian Bolan

“Outsourcing Makes Us Richer” by Robert P. Murphy

“Human Betterment Through Globalization” by Vernon Smith


Tyler Watts is an Assistant Professor of Economics at East Texas Baptist University.

EDITORS NOTE: This article first appeared in FEE’s journal, The Freeman, in November 2012The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is proud to partner with Young America’s Foundation (YAF) to produce “Clichés of Progressivism,” a series of insightful commentaries covering topics of free enterprise, income inequality, and limited government. See the index of the published chapters here.

Epic Fail: 100 Years of the Fed

How monetary nationalism wrought havoc, but cryptocurrency can save us by Jeffrey A. Tucker:

The most surprising monetary innovation of our time is bitcoin, a privately produced digital currency and payment system. It is a global system that provides a dramatic alternative to central banking and monetary nationalism as we know it. As with other innovations, such as email and texting, it could challenge the dominance of government policies.

What will we lose if the private system replaces the government-managed one? A look at the history of central banking — and the theories behind the history — shows that we only stand to lose a system that has proven unworkable and dangerous in every way. As government management has been for the mail, education, health care, and every other sector, so has it been for money.

Modern central banking began a little more than 100 years ago. Economists and elite political figures became enamored with the prospect of a perfect money and banking system. They believed that if they could gather the smartest minds, give them vast resources, and put the power of capital and government behind them — jettisoning competitive uncertainties — America could finally stabilize a monetary system that had vexed the developed world for the previous 50 years.

Looming large in their minds was the great panic of 1907, which had come out of nowhere to lead to massive bank failures, tumultuous real estate prices, and job losses as far as the eye could see. All elite opinion — which you can read about in the academic journals of 1908 through 1914 — promised a solution. They would bring science to the problem of money management.

Scientific naïveté

This was the first stage, the period of scientific naïveté. If science could bring flight, internal combustion engines, and breakthroughs in medicine and psychology, surely it could do the same for a new field called “monetary policy.”

Those who argued this way meant that monetary science needs government power. This power would permit the manipulation of interest rates, provide a clearing system to immunize banks against failure, put a stop to private production of money and “wildcat banking,” and coordinate bank policy with national economic policy. The goal was to control inflation, smooth business cycles, and stop systemic upheaval.

Central banks were created throughout the world, especially in the emergent empire of the United States. The Federal Reserve was born — and opened for business November 16, 1914 — as a better and more stable embodiment of the national banks of the 19th century.

The founding board of governors.

What central banking actually did (which very few of its proponents realized it was doing at the time) was give government a blank check to do whatever it wanted without having to achieve that gravely difficult task: taxing its citizens. It created a cartelized, government-managed system that could issue debt, immunize that debt from a market-based default premium, create money, and grow itself to achieve the dreams of the political and financial elite. Suddenly, and for the first time in modern memory, there were no limits to what was possible with public finance.

Somehow, most economists hadn’t entirely realized the implications.

Funding the Great War

This first stage directly led to the shocker that few among the previous generations ever expected: World War I. As the economist Benjamin Anderson pointed out a few years after the peace, it was central banks in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Europe that made it all possible. Had this free-money spigot not been available, governments would have relied on the traditional mechanism of diplomacy to achieve peace, as opposed to a war they could not afford. Central banks became the “occasion of sin” that tempted governments to act in ways they otherwise would not have.

It wasn’t the case, as the textbooks often say, that the Great War “interrupted” the progress toward rational economic policy; rather, the new monetary institutions tempted governments to do something they otherwise might not have done. Central banks became the enabler of a most unwelcome horror.

The Great War was the first “total war.” It involved the whole developed world. It was accompanied by a universal draft, censorship, financial controls, and a suspension of the gold standard. It drew civilians into the conflict on a scale never before seen in the history of humanity. It employed poison gas, air bombings, and weapons of mass destruction that would have been previously unthinkable.

The resulting inflation led to revolution in Russia, central planning and price controls in the United States, and the first glimpse of modern despotism in Europe and England. The semblance of democracy replaced monarchy, government rule replaced markets in most countries, and new forms of political rule displaced old-world empires.

Most significantly from an economic perspective, the result of the war was massive debt accumulation, which meant that someone, somewhere had to pay. Governments’ debt obligations led to dramatic fiscal tightening in the early 1920s, giving way to the final stage of credit expansion in the mid to late ’20s.

In Germany, where the debt obligations and strict terms of peace were severe, the result was an incredible calamity: the Weimar inflation of 1921–23. This stage of stunning upheaval paved the way for the rise of Hitler as a demoralized and destroyed social order cried out for an iron hand. In the United States and Europe, there was Black Tuesday and the beginnings of the Great Depression. Just as a drinking bout leads to a hangover, the inflations of the 1920s created the conditions of the Depression.

The first wave of Keynesianism

Rather than recognizing the failures of central banking, the elites doubled down with new peacetime measures of central planning. This might be called the first wave of Keynesian economics. Remarkably, governments pursued what we now call Keynesian policies long before John Maynard Keynes released The General Theory, his magnum opus, in 1936. His book recommended inflationary finance, high government spending, and macroeconomic manipulation — precisely what governments were already practicing.

American schoolkids are taught every day that the New Deal saved the country from the Great Depression, which is false on the face of it given that the Great Depression lasted from 1930 all the way to US entry into World War II. The war intensified the privation.

Also contrary to what kids are taught in schools, the Federal Reserve during the Depression’s early years was not pursuing laissez-faire policy. The Fed was pushing down interest rates and manipulating reserve requirements in hopes of spawning a new inflation, which it failed to achieve due to a massive drop in velocity (a dramatic increase in the demand for cash). Both presidents Hoover and Roosevelt used government power to manipulate the system. Roosevelt devalued the dollar and even banned the private ownership of gold. He tried to patch the system with deposit insurance. Still, the hoped-for monetary stimulus did not arrive.

The second wave of Keynesianism

Following World War II, which was funded (like the first one) through debt issuance backed by inflationary finance, Keynesian theory was at new heights in terms of academic economic opinion. This was second-wave Keynesianism. Keynes himself was present at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference, which attempted to create a new global currency and a global central bank, even as the veneer of the gold standard were preserved. This system was obviously unsustainable, and it eventually collapsed in 1971.

The 1950s and 1960s saw the advent of a new system of social welfare, the Cold War of endless military buildup, regional military interventions in Vietnam, and an ever-larger expansion of government into the lives of citizens — all made possible by the blank-check policies of central banking. Had states had to depend on taxes and unsecured debt alone, none of this would have been possible. There would have been no debates and riots over war and the Great Society, because neither could have been funded out of taxes and unsecured debt alone.

It’s remarkable to consider the amazing failure of the intellectual class to see the errors of Keynesian policy in those days, but it was blind to them. The widespread opinion was that the only remaining problem in the world monetary system was the presence of gold, which was finally tossed out completely with the reforms of Richard Nixon. He closed the gold window in 1971 and introduced the age of fiat money in 1973 as the final step in bringing “science” to monetary policy.

A brief monetarist experiment

Nixon said his reform would “stabilize” the dollar, which “will be worth just as much tomorrow as it is today.” The immediate effect of Nixon’s reform was to ignite another round of global inflation in the mid to late 1970s — this time coupled with high unemployment, which created the very stagflation that Keynesian theory had posited was impossible.

Stagflation led to a new corrective policy trend that had finally come of age: monetarism. The theory of monetarism is that the central bank should follow a strict rule that accords with the mathematical certainties of the equation of exchange. It’s all rather simple: the quantity of money should expand at an equal pace with national productivity, given a constant rate of money circulation.

Easy, right? The new Fed chairman of 1980 attempted this expansion and it did worlds of good, if only for having unplugged the money machine before the US economy entered a state of complete crack-up. However, monetarism is a wonderful example of a theory that works on paper but fails in practice.

Monetarist policy was unsustainable for several reasons:

  1. Counting money sounds easy until you try it; in an age of fiat currency, the difference between money and money substitutes can get fuzzy.
  2. National productivity as a gauge can only be discerned by looking backward in time, whereas monetary policy has to look forward.
  3. The rate of money circulation is anything but constant and is mostly determined not by the Fed but by consumers.

Deregulation without privatization

Regardless, the experiment in monetarism was short lived due to a sweeping financial deregulation in 1980 that caused an explosion of securitized moneys to appear over the following decade. This wild and wooly world of innovation took place within the context of central banking, a system that essentially privatized the gains from innovation but socialized the losses.

Freedom in finance, undisciplined by market competition, led to the freedom to inflate and pillage. The result was the savings and loan crisis, the first of many great crises to come. Throughout the remainder of the decade, Fed and Treasury officials from the Reagan administration — which had made noise about restoring a gold standard — tried desperately to fix world exchange rates through globally coordinated policies. They hoped to centralizing banking further and, quite possibly, bring about a new world currency based on the IMF’s special drawing right.

But it was a joke: nothing like this came about. Meanwhile, it became easy enough at this stage to look back at the record of central banking and see its relationship to monetary depreciation, the rise of despotism, and the loss of freedom. This train just could not be stopped. Not even the end of the Cold War could inspire government to pull back on its spending and debt. So long as the Fed was there to underwrite the Leviathan state, the Leviathan state would grow forever.

Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the Fed went into overdrive with massive money expansion, based on no other theory than a belief that the economy could not be permitted to sink into recession, because that would imply that the terrorists had won. That policy, combined with financial deregulation and a too-big-to-fail policy, led to a crazy housing boom, resulting in a massive bubble that finally collapsed in 2008.

The third wave of Keynesianism

The financial meltdown of 2008 led to a third wave of Keynesian malpractice, beginning with huge bailouts, a zero interest rate policy, and the Fed becoming the main buyer of mortgage-backed securities. It was all an attempt to save the banks, and it worked — except that it also broke the banks of their traditional function of borrowing and lending.

The Fed made repeated statements about its desire to manufacture inflation, first in housing, then in the economy at large. But just as in the early 1930s, there was a problem that the Fed could not control: the collapse in velocity. The banks are the makers of money, and so long as their lending function was broken, the money would not leave the vaults to enter the streets.

Six years after third-wave Keynesianism was put into practice, the result has been slow growth, deflationary pressure, persistent unemployment, a continuing stagnation in household income, and a peculiar asset inflation in financial markets.

The big picture is unrelenting inflation, ongoing business cycles, and general mismanagement: exactly what we would expect under government ownership and control. The long-term pattern of the dollar’s purchasing power provides a good illustration of what happens when government controls a commodity as important as money.

The birth of bitcoin

How beautiful was it that Satoshi Nakamoto’s bitcoin was released onto a private forum in the midst of this chaos, at the end of a central-banking failure, at the dawn of a new millennium! Only a few had imagined that something like bitcoin, a fully private replacement for both nationalized money and reactionary payment systems, was possible.

Bitcoin is one of many new cryptocurrencies that uses a ledger system to bundle and commodify information into tradable units, to control the number created and the rate of creation via a protocol, and to permit unlimited trading on a peer-to-peer basis. The system eliminates political discretion from monetary policy. It captures the strictness of the old gold standard while bringing it into the digital age.

Only one or two academic economists ever speculated about the workability of a fully privatized digital money system. Some had tried private alternatives but had failed for a variety of reasons. Most of the establishment in economics, finance, and government ignored the possibility.

But by January 2009, cryptocurrency was a reality, and the subsequent five years have shown its spectacular viability as an alternative to national money. And it is a global solution, not a national one. Using cryptocurrency means using a currency whose value is universally recognized without complex conversions from nation to nation. It’s gold for the digital age.

We can look back and see how the Federal Reserve and the nationalized dollar brought about incredible calamities, from depression to war to Leviathan, and feel profound sadness and regret. But we can also look to a future in which we have a chance for a new beginning with a currency and payment network that is open source, noninflationary, not owned or managed by nation-states, and adaptable to the needs of users, not political elites.

To learn from history is, perhaps, to avoid repeating it. But it’s best to have a guarantee, and cryptocurrency offers one. In the same way that central banking nearly wrecked the world and created one calamity after another, bitcoin can save the world one transaction at a time.

It is time for a new beginning.


Jeffrey Tucker is a distinguished fellow at FEE, CLO of the startup, and editor at Laissez Faire Books. Author of five books, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events.

Nativity Scene at City Hall in Jay Florida removed under threat by Athiests


Kervin Qualls, Mayor of Jay, Florida.

I was given word from my patriot friend in Brooksville, Florida, which is near Tampa, that the Nativity Scene at the City Hall in Jay Florida my neck of the woods in Santa Rosa County was removed because the City Council got a letter of intent from the atheist “Freedom From Religion” group to remove it.

Well boys and girls within ten minutes I had the cell phone number to Kurvin Qualls, the Mayor of Jay Florida. I called him from my cell phone so he can capture my number. We spoke at length and the bottom line was the City Council did not want to fight these heathens who call themselves “Freedom from Religion” to keep the Nativity Scene. The City Council voted to remove the Nativity Scene from the City Hall property and moved it to other city property down the street to avoid a legal battle.

Well I like battles legal or otherwise!

I then asked Mayor Qualls for the phone number to the attorney representing the City of Jay Florida. After playing phone tag we connected and the attorney Steven Cozart explained to me the Nativity Scene was a trip hazard and we can’t have people tripping over baby Jesus and getting hurt.

Seriously? Dude, come on.

Boys and girls this was the biggest [expletives deleted] story I ever stacked knee high and smelled like political cowardice to me. What we have is a Jay City Council scared of the Freedom From Religion group, a good Mayor who follows orders from the City Council and an attorney who found an [expletives deleted] legal way out for the City of Jay.

Well patriots, under the protection of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution I am going to return baby Jesus back to City Hall in Jay Florida at midnight on December 24th, 2014.

jay florida nativity scene

Jay, Florida Nativity Scene.

The Nativity Scene will be placed in such a way as not to be a trip hazard. I will identify the protector of baby Jesus as the Senior Chief and the Santa Rosa Militia so Mayor Qualls does not get blamed. If the attorneys representing the City of Jay want to sue me go for it. If the atheists with the Freedom from Religion group want to sue me they can as well.

So that’s the plan. Me, baby Jesus, Mary and Joseph will make our way to City Hall in Jay and at midnight the Nativity Scene will then be replaced. I don’t normally announce publicly my mission statements until after the fact but I don’t think anyone will stop me.

God Bless America.

UPDATE 12/20/2014:

Just got threatened with jail and arrest and law suits if I put the Baby Jesus under the tree at City Hall on New Years Eve. FREE FOOD for the Senior Chief and a cot on Christmas Day. I hope they give me a blanket. I’m so excited… LOL

Digital Advertising Had Significant Impact on Medical Marijuana Vote in Florida

WASHINGTONDec. 18, 2014 /PRNewswire/ — Online video and banner ads had a significant impact on theFlorida medical marijuana race, according to a post-election survey of 800 voters conducted by Anzalone Liszt Grove Research on behalf of United for Care, which was advocating for Amendment 2.

The survey revealed that those who saw Internet advertisements voted for Florida’s Amendment 2 at a rate of 65%, while those that did not, voted only at a rate of 53%. The 12% difference was not simply a function of targeting – for example – people who reported seeing Internet ads voted for Democrat Charlie Crist at a rate of 42% while those that said they did not voted for Crist at a rate of 40%.

The majority of the online advertising was a combination of cookie-targeted banner and video ads provided by Audience Partners, matched to the National Online Voter File® along with a proprietary medical marijuana support model that incorporated data from petition signers. Impact Politics, a campaign media and marketing strategy firm in Weston, FL, managed the digital buy and creative production for United for Care.

Audience Partner’s medical marijuana probabilistic model, created through extensive surveying and data modeling, provided Impact Politics and the United for Care Campaign the means to target voters “most likely to be persuadable” as well as those “most likely supporters” with a history of voting.

“We were outspent 3 to 1 on media, but the data modeling and analytics provided by Audience Partners allowed us to layer our online efforts across the state with unprecedented efficiency,” said Brian Franklin, President of Impact Politics and a senior consultant for the United for Care Campaign. “Access to this data allowed us to triage our resources, tweak our creative with real-time data, and maximize the impact of our online spend.”

United for Care’s digital buy placed a heavy emphasis on seniors most likely to be persuadable. In fact, 33% of those who recalled seeing online ads were over the age of 65.

While 65% of those who saw online ads voted yes for Amendment 2, the survey showed that those who saw any ads (including television only) voted 56% yes, and those that saw no ads at all voted 50% yes. 88% of those who saw Internet ads thought they were helpful in making their decision. Heavy Internet users decided earlier than lighter users – 85% decided how they were going to vote a month or more before the election.

Amendment 2 reached 58% support – the second highest level of support for medical marijuana in any state, and won roughly 500,000 more votes than Governor Rick Scott. Unfortunately for supporters of the amendment, Florida is one of the few states that requires 60% to pass.

About Impact Politics
Impact Politics is an award-winning political consulting firm that specializes in writing, strategy and new media for national, state, and federal candidate campaigns, ballot initiatives, and advocacy organizations. Founded byBrian Franklin, a Board Member of the American Association of Political Consultants and co-chair of its Technology Committee, the firm has won numerous Pollie and Reed awards, from Best Overall Internet Campaign and Best Online Targeting to Best Online Advertisements and Best Use of Humor in Online Ads. The firm is based in Weston, FL. More information can be found at

About Audience Partners
Audience Partners is an Enterprise Advertising Management company that operates an addressable advertising platform leveraging data science, programmatic ad buying and unique first party data assets to target individuals across screens on PCs, mobile phones, tablets, and addressable TVs. Focused on politics/advocacy, higher education and healthcare, Audience Partners’ success has been its ability to accurately reach high value audiences on their digital devices at scale by connecting offline databases with online devices. The company’s philosophy has been to use “first party, mailing address data” as the linchpin of its online targeting. Founded in 2008, the firm has offices in Washington DCPennsylvania and Toronto. More information can be found at

Photo –

South Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade committee votes to allow “gay” groups to march: Deceitful and dishonest tactics used to manipulate vote, says committee member

Committee resignations and parade cancellations already beginning.

The headlines in Tuesday morning’s Boston Globe and Boston Herald shocked pro-family readers, announcing that the St. Patrick’s Day Parade committee had voted to allow a homosexual group to march. By mid-day the news was around the world – Fox, ABC, CBS, Breitbart, and even Reuters in Europe.

The Boston Globearticle.

The previous evening, Monday, Dec. 15, the Allied War Veterans’ Council (which runs the parade) met and voted 5-4 to approve the application by OUTVETS to march. That group is described in the press as “a group honoring lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender military veterans.”

OUTVETS and their banner. [Boston Herald photo.]

This was jarring because the annual South Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade has been the only major parade of its kind in America that has not capitulated to the relentless pressure to include homosexual activist groups.

And the parade organizers had the ultimate legal backing. In 1995, led by then-Council Commander John “Wacko” Hurley, they won a unanimous US Supreme Court decision giving them the right to exclude anyone. And over the years they’ve boldly used that decision to stand up to the political establishment that demanded they give in.

John “Wacko” Hurley is a legend in South Boston for successfully standing up to the liberal establishment.

This year, MassResistance worked with the parade organizers to support them against the renewed political and economic pressure against parade sponsors by Boston politicians, homosexual activists, and the media. The pro-family forces prevailed and the parade was a resounding success.

But something else happened this time.

The vote – An outrageous manipulation of normal process

Early Tuesday morning (Dec. 16) MassResistance spoke with committee member Philip J. Wuschke, Jr., a former Allied Veterans Commander and the current parade organizer and treasurer, who was at the Dec. 15 meeting. (Much of what he told us was also published in an article later that day in the local Dorchester Reporter newspaper.)

Wuschke portrayed the meeting and subsequent vote as an outrageous effort to manipulate the vote and exclude the clear wishes of the majority of the committee.  According to Wuschke:

  • Meeting date changed. The meeting was originally scheduled for Tuesday. But four or five days beforehand it was suddenly moved to Monday. And the mailed notification of the change only reached some of the members.
  • Members not notified about vote. Members were not notified that the vote on OUTVETS would be taking place at that meeting.

Wuschke told us that he knows of at least five absent members who would have come and voted emphatically against this, had they known. Plus, John “Wacko” Hurley, the longtime Allied Council leader and strong advocate of the long-standing policy, told the press that because of illness he missed his first meeting in 50 years!

Wuschke also pointed out that the 5-4 vote was not technically legal because only nine members were in attendance, but an official quorum requires 12 members. In addition,  he said, the bylaws specifically prohibit any group from marching that identifies itself by its sexuality, or carries signs or banners that do so.

The driving force in the capitulation: the Allied Council Commander

This did not happen in a vacuum. The meeting and vote followed a period of “negotiation” between various elected officials, the Mayor’s office, some “community” organizations, and the Council to include a homosexual group, according to press reports. According to the Catholic Action League, it also included Congressman Stephen Lynch, and State Representative Nick Collins, both South Boston residents.

But in the end, we were told emphatically that the driving force was the Allied War Veterans Council Commander, Brian Mahoney. Mahoney appears to have been completely swayed by the pressure and decided that the parade needed to abandon its policy even if a majority of the members disagreed. He had reportedly also been seen meeting with local gay groups.

Along with a group of four other committee members, including Ed Flynn, son of the former Mayor of Boston, Mahoney was able to change the policy.

Mahoney tells press after the vote: They’re not really a gay group.

In his remarks to the press afterwards, Brian Mahoney, was clearly pleased about the vote and contemptuous of those who disagreed. “Who are we to judge?” he told the Boston Herald.

But mostly, Mahoney tried to claim that OUTVETS is not an LGBT group. “To us, it’s a group of veterans that wanted to march and deserved to be honored,” he told the press. He added that the group “has no social or political agenda,” and described their banner as including a “pallet of color” that “some might see as a rainbow.”

However, the leader and founder of OUTVETS, Bryan Bishop, was more honest. “I want to draw awareness to the LGBT veterans,” he told the Boston Herald,admitting that the common theme of the group is homosexuality.

The back story

It appears that this scenario was planned well in advance, with the collusion of Council members and powerful politicians.

OUTVETS appears to be a contrived group organized just for this purpose.

Since being elected last year, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh put considerable energy into attempting to force the parade to include homosexual groups. As a State Rep, he had described his vote for gay marriage as “the proudest moment of my career.” This was his new challenge.

OUTVETS was formed just this past September. According to the Boston Globe article, Bryan Bishop, the founder and organizer of OUTVETS, works for Mayor Walsh as a city employee.

The group marched in the City of Boston Veterans Day parade in November, then applied for the South Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade.  The “negotiations” with local politicians appear to have been focused on getting this group into the South Boston parade. The manipulated vote appears to have been a planned result of that.

Almost immediately after the vote, the Mayor’s office released this statement:

“We’re very pleased that OUTVETS will be marching in this year’s parade. Mayor Walsh has been advocating for an inclusive parade for quite some time. We’re thrilled to hear that the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council have decided to make the 2015 parade an inclusive event.”

This did not sit well with religious Catholics in Boston. On Tuesday, C.J. Doyle, of the Catholic Action League also released a statement:

“This was an illegal vote, at a meeting without a quorum, conducted by a suborned minority, subservient to outside political interests, who deliberately failed to notify the Council majority of the measure to be acted upon. No one, of course, should be surprised by such tactics, given the manifest contempt homosexual groups and their political enablers have always shown towards the democratic process.”

It also appears that the local media knew about it beforehand and was ready to run with it. Wuschke told us that while driving home from the vote he was already getting multiple phone calls from the press asking for comment. News rarely travels that extraordinarily fast.

Resignations from Allied War Veterans Council

We’ve been told that the level of anger among members of the Allied War Veterans Council over this is considerable. It was a sleazy, undemocratic process meant to subvert the will of the majority.

John “Wacko” Hurley, the legendary leader and member of the Allied War Veterans Council for over half a century, has resigned, according to sources. Other prominent members are expected to follow in the coming days and weeks, we’ve been told.

Major defections from parade already beginning

For the last 25 years the  Immaculate Heart of Mary Catholic School in Still River, MA, has provided what has become the most memorable float in the annual South Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade – St. Patrick blessing the crowds. This has become the centerpiece of the event and is widely photographed. The school band has also marched in the parade.

The school’s float of St. Patrick is synomyous with the South Boston Parade. [MassRsistance photo]

According to C.J. Doyle, Br. Thomas Augustine, the school’s principal, has emphatically stated that they will not be a part of the parade because of this decision. Br. Thomas has been public about this in the past — and we applaud him for standing by his principles. The absence of this group will change the character the parade, many believe.

And there are numerous religious schools and Catholic groups that regularly come from as far away as Florida to march in the parade. We suspect that many of them will also pull out.

This Catholic school comes from New Hampshire to march in the parade.
[MassResistance photo.]

We expect that other local LGBT groups who have worked hard in the past to be in the parade, such as MassEquality and gay Catholic groups, will now find the doors opening. It’s not a stretch to speculate that over time the parade could become more like the Gay Pride parade and less a family-oriented religious parade.

The Boston politicians want the parade to look more like this. [MassResistance photo]

And they want the “Catholic” message to be more like this.
Resistance photo]

As CJ Doyle observed, once groups can carry signs and banners identifying their sexual behavior, much more will follow.

This message of support on the South Boston Parade website will likely be coming down soon!

Can this vote be overturned? Not likely.

Wuschke and others explored several avenues for dealing with this, but now seem resigned that nothing can be done. As usual in these battles, the other side is resolute not to give up anything.

Mahoney has been emphatic that the vote is final, we’ve been told, and that a subsequent meeting will not be able to overturn it. He’s said that as Commander he controls the meetings and the agendas. The Parliamentarian, who was one of the “yes” votes, has ruled that the quorum question is not an issue because it’s regularly been ignored.

The sacrifices many made to get the parade’s freedom

Having been a part of the parade’s long legal battle back in the early 1990’s to gain the right to decide whom they may include, C. J. Doyle particularly laments that the sacrifices of many people are being unscrupulously tossed aside by Mahoney and his cohorts.

People suffered attacks in the media and had their livelihoods put at great risk for being in this fight. It was not unknown for pro-family activists in Boston to have their house assessments mysteriously go up, and have other problems with the city.

Chester Darling, the lawyer for the parade who took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, nearly went bankrupt more than once as the white-shoe Boston law firms fighting him purposely piled on motion after motion to overwhelm him, Doyle told us. But Chester fought on — and won.

It’s a truly outrageous action. We will keep you informed.

Boston attorney Chester Darling became a local hero when he won the 9-0 decision on the South Boston Parade case before the US Supreme Court in 1995. He later worked with Parents’ Rights Coalition (now MassResistance) on parents’ rights issues.
[MassResistance photo]

Fidel Castro: “I Heart Obama!”

Seriously, is President Obama more ideologically aligned with dictator Fidel Castro than he is with former President, George Bush? Think about that.

The President’s political philosophy is really closer to Marxism than to our Constitutional democracy. If that’s true, then it will help you understand the real motive behind Obama’s absurd plan to “normalize” relations with the communist, totalitarian, terrorist regime of Fidel Castro, one of the evil despots of our time.

This show will help you understand Obama’s true motive and why we must stand four square against his Cuba policy.


Washington Post Votes No Confidence in Obama Bailout of Castro Regime

Castros’ Ship Finally Came in With Obama

Republican Amnesty: “In Lies We Trust”

Something is terribly wrong with the ability of the Republican leadership in the House to think clearly or speak honestly.  The Speaker authorized what will be a $1.43 trillion 12 month out of control omnibus spending bill. It is a 1600 page bill that had a massive amounts of pork in it, and is another bill that no one read before they voted for it.  Pelosi never authorized such a large out of control spending bill when she was Speaker. This bill will contribute to the bankruptcy of the Republic.

That spending bill funded the the hiring of 1000 new federal employees, for 9 months.  Those new employees will not have had the experience in immigration matters to interview each applicant, or the years of experience in national security to weed out criminals, terrorists, and fraudulent applicants.  Yet those new employees will be issuing work permits and social security numbers to 5 million illegal immigrants.  They will lack the experience to determine if the issuance of those work permits and social security numbers, to millions of illegal immigrant that apply have been residents in the US for 5 years, or if issuance of those permits will be in the best interest of the National Security of the Republic.

The American Chamber of Commerce and the Speaker know that issuing work permits and social security numbers to 5 million illegal immigration will depress wages for the 43 million unemplyed Americans seeking employment.  The issuance of work permits and social security numbers to 5 million illegal immigrants was recently determined to be Unconstitutional by a US Federal Judge in Pennsylvania.

The American voters will hold the Speaker of the House responsible for ignoring the will of the American voters; he said he was opposed to Obama’s illegal Execitive Order on immigration, and for his outright support for the occupant in the Oval Office’s out of control spending.  The omnibus spending bill was not what the voters were promised by the Republican leadership before the mid-term election.  The American voters feel they were betrayed by the Speaker, and that he never intended to honor his pledges to the American people.

Please read the below listed article that is much more specific in details and includes quotes by the Speaker.

family security matters logo

sellin 2

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D.

Republican Amnesty: In Lies We Trust

by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD December 16, 2014

It was a Republican electoral head fake.

They always favored amnesty, but prior to the mid-term elections, in order to mobilize their voter base, the Republican leadership pretended to oppose Barack Obama’s threat of executive amnesty.

On February 24, 2014, the US Chamber of Commerce, the heart and soul of the Republican establishment, laid the groundwork for Republican amnesty for illegal aliens:

“There will never be a perfect time for reform. The political landscape isn’t going to be any more conducive to reform in two years or four years,” wrote Chamber President Tom Donohue. “The case for immigration reform is clear. The need is undeniable. The time is now.”

Donohue had previously stated that they would “pull out all the stops” to get immigration reform in 2014. The group planned to spend $50 million to blunt the influence of the Tea Party, largely because it opposed amnesty, and millions more to push for immigration reform legislation that the Congressional Budget Office had said would lower the wages of American workers

Having received his marching orders, on March 4, 2014, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said that he wanted to get amnesty legislation done before the end of the year, even as he insisted that the immigration reform he and President Barack Obama had discussed in their White House meeting was not “amnesty:”

“He wants to get it done. I want to get it done,” Boehner said. “But he’s going to have to help us in this process.”

Then came the head fake.

Knowing support for amnesty was a losing issue, the Republican establishment focused their opposition on executive amnesty hoping that, if it was presented forcefully, voters might also think that it included any form of amnesty.

During the run-up to the mid-term elections, Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), called executive amnesty “un-American” and “unconstitutional, illegal, and we don’t support it.”

Priebus promised that, if the Republican Party takes the Senate, they will do everything in their power to stop Obama from proceeding on the executive amnesty.

Even after the election, while simultaneously criticizing executive amnesty and oozing hypocrisy, Boehner said:

“That is not how American democracy works,” he said. “By ignoring the will of the American people, President Obama has cemented his legacy of lawlessness and squandered what little credibility he had left.”

“Republicans are left with the serious responsibility of upholding our oath of office. We will not shrink from this duty, because our allegiance lies with the American people,” he said. “We will listen to them, work with our members, and protect the Constitution.”

Among voters, strong “majorities of men (75%), women (74%), whites (79%), blacks (59%), and Hispanics (54%),” in addition to tri-partisan majorities of “self-identified Republicans (92%), Independents (80%), and Democrats (51%)” did not want Obama to enact executive amnesty.

Yet, according to Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Steve King (R-IA), the political establishment, both Republican and Democrats, made a decision months ago that they were going to approve amnesty.

HR 83, a bill literally crafted behind closed doors in cigar smoke-filled rooms by a handful of legislators and staffers, endorses and fully funds Barack Obama’s unconstitutional executive actions granting amnesty to illegal aliens, including Social Security benefits to support them.

Despite the fact that the Republicans sailed to victory in one of the biggest election routs of the past century and grew to historic levels in the U.S. House, they never intended to honor their pledges to American voters.

They did so not out of weakness.

In order to preserve their fragment of the political landscape as junior partners in a corrupt status quo, it is a more defensible position for the Republican establishment to be deemed eunuchs and cowards rather than what they are; bold-faced liars who care little about the Constitution and represent only themselves and the interests of their wealthy financiers.

You see; that too is a head fake.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “. He receives email at

What is Going on America?

So now we have the Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America loosening restrictions between Castro’s Cuba and the United States of America. This is yet another glaring example of the utter disdain Obama has for America. Right now in our hemisphere, enemy nations like China and Russia are building military alliances with various countries in Central and South America. At the same time Obama has done his best to reduce American military might through demoralization tactics and numerous systems cutbacks. Such action has only served to endanger “We the People.” Yet many of our fellow countrymen and woman are joining the ranks of United States detractors who don’t have a single problem with the dismantling of our societal cohesiveness by none other than the Obama administration itself.

Even in the midst of the destructive mission of Obama, many Americans continue to show remarkable resolve to forge ahead to overcome government obstructions to progress. For example, thanks to private sector innovations in energy production capabilities the U.S. is poised to overtake Saudi Arabia as the world’s number one oil producer in a few years. That progress has come about on just a fraction of the land that would be great for drilling and fracking. So far, environmentalists and other progressives working in concert to thwart American power and prosperity have pretty much had their way in their efforts to curtail our prosperity and energy independence. Just recently, New York governor Cuomo announced that he is banning any fracking in the Empire State. According to a story I saw in C.N.S. News, fracking is not harmful to the environment, but of course progressives don’t really care about facts or the people anyway. So now the many jobs that may have come about do to enhanced energy production shall never appear, because the agenda driven governor of that states has denied economic development and energy independence.

I for one am sick and tired of the progressives being allowed to systematically drive our republic into the dirt, because they simply want to. If thugs, illegal immigrants, transgender trolls and others can get their destructive way by simply causing or threatening to wreak havoc, then we who desire a strong, blessed and independent nation had better take a strong and loud stand, NOW! When you sees throngs of individuals yelping for individuals killed in an altercation with the police, yet say nothing about the daily death of unborn babies in the womb, you are witnessing phoney bologna drones who don’t give a rip about what is truly wrong in society.

One must have to wonder if the United States has truly lost it’s status as the world’s super power. What else can I conclude when theater chains are now afraid to show the film ‘The Interview’ because a number of unknown hackers have implied that theaters would be at risk for showing the film. FOX News released that report with Sony Pictures officials stating that, “In light of the decision by the majority of our exhibitors not to show the film The Interview, we have decided not to move forward with the planned December 25 theatrical release.” There is more to the statement, but I’m sure you get the drift. Whenever they feel like it, Russia flies military aircraft near our coasts, but not so much as a mild complaint from the traitors on the Potomac.

Remember when the Panamanians went to nutsville and demanded that the United States give up control of the Panama Canal? Tell me why they aren’t very upset now that China runs it? The United States built the canal during the Teddy Roosevelt years but now has been on the outside looking in for decades. Here on our own soil, the American Bar Association fights valiantly on behalf of muslims to gain a sharia law foothold within our legal system. Yet they will partner up with the A.C.L.U. or Anti Christian Liberal Union to battle against nativity scenes or prayers at high school football games. In the Michigan state capital of Lansing, Satanist are displaying a snaketivity manger scene to offset the Christmas nativity.

I recently I read about the beating of a white man in St. Louis, Mo by a gang of cowardly black knuckle draggers, yet not one peep out of the no peace no justice crowd or Al windbag Sharpton. It didn’t appear that the perpetrators were even brought to justice.

Dear reader, despite all of the negative developments mentioned in this column, I am still convinced that we as Americans have what Ronald Reagan said, “A rendezvous with destiny.” In other words, there is much hope for the restoration of America the beautiful. All we have to do is remember thank God for blessing our country. Then as Kate Smith sang many years ago, stand beside her. In other words, we do not have to sit by and allow the students of Stalin to run roughshod over our “One Nation Under God.” Even if we are no longer the lone super power of the world, that’s okay because everything can be restored and every enemy of liberty defeated.

Merry Christmas my fellow Americans. May God Bless America and may America bless God.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of

Prog porn: Elizabeth Warren mug from Wonkette


For a large printable version click on the image.

No, comrades: this isn’t our work. This is life imitating the People’s Cube at Wonkette’s online store, among other visually agitating items we call “prog porn,” accompanied by this bizarre description:

“Tea is for losers. Who is yelling at the banks, because it is a day? Professorski Elizabeth Warrenovna, that is who! Let Professor Schoolmarm E. Dubs save your coffee, from the man!”

How can you top that which is already over the top? Just recently we used to satirize progs by extrapolating their points to reveal the absurdity and immorality of their ideas. Today, they leave us no room for extrapolation – or for imagination for that matter – by removing the last remaining fig leaf and proudly exhibiting their own absurdity and immorality in all its anatomically correct, pornographic ugliness.

Prog porn is often the easy solution to dealing with life’s problems, but remember that it often causes the very problems from which you’re trying to escape and can be a more difficult addiction to break than traditional porn.

Five Stages of Addiction to Prog Porn

  1. Early exposure. Most prog porn addicts start early. They see the stuff when they are very young, and it gets its foot in the door.
  2. Addiction. You keep coming back to stare at prog porn. It becomes a regular part of your life. You’re hooked and can’t quit.
  3. Escalation. You start to look for increasingly hardcore prog porn and conspiracy theories that would have disgusted you when you started. Now it excites you.
  4. Desensitization. Eventually, you start to become numb. Even the most violent, cult-of-personality, labor-camp prog porn doesn’t excite you anymore. You become desperate to feel the same thrill again but can’t find it.
  5. Acting out proggishly. At this point, you make a dangerous jump and start acting out in the streets. You move from online prog porn to the real world, and possibly ask your parents to buy you a ticket to Ferguson, Mo.

Some of you reading this may have already developed an addiction to prog porn. If you see any of the above patterns in your life, you need to get a grip. Are you trolling online more frequently? Are you starting to be insulting or act out in the streets for proggish thrills? If you see yourself at any point on this progression, you need to take this test.

Quiz: Are You Addicted to Prog Porn?

Rate every answer as follows: Never: 0 | Occasionally: 1 | Often: 2 | Most of the time: 3

  • Do you spend more than 11 hours a week watching MSNBC?
  • Does your reading of the Huffington Post have a negative impact on your relationships?
  • Does trolling on the Internet get in the way of your work or seeing friends and family?
  • Do you ever choose to watch the Daily Show over hanging out with friends or family?
  • How often do you imagine yourself being Barack Obama as a way of making yourself feel less depressed or bored?
  • Do you ever feel like you should try to stop listening to NPR?
  • Do you ever have problems formulating your own original thoughts in a conversation?
  • Do you fantasize about what you’ve read on the Daily Cos to get in the mood for human interaction?
  • Have you discovered that now you need to visit Communist Party websites to get the same buzz?


Under 8
 – You’re probably not an addict, but if you come from a prog family, you could be at risk. Make sure you have intellectual experiences that are prog-porn-free and develop strategies for coping with stress and boredom, like getting a job.

9- 15 – Your habit borders on problematic – so cut back on TV and the Internet for a while so your dopamine levels can re-calibrate. If you’re having issues with your non-prog parents or your uncaring girlfriend, try facing them head on instead of escaping into the fantasy world of prog porn.

16-20 – You’re almost definitely an addict, one presidential election away from becoming a sociopath. If you’re noticing that prog porn is having a negative impact on your career or relationships, now is the time to seek out a 12-step group like Prog Porn Addicts Anonymous or at least sign up for The People’s Cube mailing list.

20+ – It may be too late for you to stop being a loser and have a meaningful human interaction. By now you probably don’t even enjoy MSNBC but you’re still inexplicably feel driven to watch it. What started as a joke to get back at your parents and stick it to The Man, turned into a habit and then into a curse. Try switching to being a traditional porn addict or a dysfunctional alcoholic – at least then you can get professional help.

RELATED ARTICLES: Bill O’Reilly: ‘If Sen. Warren ever gains White House, she’d make Obama look like Ronald Reagan’