An Oklahoma woman and her live-in girlfriend who reportedly started a GoFundMe site to solicit donations to help pay for their five-year-old son’s medical bills have been charged with abusing the boy for months, causing such severe injuries that he suffered two strokes.
“Rachel Stevens is the victim’s mother and Kayla Jones is the stepmother of the victim,” according to an affidavit filed in Muskogee County District Court.
“Through forensic interviews it was disclosed that the victim had been tied up, duct tape over his eyes and had been locked in a room,” according to the affidavit.
“The victim also disclosed that both suspects had hit him on the hand, head, and butt with a belt. It was also disclosed that the mother hit the victim on the hand with a hammer. The victim disclosed that the stepmother kicked him in the groin so hard that it made him bleed.”
The two women were arrested by Muskogee, Oklahoma Police on Tuesday and charged with felony child abuse and neglect, The Tulsa World reported. (Read more from “Disgusting: Mom, Girlfriend Accused of Torturing 5-Year-Old Set up GoFundMe Site to Pay His Medical Bills” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00kathleenhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngkathleen2016-01-17 22:57:042016-04-11 10:53:45Disgusting: Mom and “Stepmom” Accused of Torturing 5-Year-Old Set up GoFundMe Site to Pay His Medical Bills
By Kevin Whitson. In what is becoming typical Donald Trump bravado, the provocateur is upping the ante on Hillary Clinton’s bid for president of the United States. The Desmoines Register reported Friday that Trump has rented out a movie theater at Urbandale, Iowa, and is giving away free tickets to the new film 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi.
“Mr. Trump would like all Americans to know the truth about what happened at Benghazi,” said Trump’s Iowa campaign organizer Tana Goertz. The film, which does not directly mention President Obama or Hillary Clinton, is based on the actual events that took place in Benghazi, Libya when Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and two former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty were killed by terrorists on September 11, 2012.
(Read more from “This Might Be the Most Powerful Shot Trump Has Ever Taken at Hillary – It’s Not Anything He Said…” HERE)
__________________________
Hillary Clinton Defends Donald Trump
By Donovan Slack. He has said she “lies like crazy” and has “caused tremendous death.”
She has said he has “a penchant for sexism” and dinged him for “bigotry” and “bullying.”
But there is apparently one thing on which they agree: New York is awesome.
Just this once, Trump's right: New Yorkers value hard work, diversity, tolerance, resilience, and building better lives for our families. -H
Hillary Clinton on Friday issued a personal tweet defending Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump against criticism from Texas Sen. Ted Cruz that Trump isn’t conservative enough because he has “New York values.”
Trump, Clinton tweeted, “just this once” was right when he came to the defense of New Yorkers. (Read more from “Hillary Clinton Defends Donald Trump” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-15 22:39:572016-04-11 10:53:45This Might Be the Most Powerful Shot Trump Has Ever Taken at Hillary – It’s Not Anything He Said…
By Laurel Brubaker Calkins and Kevin Cirilli. Republican presidential contender Ted Cruz should be disqualified from the race because he isn’t a “natural-born citizen,” a fellow Texan claims in a “birther” challenge filed against the senator in a U.S. court.
The suit seeks a court definition of the term to clarify whether Cruz — who was born in Canada to an American mother — can or can’t serve if elected.
“This 229-year question has never been pled, presented to or finally decided by or resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court,” Houston attorney Newton B. Schwartz Sr. said in his 28-page complaint. “Only the U.S. Supreme Court can finally decide, determine judicially and settle this issue now.”
Claiming that “time is of the essence” because of the rapidly approaching Iowa caucuses and March 1 Super Tuesday primaries, Schwartz asked that the case be expedited for resolution by the nation’s highest court as soon as possible.
Republican front-runner Donald Trump pressed the issue during a televised candidate debate Thursday evening in South Carolina, saying he’s bringing up Cruz’s Canadian birthplace “because now he’s doing a little bit better” in the polls. Trump insisted that Cruz receive a judgment from the courts because it would be bad for Republicans to have the issue hanging over their presidential or vice-presidential nominee. (Read more from “Now, Lawsuit Filed Against Cruz Eligibility by Texas Attorney” HERE)
____________________________
Ted Cruz Is a U.S. Citizen at Birth, Natural Born Is a Different Question
By Lawrence Sellin. According to Public Law 414, June 27, 1952, An Act: To revise the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality and for other purposes [H.R. 5678], Title III Nationality and Naturalization, Chapter 1 – Nationality at Birth and by Collective naturalization; Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth, the relevant section being:
SEC. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.
With the stipulation that:
(b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United State for at least five years: Provided That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years.
Ted Cruz fulfilled those requirements and is, therefore, a US citizen at birth and meets the Constitutional test outlined in the Supreme Court decision Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).
According the Department of State, Ted Cruz’s parents should have applied at a US Consulate for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) and/or a U.S. passport to have registered him as a U.S. citizen. Failure to promptly document a child who meets the statutory requirements for acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth may cause problems for the parents and the child when attempting to establish the child’s U.S. citizenship and eligibility for the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship, including entry into the United States. By law, U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States.
Ted Cruz has not released any documents directly related to how and when he obtained US citizenship.
Being a US citizen at birth does not necessarily make you a “natural born citizen” and eligible for the Presidency.
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. That raises the question whether Ted Cruz can be a “natural born citizen” at all if he obtained citizenship through an act of Congress, which regulates naturalization?
The definition of “natural born citizen” itself is presently disputed depending on whether you make an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution based on the wording and historical context at the time of its writing or consider the Constitution a “living” document interpreted based on changing societal and cultural circumstances.
The “originalist” interpretation was described as recently as September 2008 in a Michigan Law Review article entitled “Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause” written by Lawrence B. Solum, then John E. Cribbet Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law:
“What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a natural born citizen.”
Donald Trump, for example, is clearly a “natural born citizen” by the “originalist” interpretation because he was born in the United States of parents both of whom were US citizens at the time of his birth.
Only since 2008 and the candidacy of Barack Obama, have those believing in a “living” Constitution interpreted “natural born citizen” as simply a citizen at birth of one US citizen parent. There are no Supreme Court decisions describing it in that way, but many decisions including statements referring to natural born citizens as US citizens of two US citizen parents, for example: The Venus, 12U.S. 253(1814), Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830), Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).
Many “living” Constitutionalists have also used statutory law to buttress their arguments, often incorrectly in my opinion, such as citing the Naturalization Act of 1790.
The Act established US citizenship of children of citizens born abroad without the need for naturalization:
“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
The Citizenship Act of 1795 (Act of January 29. 1795, Section 3, 1 Stat. 414, 415) repealed the 1790 law and replaced the phrase “natural born citizen” with “citizen:”
“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
To demonstrate transparency, Ted Cruz should release documents directly related to how and when he obtained US citizenship, such as a CRBA.
Separately, there should be a resolution by proper adjudication of the dispute over the definition of “natural born citizen” and, thereby, eligibility for the Presidency; not simply amending the Constitution by press release or via the pronouncements of talking heads. (For more from the author of “Ted Cruz Is a U.S. Citizen at Birth, Natural Born Is a Different Question” please click HERE)
Watch a recent interview with Lawrence Sellin below:
It started off as a throwaway line, what Ted Cruz said about “New York values”— an echo of old political shorthand like “San Francisco values,” a phrase which encodes as much or as little as the audience that hears it chooses. But Donald Trump took public umbrage at this remark, and blew it sky high at the GOP debate by invoking the heroism of cops and firemen on 9/11, to the roaring approval of the Charleston, S.C. audience — and even of Sen. Cruz, an expert debater, who applauded Trump’s brilliant chess move.
Online, pundits at conservative venues such as National Review and Commentary (both New York City-based) grumbled at Cruz and reluctantly sided with Trump. The normally sensible Texan Kevin Williamson warned in a Tweet that in bashing New York, Cruz risked offending “everyone who lives in a city.” Cruz quickly backed off, and on his face you could almost see a red line striking three words out of a printed speech forever.
Not so fast, Republicans. Granted, the line itself may be more liability than asset in a national election, but as a native New Yorker who loves the place, who worked and scraped to live there for most of his life, I can tell you that New York City, no less than Detroit, is a rich mine of insights on how not to govern anyplace, anywhere, ever. The ideology that rules the Five Boroughs is a laundry list of toxic political correctness. If you’re not willing to criticize the “values” that prevail in New York City, which America’s elite (who mostly live there) are busily stuffing down the throats of the rest of the country, then you have no business running for office as a Republican. It’s time to go Texan or go home.
What do we mean by “New York values”? Not the courage of first responders and stoicism of stunned civilians, that got us through the day of burning towers and the months of the smell of death in 2001. Public servants are equally brave in every city in America, and citizens from Sandy Hook to San Bernardino pull together after disasters.
We don’t mean the grudging, good-humored tolerance that keeps us from strangling each other on crowded subways, or even the crackpot determination to live without a driver’s license, whatever the cost in rent, taxes, or troubles. (I got my license at age 36, and still prefer using Uber, even in Dallas.)
We don’t mean the courage and civic-mindedness of recent Chinese immigrants, who gathered in Queens last year to protest loudly and mostly in Mandarin against Mayor de Blasio’s placement of a homeless center for drug addicts smack-dab in their working class neighborhood.
We don’t mean Archbishop Fulton Sheen, or Tony Bennett or William F. Buckley or Norman Podhoretz. We don’t mean Wall Street, or Broadway.
We mean the policies and politicians that New Yorkers inflict on themselves, and the social attitudes that they use their vast influence to impose on the rest of America. A city as naturally rich, with as many inbuilt advantages as New York, has only just barely survived collapse several times (in the mid-70s, then again in the early 90s) thanks to those policies. They would break any lesser city and if they are not contained they will devastate America, leaving only a few wealthy enclaves intact — including, no doubt, Manhattan. The rich we will have always with us.
The mayor of New York City is radical leftist Bill de Blasio, who in the 1980s went to Nicaragua to help the Sandinistas impose their totalitarian system on that hapless country. Imagine if some conservative city elected a former volunteer for South Africa’s apartheid government… you can’t, can you? We don’t do that sort of thing, but New York liberals do, with a blasé chuckle. It’s par for the course. New York is a city where:
More black babies are aborted than are born. In fact, its abortion rate is one of the highest in America.
Pro-life pregnancy centers are targeted by the city and the state, constantly harassed, and always fighting in court to keep their doors open.
It’s illegal even to ask a potential employee if he has a criminal record.
Police are no longer permitted to stop and frisk potential suspects — a practice that helped slash New York’s once staggering murder rate, and saved thousands of black and Latino lives.
Al Sharpton is taken seriously as a “community leader.”
The authorities will no longer focus on mosques as potential terror centers.
Refusing to accept an employee’s “transgender” fantasies, and let him use the ladies’ locker room, can earn you a $250,000 fine.
The teachers unions which elected De Blasio won’t let the city remove abusive instructors from public schools, sometimes for years. Instead, such teachers collect their full salaries while sitting in “rubber rooms,” doing crossword puzzles or surfing the Internet.
There is a state income tax, a city income tax, and a special “unincorporated business tax” that targets hard-pressed freelancers.
The gay lobby is so powerful that the Catholic archbishop threw in the towel, and let sex activists march in the St. Patrick’s Day parade, which marks the conversion of Ireland to Christianity.
Let me clue you in on a secret about New York: There aren’t so many New Yorkers there — not natives, anyway. Every year the place is flooded by ambitious valedictorians from all across the country who are fleeing their “small-minded” home towns or want to make it big in “The City.” That limitless demand for housing, which remains in fixed supply, has exactly the effect on its price that you might expect.
With a few elite exceptions, the public schools are outright unusable — chaotic holding tanks for juvie and Riker’s Island. So for each child you hope to raise in your small house or apartment, figure in the cost of 12 years of private school. The nuns are mostly gone, so Catholic schools aren’t as cheap as they used to be, but their underpaid, hard-working teachers are still the backbone of education in New York City.
The city is run by the renters, so landlords and home builders are harried by outdated rules such as rent control and “stabilization,” and a truly crackpot law grants “squatters’ rights” to anyone who stays on your couch for more than a couple weeks — so be careful in your choice of house guests.
Kennedy Airport makes New York City a border town as much as Brownsville, TX, and our country’s refusal to deport illegals or even check immigrants’ visas means that New York’s welfare rolls and hospitals are constantly flooded with recent arrivals from Afghanistan and Honduras. Who foots the bill to deliver their anchor babies? The hapless taxpayers of New York.
Those of who grew up there get squeezed out, priced out, taxed out, and at the first chance flee to the suburbs, as both of my sisters did. The middle and working class whites who elected Mayor Rudolph Giuliani just in time to save the City from David Dinkin’s Democrat crime wave have largely relocated to Long Island. Left behind are the valedictorians; the middle class who bought their homes back before a one-family house in an ugly, distant neighborhood cost $1 million; the people in rent-fixed apartments who’d be crazy ever to move; and the millions in public housing who largely live on the dole.
This is not the model our Founders had in mind for a sustainable republic, and it’s not the place that ought to be setting the trend for America. It’s a wonderful, unique city that can only survive in a weird symbiosis with a stodgier, saner hinterland that reins in its excesses. Republicans who emerge from the New York milieu, such as Nelson Rockefeller, John Lindsay, Rudolph Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg (now an independent), and New Jersey’s Chris Christie, ought not to set the tone for the national party. Even New Yorkers know that. We count on the rest of the country to save us from ourselves. (For more from the author of “GOP Hopefuls: Confronting ‘New York Values’ Is Key to Saving the USA” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-15 22:36:122016-04-11 10:53:46GOP Hopefuls: Confronting ‘New York Values’ Is Key to Saving the USA
By Jim Newell. Gov. Chris Christie’s presidential campaign bets big on straightforwardness, or “telling it like it is.” During Thursday night’s debate, the Christie press operation sent out one press release after another highlighting how Christie was “telling it like it is” on any given subject he happened to be addressing: “Telling It Like It Is On America’s Role In The World,” “Telling It Like It Is On Entitlements,” “Telling It Like It Is On Criminal Justice Reform.” He’s the tough dad who’s going to make you eat the meatloaf your mother put so much effort into cooking, damnit, unless you want to be sent to bed early. He will talk about difficult things, like cutting Medicare and Social Security, and you won’t like it, but the sheer force of his honest appraisals of the fiscal outlook will necessitate your submission.
The problem with this self-presentation is that Christie, right now, may be the least honest candidate in the race.
Christie is an exceptional performer. But as he’s risen in New Hampshire polls, he’s made himself a target for his fellow “establishment” rivals, each of whom is jockeying for that third ticket out of the Granite State. During the past couple of weeks, Christie rivals such as Sen. Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush have made hay over some of the more moderate positions Christie has taken to fuel his rise as a Republican leader in a blue state. Christie’s responses have either been to obfuscate or, as he did Thursday night before millions of viewers, claim that he did not do what the public record makes clear he absolutely did, over and over. Christie’s natural skills as a debater kept him afloat, but his mischaracterizations about his past will do far more damage in the long run—to whatever extent there is a long run for Christie’s presidential campaign. (Read more from “Chris Christie Says He’s a Straight Shooter – That’s a Lie” HERE)
Watch this revealing interview with Fox News last night where Chris Christie’s deception is transparent:
____________________________
Fact Check: Is Common Core “Eliminated” in New Jersey?
By Reena Flores. During Thursday night’s Republican debate in South Carolina, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was attacked on several fronts for an allegedly left-leaning past, including his supposed support for Common Core education standards, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Planned Parenthood.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio called out his rival for propping up Common Core, the reading and math standards implemented in 42 states, plus the District of Columbia, and widely reviled by conservatives as acts of federal overreach . . .
Christie refuted that: “Common Core has been eliminated in New Jersey” . . .
In May, the governor asked New Jersey’s department of education to review the implementation of Common Core in the state’s school system.
But according to NJ.com, earlier this week, the panel charged with reviewing the standards recommended that 84 percent of them remain in place, with slight revisions to the rest. Common Core, the news site reported, does “still have a place in New Jersey classrooms.” (Read more from “Fact Check: Is Common Core “Eliminated” in New Jersey?” HERE)
Not that I know what the word really means, but because we spent an entire week discussing this Yiddish slang word uttered by Donald Trump, it evidently connotes what happened during last night’s debate.
For the past 7 months, everyone has been saying that Donald Trump has finally met his demise, only to be proven spectacularly wrong. The reason they were wrong time and time again is simple: the other candidates and the moderators always attacked Trump from the left, particularly on immigration. Instead of hurting him, it always fueled Trump’s appeal. Americans are tired of being lectured to on the issue of immigration, and Trump was speaking to where most voters are at this point.
But as I noted earlier this week, nobody has really attacked Trump from the right and exposed his lack of command of both the Constitution and conservative values. Cruz finally did that last night and Trump was left sputtering. He was lacking any good come-back lines for the first time in the race. He was diminished to defending New York values. Cruz turned the tables on him by looking like the macho, anti-PC crusader, while Trump went all emotional with his non-sequitur about 9/11. He was also caught promoting a left-wing law professor. Trump even used the “on the soil” argument for citizenship which ironically is the left-wing version of birthright citizenship that is used to justify anchor babies – the very issue through which Trump gained initial prominence for opposing. He played into Cruz’s caricature of him perfectly.
Had the debate ended here, it wouldn’t surprise me if Cruz went on to catch Trump in the national polls. And I still believe, on net, Cruz will benefit more than anybody else. But Trump came roaring back in the second half of the debate. Much like the earlier debates, Trump got asked questions about immigration and was delivered the gift that keeps giving – the straw man of Jeb Bush attacking him from the left on the issue. Between immigration, trade, and the presentation of his business career, Trump resurrected the version of himself that much of the voters clearly have come to love.
The only problem for Trump, however, is that many people watched only the first half of the debate. Moreover, his opponent is not Jeb Bush. Bush is irrelevant at this point in the race. His opponent is Cruz, and many Trump supporters will now see a viable alternative who is speaking to their anger.
The challenge for Trump headed out of this debate is to keep up the persona he exhibited in the second hour and stay on message as a conservative, especially on the issue of immigration. But if he is going to continue to make his closing argument about being insulted by Cruz’s taunt of “New York values,” he’s making a colossal mistake. Some of the elite conservative media might feel insulted by Cruz’s comments, but they need to learn that the center of gravity for conservative voters is in the South and the West, and very much anchored in rural culture. There are very few primary voters who will agree with Trump on this exchange. He is needlessly allowing Cruz to get to his “right” and paint him as a Manhattan liberal.
On another note, the true winner of the debate is Maria Bartiromo. Who would have thought we’d live to see a time when a moderator would actually ask the questions about Muslim immigration (100,000 green cards a year) and the broad question of mass migration. Jeff Sessions loomed large at the debate.
Unfortunately, all of the candidates dodged the question in some manner. They all seemed to feel comfortable parlaying the issue exclusively into national security and the question of “vetting” but refused to discuss the general cultural problems with mass migration and the influx of Sharia-adherent immigrants, in particular. This is about a lot more than ISIS. We’ve had the cultural and security concerns that arise from mass migration and the radicalization of Muslim immigrants long before 2013.
The moderators also deserve credit for finally discussing the rise in crime. Once again, this was a missed opportunity for several of the candidates to bring up the get-out-of-jail free agenda and distinguish themselves from the Washington group think on criminal justice.
On a final note, the conservative media will make a big deal of Marco Rubio, but ultimately he is still not speaking to where voters’ hearts lie at this juncture. And worse for him, Chris Christie continues to gain prominence and this debate will only continue the perfect establishment chaos that is preventing Rubio from making this a three-man race.
On net, this debate will only secure the status quo as a two-man race, albeit Cruz will likely gain on Trump in the coming days. (For more from the author of “Cruz Schlongs Trump, Trump Schlongs Jeb” please click HERE)
By Daniel Halper. Earlier this week on the campaign trail, Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, attacked Bernie Sanders. It turns out, a Clinton spokesman told the press, the Chelsea Clinton attack was not a planned event.
Here’s how Chelsea Clinton attacked her mother’s Democratic rival: “Sen. Sanders wants to dismantle Obamacare, dismantle the CHIP program, dismantle Medicare, and dismantle private insurance. I don’t want to empower Republican governors to take away Medicaid, to take away health insurance for low-income and middle-income working Americans. And I think very much that’s what Sen. Sanders’ plan would do.”
But it was not a planned line — and signals Chelsea going rogue. (Read more from “Family Feud? Clinton Spokesman Says Chelsea Went Rogue” HERE)
_____________________________
Clinton’s Lead Is Evaporating, and Anxious Democrats See 2008 All Over Again
By Paul Kane. Some leading Democrats are increasingly anxious about Hillary Clinton’s prospects for winning the party’s presidential nomination, warning that Sen. Bernie Sanders’s growing strength in early battleground states and strong fundraising point to a campaign that could last well into the spring.
What seemed recently to be a race largely controlled by Clinton has turned into a neck-and-neck contest with voting set to begin in less than three weeks.
On Capitol Hill and in state party headquarters, some Democrats worry that a Sanders nomination could imperil candidates down the ballot in swing districts and states. Others sense deja vu from 2008, when Clinton’s overwhelming edge cratered in the days before the Iowa caucuses.
Just as Barack Obama’s stunning upset there helped assure Democrats in later states that a black man could win votes from whites and propelled him to victory in South Carolina and other places, so, too, could a Sanders victory on Feb. 1 in Iowa and then Feb. 9 in New Hampshire ease doubts about the viability of a self-described “democratic socialist,” some said. (Read more from “Clinton’s Lead Is Evaporating, and Anxious Democrats See 2008 All Over Again” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00kathleenhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngkathleen2016-01-15 22:31:302016-04-11 10:53:46Family Feud? Clinton Spokesman Says Chelsea Went Rogue
By Bradford Richardson. Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz on Thursday said National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden is a “traitor” who should be “tried for treason,” shifting away from the praise he expressed for Snowden in 2013.
“It is now clear that Snowden is a traitor, and he should be tried for treason,” Cruz said in a statement to The New York Times.
“Today, we know that Snowden violated federal law, that his actions materially aided terrorists and enemies of the United States, and that he subsequently fled to China and Russia,” he continued. “Under the Constitution, giving aid to our enemies is treason.”
Cruz struck a different tone when Snowden first went public with classified details about NSA snooping in 2013.
“If it is the case that the federal government is seizing millions of personal records about law-abiding citizens, and if it is the case that there are minimal restrictions on accessing or reviewing those records, then I think Mr. Snowden has done a considerable public service by bringing it to light,” he said at an event hosted by The Blaze in 2013. (Read more from “Cruz Hammers Snowden, Labels Him a Treasonous Traitor” HERE)
______________________________
Cruz Has Problems With Goldman Sachs Loan
By Mick McIntire. As Ted Cruz tells it, the story of how he financed his upstart campaign for the United States Senate four years ago is an endearing example of loyalty and shared sacrifice between a married couple.
“Sweetheart, I’d like us to liquidate our entire net worth, liquid net worth, and put it into the campaign,” he says he told his wife, Heidi, who readily agreed.
But the couple’s decision to pump more than $1 million into Mr. Cruz’s successful Tea Party-darling Senate bid in Texas was made easier by a large loan from Goldman Sachs, where Mrs. Cruz works. That loan was not disclosed in campaign finance reports.
Those reports show that in the critical weeks before the May 2012 Republican primary, Mr. Cruz — currently a leading contender for his party’s presidential nomination — put “personal funds” totaling $960,000 into his Senate campaign. Two months later, shortly before a scheduled runoff election, he added more, bringing the total to $1.2 million — “which is all we had saved,” as Mr. Cruz described it in an interview with The New York Times several years ago. (Read more from “Cruz Has Problems With Goldman Sachs Loan” HERE)
______________________________
Reasons That Cruz’s Goldman Sach’s Loan Will Continue to Give Him Grief
By Jennifer Rubin. He is still indebted to Goldman. (“As for the Goldman Sachs loan, it remains outstanding, though the balance has been reduced to between $50,000 and $100,000.”) Goldman, among other things, employs hundreds of workers on H-1B visas. Cruz used to advocate a huge increase in the number of H-1B visas, without, of course, saying he was on the hook to Goldman. . .
He didn’t simply “forget” to file the disclosure; he made up a self-reverential story to go with it. “Liquidate everything” really meant “get a honking-big loan from my wife’s company.” This will underscore his slipperiness on other issues, such as his stance on immigrant legalization. Can we take anything he says at face value?
Cruz’s campaign is built on the populist, anti-establishment narrative. That is how he won his Senate race in the first place and why it was a good reason for him to conceal the loan at a critical time in that race. (“Mr. Cruz, a conservative former Texas solicitor general, was campaigning as a populist firebrand who criticized Wall Street bailouts and the influence of big banks in Washington. It is a theme he has carried into his bid for the Republican nomination for president.”). . .
It is hard to say this is an oversight. . .Voters can surely draw the inference that he wanted to hide the loan. As the Times report noted, “Other campaigns have been investigated and fined for failing to make such disclosures, which are intended to inform voters and prevent candidates from receiving special treatment from lenders.” Saying this all got reported later when his seat was won is hardly an excuse. It’s evidence that Cruz was hiding the ball when it mattered to his election. . .
Oh, it was not just Goldman. The Times report says that “in the first half of 2012, Ted and Heidi Cruz obtained the low-interest loan from Goldman Sachs, as well as another one from Citibank. The loans totaled as much as $750,000 and eventually increased to a maximum of $1 million before being paid down later that year. There is no explanation of their purpose.” Citibank was another Wall Street firm tied up in the housing disaster. (Read more from “Reasons That Cruz’s Goldman Sach’s Loan Will Continue to Give Him Grief” HERE)
It’s long been known that if the Yellowstone supervolcano were to erupt at full force the loss of life would be substantial and the effects on the world’s climate would be disastrous — water sources would be fouled, crops would fail, many people would die directly and indirectly.
In an international report that has recently captured headlines, scientists have attempted to quantify the threat of such catastrophes while also urging governments worldwide to collaborate on investment in scientific research to better prepare the world in hopes of lessening the impacts of such a calamity.
“I think the paper and its contents are very valuable,” said Bob Smith, a University of Utah researcher who has long studied the geodynamics of Yellowstone, even if certain websites tend to sensationalize the findings to the “point of annoyance.”
The warnings and recommendations are contained in “Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience.” The report was supported by the European Science Foundation and included an international cast of authors with expertise in such diverse fields as economics, health and earth sciences.
“It’s one of the only reports I’ve ever seen that takes a geologic perspective in thinking about hazards,” said Jake Lowenstern, a research geologist for the U.S. Geological Survey and scientist-in-charge of the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory. (Read more from “International Report Sends Terrifying Warning to Governments: ‘Prepare for Catastrophes Like Yellowstone Eruption'” HERE)
In a shocking turn of events transgender men (always genetically, and sometime anatomically, women), along with other similar LGBTQ-type groups, have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court requesting the current Texas abortion restrictions to be removed. They feel it is important that transgender men have access to unrestricted abortion.
At the very least, arguing on behalf of transgender men to have abortions seems specious because if they were truly men they obviously could not get pregnant. However, there are a number of cases where transgender men have by choice, and by accident become pregnant.
Transgender men were born women but generally believe they should have been endowed with male genitalia. Up until very recently, it was nearly universally recognized that such a condition was a treatable mental disorder. Now, many transgender men go through multiple operations in barbaric surgical attempts to become more like men. At the end of such an ordeal, they would physiologically be unable to become pregnant. However, many transgender men choose not to go through the entire process either due to the substantial costs, medical complications, or numerous personal reasons.
Even so, if transgender men truly self-perceive as male, how is it possible that they need abortions? Shouldn’t they also be attracted to women as most men are? If that was the case then, a transgender man having sex with a woman could not get pregnant. But, in reality, many transgender men engage in bi-sexual and high-risk activities, creating risks of unintended pregnancies if they have not fully completed transitioning. So then, is it right for them to demand that the Texas abortion laws be changed for them?
Frankly, it’s likely the Texas abortion law doesn’t even apply to them (the statute refers to “the woman”). Since the law seems to only apply to women, and many of them have legally changed their status to men while still retaining the ability to become pregnant, they are likely not affected by the statute in question.
So what are these activist transgender men and the broader LGBTQ community doing in this case? It seems they want to expose themselves to the public and force a degree of public acceptance. See it enough and you won’t be shocked any more; the obscene becomes normal with enough exposure. In short, they want the public to accept them as men who can still get pregnant and have periods.
As a woman, these efforts are offensive to me. For centuries men have had numerous advantages over women. Even today, transgender men admit that they do see privileges in their everyday life that they did not get as women.
Why then are they also demanding to retain special “rights” from the gender they were assigned by the Creator at birth? If they want to live as a transgender man they must be willing to give up those rights. Or, they need to admit that they are women (due to their ability to still get pregnant) that simply want to live and look like men.
For a sane person, none of this really makes sense except to understand this is all just another effort to rebel against the created order and further deconstruct the Judeo-Christian foundations of western civilization.
________________________________
Walt Heyer is one voice of reason who intimately understands transgender issues. For another perspective, please see his article comprehensively discussing the problems with a transgender lifestyle and other associated psychological problems.
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-15 22:29:252016-04-11 10:53:47Transgender “Men” Ask Supreme Court to Overturn Texas’ Prolife Law Because They Want the Right to Kill Babies, Too