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’

Liberals Will Get Us All Killed

The news from Sydney, Australia was of another incident in which a lone Islamic fascist took civilians hostage to fulfill a demented notion of a “holy war” on non-believers. After a siege by police two of the hostages he had taken were dead along with the gunman.

These attacks are becoming more frequent, referred to as “lone wolf” events, but in a larger context, they represent an effort by al Qaeda and the Islamic State, ISIS, to recruit individuals to wage a war of terror everywhere.

Looking back over the year, in May Mehdi Nemmouche who had returned to France after fighting for ISIS, entered the Jewish museum in Brussels and killed four people. In October Martin Couture Rouleau ran down two Canadian soldiers in Quebec, killing one of them. The same month, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau killed a soldier at the Canadian parliament in Ottawa. Also in October, Zale Thompson attacked four New York police officers with an axe, injuring two in an incident that was deemed to be an Islamist attack.

In the wake of these attacks police everywhere are grappling with what they can do to anticipate and respond. In the attacks that have occurred, the perpetrators were all known to law enforcement authorities for their extremist views. In September, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI put out a joint intelligence bulletin that the Islamic State has the capacity to mount attacks on U.S. targets overseas with little or no warning. Presumably the warning also included domestic attacks as well.

At a time when the threat is real and growing, there are forces in America that have deliberately sought to undermine public support and trust in the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency, both on the front line of defense against the Islamist menace. The release of a report by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Senate Intelligence Committee chair, was widely denounced for its evident failure to interview those named as engaging in “torture” to deter further attacks. This 20-20 hindsight and reinterpretation of events is an offense on many levels.

One has to ask why it is always liberals who are unable to acknowledge an actual threat and defame those charged with preventing them. It is as if they live in a parallel universe, a make-believe world where our enemies do not exist.

This is the mind-set that led the President to remove our troops from Iraq, creating a vacuum that ISIS filled. He is now lowering our role in Afghanistan and the news of the day is a barbaric attack by the Taliban in Pakistan that has killed 130, mostly school children. Can liberals grasp the barbarity of the Islamist enemies of our nation and the whole of humanity?

Hillary - Showing RespectMost serious, though, are the negotiations with Iran, led by the Obama administration, that are sure to permit a leading sponsor of terrorism to acquire its own nuclear weapons.

This is why many cringed when the anticipated Democratic Party candidate for President, Hillary Clinton, a former Secretary of State, recently touted an approach she calls “smart power,” urging America to use “every possible tool and partner” to advance peace. This, she said, includes “leaving no one on the sidelines, showing respect even for one’s enemies, trying to understand and insofar as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view.”

This is the classic liberal excuse and attitude for not taking our enemies seriously when they say they want to destroy America. There isn’t a single justification for empathizing with people who want to kill you!

I frankly find the outcry against the nation’s police corps curious and outrageous. In the Ferguson incident, it was a case of self-defense that got Michael Brown killed. In Staten Island, it was the unanticipated death of Erik Garner who had resisted arrest and had a long record of similar offenses. The police did not set out to kill him, but a combination of his ill health and the takedown triggered his death.

The response of the communist Mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio, was not to defend his police force, but to join in the condemnation. Around the nation thousands marched, repeating the lies about Brown’s innocence and the claims about Garner’s death. The marches, held in a number of U.S. cities, were organized by groups with an agenda and it was aimed at undermining public support and trust in our police corps.

Remember, too, liberals are also opposed to the Second Amendment which empowers Americans to “keep and bear arms.” There is no way to misinterpret or not understand the limit this puts on government from the federal to the local level. Even so, the calls for such limits are constant.

Reportedly, “according to the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey – the leading source of international public information about firearms – the U.S. has the best-armed civilian population in the world, with an estimated 270 million total guns. That’s an average of 89 firearms for every 100 residents.” Liberals translate this as an invitation to mass murder in the streets and homes of America, but the reality is that gun ownership prevents criminal mayhem and protects lives. In states that permit concealed carry, the crime rate is less than in those that do not.

Liberals, though, would have you fear your local police force and those agencies that are tasked with protecting the nation, the CIA and the NSA. And, yes, the FBI too.

If not resisted, liberals would cause us all to be killed by our nation’s very real foreign enemies and the domestic perpetrators and criminals who prey on our society. Next time you see a police man or woman, take a moment to tell them how much you appreciate their service.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Jihad Comes to Australia and the GOP’s Grover Norquist Bad Immigration Plan

What a day! We have a very sad Muslim jihad attack in Australia and a developing “immigration” jihad in Washington D.C.

The United West team analyzes the Islamic State influenced hostage situation in a café’ in Sydney and drawn key national security principles for all Americans. Additionally, we take a serious look at the recently passed $1.1 trillion dollar budget and the elements of that money which impact the Department of Homeland Security, in particular, the money President Obama is using to fund his illegal policy to “reform” immigration in America.

You will be shocked to see that the “conservative” Washington lobbyist Grover Norquist is gearing up to use the Republican anger at Obama immigration to implement an immigration plan that is worse that President Obama’s plan!

This is bad folks and we start to expose it on this show.

VIDEO: Marc Morano and Apollo 7 Astronaut Walt Cunningham in contentious debate at Lima Summit

Apollo 7’s Walt Cunningham: ‘My background in space science. My doctoral thesis that I was working on was fluctuations in the Earth’s magnetic field. I have no political inhibitions at all, I just think we ought to be honest about this and not be trying to use it to our own ends to try to get money from the government.’ Also see: Apollo Astronaut Slams UN for perpetrating the ‘one of the biggest frauds in the field of science’

Marc Morano: ‘The UN is first and foremost political and they have bastardized science to achieve a political end…The UN claims that they can alter global temperature and storminess and weather events many decades to 100  years into the future. And the United Nations does not have that power — that is reserved for medieval witchcraft.’

Morano: ‘If we did face a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on the UN, we would all be doomed!  People in the developing world need carbon based energy. It has been one of the greatest liberators of mankind in the history of our planet. It brought us long life expectancy, low infant mortality. We should be here to praise carbon based energy.’

UN Climate TV Description of Debate:

Marc Morano, Walt Cunningham , CFACT

From Lima: COP20 UN Climate Change Conference 2014 in December 2014

COP20 (11/12/14) – Marc Morano of CFACT and Walt Cunningham talk to RTCC about their opinion that human activity cannot alter the climate. They feel that global efforts to tackle climate climate change, particularly in the UN, are politically and financially driven, referring to these efforts as the “global warming war”. They also debate the idea that their views are only held by a small minority of climate scientists, arguing that this notion is based on flawed evidence. In addition they talk about the difficulty of securing funding as a sceptical organisation, likening their struggle to David and Goliath. They go on to state that continuing to rely on carbon intensive energy is the best protection against extreme weather events.

Climate Depot’s Selected Transcripts:

Marc Morano: The UN is first and foremost political and they have bastardized science to achieve a political end. The head of the IPCC climate panel has said they are at the ‘beck and call’ of governments. So there whole mission is to enrich the UN. They are using that to claim that they can alter global temperature and storminess and weather events many decades to 100  years into the future. And the United Nations does not have that power — that is reserved for medieval witchcraft.

It’s about centrally planning a global economy — that is the agenda. It has got nothing to do with climate science. The UN is hyping the alarmist science and it is really bad science at times – when UN scientist and spokesmen are claiming that every weather event it proof of global warming.

In 1846, aborigines blamed bad weather on the introduction of the white man. In 1933, Syria banned the yoyo because they thought it caused drought. During WW2, many people thought the war caused bad weather. In the 1970s bad weather was blamed on global cooling. Now they are blaming our SUVs and modern way of living for bad weather. Bad weather happens all the time.

Question: UN asks Cunningham and Morano about alleged 97% consensus:

Walt Cunningham: ‘It is one of the most ridiculous numbers that I have ever seen used in this process.

UN TV interviewer to Cunningham: What are your qualifications?

Cunningham: My background in space science. My doctoral thesis that I was working on was fluctuations in the Earth’s magnetic field. I have no political inhibitions at all, I just think we ought to be honest about this and not be trying to use it to our own ends to try to get money from the government.

Morano on alleged 97% consensus:  The media refers to Rajendra Pachauri as the top climatologist, his background is in economics and engineering, he was a train engineer. The idea that somehow skeptics aren’t qualified to dissent. As Walt mentioned the 97% consensus alleged is not even 97 scientist, it is 77. Other survey have come out since and there have been peer-reviewed studies debunking them.

The UN is self-selected. Governments pick scientist that will play ball and toe the line. It is a political pressure group disguised as science – the IPCC. It is really appalling what is happening.

Cunningham: They go ahead and sell that then to the public who is not scientifically trained and does not understand when you should accept data and when you should not accept data. These people are politically driven, financially driven.

UN TV Asks About Funding of Skeptics

Morano: Fossil fuel donations to groups like the Sierra club exceed our annual budgets by 3 or 4 times. We are truly the David vs. the Goliath that is the global warming establishment.

UN TV asks about funding of GOP candidates by climate ‘deniers’:

Morano: They always mention the Koch brothers. One survey found the Koch Brothers are only 59th giving in U.S. politics. Way down the line. American labor unions are the largest and of course they mostly give to Democrats. Any perceived advantage is not there. The Left and the climate establishment has people like Tom Steyer who has pledged hundreds of millions of dollars to Democrats just on the climate issue. So if you want to play the money game, skeptics are the David vs. the Goliath of the climate establishment.

UN TV asks what if skeptics are wrong about global warming?

Morano: You are basically saying what is wrong with an insurance policy? Well the UN is selling a policy with a very high premium with no payout. If we did face a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on the UN, we would all be doomed! The UN is in this for political reasons. Carbon based energy is the best ‘insurance’ against extreme weather, bad weather. The more development you have the more you can handle floods, hurricanes, droughts. Despite the fact that those are all on either stable or declining trends. Carbon based energy, coal, oil, natural gas, that is what the developing world needs more than anything.

The United Nations knows all about carbon based energy, this is one of the highest carbon footprint conferences they have ever had. Your president, IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri says he lives in airplanes.

People in the developing world need carbon based energy. It has been one of the greatest liberators of mankind in the history of our planet. It brought us long life expectancy, low infant mortality. We should be here to praise it. And it turns extreme weather into weather we can deal with. The more infrastructure you have from carbon based energy, the more you can deal with bad weather.

Related Links:

Skeptics Cleared Off Stage: Apollo 7 Astronaut Rushed Off Stage At UN Climate Summit To Make Way For Kerry Photo Op – Skeptics’ presentation at UN Abruptly Cut Short

Greenpeace faces ‘criminal’ prosecution for desecrating Peruvian sacred sites – Forced to apologize – Exclusive Video of Peruvians reacting

Reactions to Lima summit conclusion:

Warmists slam ‘lackluster’ Lima climate deal: ‘Little scientific relevancy…half-baked…bare minimum… political expediency won’

Lima climate conference tensions may bring storm clouds to Paris

Associated Press: ‘Weather porn? Storms take over evening news’

Paper: New era of cheap oil ‘will destroy green revolution’

Paper: UN climate negotiators pass watered-down deal in Lima

Lima climate change talks end in agreement – but who won?

UN summit rejects solar power as ‘too unreliable’ – Chose ‘diesel generators’ instead! Lima ‘organizers rejected powering the [summit] with solar panels on the grounds they were too unreliable’

Paper: ‘Lima climate talks reach global warming agreement’ – ‘Deal would for first time commit all countries – including developing nations – to cutting emissions’

Lima’s UN Climate Conference The Most Disgraceful, Destructive Ever…Time To Disband The Traveling Parasitic UN Circus


Obama’s Possible Paris Climate Agreement End Run Around the Senate

Skeptics Welcomes Non-Binding And Toothless UN Climate Deal

UN Climate Talks Once Again Break Down Over ‘Climate Reparations’

Tame tornadoes: Quietest 3 years for twisters on record

UN planning a global carbon tax?

Claim: Rising sea levels could make Florida beach front property ‘worthless’ in a few decades

German Scientists: ’2°C Target Purely Political’

Ice Expanding! Highest Global Sea Ice Since 1988

Shock News Report: BBC News: ‘Arctic sea ice volume holds up in 2014′ – ‘Ice may be more resilient than many observers recognize’

Roundup: UN’s COP-20 Ignored by Sunday Talkies and Video of Greenpeace Activists Damaging World Heritage Site

Bianca Jagger adds some glamour to the Lima climate jamboree: ‘Time is running out’ !

Video Coming Soon: Walt Cunningham & Marc Morano in contentious debate with UN TV Host

With Gore seated in the front row, John Kerry Tries To Out-Gore Al Gore in Lima

Harvard Astrophysicist: 2014 ‘Hottest Year’ Claim A ‘Prostitution Of Science’

Analysis: Kerry’s UN climate speech was packed with misinformation


John Kerry warns of ‘moral failure’ at climate conference

Kerry warns of climate ‘tragedy’

Time to tackle global warming running out, Pope tells climate summit

Skeptics Cleared Off Stage: Apollo 7 Astronaut Rushed Off Stage At UN Climate Summit To Make Way For Kerry Photo Op

UN hosts climate skeptics at summit: Apollo Astronaut Slams UN for perpetrating the ‘one of the biggest frauds in the field of science’

A Real Agenda for the GOP Congress

Clearly President Obama did not get the message the voters sent in the November midterm elections, electing enough Republican Senators to shift power in the Senate and to increase it in the House. Many Presidents in their second term encounter this shift, particularly if they are seen by the voters to be incompetent in some respect.

Writing in the December 9th edition of National Review, Henry Olsen, reminded readers that ‘wave elections” do not guarantee victories to come. “In each previous case—1946, 1994, 2010—a Democrat held the White House and Republicans thought the wave presaged his subsequent defeat. Each time, however, the Democrat won reelection relatively easily.” The GOP can only give thanks Obama cannot run in 2016, but no one should count out Hillary Clinton at this point.

Shortly after the November 4th elections Obama told the nation he heard those who voted, but also those who did not. What Obama heard, however, was that he should rewrite immigration laws. Investigative reporter Jerome R. Corsi, writing in World Net Daily, says no executive order has been issued, but rather that the Department of Homeland Security has been told to issue work permits and avoid deportations of illegal aliens.

One might have thought that the GOP got the message in 2012 from those Republicans who stayed home and thereby let Obama remain in office. Apparently politicians only hear what they want to. The polls indicate that Americans do not like ObamaCare and want it repealed, and that they do not want Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty actions acted upon.

AA - Tea Party Congress Folk Protest ObamaOn Wednesday, December 3rd, House and Senate Republicans, supported by the Tea Party, joined with grassroots activists to denounce Obama’s unilateral amnesty efforts. Among those participating in the event were Senator Ted Cruz, Representatives Steve King, Michele Bachman, Louis Gohmert, Tim Huelskamp, and Curt Clawson. Also participating was Niger Innis, Executive Director of

As reported by the Tea Party News Network, the problem is “many moderates appear to be going soft on the issue” of illegal immigration “as Speaker of the House John Boehner works to try and avoid a government showdown between Democrats and Republicans.”

The reported compromise is a budget bill that funds the government through to September 2015, but the Department of Homeland Security only through March to permit the new Congress to take some action on the amnesty issue.

Innis noted that the Tea Party has 2.5 million members and warned “If the Republican leadership tacitly colludes with the President, then they will have betrayed the voters who elected them and will pay the price at the ballot box. It’s shocking that Republicans would even contemplate preemptive surrender before the new Congress even convenes.”

Realistically, however, House Speaker Boehner cannot order Republican Representatives to vote as the Tea Party would prefer. Voters tend to assume that there is party unity among the House Republicans, but in reality they vote their own political interest and those range from liberal to conservative. It is, however, worth remembering that not one Republican in Congress voted for Obamacare.

On December 3rd, The Daily Caller’s White House correspondent, Neil Munro, reported that he had heard that “House Speaker John Boehner will ask Rep. Nancy Pelosi to help him overcome ‘snowballing’ GOP opposition to the GOP leadership’s draft 2015 government budget bill” which would fund the entire government for 2015” and “makes merely token efforts to stop President Obama’s agencies from implementing his unpopular amnesty, according to rank-and-file GOP legislators.”

On the day after the November 4th midterm elections, The Washington Post, reported that “This will be the most dominant Republican Congress since 1929, with an almost-certain 8 percent majority in the Senate and an 11.7 to 17.7 percent majority in the House. That trumps the party’s 6.3/13.3 percent majorities in the 80th Congress that began in 1947.”

Dominant in numbers, but is the GOP leadership acting hesitantly regarding either amnesty issues or the repeal of ObamaCare? It’s more like that are acting pragmatically, realistically. They know that Obama would veto such legislation. Symbolic votes are not useful. Practical politics that accomplish real goals is.

I believe that Congressional Republicans have decided to let the courts deal with the issue of Obama’s unconstitutional over-reach. On December 3rd, CNS News reported that “A coalition of seventeen states have joined together to file a suit against the Obama administration.” The states are mostly southern and Midwestern. In addition, law suits opposing ObamaCare are also making their way through the courts.

One cannot blame the voters for being angry and impatient.

On November 25th, Rasmussen Reports said of its latest survey regarding Congress, “Even though they just voted for a new Republican majority, voters still give Congress dismal marks and the majority believes members get re-elected because the system is rigged.” The survey found that “just eight percent (8%) of likely U.S. voters rate Congress’s performance as good or excellent. Sixty-four percent (64%) rate their performance as poor, also in line with earlier surveys.”

As the new GOP-controlled Congress takes over in January, Republicans should hope that it will begin to simplify the tax code, cut spending, reduce the huge national debt, aid the growth of the energy sector, and crack down on rogue agencies. That would be a good start toward electing a Republican President in 2016.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Arkansas: Middle East Cyber Army hacks Little Rock School District website

“F**k Israel / Free Palestine / Jerusalem is Ours / Al khilafah is coming soon.” Why would they hack into the Little Rock School District’s website with such a message? For the same reason that a Muslim cleric would take hostages in a chocolate cafe in Sydney, Australia: to “strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah” (Qur’an 8:60).

“Hackers Target Little Rock School District Website,” by Susanne Brunner,, December 12, 2014 (thanks to Creeping Sharia):

LITTLE ROCK, AR- If you typed in in the search engine around 7am Friday morning, chances are a hacking message popped up.

“I don’t like it. It doesn’t make me comfortable,” says Jason Spees, LRSD Parent.

Uncomfortable with the images and words displayed on the homescreen and the possible threat it could have on his two boys.

“I think they should notify everybody when there’s what could potentially be a terroristic threat. And that’s what that is to me,” he says.

The video playing on the site read “Hacked by MECA” the Middle East Cyber Army.According to its Facebook and Twitter pages, it appears to be a muslim group dedicated to cyber attacks around the world.

“It’s a little shocking to be informed of it,” he says.

Another parent I spoke with didn’t see it, but learned about the hack through an automated call from the school district around noon.

“It basically said there had been a cyber attack against the district’s landing page on their website,” says Mandy Shoptaw, LRSD Parent.

Shortly after, that message from LRSD was relayed via email to parents and staff saying, “No student, parent, or personnel data was compromised. That information is housed on separate servers. When we discovered the unauthorized information on the landing page, it was immediately removed.”…


Over 100 children massacred as Taliban storms school; ‘set teacher on fire, made kids watch’

VIDEO: Marijuana Does Kill

Kevin Sabet, a former adviser on drug policy to three presidents—Clinton, Bush and Obama—says despite popular fiction, marijuana does kill.

“Saying marijuana has never contributed to death or never killed anyone is like saying tobacco hasn’t killed anyone,” Kevin Sabet, president of Project SAM, told The Daily Signal after speaking at a Heritage Foundation event on marijuana policy. “In that same way, marijuana does kill people in the form of mental illness, suicide and car crashes.”

To learn more visit:

The Holiday That Isn’t: A “Bill of Rights Day” Is Not on the Calendar

Today is Bill of Rights Day, although you’re unlikely to see it labeled that way on your calendar. On this day, December 15, in 1791, the United States formally adopted the first ten amendments to the Constitution, securing, for a while at least, greater checks on the power of the new central government. In this article, originally published in the October 2008 issue of The Freeman, FEE president Larry Reed notes that a free people don’t have to wait for Congress to declare a holiday. We can celebrate now.

I know it’s only October, but that’s late enough in the year for most people to have already begun thinking of the holidays just around the corner. We will each observe the traditional ones according to our personal wishes—a precious right won for us by past and present patriots.

Allow me to advise you, however, not to let 2008 end without taking note of “the holiday that isn’t.” It’s not recognized officially, and few Americans really know of it. I had to be reminded of it by a friend from Arizona, Roy Miller, one of the founders of the Goldwater Institute.

The day is December 15. It was on that date in 1791 that the fledgling United States of America formally adopted what we know as the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Miller says, “Few days in American history were more critical to securing or proclaiming the principles behind the nation’s founding.”

A “Bill of Rights Day” is not on the calendar, but a free people don’t have to wait for Congress to declare a holiday to celebrate one. On December 15, take a moment to reread the Bill of Rights and reflect on its importance. Call it to the attention of friends and family. Without an agreement that a Bill of Rights would be added or without a consensus of what they would do, the Constitution itself would probably not have been accepted. The ten amendments ultimately adopted guarantee freedoms of religion, speech, the press, peaceful assembly and petition; the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, and to hold private property; rights to fair treatment for people accused of crimes, protection from unreasonable search and seizure and self-incrimination; and rights to a speedy and impartial jury trial and representation by counsel.

In this modern and supposedly enlightened age, not many people among the world’s 6.6 billion can honestly say they enjoy many of these rights to their fullest—or at all. Even in America we have to work hard to educate fellow citizens about the liberties the Bill of Rights is meant to protect. There are plenty in our midst who would sacrifice one or more liberties for the temporary and dubious security of a government program. This past June the Supreme Court affirmed the right to keep and bear arms but only by a 5–4 vote. No wonder Benjamin Franklin said the Constitution gave us “a republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

In the grand scheme of American liberty, how important is the Bill of Rights? It’s fundamental and foundational, and about as bedrock as it gets. In fewer than 500 words, many of our most cherished liberties are expressed as rights and unequivocally protected. It’s a roster of instructions to government to keep out of where it doesn’t belong. It bears the heavy imprint of a giant of republican government, James Madison.

Why did such critical protections end up as amendments instead of as core elements of the primary document? Here’s the background:

The Second Continental Congress, originally convened in 1775 at the outbreak of hostilities with the mother country, adopted the Articles of Confederation as the new nation’s first formal, national government. Some Americans came to believe by the late 1780s, however, that the Articles were weak and inadequate. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 produced a draft Constitution to replace them, subject to ratification by the states. A great debate ensued and people lined up in one camp or the other—the Federalists or the Antifederalists. The former favored the Constitution and in most cases, at least at first, without any amendments. The latter either opposed it altogether or conditioned their approval on adoption of stronger protections for individual liberties.

Keep in mind that virtually all the leading figures in this great debate were libertarians by today’s standards. They believed in liberty and limited government. Even the least libertarian among them would be horrified if he could see how later generations have ballooned the size and intrusiveness of the federal establishment. It never occurred to the most ardent Federalist that government should rob Peter to pay Paul for his health care, art work, alternative energy, prescription drugs, hurricane relief, or his notions of regime change in Somalia.

The Constitution and Centralization

So even without the Bill of Rights, the Constitution represented a huge advance for civilization. But during the ratification debate, enough citizens were wary of any centralization of power that they wanted to go further. I think they instinctively understood something that Thomas Jefferson once so aptly expressed, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” When the Massachusetts legislature made it clear it would not ratify the Constitution unless language was added to strengthen individual rights, it triggered a movement among the states to do just that.

Madison is regarded as the “Father of the Constitution” because he was its primary author and, along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, part of the trio that wrote the Federalist Papers in its defense. On the matter of amending it with a Bill of Rights, he was at first opposed, being of the view that enumerating some rights in the form of amendments would open the door to government violations of any that were not listed. He eventually met that very objection by devising what became the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Madison became one of the most eloquent defenders of the Bill of Rights, and it is unlikely the Constitution would have been ratified without him or them.

In 1789 New Jersey was the first state to adopt the ten amendments that would become the Bill of Rights and when Virginia did so on December 15, 1791, they became part of the supreme law of the land. (Actually, 12 amendments were sent to the states, but two failed to win enough states to be ratified. The unratified amendments, originally numbers 1 and 2, set the ratio of House representative to population and forbade congressional pay raises to take effect “until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.” The latter was ratified as the 27th amendment in 1992.)

If you want to bone up on the Bill of Rights before December 15, check out the website of the Bill of Rights Institute (, which produces instructional materials and sponsors seminars about America’s foundational documents. Some excellent books to consult on the subject include We the People by Forrest McDonald, Fighting for Liberty and Virtue by Marvin Olasky, Simple Rules for a Complex World by Richard Epstein, and Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty by Randy Barnet.


Lawrence W. (“Larry”) Reed became president of FEE in 2008 after serving as chairman of its board of trustees in the 1990s and both writing and speaking for FEE since the late 1970s. Prior to becoming FEE’s president, he served for 20 years as president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan. He also taught economics full-time from 1977 to 1984 at Northwood University in Michigan and chaired its department of economics from 1982 to 1984.

A Natural Born Citizen is a True Citizen

Despite numerous efforts by our illustrious legal and academic professionals to use precedence and 1946 Rules of Procedure to alter or abolish the Natural Born Citizen requirement for the Oval Office found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, using false history and tortured legal interpretations of 14th Amendment laws and cases pertaining to naturalized citizens, to avoid the need to amend in order to actually alter, the true meaning of the term Natural Born Citizen remains exactly as it was when our Founders chose the status as a requirement for high office in 1787.

In short, the term Natural Born Citizen is synonymous with the term “True Citizen.” Its point of origin is very well documented, as is the true meaning of the term and even the purpose should be obvious to every thinking individual with at least third grade reading and comprehension skills.


  • Our early settlers had left England and other parts of Europe because those countries had already experienced a shift away from Natural Law concepts to Common Law concepts, wherein men were making laws that infringed upon the Natural Rights of the people, not the least of which was religious persecution.
  • Our very first “founding document” by our earliest settlers was the Mayflower Compact. An effort to establish the New World on Natural Law concepts and the Natural Rights of a free people.
  • By 1774, there was a growing division between members of the original 13 colonies and England due to Common Law statutes which again, were infringing upon the Natural Rights of settlers in the New World. It was about much more than a tax on Tea. This was the reason for our Founders split from British Common Law rule that resulted in the Revolutionary War to declare our independence from British rule and establish a new independent sovereign nation. The First Continental Congress was convened by the colonies to begin the separation with Britain and form a sovereign nation of our own, one that would be based upon Natural Law and Natural Rights.
  • In April of 1775, the Revolutionary War had begun, as Britain attempted to force its Common Law statutes on the 13 colonies by sending troops to the New World, infringing upon the Natural Rights of our early citizens.
  • The Second Continental Congress convened in 1775, to begin the work that would result in the writing of our Declaration of Independence, which Jefferson wrote in just 17 days, once commissioned with the task.
  • In October of 1775, Benjamin Franklin received three (3) copies of The Law of Nations from Charles W.F. Dumas. Dumas was a “person of letters” aka a well-read man, he was a Swiss publisher. He was also a Swiss diplomat to America at the time, on behalf of the Swiss government.
  • Franklin placed one of the three copies of The Law of Nations in the New York Library, kept a copy for himself and gave the third copy to Thomas Jefferson, as Jefferson was writing the Declaration of Independence.
  • On December 9, 1775, Franklin wrote a letter of thanks to Dumas, stating as follows:

“It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary to frequently consult the Law of Nations.”

  • On July 4, 1776, the 13 colonies ratified the Declaration of Independence, in which the preamble states as follows:
  • “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” – You can easily see that the Founders were entirely focused on creating a new sovereign independent nation governed by The Laws of Nature, not British Common Law. Their understanding of Natural Law and Natural Rights came from The Law of Nations, which Dumas had sent to Franklin during the founding period of the nation.
  • On July 25, 1787, Founder John Jay recommended in a letter to members of the Constitutional Convention that the term “Natural Born Citizen” (synonymous with True Citizen) be placed in Article II as a requirement for the Office of President and Commander-in-Chief, stating that only a Natural Born Citizen of the United States would be eligible for high office. Members of the Constitutional Convention agreed, adding the condition to the document that would be ratified less than two months later.
  • In September of 1787, the ratified U.S. Constitution included a Natural Law term Natural Born Citizen, synonymous with the term “True Citizen,” as a condition for access to the Oval Office, in Article II. You can also find in Article I, the enumerated power of Congress to enforce The Law of Nations, which means enforce all Rights under Natural Law as defined in The Law of Nations.
  • Since then, there has been no amendment altering the original definition of Natural Law or Natural Born Citizen, nor has there been any amendment removing the Natural Born Citizen requirement for the Oval Office in Article II.
  • On eight separate occasions, between 2004 and 2008, members of Congress proposed altering or eliminating the Natural Born Citizen requirement in Article II, failing in each of those attempts.
  • To legally alter anything in the Constitution, there must be an amendment to the Constitution and that amendment must be very specific in wording, as to what is being changed, altered or removed. The amendment itself must also be in perpetuation of the original context and intent of the Constitution, and cannot violate the original text or intent, or the measure itself becomes “unconstitutional.”
  • As a result, the term Natural Born Citizen means exactly the same thing it meant when the Founders made it a condition for access to the Oval Office in September of 1787.
  • Upon being elected the First President of the new United States in 1789 under the new constitution, on October 5, 1789, George Washington withdrew the one copy of The Law of Nations from the library where Franklin had placed it in 1775, as Washington explained in his notes, in order to learn the foundations upon which the new system of government had been formed and in order to properly govern under those concepts in accordance with the Founders intent under the constitution.
  • Washington never returned that copy of the book to the library. 221 years later, the staff of Washington’s Mount Vernon Estate learned of this situation and replaced the book at the New York Library. No effort to collect the estimated $300,000 in late fees was made.
  • On June 15, 1804, the 12th Amendment clarified that the same Natural Born Citizen and all other Article II requirements for the Presidency applies to the Vice Presidency, as the Vice President may succeed the President to the Oval Office.


The Founders reasoning for the Natural Born Citizen requirement in Article II is self-evident in the history of how it came to exist in our founding documents. In his letter to the Constitutional Convention, requesting the Natural Born Citizen be added as a requirement for high office under Article II, Jay explained his reasoning…

“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.” – John Jay letter dated July 25, 1787

The reasoning of our Founders or the “original intent” of our Founders was a matter of National Security. In this case, it pertained to the highest and most powerful political office in our new nation, the office of Commander-in-Chief, or President of the United States.

The Founders reasoning and intent was clearly to prevent anyone with natural foreign loyalties or entanglements due to dual, divided or foreign citizenship, from ever holding the office of Commander-in-Chief. Therefore, as stated in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, “No person except a natural born citizen, – shall be eligible to the office of President;” (or Vice President as of Amendment XII)

The section which states “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,” pertains only to the Founders themselves, as they were all “citizens” of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution, but none of them were “natural born Citizens” at the adoption of the Constitution.


Many have argued that the U.S. Constitution does not define the term natural born Citizen. Of course, the U.S. Constitution, unlike most legal documents, does not have a definitions section at all. None of the words that appear in the Constitution have a definition attached to them.

This is due to the fact that the U.S. Constitution was not written in legal-ease, but rather in basic simple common English, that any person able to read could easily comprehend, avoiding any need for citizens to rely upon the legal interpretations of men to understand their basic Natural Rights protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The ethical research of any subject requires an honest effort to seek truth, a complete study of all available information, when possible, a reliance on first source evidence, as opposed to second hand information or third party opinions which might be socially or politically motivated, and a recognition of and respect for the point of origin.

As the term was borrowed from Natural Law as defined by Emmerich De Vattel in the Law of Nations, we must refer to Chapter XIX Sections 212-220 of Book I to glean the true meaning of the term natural born Citizen, as it was used and intended by the Founders in 1787.

Contrary to the popular belief of many today who have not yet completed their research on the subject, Vattel did not define natural born Citizen in one sentence, or even one paragraph. Vattel spent nine sections of Chapter XIX defining natural born Citizen, and he makes it very clear that the term is synonymous with the term “True Citizen.”

Close and complete examination of Chapter XIX Sections 212-220 will eliminate all doubts and questions concerning the true definition of natural born Citizen, aka True Citizen. Upon inspection of all related sections, we find that Vattel has a common thread throughout concerning the meaning of natural born Citizen, or True Citizen. The following excerpts represent that common thread in order of appearance… the common thread in bold for ease of identification purposes.

  1. “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.” – Section 212
  2. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.” – Section 212
  3. “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.” – Section 212
  4. “These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers;” Section 213 pertaining to “inhabitants” or foreigners allowed by the state to settle and stay in the country.
  5. “It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. (59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular,” – Section 215 pertaining to children of citizens born abroad, which refers back to Section 212.
  6. The natural, or original settlement, is that which we acquire by birth, in the place where our father has his;” – Section 218 pertaining to the settlements of naturals…
  7. “We have observed above (§ 212), that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members.But every man is born free; and the son of a citizen, when come to the years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join the society for which he was destined by his birth.” – Section 220 again refers back to Section 212, when attaching the natural rights of an individual to the natural birth father as it pertains to the individual right to withdraw from society once of legal age.

As you can see, a complete study of how the Law of Nations addresses natural born Citizen, True Citizen, is consistent in attaching Natural Birth Right Citizenship to the natural birth father.

Some ask, what about the mother?

As you can see, the mother is not mentioned as a means of passing natural born Citizenship to the child. Only the father is mentioned. Why?

In U.S. Law governing naturalization under the 14th Amendment, a mother can pass basic citizenship to the child at birth, but not natural born Citizenship under Natural Law. As a result, “These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages.”

In cases of married parents, all Natural Rights follow the blood of the father, including that of the family name, or surname, the family crest, family lineage and all natural rights of inheritance, including the natural right to inherit the citizenship of the father at birth by tacit consent, without any naturalization process.

This is because under the laws of marriage, two people become one entity, the father being the dominant legal figure within that union. The father is held most responsible for the actions of his family, to include his wife and his children.

Recent efforts, again by our illustrious legal and academic professionals, to alter even the age old definition of marriage have led to much anxiety and confusion over this very basic precept. The push for “equality” between genders and shifting gender roles have very much complicated this matter and frustrated many.

When the mother is not married, the condition of the natural birth father may or may not be known or documented.

However, when properly and ethically interpreting a document which is 227 years old, the definitions in force at the time the terms were used is the only correct definition, no matter how anyone feels about those definitions.

Our Constitution is written in stone, in the sense that it cannot be altered at all other than by amendment process. It does live and breathe, but only to the degree that society sees fit to amend the original Articles via the amendment process to meet with modern times. The amendment process was intentionally made very cumbersome to prevent people from altering our foundations of freedom and liberty on a whim for light or transient purposes.

The mere fact that some don’t like it does nothing to change it. Even court opinions, or congressional legislation, or executive orders do not have the power to constitutionally alter anything in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, or supersede them in law. Such efforts are all “unconstitutional” on their face.


It is not possible to change a condition which exists in nature. Our Founders wisely chose Natural Rights under Natural Law as the foundation for everything they created, because the Laws of Nature are constant, they are inalienable, they are beyond the power of man to regulate.

I was recently asked why I thought The Law of Nations has never been updated for modern use since its publication in the mid-1700s…. I answered… Because the Laws of Nature never change.

Some have no clue what the Laws of Nature are or how they affect their daily lives, much less why our Founders based everything upon these Laws. So, I often put the subject in terms that people can relate to by using the example of gravity, another law of nature.

Men can dislike, legislate against, rule against in the courts or order from existence from the Oval Office, gravity. The very best of scientists have never been able to alter or abolish gravity. At best, they have only been able to temporarily escape the effects of gravity. Yet sooner or later, what goes up will still come down. And that’s because gravity, like natural born Citizen, is a condition which exists in nature and it is inalienable by men.

Because our Founders had no trust in the pursuits of men in power, they entrusted everything to the Laws of Nature, and provided in our Founding documents that our Rights are all Natural Rights, Rights that exist in Nature, of Nature’s God, not of men easily manipulated via Common Law processes.

By 1823, Thomas Jefferson among other Founders had already witnessed the destructive nature of an unbridled judiciary, stating as follows:

“At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.”


In short, it’s because they do not want to know it and even more importantly, they do not want you to know it…

The Rules of Procedure “unconstitutionally” installed in the U.S. Justice system in 1946 made it possible for lawyers to alter or abolish Natural Rights in their Common Law by simply legislating against them, ruling them out of existence from the bench, or ordering them out of force from the Executive Branch.

Since then, American Law Schools have not taught Natural Law of Constitutional Law. Instead, they have focused on how to infringe upon the Natural Rights of every American by using precedence and procedure found only in Common Law. They had granted themselves the power to change law, the Constitution and the Bill of Natural Rights, by merely “setting a new precedent” or blocking public access to the proper justice system via “procedures of the courts.”

As a result, very few if any lawyers alive today know any of the truths presented in this essay on the subject of Natural Law and natural born. Further, even fewer want to know these truths and almost none of them want the American people to know this historic truth.

However, the truth exists… and it will not vanish, so long as the people grasp it, protect it and preserve it. They must, as the information provided herein is much greater than the subject of who can and cannot hold the office of President…

It is the Foundation of freedom and liberty, without which, the people of the United States will possess neither.

I have spent so much time and effort researching and writing on this subject for one single reason… I know that if the American people cannot get this one thing right, there is no chance that they will get anything else right in their efforts to defend the Constitution and regain control of their stolen Republic.

This is the lynch pin to everything. If the American people can get this one issue right and act swiftly to enforce it, they can save their country. If they cannot get this right, they will get nothing else right…