How Marriage Equality was Defeated

Twenty-Fifteen is the year that the homosexual movement finally got what they wanted in “marriage equality”; that is to say the legalization of gay marriage. One problem with this (out of many) is that in reality, marriage equality was not won with the Supreme Court decision, it was in fact defeated; for whether the homosexual lobby admits it or not, before the SCOTUS decision, marriage equality was already the status quo.

We must ask ourselves, what exactly IS marriage equality? Simply put, marriage equality is where both heterosexuals and homosexuals, gays and straights, are treated equally under the law in regards to marriage; and I must repeat, that under the previous status quo, this was already the case! I touched on this briefly in my article “On Church, State, and Marriage”, but we will go a bit more in depth here.

Before the Supreme Court decided to interject themselves into the debate, straights and gays were both equally treated under the law; for in the same way that I as a heterosexual could marry anyone of the opposite sex who would have me, a homosexual could just as easily have married anyone of the opposite sex who would have them.

Now the obvious retort to this fact would be: “But that gay guy wouldn’t be able to marry a man!” Well of course he wouldn’t, but then again neither would I; under the previous status quo, both straights and gays were legally allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, and were both legally prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex. That is true marriage equality, because both sexual orientations were being treated equally under the law in regards to whom they could marry. Gay people may not like that this was the case, but under no circumstances were the being denied the same right to marry as straights were; what the gay lobby wanted is not marriage equality, but a redefinition of marriage to include their proclivities.

“But, cries the homosexual movement, ‘you are discriminating against me by preventing me from marrying the person I love; and everyone has the right to marry who they love!” Really? Because to be honest, if love is your main criterion for the right to marry, it’s a very weak criteria indeed. You see the logic behind legalization of gay marriage in order to end discrimination is a fallacy because if you simply end the redefinition there, you are in fact discriminating against other people. If we are to truly believe that everyone should be able to marry who they love, then based on that qualification, simply including gay marriage in the definition of marriage is discriminatory against those who are bisexual.

By definition, being bisexual means that you are sexually attracted to both men and women, both heterosexually and homosexually. Furthermore it is entirely possible to be in love with two people at once. By the logic of homosexual marriage, simply keeping marriage between two people (whether gay or straight) is discriminatory against bisexuals who should be able to marry two people at the same time if they wish, both male and female, because they are in love with both of them. The gay marriage logic further discriminates against those who practice polygamy and polyamory, as if you are a man who is in love with two or three women, you are being discriminated against by not being allowed to marry more than one of them.

Polyamorous couples on the other hand are being discriminated against marrying the people they love as well, as the law forbids a husband and a wife from sharing another husband or wife with each other. Again, if we hold love as the standard for the legal right to marry, then we are discriminating against 16 year olds (for example) who want to marry 20 year olds, or 30 year olds, or 50 year olds and so on and so forth. If a 16 year old can experience love, and who are we to say they can’t, then why should they be discriminated against by being legally prohibited from marrying the person that they love? The same can also be said for those who wish to practice marital love with animals, more commonly known as bestiality.

This is where the homosexual lobby will become indignant that you would compare pedophilia and bestiality to homosexuality; but we’re actually not. What we are arguing is that the legal precedent being set forth will help lead to these worse things happening down the road (though it must be noted that the Massachusetts Constitution, written by our Founders, lumps both homosexual relations and bestiality into the same unlawful category – crimes against nature).

The next argument gay activists use is that of consent, i.e. that right to marry should be based on love AND consent; and since neither children, teens, nor animals can give consent, there is no way they can possibly be married. The thing is they are right, children, teens, and animals cannot give their legal consent…YET. But history has shown us that the further you go down the path of immorality, the worse things get and the unthinkable happens. When immorality becomes accepted, culture and people’s perceptions change, and when the culture changes, the law soon follows. Those groups may not have a way to consent NOW, but the law will find a way to change to that.

Look at it this way: just sixty-five short years ago (1950), NO ONE actually believed that homosexuality would be accepted as normal, let alone be added into the definition of marriage. Sixty-five years ago includes the lifespan of both my father and grandfather, and back then people would have said “there is no way homosexuality is ever accepted as normal”, especially considering that at that time, PSAs viewed it as a mental disorder! Those who fall in the “it’s never going to happen” camp nearly always end up being wrong because they fail to look at history and the logical projection of where our choices will take us.

But back to the issue of consent, for it too is a weak argument; because under the logic of homosexual marriage, who are you to tell anyone what consent is or is not? If the dog does not pull away or try to bite you when you do unspeakable things to it, but rather enjoys it; if they themselves happily try to have relations with your leg, who are you to say they are not consenting? If a sixteen year old can feel true love, why can’t they consent to be married? If they are old enough to get a sex change without parental notification or approval, how are they not old enough to give their consent to marriage? Hey, there are even some fifteen year olds that are more mature, make better life choices, and can understand consent better that many thirty year olds! Who are you to tell them they are not old enough to consent?

Now let me be crystal clear here, I am NOT in any way arguing that 15 or 16 year olds should be allowed to marry, or even be in a sexual relationship with anyone for that matter; what I AM showing however is that under the logic of gay marriage, that love and consent should be the perquisites for marriage, the whole idea falls apart as you cannot prove either that you have any right to say that people of that age cannot consent, nor can you deny that, that being the case, you are discriminating against them.

But forget 15 and 16 year olds for a second; generally speaking one is considered an adult of legal and consenting age when they turn 18, which raises the question of the “magical transition.” The magical transition is my way of describing that strange and seemingly magical change that happens when one turns eighteen. You see, why is it that someone who is 18 is capable of understanding and practicing consent, but a seventeen year old who is five days away from turning 18 is not? Why must a 17 year old who is five days away from that magical age of 18 still have to get parental consent for marriage, when they would not need to if they waited five more days.

Do you know what the difference is between someone who is 17 years, 360 days old, and someone who is 18? Not much, and there is certainly zero quantifiable mental change that takes place the moment they turn eighteen that differentiates themselves from being 17 years old five days prior. For that matter, what’s the difference between a 17 year old who turns 18 tomorrow, and someone who is 18 right now? Again, essentially nothing; there is no magical change that takes place when someone turns eighteen, so once again, who are you to argue that the 17 year old in question is incapable of giving their consent to marriage? Under the logic of gay marriage, you really don’t have the right to make that claim.

Now again, I am NOT arguing that those who are younger than 18 should be able to forgo parental consent to be married, but what I AM saying is that there is no reason they should not be able to marry under the logic of the gay marriage construct; a prohibition on them doing it would in fact be discrimination.

You see, when you throw out established, tried, and true moral standards and then draw arbitrary lines, it is logical and inevitable that those lines will keep being pushed back farther and farther until there is nowhere left to push; and when there is nowhere left to push, moral anarchy takes its hold. The simple fact of the matter is that the legalization of gay marriage is not “marriage equality”, it is the undoing of marriage equality; it is a legal precedent that not only is logically inconsistent, but also sets the stage for future legalization of things that are currently considered disgusting, taboo and immoral.

We have already seen the start of the push to normalize pedophilia, polygamy, and polyamory, among other things, and it is this decision on gay marriage by SCOTUS that sets the legal precedent for these things to eventually be made legal. It may happen in my lifetime, it may not, but unless we change our course or the world ends, mark my words, it will happen, and it won’t be pretty.

Zionism, Bin Laden, and Ron Paul’s Twisted Reality

ron paul 1201

Just when I thought I was outthey pull me back in!” 

This classic line from the Godfather III accurately describes how I feel every time I think I may just be done with Ron Paul, before America’s Crazy Uncle comes out with another ridiculous claim I need to address; and this time its in the form of his new book: Swords into Plowshares: A Life in Wartime and a Future of Peace and Prosperity.

This article will be focusing specifically on some of the things found in Buzzfeed’s profile of his book (found here).

For starters, Paul continues his record of saying some nasty (and borderline anti-Semitic) comments in his attempt to paint U.S. foreign policymakers as the bad guys. In his chapter “Making America Safe for Empire,” Paul opines:

Americans generally see spiritual safety as being in the realm of religion and theology and political philosophy as being determined by the professors and others who dwell on esoteric ideas. There is theocracy when the theologians gain control of the state to offer salvation and eternal life through using force to impose their will and enforce their rules. Theocracy has always been abused. The Founders feared it and worked hard to prevent it. Supporters of radical Islam frequently endorse a theocratic system. Aggressive Christian Zionists also like to use the state to promote their theological beliefs, especially in foreign policy and with social gospel teachings. Zionism has played a role in our post-9/11 march toward empire, and its influence has encouraged extreme interference in the Middle East. (1)

There are a few things that need to be dealt with in this paragraph before moving on to the crux of what Paul has been preaching since before he even became a thing. For starters, Paul gets his definition of theocracy horribly wrong, which is not surprising given that Paul has always had a history of abusing the meaning of words (as we will further see in a minute). According to Noah Webster, “the Schoolmaster of America”, in his 1828 Dictionary of the English Language, a theocracy is defined as

Government of a state by the immediate direction of God; or the state thus governed. Of this species the Israelites furnish an illustrious example. (2)

As Webster points out, theocracy is government under immediate direction of God, or governed as such; this is not the same thing as “theologians gain(ing) control of the state to offer salvation and eternal life through using force to impose their will and enforce their rules”, that’s tyranny, not theocracy. Furthermore, goodness knows how Paul can possibly think the government of the United States has at any time in recent years been remotely close to a theocracy. I suppose Paul’s reasoning comes in the form of his charge of “Aggressive Christian Zionists” using the state to promote their theology in foreign policy and social gospel teachings, but this too is flawed reasoning.

I’m not sure what an “Aggressive Christian Zionists” actually is, but I highly doubt their foreign policy has been in effect anytime within the 9/11 era; and given that Zionism (or Jewish Nationalism) had the goal of reestablishing the physical nation of Israel, a feat that was accomplished in the 1940s, this idea of an aggressive “Christian Zionism” doesn’t make much sense. Well, actually it does, IF you happen to fall into the camp of conspiracy theorists who believe that Jewish bankers run world governments in an attempt to bring about the NWO…a position that Paul supporters have attempted to distance themselves from in recent years in order to give Paul’s campaign more legitimacy (albeit with little success).

In terms of the social gospel argument Paul makes, one can easily argue that it is similar to the vision the Founders invoked time and time again, which is why I am interested (morbidly?) in a further explanation from Paul. Where Paul really starts to go off the rails in that quote is where he says: “Zionism has played a role in our post-9/11 march toward empire, and its influence has encouraged extreme interference in the Middle East.” Now, for starters Paul (as mentioned before) completely abuses the word “empire”, as by any reasonable definition America and her actions don’t come anywhere close to being an empire (as I pointed out in my article “An Age of Empires?”, which can be found here).

But aside from his abuse of the English language, Paul also abuses logic; I mean, let me see if I understand this correctly: Zionism, that is to say Jewish Nationalism, has played a role in a nation who has a deep Christian founding and heritage, marching towards an empire in the post 9/11 world? Okay, because that somehow makes sense?

Simply put, Zionism has not done this because A. We have not been marching towards an empire, and B. If we had been, Jewish Nationalism is not part of the vehicle we were driving in order to do so. Again, the only possible way you can believe this to be true is if you also believe in a vast Jewish conspiracy, which to be honest, is not only intellectually dishonest, its also kind of offensive.

Paul goes on to claim rather outrageously that “The U.S. Empire received a big boost from the 9/11 attack… We also know that the PATRIOT Act was written a long time before 9/11, when the conditions were not ripe for its passage…Nine-eleven took care of that.” (1)

You know, it takes a lot of balls to claim something that terrible. Paul makes it sound like officials were GLAD when 9/11 happened, because it gave them an excuse to grow an empire; this however is not surprising given that Paul has previously stated “Think of what happened after 9/11…The minute before there was any assessment, there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq, and so the war drums beat.” (3)

Let that sink in for a moment: Ron Paul literally claimed in these two statements that the Bush administration was GLEEFUL about the deaths of 3000 Americans because it gave them an excuse to invade Iraq (something that happened 2 years later, and after we had given many chances for Iraq to cooperate and avoid invasion), and enlarge a Zionist backed empire. The sheer arrogance and hatred you have to have inside you in order to ascribe that much evil intention upon President Bush and his administration is incalculable, and shows just how far out there Paul actually is.

Strangely however he did get one thing right in that original paragraph, where he said “Supporters of radical Islam frequently endorse a theocratic system”; and its odd that he got that right considering the next thing he got wrong (what I call the crux of his last 9 years of Presidential politics). In his book Paul writes about Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and why they attacked us. He criticizes U.S. officials arguing that the attacks came “because of our freedom and prosperity,” to avoid “scrutiny of our foreign policy.” Paul claims:

The reasons for the attack were fully described by bin Laden,”…“His reasons were simple and straightforward. One: foreign troops on the holy land of the Arabian Peninsula. Two: constant bombing and lethal sanctions against Iraq. Three: favoritism for Israel over the Palestinians. There is zero evidence that the attacks were motivated by hatred of Americans because of our freedom and prosperity. The terrorists simply did not like the U.S. constantly meddling in the affairs of the entire Middle East region, defiling their holy land, and causing death and destruction for their people. (1)

Now again, Paul does get one thing right, in that Bin Laden’s reasons are abundantly clear, but they are not what Paul claims them to be. You see Paul in this statement echos previous statements he has made, for example: “They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.” (we weren’t bombing them by the way, it was a no fly zone we were enforcing). Paul even blamed America for the attacks as early as two weeks after 9/11, so it is no surprise he continues it here. (4)

But where is Paul getting his information? He is getting it from Osama Bin Laden’s propaganda letter that he sent to America in order to get the media and people like Paul to adopt a false, America-bashing narrative. How do we know this? We know this because that letter is not the only time he explained his motives; and one of the other times was an explanation to his own Al Qaeda fighters, where he said:

Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue – one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice – and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: [1] either willing submission [conversion]; [2] or payment of the jizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; [3] or the sword – for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die. (5)

Paul’s right, Bin Laden makes his position abundantly clear. So we have two conflicting accounts here, which one is to be believed; the propaganda message to the Media, OR Bin Laden’s message to his fighters? The answer is obviously we should believe the message to his own people; for if you are going to lie to anyone, its going to be your enemies, not those whose support you need to carry out the fight! The propaganda letter was meant to cause division, debate, and distraction – which it clearly has – while his letter to his fighters was meant to assure them of what they already knew was true, that their conflict with us stemmed from their understanding of Islamic theology and obligation.

To put it another way: if a Republican candidate for President were to say to his voting base “here is why you should vote for me, because our ideology is “X”, and the ideology he then lays out is to raise taxes, triple spending, install universal healthcare, completely open the borders, and allow partial birth abortion, his base would never vote for him. Why? Because you are not going to vote for someone who tells you your values and policy vision is something different than what it is. In the same way, Bin Laden can be trusted to tell the truth of their motivations to his own people, because if he didn’t, they would’t fight for him, they’d move on to someone else.

But this was not the only time Bin Laden gave the spread of Islam as his motivation, as he said in 1998 (3 years before 9/11):

I am one of the servants of Allah.  We do our duty of fighting for the sake of the religion of Allah. It is also our duty to send a call to all the people of the world to enjoy this great light and to embrace Islam and experience the happiness in Islam. Our primary mission is nothing but the furthering of this religion. (6)

If that were not enough, the other 9/11 planners expressed similarly that:

We, Muslims, are content with God’s book, the Quran, to fight you with. God has granted us to fight…In God’s book, He ordered us to fight you everywhere we find you…We ask to be near to God, we fight you and destroy you and terrorize you. The Jihad in God’s cause is a great duty in our religion. (7)

Ironically we are further assured that Bin Laden’s reasons as stated to his people are the correct ones because of what Bin Laden said in his propaganda letter! Wait, what? You see, the interesting thing about the propaganda letter to the U.S. is that after providing a list of excuses for their hatred of us, Bin Laden lets his true intentions slip, where he states:

“As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam...It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah’s Word and religion reign Supreme.

(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling’s, and trading with interest…You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire.You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator.” (8)

Think about that for a minute: no where does Bin Laden call for us to leave their Holy Land, stop bombing them, and support the Palestinians instead of the Jews; if those really were his big motivations, you would think that is what he would call for us to do. Instead, he calls us to convert to Islam, stop our immorality and immoral actions (homosexuality, intoxicants, trading with interest, etc.) and to instead live by Islamic Sharia law, as Allah commands. Bin Laden later expounds on those reasons just listed, and then slips back into the propaganda that Paul likes to focus on, in essence trying to hide his true beliefs in a sea of lies.

You see Mr. Paul, although you mock it, radical Islamist’s do hate us for our freedom, because what we see as freedom they see as intolerable. “Fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, trading with interest”; these are things that Americans, while sometimes believe to be morally wrong, also allow the freedom to happen. Many believe fornication and homosexuality are wrong, but you are still free to be gay or have sex outside of marriage. The drinking of alcohol (an intoxicant) is legal, gambling is Vegas’ biggest attraction, and trading with interest is common place – in their eyes we are the biggest target, because what better target than the world’s greatest historical purveyor of freedom?

Simply put, they hate us for our freedom, because our freedom and everything we stand for is viewed by them as un-Islamic, it is everything they hate.

Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda did not believe in freedom of religion, speech, and press; they did not believe in non-theocratic government. These are the people who did not respect women, who were in fact some of the worst oppressors of women; who would not let women wear dresses, shirts or pants, but would cover them up in a Burqa.

They were men who did not believe in free elections and would not allow women to vote; who would not let women drive or go to school, and would flog, if not execute women for being in the presence of a man who was not related to her, or would flog or execute a woman for being raped by a man! Who, for some un-Godly reason, mutilate the genitals of women. These are the people who would dismember you for stealing, and would stone and/or throw you off the top of a building for being a Homosexual; this is who Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were, and who Al Qaeda and ISIS now are.

Everything Al Qaeda was and is, is who America is unquestionably not. We believe in freedom of religion, speech, and press; we believe women have the right to drive, vote, be educated, and wear shirts, pants, and dresses if they want to. We don’t flog women for walking with anyone, or getting raped, and we don’t mutilate their womanhood. We don’t dismember the hands of thieves and we don’t throw Homosexuals to their deaths from roof tops.

America is not that country, and that is what infuriates men like Bin Laden, and makes them hate us. Everything we stand for they see as un-Islamic, and it is their stated goal to advance Islam by the sword, until their religion rules every corner of the earth – for to paraphrase Bin Laden: In Islam there are only three options – Convert, Submit, or Die.

It’s a shame that Paul doesn’t understand this, and continues to deceive those who so avidly admire him.


1. Buzzfeed:

2. Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:,theocracy

3. Ron Paul, December 11, 2011, “Ron Paul says Bush was thrilled with 9/11”,

4. Ron Paul, December 26, 2011, Right Scoop, “Just days after 9/11, Ron Paul blames America » The Right Scoop”:

5. Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri ((Fmr.) Al Qaeda Leader), ., Al Qaeda, “The Al Qaeda Reader”, Page 42:

6. Osama Bin Laden (Al Qaeda Leader), May 1998, The Religion of Peace, “Terror in the Name of Allah”:

7. The 9/11 Shura Council, 2009, “Terror in the Name of Allah”,

8. Osama Bin Laden (Al Qaeda Leader), November 24, 2002, The Guardian, “Full text: Bin Laden’s ‘letter to America'”,

Libertarians Hate Thomas Jefferson



Okay, okay, what I meant to say was that Libertarians should hate Thomas Jefferson; after all, don’t they hate people with whom they disagree? While I admit that it would be wrong to classify all Libertarians this way, the vast majority of Libertarians that I and friends of mine have debated (and there have been many) have acted with vitriol and disgust toward anyone who disagrees with their ideas. If a congressman votes a way they don’t like, they label him a “neocon fascist big government liberty hating traitor”; and if you dare defend said congressman, you are not only characterized similarly, but also by the highly uncreative insults of “sheep” or even worse, “sheeple.”

Along with this form of insult, Libertarians seem to love to invoke Thomas Jefferson as a member of their ranks, the first American Libertarian as it were. Now while I’ll readily admit that Thomas Jefferson was indeed the most Libertarian leaning of our Founders, he was in no way an actual Libertarian, and history itself proves this. But with all this in mind it occurred to me; if Libertarians are going to attack so harshly those whom they disagree with, should not Jefferson himself be held to that same standard?

To prove this, I decided to conduct a small experiment, the results of which I will share shortly; I approached a rational, Jefferson loving, Libertarian friend of mine on a couple of occasions, and asked him whether or not a certain action was in fact “big government”, leaving out (for the purpose of the experiment) that it was Jefferson himself that did these things. Not surprisingly his answers were (as I expected) a condemnation of the actions taken by his favorite Founding Father, our 3rd President; the following is the top four reasons why Libertarians should hate Thomas Jefferson.


  1. “Economic Interference”

The first time I approached my friend, I talked with him about embargoes and economic interference, asking:

“If an embargo or act was brought up to vote/passed; and it A. prohibited all American vessels from sailing for foreign ports, B. prohibited all foreign vessels from taking out cargoes, and C. made all coasting vessels give bonds to land their cargoes in the U.S., even if all these restrictions were meant to affect commerce of another nation so that they play fairly…would you consider that anti-free trade/ big government?”

His response in part?

I would consider it an act of big government distorting the natural flow of commerce. Any form of policy intervention into a sect of the market economy, be it on a global or domestic scale, is an effect on that natural commerce. In this case, this could be considered bad to the flow of progress of the global economy…”

My friend then went on to explain to me why embargoes were bad, and did a really good job in doing so; but unfortunately for him he also condemned Thomas Jefferson as an actor of big government in his answer, because Jefferson did this very thing as President of the United States. In his wonderful book, Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, eminent historian Benson J. Lossing explains to us the actions of President Jefferson;

Mr. Jefferson’s administration continued eight years, he having been elected for a second term. The most prominent measures of his administration, were…the embargo on the commerce and ocean-navigation of the United States…The Embargo Act prohibited all American vessels from sailing for foreign ports; all foreign vessels from taking out cargoes; and all coasting vessels were required to give bonds to land their cargoes in the United States. These restrictive measures were intended so to affect the commerce of Great Britain, as to bring that government to a fair treaty of amity and commerce.” (1)

It is important to note that the act that Jefferson signed did exactly what I told my friend it did, and yet he still classified it as big government in action. Now we must ask the question; do we really believe Thomas Jefferson of all people was an agent of big government? Of course not; and yet he signed a law that, among other things, prohibited American citizens from sailing their ships to foreign ports! Where are the Libertarians accusing Jefferson of being a big government, liberty hating, fraud for interfering with the market, not to mention freedom of movement and association?

Now obviously I don’t think Jefferson should be attacked for signing this act; the British, as a result of their continual warring with the French, were abusing American citizens and their ships/commerce; so in order to make the British pay for what they were doing (without getting involved in the war itself) our government imposed the embargo as retribution for their transgressions. So how can I blame Jefferson? He was after all looking to protect Americans from British mistreatment; but while I think Jefferson should be left alone in this case, I do wonder why Libertarians give him a pass on this, when if it were Presidents Bush or Obama who signed the act they would ravish them as the worst kind of traitor.


  1. “Religious Favoritism”

For part two of the experiment, I approached my friend with a different question; one specifically dealing with federal funds being given to a private, religious cause, asking:

“Out of curiosity, do you think its “Big Government” for the Government to give Federal Funds to missionaries or to build a church for a community?”

So how did my Libertarian friend respond? Exactly how I thought he would:

“Government taking tax money to go towards any personal cause, regardless of how noble it may be, is still big government at work. Especially when tax payers have no say so in where there money is going…”

Once again my friend, without knowing it, actually condemns his favorite Founder as a contributor to big government action; for as we shall soon see, Thomas Jefferson as President of the United States did the exact things that I posed in my question. As I have previously written in “Thomas Jefferson and “Separation of Church and State”:

“In fact he [Jefferson] was so invested in a complete separation that while President he gave federal funds to the construction of a church and the funding of its priest. That’s right, as President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson via treaty gave federal funds to build a church and provide a priest to the Kaskaskia Indians (2)…Along with signing the treaty giving a church and priest to the Kaskaskia tribe, Jefferson also signed federal acts in 1802, 1803, and 1804 which set aside government owned lands to help missionaries propagate the gospel among the Indians. (3) He also directed the secretary of war to give federal funds to build a religious school for the Cherokee Indians (4) and in 1804 he gave assurance to a Christian School in the “Louisiana Territory” that they would be given “the patronage of the government.” These are only some of his actions.” (5)

So even though it was President Jefferson who gave federal funds for missionaries and priests to the Indians, as well as religious schools and a Church; actions my friend label “big government”, the Libertarians again seem to give him a pass in this area; he is apparently still a Libertarian. I mean, perhaps our Libertarian friends simply didn’t know that Jefferson did these things, but since they do now, should they not attack Jefferson for being for big government religious favoritism, as they would Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann?

Again, as with the embargo, I think Jefferson does not deserve to be attacked for what he did; if one is to read the words of a majority of the Founders, Jefferson’s actions are in complete agreement and consistency with the country that they set up and the purpose they set forth for it. By giving federal funds towards the propagation of the gospel to the Indians, Jefferson only strengthened the country, and the ties between the government and the Indian tribes. To claim Thomas Jefferson is big government for doing this is completely ridiculous, but if Libertarians want to be consistent, they should in fact focus their vitriol towards our 3rd President.


  1. Foreign Policy

A while back I wrote an article about America’s first interaction with Islamic terror, and that same topic applies directly to our discussion on Jefferson and Libertarians. I find it really humorous that Libertarians (and to be fair, Liberals as well) always complain about America’s war on terror, claiming it has gone on too long and it hasn’t been a success because “you can’t fight an idea.” Now obviously this is not true, of course you can fight an idea, but I digress; what really makes me laugh at their claims is the fact that they ignore that we have fought a war on Islamic terror before, and that this first war on terror was fought by our Founding Fathers. What I find interesting is that Libertarians complain that the current war on terror has gone on too long, fought by two Presidents over 13+ years (since 9/11); and yet, our Founders fought our first war on terror over a period of four Presidents and 32 years! I can only imagine the complaining Ron Paul would have done if he were alive during that period!

To borrow a passage from my old article:

“In 1784 American ships started to be attacked by the “Barbary Pirates”, now these were no ordinary pirates, these were Muslim pirates; on top of that, these were not the pirates of Peter Pan and Pirates of the Caribbean, those rapscallions who are free from allegiance. On the contrary these pirates were under allegiance to the Barbary States, whose rulers demanded that the United States pay tribute to them immediately, and annually.”

This is where Jefferson comes into the story, for it was future Presidents Adams and Jefferson who approached the Barbary States on a diplomatic mission to find out the cause of the attacks; it was here they learned that the reason was this:

“It was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (6)

By the time Jefferson had become President, the United States had already been paying an extreme tribute to the Barbary States for years, a practice that did not stop the Pirates, but rather, encouraged them; thus Jefferson decided that enough was enough and that the U.S. would no longer pay off the Islamic nations. When this happened, Tripoli (whose ambassador relayed the above quote) and Algiers declared war on the United States, which led Jefferson to believe that the only way to stop the Pirates was through military action.

What did this military action entail? It certainly wasn’t limited to naval battles against some pirates; it also included invading the Ottoman Empire, capturing the city of Derna, and a planned regime change (this latter part courtesy of the mind of William Eaton, the man who captured Derna). After the cities capture however, the Pasha of Tripoli struck a deal with the United States to end hostilities, and keep his power (an agreement that later proved to be a mistake).

Ironically, this sounds very similar to the course our current war on terror has taken, as both include invasion, capture, and regime change (or at least, planned regime change). The fact that Jefferson even agreed to a regime change at the hands of U.S. Marines is something I can hardly imagine Libertarians condoning, especially considering how they decried it in Afghanistan and Iraq; and I’d be interested to hear the excuses they will come up with to condone Jefferson’s actions.

But why was striking a deal with the Pasha of Tripoli a bad idea? It ended hostilities did it not? Well yes, but not for long; recall how I said America’s first war on terror lasted for 32 years? You see, once Jefferson’s Presidency ended and Madison’s began, the Barbary States decided to war with America again, knowing full well her troops and Navy were tied up fighting the British in the War of 1812. Madison corrected this when the war with the British ended, sending the Navy and the Marines back over to fight the Islamic terrorists. Within two years another peace treaty was signed, thus ending America’s first war on terror; it isn’t hard to imagine however that the second round of attacks against Madison’s America could have been prevented, if Jefferson had only gone through with the original plan of removing the Pasha of Tripoli.

There is an interesting historical side note that should be mentioned about Jefferson and the Barbary Wars; it must be noted that in 1806, under a Jefferson Presidency, the first American version of the Quran was published. Why was it published at that period of time? One of the main reasons was because the U.S. had just been fighting Islamic terrorists for about five years; and one of the best ways for the people to understand who they were fighting was to read the beliefs that motivated their enemies (recall that the ambassador from Tripoli told Jefferson and Adams that the Pirates were motivated by the Quran). How do we know that this original printing of the Quran was meant as a negative towards Islam? According to the introduction found in the Islamic holy book:

“This book is a long conference of God, the angels, and Mahomet, which that false prophet very grossly invented… thou shalt find in this book a multitude of incongruous pieces, and divers repetitions of the same things. It hath been expounded by many Mahometan doctors, their exposition being as ridiculous as the text… Thou wilt wonder that such absurdities have infected the best part of the world, and wilt avouch, that the knowledge of what is contained in this book, will render that law contemptible…” (7)

It is no surprise that this introduction was included in a book printed during the Jefferson administration. Considering what Jefferson knew about Islam based on what the ambassador had told him, his previous study, and the long war on Islamic terror that America had been fighting, it is entirely consistent to believe that Jefferson personally (if not politically) would have believed very similar things; hardly the glowing account of Jefferson and Islam that President Obama gave.


  1. The Louisiana Purchase

As previously mentioned, Libertarians more often than not seem to react with vitriolic hatred toward anyone who they think has violated the Constitution; and while we should all be against Constitutional violations, you would think that Libertarians would react the same way towards Jefferson’s (supposed) unconstitutional purchase of the Louisiana territory…and yet they don’t. You see, in 1803 the Jefferson administration purchased the Louisiana territory from the French, for what then amounted to $15 million. (8) So where is the problem?  In reality there was none, although some people did believe the action was unconstitutional; their intellectual decedents are today’s Libertarians. After all, since the President is not explicitly given the power in the Constitution to purchase land from another country, by their logic it must have been an illegal action. To be fair, Jefferson was concerned about this as well, but fortunately his advisers showed him the folly in his concern:

“The purchase treaty had to be ratified by the end of October, which gave Jefferson and his Cabinet time to deliberate the issues of boundaries and constitutionality. Exact boundaries would have to be negotiated with Spain and England and so would not be set for several years, and Jefferson’s Cabinet members argued that the constitutional amendment he proposed was not necessary. As time for ratification of the purchase treaty grew short, Jefferson accepted his Cabinet’s counsel and rationalized: “It is the case of a guardian, investing the money of his ward in purchasing an important adjacent territory; and saying to him when of age, I did this for your good.” (9)

Furthermore given that this was a treaty and that the Constitution states: “He (the president) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur”(10); Jefferson completing this treaty is shown to be no Constitutional crisis at all. I must say that once again I never thought Jefferson committed any wrong doing in regards to the Louisiana Purchase, but I have heard a good number of Libertarians claiming “surprise” that he would do something “so unconstitutional”; and yet, as always, nary an angry word is levied at Jefferson for his perceived sin.



All too often in the course of political debate, the Libertarian masses draw upon the argument of “you can’t force your morality on other people” as a way to reject the important social issue reforms that we Conservatives want to implement. Now this objection is patently false on logical grounds, given that all law is someone’s legislated morality; and so the question becomes, who’s morality do we want to implement; the moral principles our country was founded on, or some other?

But beyond this, even our most Libertarian leaning Founder, Thomas Jefferson, destroyed the idea of no absolute moral standard that people are naturally bound by. Ask Jefferson, and he would hardly claim that everyone has the right to determine their own version of morality, especially as it pertains to politics. We see this in some of his letters; for example, in a letter to James Monroe, Jefferson proclaimed:

“Political interest [can] never be separated in the long run from moral right” (11)

To George Hammond, Jefferson penned:

“A nation, as a society, forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society.” (12)

Writing to George Logan, Jefferson affirmed a universal morality:

“It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately.” (13)

And in separate correspondence with Augustus B. Woodward and John Wayles Eppes, Jefferson answered those Libertarian dissenters of moral policy in government, who do so because of the policy’s “religious basis”, saying:

“[I consider] ethics, as well as religion, as supplements to law in the government of man.” (14)

“Is it the less dishonest to do what is wrong, because not expressly prohibited by written law? Let us hope our moral principles are not yet in that stage of degeneracy.” (15)


So there you have it; the top four (plus bonus) reasons why Libertarians should hate Thomas Jefferson. He most certainly was not a Libertarian and was by their standards, an agent of big government and an enemy of liberty; but then again, since when did Libertarians gain a monopoly on liberty? I don’t know about you, but I’ll take the words of our Founders over Libertarian reasoning any day of the week.



  1. Biographical Sketches of the Signers of the Declaration of American Independence, Benson J. Lossing, p. 180-181


  1. “The Kaskaskia and Other Tribes,” in American State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive of the Congress of the United States, vol.4, 687.


  1. Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, 7th Cong., 1st Sess., 1332, “An Act in Addition to an Act, Entitled, ‘An Act in Addition to an Act Regulating the Grants of Land Appropriated for Military Services, and for the Society of the United Brethren for Propagating the Gospel Among the Heathen,’” April 26, 1802; Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, 7th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1602, “An Act to Revive and Continue in Force An Act in Addition to an Act, Entitled, ‘An Act in Addition to an Act Regulating the Grants of Land Appropriated for Military Services, and for the Society of the United Brethren for Propagating the Gospel Among the Heathen,’ and for Other Purposes,” March 3, 1803; Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, 8th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1279, “An Act Granting Further Time for Locating Military Land Warrants, and for Other Purposes,” March 19, 1804.


  1. Gideon Blackburn’s Mission to the Cherokees,” Journal of Presbyterian History, 52.


  1. Thomas Jefferson and the Nuns of the Order of St. Ursula on May 15, 1804,” original on file with the New Orleans Parish.


  1. City Journal:


  1. “The Koran, commonly called the Alcoran of Mahomet,” 1806,


  1. Our Documents:


  1. Lipscomb and Bergh, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 10:411,


  1. S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3:


  1. Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1806. FE 8:477:


  1. Thomas Jefferson to George Hammond, 1792. ME 16:263:


  1. Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816. FE 10:68:


  1. Thomas Jefferson to Augustus B. Woodward, 1824. ME 16:19:


  1. Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:360:






We Return in 2015!

Hi everyone,

Due to outside events the Bottom Line will not be returning to action until 2015. When we do, we plan on having more content than before, ranging into Youtube and other audio production, as well as the usual articles.

Until then,


Ron Paul’s ISIS problem



Ron Paul is the Neville Chamberlain of our time – fresh off his disturbing interview in which he claimed that the crimes of Osama Bin Laden were “minor” compared to what the U.S. has done in the aftermath of 9/11 – Paul is now praising President Obama for having no ISIS strategy. Writing for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, Paul penned an article entitled; Obama Has No Middle East Strategy? Good!

Hi Neville Chamberlain, we sure didn’t miss you!

We all know Chamberlain as the great appeaser and Ron Paul is no different; a man, who we will see from his article, is not one to face evil head on, but to retreat and hope it never shows up at our doorstep. There is plenty wrong with Paul’s latest article, but let us focus on the deconstruction of a few of his major points.

Paul starts off by predictably bashing those he terms as “neocons” for thinking the solution to ISIS, or “any problem” for that matter is “more bombs and troops on the ground, so they cannot understand the president’s hesitation.” The problem here is twofold; first, he assumes that anyone who bashes the President for not having a plan must be “neocon”, as if traditional Conservatives (as opposed to new, aka, “neo-conservatives”) are not allowed to think that the President should have a plan for dealing with Islamic Terror.

Second, he accuses us (supposed) neocons of thinking that bombs and soldiers are the solution to everything. I can guarantee you that no one thinks that, I wouldn’t even advocate another invasion to deal with the problem. But in the case of ISIS, it seems that bombing them to oblivion may be the best option. Negotiation is certainly not going to do much, after all, their stated goal is to establish a massive Islamic caliphate; no amount of negotiation or niceties are going to change their minds. This is common sense. Furthermore, with the knowledge that ISIS has killed two American journalists (a clear act of war), why would we ever think of not making them pay for what they’ve done?  Again, this is not a call to reinvade Iraq, but Paul must realize that sometimes bombs do make for a very good solution against psychotic terrorists who have killed your citizens!

Paul follows his mislabeling by arguing that intervening against ISIS would give Osama Bin Laden exactly what he wanted:

“A new US military incursion will not end ISIS; it will provide them with the recruiting tool they most crave, while draining the US treasury. Just what Osama bin Laden wanted!”

Yes, because bombing ISIS to oblivion will give them a new recruiting tool Ron! Paul keeps up his old argument of blowback (an idea he’s publically pushed since at least 2007, if not before). Paul is wrong on this, but he’s also wrong about what Bin Laden wanted. To know what Bin Laden wanted the U.S. to do, all you have to do is go back and read his letter to the West; a document that was mostly anti-U.S. propaganda, but one that let slip his true feelings at the end:

“As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you? (1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam…It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah’s Word and religion reign Supreme. (2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you. (a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling’s, and trading with interest…You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire.” (1)

In other words, what Bin Laden really wanted was for America to turn to Islam, and give up “lies, oppression, immorality, debauchery, fornication, homosexuality, intoxication, etc.”; not for America to provide a recruiting tool that drained our resources. What Paul doesn’t understand is that ideology drives these terrorists; and we never having gone there would not have stopped them from wanting to change or kill us. In the terrorist’s eyes we are the infidel, a depraved and unholy people; and it is there job to make us change, or leave us defeated and dead.

Paul then goes on to argue that the U.S.’s actions against Assad in Syria have led to the rise of ISIS, and that “neocons” should just admit they are wrong, and that they caused this problem; but it’s what comes next that is so amazing. Paul actually questions if ISIS is really that big a threat, as well as saying:

“If ISIS is as big a threat as they claim, why can’t they simply ask Assad to help out? Assad has never threatened the United States; ISIS has. Assad has been fighting ISIS and similar Islamist extremist groups for three years.”

If ISIS is as big a threat as they claim? Perhaps you have not heard the reports Mr. Paul; you know the ones where ISIS is taking over city after city (a size of land larger than Great Britain), slaughtering Christians throughout Iraq, and beheading two American journalists? It would seem that they are as big a threat as they claim; then again, Chamberlain hoped that Hitler wasn’t that big a threat either, with much less evidence I might add.  But that also brings up the question of Assad; Paul asks why we don’t request Assad assist in the fight against ISIS, after all, he has been fighting them for three years so that would make sense right? But wait a minute, that doesn’t logically fit; for if Assad has been fighting ISIS for the last three years, why would we need to ask his help in fighting them? Wouldn’t he already be doing so? Is he strong enough to take them on after three years of fighting them? Paul likes to question, but not provide answers.

Paul next makes a rather interesting comment on U.S. foreign policy, questioning;

“Why does the US government insist on aligning with theocracies in the Middle East? If there is anything that contradicts the US Constitution and American values it is a theocratic government. I do not believe that a majority in the Middle East wants to live under such a system, so why do we keep pushing it on them? Is that what they call promoting democracy?”

In all honesty, I really have no idea what in the world he is talking about here; why do we insist on aligning with Middle Eastern theocracies? Of which theocracies is he speaking? Out of our alliances; Israel is not a theocracy, Iraq is not a theocracy, Afghanistan may or may not be, but in their case, like with Iraq, they had free elections in which they were able to choose their leaders. If the citizens of Afghanistan chose to enact theocratic laws through theocratic rulers that is hardly us “pushing it on them” in “what they call promoting democracy.” Paul assumes that most people in the Middle East don’t want a theocratic rule, saying he “doesn’t believe” it; but if a country we liberated and helped set up free elections for decides to elect those types of people, then it really doesn’t matter what Paul believes now does it?

One more note on that particular claim; Paul says that aligning with  theocratic governments (which he supposes we insist on) somehow contradicts the U.S. Constitution and American values; even though the Constitution prevents our government from BECOMING theocratic, not allying with them when need be. Technically speaking the U.S. allying with Stalin against Hitler was a contradiction of American values as well, but sometimes you need to ally with people you vehemently disagree with in order to take out a larger threat. Then again, since Paul is the Chamberlain of our time, a WWII analogy probably won’t have any effect with him; we do after all know his views on WWII, and they are not pretty.

The former Congressman ends his rant by offering his strategy for ISIS:

“A lack of strategy is a glimmer of hope…Here’s a strategy: just come home.”

It is truly sad that Paul believes simply coming home and praying that they decide not to come after us is the best way to deal with Islamic ideological terrorism. Only in the twisted world of Ron Paul is having no strategy the best strategy of all! Paul does not seem to understand the basics of Foreign Policy; you do not eliminate the threat by staying home and pretending it doesn’t exist; Howie tried that in The Benchwarmers, and it didn’t work; no matter how much he wished it wasn’t, the sun was always there! (For those who have seen the movie, seriously can’t you just see Ron Paul playing that role?)

To this point, Paul would counter that we need to worry about shoring up defenses at home, and he is right, but we shouldn’t just sit back and hope that when they do attack us here, our defenses hold up. Instead we should make sure we are safe here, while taking measures to make sure ISIS never gets a chance to attack our homeland in the first place!

In the end we are left with another crazy Ron Paul foreign policy moment, and one more reason to be thankful that he never became President.

Works Cited:

1.  Osama Bin Laden (Al Qaeda Leader), November 24, 2002, The Guardian, “Full text: Bin Laden’s ‘letter to America'”, accessed July 8, 2012,

Bill De Blasio: The Worm of the Big Apple

When you find a worm inside an apple, what do you do? The answer is quite obvious; you throw away the apple because you know that the effects of the worm being inside it have ruined its integrity and purpose. Simply put, even though he has only been Mayor for a few days, Bill De Blasio is already proving himself to be the proverbial worm inside the Big Apple, New York City. 

Like the worm boring through the apple, De Blasio has already started to bore into the core of New York City, intent on changing, and destroying the City from within; from policy changes to staff appointments to broken campaign promises, Mayor De Blasio has already shown his hand; and over the next four years, it will only get worse.

Take for example the campaign promises that the Mayor has already broken; while De Blasio campaigned on transparency, he has already backed off and admitted he would not put up his City School Chancellor for public review:

“In what critics called a reversal of an important campaign promise, Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio said Monday he will not subject his pick for city schools chancellor to a public vetting process.“We’re not going to have a beauty contest,” de Blasio told reporters after a meeting with state Assembly Democrats in lower Manhattan. “We’re not going to put the different finalists on display.” Critics said the statement contradicted promises de Blasio made during a campaign appearance Nov. 19, 2012, when he vowed to choose a chancellor with a “serious public screening” of potential picks for the job. “We need a chancellor who is presented to the public, not just forced down our throat,” de Blasio said at the time. (1)

Just like the perfect Progressive he is, De Blasio believes that the ends justify the means in order to get his agenda passed; when you run for office, tell people you will allow them to review your nominees, as long as you never plan to follow through once elected. Mr. Mayor is setting for himself a precedent that allows him to nominate/appoint with impunity, the most radical of people to influential positions within the city. His new School Chancellor, Carmen Farina, is the perfect example of this, as she openly admits that she will ingrain the progressive agenda, into the education system, and consequently, the children of New York City:

“…Farina, a former teacher and long-time adviser to de Blasio, shares the mayor’s desire to foist a “progressive agenda” upon NYC schools, she said at a news conference earlier this week. “This progressive agenda actually says we know there are things that need to happen, but they need to happen with people, not to people,” she said. That means liberal education goals — including an expansion of taxpayer-funded pre-K and elimination of merit-based pay for teachers — will definitely be a top priority for the new administration.” (2)

The Daily Caller is not wrong in their assessment of this issue, as De Blasio has already begun his push toward the aforementioned Universal pre-K system:

“Mayor Bill de Blasio has been actively touting his plan to expand after-school programs and to provide universal pre-kindergarten to the children living in New York City, as reported this week at Fox News Latino. To fund the expansion, de Blasio plans on taxing the wealthy. But what is the plan? Where is the curriculum and who designed it? What is it, exactly, that “the wealthy” are to be funding?” (3)

Progressive indoctrination can never start to early can it? De Blasio’s plan is to get to them young, to get to them early. And look at how he wants to fund this universal pre-K program; via wealth distribution, aka taxing the wealthy. He says that we must ask the wealthy to pay just a little more, even though the rich already pay the lion’s share of the tax burden; they already pay more than their “fair share” by a long shot. But not only does De Blasio plan to fund the pre-K system by taxing the wealthy, he also views this as a way to deal with what he calls the “crisis” of income “inequality”; the only problem with trying to fix income inequality, is that in doing so, you don’t make more people rich, on the contrary, you equalize everyone in poverty and lack of hope.  

What De Blasio doesn’t realize is that it will actually be his soon to be implemented policies of taxing and spending and manipulation of the market that cause the problems he claims to want to fix; consider what he said during his own inauguration speech:

“We will require big developers to build more affordable housing…” (4)

Considering the fact that De Blasio used to work for HUD (and what they are currently doing to Westchester County, which sits just above the City), it is no surprise that De Blasio is harping on the issue of affordable housing; but it’s not that affordable housing is bad, it’s how the Mayor plans on going about erecting it. Instead of encouraging developers to build affordable housing, what does De Blasio say? He says he will require “big developers” to build these housing units; I’m sorry Mr. Mayor, but you do not create jobs and bring about good economic changes by forcing people to spend their money on projects! If it were that simple, neither the state nor the city of New York would be in the mess it is currently in.

But of course De Blasio thinks the way he does, he readily admits that he doesn’t believe in the free market, gladly explains he believes that the heavy hand of government will bring about positive economic change (a theory that was proved wrong over 60 years ago):

“Everything you heard about me is true... I am not a free-marketeer... I believe in the heavy hand of government,” de Blasio stated matter-of-factly during an hour-long presentation to some of the city’s biggest real-estate developers.” (5)

Furthermore, in regards to his housing plan, De Blasio plans on making a suicidal move and investing 1 billion dollars of PENSION funds into the project:

“Bill de Blasio, the newly inaugurated mayor of New York City, is moving forward with his plan to allocate $1 billion of pension assets to affordable housing—a massive increase to the funds’ prior investments to this space.” (6)

While this part of the plan is ridiculous for obvious reasons, we must leave the topic of economics and go back to something else the new Mayor said in his inauguration speech:

“And we’ll expand community health centers into neighborhoods in need…” (4)

I have no doubt that what De Blasio is really getting at by referencing “community health centers” is his hope tp get more abortion providing centers established in the Big Apple; why do I say this? Well, I base it on what he himself said about expanding abortion “services” and closing down crisis pregnancy centers (who encourage you to save the life of your unborn baby), a category of health services that he calls a sham:

“New York City has been called “the abortion capital of the world…with 41 percent of its pregnancies ending in elective termination…But those statistics aren’t high enough for newly elected Democratic Mayor Bill de Blasio, who claims the city is “underserved” by its dozens of abortion centers, and for whom increased access to abortion was a key part of his campaign platform. De Blasio, who was elected Tuesday with 73 percent of the vote, has promised to partner with Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers to help them expand their business in the city. He says he plans to help abortionists find neighborhoods that lack convenient clinic access and provide them with “city sponsored” space to set up shop…

…Additionally, de Blasio has pledged to help abortionists wipe out their main competition – pro-life crisis pregnancy centers – that offer women financial and logistical help to either keep the babies they would otherwise be unable to afford, or place unwanted children with adoptive families. De Blasio calls crisis pregnancy centers “sham” clinics. In his view, their refusal to perform abortions means they do not offer “legitimate health care.” He has pledged to continue the city’s appeal of a court order striking down a law aimed at closing down such centers. In the event the court appeal fails, de Blasio says, he stands ready to “craft new regulations to prevent [crisis pregnancy] centers from masquerading as legitimate health care providers.” (7)

De Blasio’s plan is clear; encourage the extermination of as many kids as possible, and indoctrinate the rest of them in “progressive ideals” as young as pre kindergarten, a disturbing plan to say the least. You really have to ask what kind of a Mayor, and what kind of person Bill is, if he is actively going to pursue shutting down centers that seek to help women and their unborn children, instead of killing them.

A final major issue that De Blasio is aggressively pursuing is the removal of the iconic tourist attraction that is the horse drawn carriage industry of New York City:

“Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio vowed to act quickly to abolish horse-drawn carriages in the city. “We are going to get rid of the horse carriages. Period,” de Blasio said in response to a question at his press conference announcing his schools chancellor pick Monday. “It’s over,” he said…Sworn into office by Bill Clinton yesterday, de Blasio aims to replace the horse-drawn carriages that have historically pulled visitors through Central Park with electric cars. Antique-style design electric cars are currently what are being considered. The mayor’s team says the plan to go retro in style and modern electric in horsepower will help save the carriage workers’ jobs that would otherwise end with the ban.” (8)(9)

I bet you if you asked the NYC horses if the felt their job was inhumane, their answer would be “neigh”; but all jokes aside, there is so much wrong with De Blasio wanting to do away with the horse and carriage industry. First and foremost, does he even realize how many people he will be putting out of work by doing this? And furthermore, he will be taking away a lot of tourist revenue by replacing the carriages with these electric cars; so many people come to New York City for the experience, and the horse-drawn carriage rides are part of said experience. Needless to say, there is no way that riding in a car will ever come close to that experience, and tourists, understanding this, will not pay for the car ride like they would the carriage ride.Even actor Liam Neeson has slammed De Blasio in regards to this plan! 

But there is something deeper to the Mayor’s quest to remove this well over 100 year old institution; I believe this is the perfect metaphor for De Blasio’s mission of changing and destroying what made the city what it is today, that is to say, the city’s history. But that is what progressivism always does. It seeks to change our history, where we came from, in order to change who we are and who we will be; and Bill De Blasio is, and will be, no different as mayor of New York City.

All of this simply goes to show that Bill De Blasio is the worm to New York City’s Big “Apple”; and over the next four years, he will make the apple his home, and destroy it from the inside out. Look, I love New York City; I think it is a great city, the greatest city in the world; which is why it pains me to realize just how bad it is going to get over the next four years of Bill De Blasio’s “leadership.” And although it is hard to believe, this article didn’t even cover the other insane and ridiculous things that are coming from the City’s new Mayor; Godspeed New York, you are going to need it.



1.      The Daily News:

2.      The Daily Caller:

3.      EAG News:


4.      New York Post:


5.      New York Post:


6.      AIO CIO:


7.      Life Site News:


8.      Daily News:


9.      CNS News:




On Global Warming


     President Obama seems to think global warming, um, I mean, “climate change”, is killing people; John Kerry believes it is the biggest threat the world currently faces. Liberals claim the world will end if we don’t stop global warming, that humans will not be able to survive its consequences (unless of course you are a hobbit). But thankfully we Conservatives know the truth; we know that we aren’t in any danger from “climate change” because simply put, global warming is the biggest fraud in recent history, and we have the facts to prove it.

     Take for example two years ago, in January of 2012, when the Daily Mail reported that global warming was no longer the consensus, as it was revealed that the earth had not warmed for 15 years:

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years… Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. (1)

     The irony of this is that East Anglia University, one of the strongest proponents of global warming alarmism, is now forced to admit that global warming hasn’t happened in nearly 2 decades. And even top climate scientist Hans von Storch admitted in 2013 that over said 15 years, the earth’s climate warmed at a value close to zero:

In a June 20 interview with Spiegel Online, German climate scientist Hans von Storch said that despite predictions of a warming planet the temperature data for the past 15 years shows an increase of 0.06 or “very close to zero.” “That hasn’t happened,” Storch said. “In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) – a value very close to zero.” Spiegel asked Storch why the Earth’s temperature has not risen significantly in the past 15 years despite 400 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) being emitted into the atmosphere from human activities.“So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break,” said Storch. (2)

     Also in 2013, the UN Climate Change Chief took it a step farther, admitting that global warming hadn’t occurred in seventeen years:

THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend…(3)

     Furthermore, even more scientists are now acknowledging that this “17 year pause” will actually last for another 20 years; a sentiment that seems to put to shame the idea of global warming killing us off in the next few decades:

The 17-year pause in global warming is likely to last into the 2030s and the Arctic sea ice has already started to recover, according to new research. A paper in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics – by Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Dr Marcia Wyatt – amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy…The research comes amid mounting evidence that the computer models on which the IPCC based the gloomy forecasts of a rapidly warming planet in its latest report, published in September, are diverging widely from reality. (4)

     In September of 2013, The Telegraph also reported on the IPCC, and how scientists are now realizing that not only is the earth cooling, not warming, but there has been an increase in sea ice as well:

There has been a 29 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, the equivalent of 533,000 square miles. In a rebound from 2012’s record low, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin…A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century. (5)

     Not to mention that the Daily Mail details how tree rings are proving global warming peddlers wrong, showing that the earth has (overall) been cooling for a lot longer than we previously thought it was:

 A study suggests the Britain of 2,000 years ago experienced a lengthy period of hotter summers than today. German researchers used data from tree rings – a key indicator of past climate – to claim the world has been on a ‘long-term cooling trend’ for two millennia until the global warming of the twentieth century…In general the scientists found a slow cooling of 0.6C over 2,000 years, which they attributed to changes in the Earth’s orbit which took it further away from the Sun. The study is published in Nature Climate Change. It is based on measurements stretching back to 138BC. The finding may force scientists to rethink current theories of the impact of global warming…In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling. (6)

     But not only is the science proving the scientists wrong, but we are constantly discovering the misconduct and exaggerations of both scientists and the media when it comes to the issue of “climate change.” For example, Fox reported in early 2013 that a leaked UN IPCC report showed that the agency had been overstating the issue of global warming for nearly 20 years: 

A preliminary draft of a report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was leaked to the public this month, and climate skeptics say it contains fresh evidence of 20 years of overstated global warming. The report — which is not scheduled for publication until 2014 — was leaked by someone involved in the IPCC’s review process, and is available for download online. Bloggers combing through the report discovered a chart comparing the four temperature models the group has published since 1990. Each has overstated the rise in temperature that Earth actually experienced. “Temperatures have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted,” Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, told (7)

     Multiple reports from August and September of 2013 also show that not only has the UN been struggling to figure out why the earth hasn’t warmed in nearly two decades, but also that they were urged to cover this fact up:

Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed. A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft…But leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years. Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted…Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat…The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists… (8)

     A peer reviewed study also found that the UN over-exaggerated the supposed havoc that global warming is supposed to cause:

A peer-reviewed climate change study released Wednesday by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change finds the threat of man-made global warming to be not only greatly exaggerated but so small as to be “embedded within the background variability of the natural climate system” and not dangerous…The 1,000 page study was the work of 47 scientists and scholars examining many of the same journals and studies that the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC) examined, producing entirely different conclusions.“This volume provides the scientific balance that is missing from the overly alarmist reports from the IPCC, which are highly selective in their review of climate science,” the authors write (9)

     In terms of the media misinformation on climate change, in May of ’13, a Scientist had to correct a reporter on the correlation between climate change and severe weather (maybe he should also talk to congressional Democrats!): 

One such person who appears to have been influenced in this way is Los Angeles Times reporter Stacey Lessca. Fortunately for her, yesterday she received some much-needed education during an interview with a scientist working for the National Severe Storms Laboratory. After discussing some of the particulars of the recent tornado that struck Moore, Oklahoma, Lessca shifted her questioning toward environmental orthodoxy…

…“It seems like there’s been more severe weather, it seems, it just feels like hurricanes are getting worse. Hurricane Sandy ravaged the East Coast. This tornado now has killed 24 people in the town of Moore. Do you think that more severe storms are becoming the norm, and do you think that they are directly related to climate change?” Tanamachi answered that this was not the case whatsoever and that people who thought otherwise were likely being influenced by the media’s continual reporting on weather events. (10)

(Watch here:

     Lastly, multiple high ranking officials are also feeling the heat, as the UK’s Climate Change Czar now admits that “global warming” is not caused by humans; and the EPA’s top climate expert has been charged with and sentenced to jail for 32 months for fraud (which he participated in to avoid doing his real job at the EPA). 

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again; the idea of catastrophic man-made global warming is an absolute lie and one of the greatest acts of fraud perpetrated on not only the citizens of the U.S, but of other nations as well; and even though the science and scandals continue to prove them wrong, scientists and politicians continue to perpetuate the myth in order to pass their agenda and make their money (Al Gore and Lord Ron Oxburgh are two that spring to mind). The facts speak for themselves, but I think it’s time they gain our collective voice as well.


1.      The Daily Mail:–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1ku6F2Ksk


2.      CNSnews:


3.      The Australian:


4.      Daily Mail:


5.      The Telegraph:


6.      Daily Mail:


7.      Fox News:


8.      Daily Mail:


9.      Fox News:


10.  Newsbusters:


11.  Daily Caller (Unused); IPCC report is “hilariously flawed”:


12.  National Post (Unused); “76 Scientists believe in Man-Made global warming, not 2,500”:

















Merry Christmas!

Founding Father Quote of the Week

A wise and free people must focus their attention on many objectives. First is safety. The concept of safety relates to a wide variety of circumstances and ideas, giving latitude to people who wish to define it precisely and totally. ~ John Jay

Founding Father Quote of the Day

One of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one’s house. A man’s house is his castle. ~ James Otis

Our Facebook

Bottom Line Tweets

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 69 other followers


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 69 other followers