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:
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 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)
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
Two former U.S. attorneys said the FBI will likely reach a determination in the next few months in its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server, and based on publicly available evidence said the bureau could have a strong criminal case.
“I expect the FBI to conclude the investigation within 60 to 90 days and make a recommendation to the Justice Department, and I believe they will recommend a series of charges involving the classified information,” said Joseph DiGenova, who was U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia during the Reagan administration.
The FBI has been investigating whether classified information was mishandled over Clinton’s private email server since at least August. The probe reportedly has expanded to include contracts awarded by the State Department in relation to Clinton Foundation donors.
“These classified information cases are relatively simple cases to get into, and the FBI knows that what the Clinton people did with regard to her server was a clear violation of federal criminal law,” DiGenova added. “It is the negligent handling of classified information, which is prohibited by statute, and this is a gross example of it, and it dwarfs the information in the [David] Petraeus case.”
Matthew Whitaker, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa under President George W. Bush, said there is growing public evidence that laws were broken. (Read more from “Former U.S. Attorneys Predict Criminal Charges in FBI’s Probe of Clinton Server” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-15 22:28:012016-04-11 10:53:47Former U.S. Attorneys Predict Criminal Charges in FBI’s Probe of Clinton Server
It is patently evident that the fate of the nation lies solely in the hands of the American people. Both political parties have serious flaws.
The Democrats have become the party of Socialists and, thus, offer nothing for the future of America except dependence on government which ultimately and historically leads to iron-fisted control of the people. The get-free-stuff crowd eventually comes to the harsh reality that under Socialism the hand-outs become more and more meager as the government determines what, when and how much. The heavy burden of Socialism eventually takes its toll. Over time, it spurs a desire for freedom, self-determination and free-market capitalism as it again beats in the melancholy hearts of the down-trodden who were so eager to give up their freedom and independence. That is the future offered by the Democrat Party.
The Republican Party, by contrast, touts Constitutionally based freedoms and a free-market where the people are not constrained by a heavy-handed government, but are driven by their own energies and desires to personally succeed and grow a nation with liberty at its core. That is the future that may still be offered by the Republican Party — if it does not let its old-establishment leaders get in the way. The greater the distance by the GOPe from the nation’s founding values and ideals, the greater the rebellion from the base that is refusing to be pushed around.
The cold reality of the extent of the divide within the party came when it was reported by the Associated Press that GOP establishment Presidential Candidate Jeb Bush says that he finally “got it” in regard to the angry mood of the American people. The U.S. News & World Reports’ headline reads, “Bush tells AP he misjudged intensity of anger among GOP voters before his White House campaign.” Though his campaign is most associated with the old-party elites, Bush is not alone in that potentially terminal disconnect.
The old dogs of Capitol Hill, too long cushy in their jobs, now fear the new bloods that look to turn them out into the streets. The GOP establishment (GPOe) has been amply and repeatedly warned about neglecting the concerns of its constituency.
An example of such a warning is an article I wrote, “The Spine of the GOP,” on May 3, 2011, citing what amounted to years of desertion by the GOP establishment. The initial outsiders became the conservative and moderate voters within the party. Governor Bush confirmed what middle America has long known, elitist Republicans — who also hold disdain for so-called outsider Republican candidates in the race of for the Presidency — had become increasingly detached. They were more immersed in retaining power and control than in serving the people.
Consider that the following article was written as a warning to the GOP establishment five years ago. With some ironic déjà vu, note that Donald Trump was also in the aim and was the bane of the GPOe back then. The mood of the electorate was souring with the American people already fed-up with promises not kept by elected officials.
“The Spine of the GOP,” by Sharon Sebastian, May 3, 2011 —
“Myopically, Republicans are asking themselves – why are voters swooning over Trump?
Republican voters began feeling disenfranchised in 2005-2006 when core conservative principles were discarded by a GOP in search of the independent and liberal vote. The outcry of being constituents without representation rang true in conservative circles. Unwarranted spending sprees and unprotected borders had dire consequences for the GOP in 2008 as liberals swept the vote. Once burned, voters today warn that a GOP that compromises values, rights and freedoms could mean the death knell of the party. In 2010, after two harried years of Barack Obama, voters put the GOP on life-support, which opened the door for a fragile recovery – a recovery that relies on spending cuts, defunding Obamacare, restraints on the EPA and an end to onerous backdoor, economy-killing government regulations. The Republican Party has prospects for new life – a half-life at best – until it proves itself to be a party of leadership in defense of the Constitution, adherence to fiscal responsibility and Americans’ God-given rights and liberties.
On such unsteady ground, GOP candidates fear Donald Trump. Consensus is that the appeal of Trump is his bluntness, his unreserved frankness about the dire condition of the country and who put us there. Trump wisely acquiesced that if his joining the race as an Independent would assure re-election of Barack Obama, then he would not do it. Trump says his focus is to make certain that Obama does not see another four years in office. Trump appears to have no interest in being eviscerated by the American people as the historical spoiler who helped push the nation into its demise by aiding, inadvertently or not, in the re-election of Barack Obama.
Politicians need to know that the American people are in no mood. If politicians are sitting in Congress taking up space and enjoying top of the line benefits, free gas, and a free ride at the expense of American families, then voters are done with you. If a politician is willing through compromise to sell-out this nation’s future, voters are done with you. If a politician abuses and refuses to listen to constituents’ concerns whether at town halls or on phone calls, they are done with you. And, if politicians disregard a revival of Constitutional principles, the balancing of the budget, the guidance of the founding faith and the immeasurable sacrifice and value of our men and women in the military, voters are done with you.
The American voter is developing a fine sense of detecting political double-speak versus earnest representatives who say what they mean and mean what they say. To restore this nation, politicians with a spine, who will not back down on issues of major consequence, must become America’s future leaders. Those who leech off of this nation, as it struggles for survival, are the antithesis of our founding fathers and have become the enemy within. Though a few slipped through during the last election, serial compromisers need not apply. Whether in office or running for office, it will not be wise to test the ire of the American voter with old style GOP give-away-the-farm politics as usual.”
So, where does the nation stand five years later? That Barack Obama is the root cause of and, with determination, accelerated the failing of our nation at home and abroad is now part of history. The final chapter of his legacy is to be written in 2016 with more threats of unconstitutional executive orders. Fully aware of Obama’s goal to downgrade America under the guise of “transformation”, the established, old-guard Republicans did little to abate his executive lawlessness, and indeed aided and abetted in some cases. Such cooperation and compromise with Obama’s agenda and the unprecedented empowerment of his presidency by Congress assigns cause for America’s demise to both sides of the aisle. It bears repeating. Those in Congress that took a stand against the tide of a progressively socialistic and weakened America — those politicians with a spine who will not back down on issues of major consequence — must become America’s future leaders.
Reminiscent of the quote from the late baseball manager Yogi Berra, the warning in the article posted five years ago to the GOPe, is today “like déjà vu all over again.” That Jeb Bush just now realizes that he “misjudged the intensity of the anger of the GOP voter” confirms that which the base of the party was already sorely aware. His statement gives credence that in regard to the established Republican elites, the Constitutionally-grounded, traditional voice in the GOP was being ignored. Today, that voice is making itself heard. They refuse to remain a constituency without representation. Beyond the halls of Congress and the campaign trail, Americans will have the final say. Voting to preserve our nation is the final message that must be delivered in what is, unquestionably, a struggle for America’s future. That is the most critical warning of all. (For more from the author of “Bush Proves GOPe Stunningly Tone Deaf” please click HERE)
___________________________
Sharon Sebastian, author of the book, “AGING: WARNING– Navigating Life’s Medical, Mental & Financial Minefields,” is a columnist, commentator, and contributor in print and on nationwide broadcasts on topics ranging from healthcare, culture, religion, and politics to domestic and global policy. Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally.
By B. Christopher Agee. Thursday’s GOP economy-focused presidential primary debate, hosted by the Fox Business Network, sought to get Sen. Ted Cruz’s take on Barack Obama’s final State of the Union address. Specifically, moderator Maria Bartiromo wanted to know what differences Cruz had with the optimistic economic picture Obama painted during Tuesday’s speech.
Saving his direct answer for the latter portion of his response, however, Cruz used the opportunity to address a pressing issue Obama’s address completely ignored.
“Today,” he said, “many of us picked up our newspapers and we were horrified to see the sight of 10 American sailors on their knees with their hands on their heads.”
Referring to the ships seized by Iranian forces earlier this week, Cruz lamented that Obama “didn’t so much as mention” their plight during his speech even as nine men and one woman remained in custody. He also noted that the act came just days before a deal is set to go into effect that would lift sanctions with Iran, releasing more than $100 billion.
Though the situation is “heartbreaking,” Cruz noted that “the good news is the next commander in chief is standing on this stage.”
If he is successful in his White House bid, the Texas legislator gave his word that “no serviceman or service woman will be forced to be on their knees.” (Read more from “Watch: Cruz Kicks off Debate With Massive Shot at Obama, Makes Powerful Vow to America” HERE)
_______________________________________
Trump’s Lead Over Cruz Doubles in Latest Poll
By Mark Murray. Donald Trump has more than doubled his national lead in the Republican presidential race ahead of Thursday night’s GOP debate here, according to the results from a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Trump is the first choice of 33 percent of national Republican primary voters – his highest percentage in the poll. He’s followed by Ted Cruz at 20 percent, Marco Rubio at 13 percent and Ben Carson at 12 percent. Chris Christie and Jeb Bush are tied at five percent. No other Republican presidential candidate gets more than 3 percent.
Trump’s 13-point lead over Cruz is an increase from last month, when he held a five-point advantage over the Texas senator, 27 percent to 22 percent. (Read more from this story HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-15 00:20:062016-04-11 10:53:48Watch: Cruz Kicks off Debate With Massive Shot at Obama; Trump Excels, Doubles Lead
Shortly before a closed-door “Huckabee Huddle” with local pastors, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee weighed in on the question of the week. Yes: He too had questions about whether Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), born in Canada to a Cuban father and American mother, was eligible for the presidency. It certainly seemed to pose a problem.
“When it first surfaced, I didn’t think it did,” Huckabee said. “But after now reading a number of very thoughtful pieces by constitutional experts, I think it should give everybody a little concern. It’s an issue that’s got to be dealt with. There was one article from Lawrence Tribe, and there was another from a professor who wrote in The Washington Post, and it was very compelling argument. It was not a political argument. This person gave very serious reasons as to why this was a serious question.”
In a few words, Huckabee became at least the fourth rival to Cruz to ask whether his eligibility could be questioned. Carly Fiorina cited “legal scholars” who had judged the issue “legitimate.” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who had once brushed off the question, suddenly called it a potential problem. And then there was Donald Trump, whose predictable obsession with the topic seemed to finally end the mutual admiration pact between Cruz and himself.
Listen to Constitutional Law Attorney KrissAnne Hall discuss the eligibility issue at 18:14:
That would have been bad enough, had Republicans as eminent as RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Gov. Terry Branstad (R-Iowa) refused to simply call Cruz eligible, or call the question ridiculous. Today, as Cruz campaigns in South Carolina, his supporters see the entire eligibility debate as an obvious bad faith ploy. (Read more from “Priebus, Fiorina, Paul and Now Huckabee Raise the Eligibility Question” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-15 00:19:002016-04-11 10:53:48Priebus, Trump, Fiorina, Paul and Now Huckabee Keep Eligibility Question Alive
Six Democrats in Georgia’s state House of Representatives unveiled a bill on Jan. 11 that would “require seizure” of “certain weaponry and ammunition” that is deemed as contraband, effectively banning “assault weapons” and “large-capacity magazines.”
HB 731, which is sponsored by Mary Margaret Oliver, Carolyn Hugley, Pat Gardiner, Stacey Abrams, Dar’shun Kendrick and Dee Dawkins-Haigler, would amend current law to “prohibit the possession, sale, transport, distribution or use of certain assault weapons, large capacity magazines, armor-piercing bullets, and incendiary .50 caliber bullets.”
The text of the bill goes on to say that certain weapons would be required to be seized by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, with increased penalties for use and possession of machine guns, among other related regulations.
Photo Credit: The Blaze
Information posted to sponsor Oliver’s website clearly notes that HB 731, which was introduced on the first day of the 2016 session, would “ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.” (Read more from “Read the Gun ‘Seizure’ Bill Introduced by Democrats That Will Likely Send a Chill Down the Spines of Georgia Gun Owners” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-01-15 00:18:332016-04-11 10:53:48Read the Gun ‘Seizure’ Bill Introduced by Democrats That Will Likely Send a Chill Down the Spines of Georgia Gun Owners
