By B. Christopher Agee. Though his son predicted the opposite during an appearance on Fox News Channel’s Fox & Friends on Tuesday morning, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump revealed later that day that he will likely skip Thursday night’s debate.
“I think ultimately he’ll be there,” Eric Trump said of his father, despite the candidate’s prior insinuations otherwise.
Since the first presidential primary debate, which, like the next one, was hosted by Fox News, Trump has nursed a very public feud with network anchor Megyn Kelly.
Earlier this week, Trump revealed he had considered boycotting the upcoming debate due to the Kelly File host’s inclusion as a moderator.
“Well, I’m making a decision,” he said at the time. “I think [Kelly is] not a professional. I don’t think she’s a very talented person. I don’t think she is a good reporter. I think they could do a lot better than that.”
Following Fox News’ release of the official prime-time debate lineup, once again set to feature Trump behind a center-stage podium, the unconventional front-runner told a crowd in Iowa that he is leaning toward skipping Thursday’s event. (Read more from “Right After Fox News Announced Debate Lineup, Trump Campaign Makes HUGE Announcement” HERE)
____________________________
Cruz Challenges Trump to One-On-One Debate
By Ben Schreckinger. Ted Cruz criticized Donald Trump’s withdrawal from Thursday night’s presidential debate and challenged the businessman to debate one-on-one in the coming days.
“Give the Republican primary voters the right to see a fair and policy-focused debate, not simply insults,” Cruz said on the Mark Levin radio show Tuesday night.
He proposed a 90-minute debate to happen before the Iowa caucuses on Monday.
Earlier on Tuesday, Trump said at a press conference here that he would not participate in Thursday’s Fox News debate because he believes co-moderator Megyn Kelly is biased against him and because he found Fox’s response to his concerns childish.
Cruz said that decision cast doubt on Trump’s ability to serve as commander in chief. “If he thinks Megyn Kelly is so scary what exactly does he think he’d do with Vladimir Putin?” asked the senator. (Read more from “Cruz Challenges Trump to One-On-One Debate” HERE)
____________________________
Trump Says He’ll Cut Deals With Pelosi, Schumer
By Sandy Fitzgerald. Donald Trump Tuesday morning said he believes he’ll be able to cut deals in the House and Senate, as he’s always had a good relationship with key Democratic lawmakers like California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, and outgoing Nevada Sen. Harry Reid.
“It’s wonderful to say you’re a maverick, and you’re going to stand up and close up the country, but you have to get somebody to go along with you,” the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program, taking a dig at his nearest rival, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. (Read more from “Trump Says He’ll Cut Deals With Pelosi, Schumer” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-26 23:54:152016-04-11 10:53:23Right After Fox News Announced Debate Lineup, Trump Campaign Makes HUGE Announcement
By Sam Levin. An associate of the armed Oregon militia occupying a wildlife refuge was shot dead on Tuesday after a shootout with federal agents that resulted in the arrest of the group’s leader Ammon Bundy and a group of protesters.
The shootout appears to have taken place on a highway in rural Oregon – away from the federal refuge the armed militia have been occupying.
FBI officials said they arrested Bundy, his brother Ryan Bundy, Bryan Cavalier, Shawna Cox and Ryan Payne on Tuesday afternoon after they stopped them along the highway.
The agency described the shootout and arrests as resulting from “an enforcement action to bring into custody a number of individuals associated with the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge” that occurred at 4.25pm PST. (Read more from “Oregon Militia Standoff: One Dead After Ammon Bundy and Others Arrested” HERE)
__________________________
Ammon Bundy, Other Protesters Arrested in Oregon; LaVoy Finicum Killed
By Evan Perez, Holly Yan and Dana Ford. Ammon Bundy, leader of the armed protesters who took over a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon, was arrested and one of his followers killed in a highway traffic stop Tuesday.
A law enforcement official told CNN that authorities pulled over two vehicles. Everyone obeyed orders to surrender except two people: LaVoy Finicum and Bundy’s brother, Ryan Bundy, the official said.
Shots were fired, but it’s not known who fired first, the official said. Ryan Bundy was injured, but Finicum died, the official added.
Finicum was among the most outspoken of the occupiers who took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns on January 2 to protest federal land policies. (Read more from “Ammon Bundy, Other Protesters Arrested in Oregon; LaVoy Finicum Killed” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-26 23:51:362016-04-11 10:53:23Oregon Militia Standoff: One Dead After Ammon Bundy and Others Arrested
It’s not the biggest player on Wall Street in terms of political money. But Goldman Sachs is financial public enemy No. 1 in this year’s election campaign.
The giant investment bank has become the symbol of the excesses of Wall Street, cited both by liberals leery of deregulated banking and conservatives opposed to big banks and “crony capitalism.” And it’s being singled out for its ties to the political establishment because of two top contenders for the presidency.
Hillary Clinton, the front-running Democratic candidate, received $675,000 in speaking fees from the firm. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a top challenger for the GOP nomination, borrowed $500,000 from the firm to help finance his Senate campaign and then failed to reveal it on one of his legally mandated disclosure forms. Also, his wife, Heidi, is a managing director at the firm in Houston, although she is on leave.
Their rivals drive home the connections to angry, anti-establishment voters.
“I don’t take money from big banks. I don’t get personal speaking fees from Goldman Sachs,” Sen. Bernie Sanders said in a recent debate with Clinton. (Read more from “Goldman Sachs Is in the Eye of the Campaign Storm” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-26 23:51:002016-04-11 10:53:24Goldman Sachs Is in the Eye of the Campaign Storm
The Courts are at it again. And with Republicans planning to confirm another Obama judge as their first vote of the week, it’s time for conservatives to pay attention to the judiciary.
If you thought the last term at the Supreme Court was just an anomaly, think again. The court system is irremediably broken, and that includes the majority of lower courts as well as the majority of judges on the Supreme Court.
Over the past few weeks, we’ve been observing a pattern of cases in which the high court refuses to overturn lower court decisions that struck down state laws that were clearly constitutional, all the while refusing to reverse lower court decisions that upheld lawlessness.
For example, while the courts had no problem overturning state marriage laws, they have upheld state gun laws that are clearly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has refused to take up any of these appeals, even though the lower courts are violating the McDonald decision. The court agreed to take Obama’s appeal to possibly overturn the lower court decision placing an injunction on the DAPA amnesty. At the same time, the court denied the appeal from Sheriff Arpaio to reverse the lower court decision upholding the DACA amnesty. Last week, the court refused to grant cert to those representing power plants languishing from Obama’s carbon rules that clearly violate congressional statutes.
The general theme is that what is in the Constitution is regarded as unconstitutional and what’s not in it is enshrined into the document by judicial action.
Yesterday’s announcements from the court were no different. On the same day the court struck down state sentencing laws regarding juveniles convicted of murder, it refused to hear an appeal from North Dakota after a lower court struck down its abortion law.
First, the sentencing decision. In Montgomery v. Louisiana, the court retroactively applied the Miller v. Alabama decision, which struck down most state laws sentencing juveniles to life in prison without parole. In 2012, Justice Kagan, writing for the majority opinion in Miller, found that the Eighth Amendment precludes states from issuing such sentences to juvenile murderers under most circumstances. Today’s decision in Montgomery, authored by Justice Kennedy, applied this decision retroactively to as many as 2,500 murderers serving life in prison without parole for murders committed as juveniles. Chief Justice Roberts joined with the five liberals, while Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented.
As Justice Thomas has said before, “the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause was originally understood as prohibiting torturous methods of punishment—specifically methods akin to those that had been considered cruel and unusual at the time the Bill of Rights.” Yet, once again, the court rules that the Constitution as adopted is unconstitutional. Now the federal courts can engage in retroactive jail break and foray into an area of law over which they clearly have no authority. And again, I will note that this same court stands by idly as states violate the plain meaning of the Second Amendment with prohibitions on concealed and open carry.
As Scalia concluded in his dissent:
[I]n Godfather fashion, the majority makes state legislatures an offer they can’t refuse: Avoid all the utterly impossible nonsense we have prescribed by simply ‘permitting juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole.’
Both Thomas and Scalia noted that the court created an entirely new constitutional right to retroactively overturn convictions that were completely constitutional at the time they were passed. Hence, with the ever-evolving standards of the legal profession’s “Constitution,” they can order judicial jailbreak at any time for any reason.
Meanwhile, as the high court overturned the Louisiana State Supreme Court and the state legislature on a retroactive creation of a newly concocted constitutional right, the court refused to hear a petition from North Dakota after a federal district court blocked the state’s six-week ban on abortion. Sadly, this is not surprising because SCOTUS refused to grant cert to Arizona after the Ninth Circuit struck down its 20-week abortion ban in 2014.
Here we are in the year 2016 and the courts have the final say on all important societal questions—from marriage and abortion to immigration and basic criminal justice laws. Many Republicans are excited by the degree of GOP control of state governments, but unless we rein in the courts and strip them of jurisdiction over political questions, they will void out the most basic laws, even those put in place at the founding of our union and the ratification of the 14th Amendment. At the same time, the courts will carelessly uphold blatantly unconstitutional laws passed by blue state governments.
If conservatives are fortunate enough to win back the White House in 2016, the most important looming question is what to do with the courts; for, if the courts are allowed to rewrite our Constitution and impel societal transformation without representation, elections will be rendered moot. (For more from the author of “SCOTUS Upholds Abortion, Strikes Down Juvenile Sentencing” please click HERE)
By Maggie Haberman. Joe Arpaio, the hard-line anti-immigration sheriff from Maricopa County, Ariz., will appear with Donald J. Trump in Iowa on Tuesday and endorse his candidacy, according to Mr. Trump’s campaign.
Mr. Arpaio, who espouses some of the Republican Party’s most conservative views about undocumented immigrants, will appear with Mr. Trump in Marshalltown, a month after appearing with Mr. Trump in Arizona. Mr. Trump has made combating illegal immigration a staple of his candidacy, including a proposal to build a wall at the southern border.
“I have great respect for Sheriff Arpaio,” Mr. Trump said in a statement. “We must restore law and order and respect the men and women of our police forces. I thank him for his support of my policies and candidacy for president.”
In a statement released by the campaign, Mr. Arapaio said: “Donald Trump is a leader. He produces results and is ready to get tough in order to protect American jobs and families. I have fought on the front lines to prevent illegal immigration. and I know Donald Trump will stand with me and countless Americans to secure our border. I am proud to support him as the best candidate for president of the United States of America.” (Read more from “Trump Just Landed Another Huge Endorsement” HERE)
__________________________
Republican Rivals Attack Trump in Attempt to Villainize Him
By Jonathan Swan. Republicans are testing out new lines of attack on Donald Trump meant to portray him as a ruthless dealmaker who sought to make money at any cost — even if he hurt working people in the process.
The attacks are meant to go after one of Trump’s greatest strengths: that he is a consummate business dealmaker who can bring those skills to the White House and better America’s position with the rest of the world.
Ted Cruz’s campaign has launched an ad that accused Trump of colluding with “Atlantic City insiders to bulldoze the home of an elderly widow for a limousine parking lot at his casino.” The elderly woman is shown on screen saying of Trump, “He doesn’t have no heart, that man.”
Team Cruz, which is fighting for supremacy with Trump in the Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses, makes no apologies for the hit.
“The idea is that eminent domain is for the public good and he attempted to use it for personal gain,” said Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler, in a telephone interview with The Hill. “It gives people the sense that, when [Trump] talks about the art of the deal … somebody’s going to get screwed. (Read more from “Republican Rivals Attack Trump in Attempt to Villainize Him” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-26 23:48:502016-04-11 10:53:24Trump Just Landed Another Huge Endorsement
The FBI “temporarily” halted efforts to process denial appeals on background checks, thereby leaving up to “7,100” Americans in limbo as to whether the federal government will allow them to buy a gun.
According to USA Today, FBI Assistant Director Stephen Morris said the halt in processing appeals, which went into effect on January 20, became necessary because the number of Americans buying guns has overwhelmed FBI background check examiners.
But the NRA-ILA says halting appeals on background checks is equivalent to halting 7,100 Americans’ rights to due process. They suggest the halt itself proves how little gun control groups really understand what actually goes into a background check for a gun purchase . . .
It is demonstrable that delays for gun purchases resulting from this halt are the inevitable fruit of trading freedom for false security in 1998, which is when the Clinton administration inserted government between the American people and the exercise of Second Amendment rights via background checks. (Read more from “FBI Declares Arbitrary Halt to Background Check Appeals” HERE)
“If he’ll cheat on her, he’ll cheat on you,” is what Southern mothers tell their daughters, warning them that stealing away a woman’s husband isn’t just gravely immoral. It also means you’re as dumb as a box of rocks. A man who proves that he’s willing to be unfaithful this time is pretty much promising you that he’ll be unfaithful next time, when you’re the victim. The only safe response to a man like this is Carrie Underwood’s: “The next time he cheats/it won’t be on me.”
And that’s what we’d like pro-life Americans to think about as they consider Donald Trump. Not Mr. Trump’s personal life [warning: graphic content] — the fact that he abandoned one aging wife (Ivana) to take up with a younger woman (Marla), then dumped her just shy of the date when their pre-nup would have expired, chivalrously breaking her the news by leaking it to a newspaper, and leaving a copy of the paper on her bed. No, that’s strictly personal stuff, and there’s no way we can learn about a man’s promise-keeping habits from irrelevant data like that. Instead, let’s think about Trump’s stated, public record on life issues, and what it means.
But first please walk on a little imaginative journey with us. Pretend, for just a second, that the pro-life movement acted as an effective pressure group, like the gun lobby. Imagine if in addition to its spiritual uplift mission, the pro-life movement were disciplined, rigorous and political. This would make sense on the face of it, since its stated goal is to change the laws of this country.
Yes, we do hope to change Americans’ hearts, and restore the dignity of sex, and build up a wholesome culture that sees life as meaningful and beautiful. But that is really a job for the churches, one which too many good-hearted people have piled onto the pro-life movement because their churches aren’t bothering with it. That sad fact makes it all too easy to lose our focus on the movement’s stated goal, which is to legally protect a whole class of abandoned Americans from lethal violence. Period. If that has the happy side effects of strengthening marriage, curing the “hook-up” culture, increasing respect for women, and helping souls to accept Jesus as Lord — and we think it will — then all the better.
But first the laws must change. There is no substitute. If we had never outlawed slavery, you can count on it people would own some. If segregation in restaurants had never been outlawed, it would still prevail in many places. The law is a great teacher. It tells citizens what is really, really important — important enough that if you flout the law, there are people in uniform who will come to your door. We wouldn’t settle for a nation that had changed its heart, but not its laws, on slavery or segregation, and we can’t when it comes to abortion.
The Margaret Sanger Argument Against Abortion
If you were pro-life in the same way that the head of the NRA is pro-gun rights, would you settle for a candidate who had spent most of his life as a radical anti-gun advocate, supporting the seizure of all private weapons? Well, Donald Trump favored abortion on demand until … some point after he decided to run for president. In 1999, he expressed support even for partial birth abortion, the destruction of near-newborns who could survive outside the womb. By 2011, Trump claimed to be pro-life, recalling that he knew “a friend had a child who they were going to abort, and now they have it, and the child is incredible.” In a GOP debate, Trump upped the ante, calling that lucky child a “superstar.” Jamie Weinstein of The Daily Caller, as a good journalist, asked Trump the obvious question:
Would Trump have changed his view on abortion if the child had become a total loser?
“I’ve never thought of it,” Trump said in our interview. “That’s an interesting question. I’ve never thought of it. Probably not, but I’ve never thought of it.”
Margaret Sanger couldn’t have said it any better. In fact, Trump’s view echoes her slogan: “More children from the fit, fewer from the unfit.” He would realize that if he ever took the time to think about it, which he admits he has not. That’s how important the deaths of a million American pre-born children each year are to Donald Trump: unworthy of two consecutive, logical thoughts, bridged by an inference. Would the NRA settle for this kind of callous “conversion” from a lifelong gun-grabber? Why should pro-lifers?
Perhaps it’s not surprising that when every pro-lifer in America was reeling from the gruesome footage obtained by journalistic hero David Daleiden, which proved that Planned Parenthood doesn’t just kill unborn babies, but cuts them up for parts, Donald Trump was one of the few Republicans to openly say that the government should go on funding that ghoulish group. He argued that the taxpayer should pay for all the non-abortion stuff (like imaginary mammograms) that Planned Parenthood is supposed to do — a distinction which he understands is meaningless. If your son is a heroin addict, you can’t make a deal with him that you will pay all his other bills, but will not pay for his drugs. Of course, you’re just freeing up his other money for … buying drugs! A man who has navigated four bankruptcies unscathed, while his investors lost tens of millions, surely understands basic accounting better than that.
We all know the way that abortion was legalized for all nine months, for any reason, in 50 states, against the wishes of voters — by unelected judges. In the same way, same-sex marriage and countless other evils have been foisted on us, and carved in stone out of voters’ reach. Trump knows this too. He knows that vast power has been seized from the citizens of this country by a cabal of judges, the presidents who appoint them, and the senators who confirm them.
This travesty of democracy which perverts and degrades our Constitution is one of the main complaints of the entire conservative movement — including immigration restrictionists, who note that “birthright citizenship” was only applied to illegal immigrants by virtue of a crackpot Supreme Court decision made in 1898. The greatest disappointment to social conservatives of three Republican presidents has been their mixed record of choosing Supreme Court appointees. Notice that Democratic presidents never, never disappoint the abortion lobby. Why do you think that is? Because they wouldn’t get away with it. Republican candidates know that they can, so they do. Since up to four Supreme Court seats might become vacant in the next presidential term, this issue matters more than ever, and more than most. The next four (or eight) years of presidential Court appointments could change America radically, revoking gun rights and gutting the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion.
So you’d think that the fervent pro-life convert Donald Trump would be keenly attuned to the need for appointing solid Constitutionalists to federal courts, especially the Supreme Court. But you would be wrong. When asked about this issue, Trump didn’t offer some mealy-mouthed speech about avoiding “litmus tests,” as too many weak pro-life politicians do. No, he didn’t hint with a wink that he might betray us. He outright promised to. Trump cited as the kind of judge he’d appoint to the Court his left-wing, judicial activist sister, who in the Trump tradition supports partial birth abortion. Some were tempted to write this statement off, even excuse it, as a mere example of charming, roguish nepotism. Really? Would Wayne LaPierre of the NRA settle for such an excuse? So why should we?
Lately, it seems that someone who knows the pro-life movement has gotten to Mr. Trump, and helped him to hire a ghostwriter. We’re glad that writer found work, but it’s hard to take seriously an op-ed like Trump’s recent piece in the Washington Examiner, which flies in the face not only of what he was saying in recent years, but in recent months. Given what he has said over many years, and in unguarded moments when there was no ghostwriter at hand, we must take Trump’s pro-life promises no more seriously than he took his business debts, or “till death do us part.”
If pro-lifers accept at face value Donald Trump’s half-hearted, fingers-crossed, nod-and-a-wink conversion, then they really are as clueless as Donald Trump thinks all Republican voters are. He boasted just this weekend that he “could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” If voters choose such a man as the legal champion of innocent unborn life, then they deserve to be betrayed. But those unborn babies don’t.
Or maybe some “pro-lifers” just don’t care. They are so concerned with winning, with sidling up to the big dog, with walling off the border or stopping goods from China, that a fig leaf’s enough for them. Ann Coulter, with her famous good taste, responded to Trump’s vague immigration plan by Tweeting:
Pro-lifers who share her priorities will nod at Trump’s empty promises, and pretend that they believe them. Then they’ll bat their eyes, sign the prenup, and give The Donald what he wants.’ (For more from the author of “Will Pro-Lifers for Trump Get Dumped — Like Ivana and Marla?” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-26 23:47:332016-04-11 10:53:24Will Pro-Lifers for Trump Get Dumped — Like Ivana and Marla?
Identical Pastor Protection Acts introduced this legislative session by Soldotna Sen. Peter Micciche (SB120) and Healy Rep. Dave Talerico (HB236) would do the following three things generally covered by the First Amendment but not spelled out in statute:
Affirm the rights of clergy, rabbis and religious congregations to decline participation in same-sex marriages
Ensure that neither clergy nor religious congregations must provide services or accommodation for same-sex marriages
Protect clergy and religious congregations from any criminal or civil liability for refusing to perform or offer services or accommodations for same-sex marriages
A similar bill was signed into law last June in Texas, has passed the House in Florida and is moving toward Governor desks in Georgia, Tennessee and other states.
Why this bill? It specifies religious freedom rights implied, but not spelled out, in current statute. Today’s legal and cultural environment is absolutely different than in times past. Additional protections are justified and should be welcomed. Even Texas Equality, an LGBT advocacy group, supported the Pastor Protection Act in that state.
Is this bill necessary? Definitely. First Amendment Freedoms are under attack. LGBT advocates have been successful in framing their argument as discrimination. Religious freedom and sexual freedom are pitted against each other on many levels in today’s culture. This law levels the playing field to a certain degree.
Examples abound as to why this bill is justified:
Anchorage Assembly members recently forced a sexual orientation, gender identity, non-discrimination ordinance upon residents that prevents faith-based schools, churches and other religious organizations from making their own hiring decisions.
Officials in Idaho threatened to punish a senior citizen couple – both ordained pastors – if they declined to officiate same-sex ceremonies.
A proposed national Equality Act seeks to “authoritatively set the morals of a community.” This makes the state the arbitrator of morality, not a person’s conscience.
The ACLU recently decided to withdraw its support from religious freedom laws to support ‘same-sex’ marriage.
The Cincinnati City Council recently passed an ordinance banning mental health professionals (including pastors who are licensed) from counseling people experiencing unwanted, same-sex attraction. A pastor reports threats of fines of up to $73,000 per year for using Scripture to counsel youth.
In other countries, LGBT pressures reveal a disturbing erosion of freedom of speech, association, and religion.
A gay couple in the UK sued the Church of England to force the church to perform a same-sex wedding less than two weeks after England passed its gay ‘marriage’ bill.
Canadian Dawn Stefanowicz is one of six adult children of gay parents who filed an amicus brief with US Supreme Court prior to the Obergefell decision. She warns of the sharp decline in freedoms since same-sex marriage was federally mandated in Canada in 2005. Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals can prosecute against discriminatory “hate speech”- written or spoken. The government pays all the plaintiff’s legal fees, but does not reimburse the defendant even if found innocent.
SB120 and HB236 are both sensible measures needed now to keep Alaska pluralistic. Allowing everyone to live their lives consistent with their deeply held convictions is something we should all get behind.
For the second time in four months, researchers have reported autopsy results that suggest Alzheimer’s disease might occasionally be transmitted to people during certain medical treatments — although scientists say that neither set of findings is conclusive.
The latest autopsies, described in the Swiss Medical Weekly on [the] 26th [of] January, were conducted on the brains of seven people who died of the rare, brain-wasting Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease (CJD). Decades before their deaths, the individuals had all received surgical grafts of dura mater — the membrane that covers the brain and spinal cord. These grafts had been prepared from human cadavers and were contaminated with the prion protein that causes CJD.
But in addition to the damage caused by the prions, five of the brains displayed some of the pathological signs that are associated with Alzheimer’s disease, researchers from Switzerland and Austria report. Plaques formed from amyloid-β protein were discovered in the grey matter and blood vessels. The individuals, aged between 28 and 63, were unusually young to have developed such plaques. A set of 21 controls, who had not had surgical grafts of dura mater but died of sporadic CJD at similar ages, did not have this amyloid signature.
Transplant trouble
According to the authors, it is possible that the transplanted dura mater was contaminated with small ‘seeds’ of amyloid-β protein — which some scientists think could be a trigger for Alzheimer’s — along with the prion protein that gave the recipients CJD. (Read more from “Is Alzheimer’s Transmittable?” HERE)
“A revolution,” Wikipedia says, “is a fundamental change in political power or organizational structures that take place in a relatively short period of time when the population rises up in revolt against the current authorities.”
In Europe and America, revolutions are brewing. They are peaceful and democratic, but they are going to send the elites home that are running our nations into the ground.
I have just reread Ronald Reagan’s 1982 Westminster speech, in which he predicted that freedom and democracy would soon send the communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe and Russia to “the ash heap of history.”
Reagan spoke of “Poland’s struggle to be Poland.” And today, three decades later, history is about to repeat itself in the United States and in several West European countries. Of course, I am not comparing our current political elite with the Communist dictatorships with their prison cells for dissidents, but the fight of a nation to be itself, remain itself and defend its identity, that fight is also being waged today.
We are witnessing America’s struggle to be America, and the struggle of several European nations, among them the Netherlands, Britain, France, Germany and many others to preserve their identity and liberty, to remain the Netherlands, Britain, France, Germany. Everywhere, patriots are on the march. We are living the Patriot Spring. (Read more from “Geert Wilders: The Patriot Spring” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-26 23:45:042016-04-11 10:53:25Geert Wilders: The Patriot Spring
