"CARRY ON, MY COUNTRY"

2012 TED CRUZ INTERVIEW

2012 TED CRUZ INTERVIEW
Interviewer:
“What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”
Ted Cruz:
“Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

CITIZEN TED: WHY TED CRUZ LIED ABOUT HIS MOTHER


EXCLUSIVE


THE LIES:

[From: “A Time for Truth: Reigniting the Promise of America” – June 30, 2015 by Ted Cruz]


Ted Cruz said his mother Eleanor’s first son Michael Wilson was born (and later died) in 1965 while she was married to her first husband Alan Wilson.

Ted Cruz said:  “After meeting each other at Geocom in New Orleans, my parents had moved to Canada…”


THE TRUTH:

Michael Wilson was not the son of Alan Wilson—he and Eleanor divorced in 1963—and the baby was born out of wedlock in 1966.

Eleanor moved from England to Canada in December, 1967


THE REASON FOR THE LIES:
 
Ted Cruz was born out of wedlock in 1970
AND
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother:
A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 309(c) of the INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and if the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth. The U.S. citizen mother must be the genetic or the gestational mother and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.

CRUZ FAMILY TIMELINE


            Nov 23, 1934       TED CRUZ’s MOTHER BORN in Delaware, U.S. (Eleanor Darragh)

  1956       Graduated from Rice University, Texas

                          1956       Married Alan Wilson

                          1960       Moved to London with husband Alan Wilson

                          1963       Divorced from Alan Wilson

                          1966       Birth/death of Michael Wilson (not related to former husband Alan Wilson)

A McClatchy newspaper review by Maria Recio of the 2015 book “A Time for Truth: Reigniting the Miracle of America” states "Cruz reveals that his mother, Eleanor, had a child, a son named Michael, during her first marriage, who died when he was a baby."  Another McClatchy article states: "Although Cruz in his book cites 1965 for Michael Wilson’s birth and death.  London records obtained by McClatchy show that a Michael Wilson was born and died in 1966 and was buried in Kensal Green Cemetery in Kensington, a London neighborhood."

              July 26, 1967      Selective Service registration of Rafael Bienvenido Cruz (NEW ORLEANS, LA): (Manager of Computer Applications at Geophysics & Computer Services Inc.)

        December, 1967       Moved to Canada (Eleanor Darragh Wilson)

   Jan 1968–Feb 1969       Eleanor meets and marries Rafael Cruz within 14 months of moving to Canada?
No marriage certificate has ever been produced anywhere and “Marriage   Abroad” has many strict requirements:

                        1969      “In 1969, at his new oil company job, he met his second wife, Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson”       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Bienvenido_Cruz#Personal_life

             March, 1970       Ted Cruz is conceived. [CORRECTED: 1969 changed to 1970]

  December 22, 1970       TED CRUZ BORN IN CANADA
  December 31, 1970        Birth registered at Calgary [70-08-032264]

Paul R. Hollrah, retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College, explains that "According to the U.S. State Department, Bureau of Consular Affairs, the U.S. citizen parent(s) of a child born on foreign soil must obtain a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA, Form FS-240) at some time prior to the child’s eighteenth birthday if the parent desires to pass on their U.S. citizenship to their offspring" and then wonders:  "So the question arises, did Ted Cruz’s parents assemble all the necessary documents and then drive or fly to the office of the U.S. Consulate General in Montreal, a distance of 2,196 miles? Or did they simply rely on the fact that his mother was a U.S. citizen, assuming that her U.S. citizenship would be automatically passed on to her son?” All applicants will need to provide the following forms and documents:  11 STEPS TO PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

                       1973        Rafael Bienvenido Cruz becomes a Canadian citizen. 
           1973        Rafael Bienvenido Cruz moves back to the United States alone!

                       1974        Rafael Bienvenido Cruz returns to Canada, takes Eleanor and Ted to the U.S.
“Parents of a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen or citizens should apply for a CRBA and/or a U.S. passport for the child as soon as possible. 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.”

 November 6, 1986      IRCA Signed into law by Ronald Reagan, November 6, 1986 (Immigration Reform and Control Act aka Simpson–Mazzoli Act)
                       1986      Ted Cruz gets a passport for the first time for an alleged high school trip to England.

 2005       Rafael Bienvenido Cruz renounces his Canadian citizenship when he applies for--and becomes--a U.S. Naturalized citizen.

           May 14, 2014      TED CRUZ RENOUNCES CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP

          June 30, 2015      “A Time for Truth: Reigniting the Miracle of America” released.


FINAL NOTES:


Like Barack Hussein Obama, Cruz himself has failed to release the following documents:



2012 INTERVIEW:
Interviewer:
“What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”
Ted Cruz:
“Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”



Extremely interesting legally with many amazing references throughout…but Cruz’s defense of Santeria reminds me why John Jay wrote that letter to George Washington!!! A MUST READ!!!!!



THE END


--by Linda Starr
APRIL, 2016

Monday, April 11, 2016

TAXES: LIKE DEATH BY A THOUSAND PAPER CUTS

Excerpt from "A List Of 97 Taxes Americans Pay Every Year"
#1 Air Transportation Taxes (just look at how much you were charged the last time you flew)
#2 Biodiesel Fuel Taxes
#3 Building Permit Taxes
#4 Business Registration Fees
#5 Capital Gains Taxes
#6 Cigarette Taxes
#7 Court Fines (indirect taxes)
#8 Disposal Fees
#9 Dog License Taxes
#10 Drivers License Fees (another form of taxation)
#11 Employer Health Insurance Mandate Tax
#12 Employer Medicare Taxes
#13 Employer Social Security Taxes
#14 Environmental Fees
#15 Estate Taxes
#16 Excise Taxes On Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans
#17 Federal Corporate Taxes
#18 Federal Income Taxes
#19 Federal Unemployment Taxes
#20 Fishing License Taxes
#21 Flush Taxes (yes, this actually exists in some areas)
#22 Food And Beverage License Fees
#23 Franchise Business Taxes
#24 Garbage Taxes
#25 Gasoline Taxes
#26 Gift Taxes
#27 Gun Ownership Permits
#28 Hazardous Material Disposal Fees
#29 Highway Access Fees
#30 Hotel Taxes (these are becoming quite large in some areas)
#31 Hunting License Taxes
#32 Import Taxes
#33 Individual Health Insurance Mandate Taxes
#34 Inheritance Taxes
#35 Insect Control Hazardous Materials Licenses
#36 Inspection Fees
#37 Insurance Premium Taxes
#38 Interstate User Diesel Fuel Taxes
#39 Inventory Taxes
#40 IRA Early Withdrawal Taxes
#41 IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
#42 IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
#43 Library Taxes
#44 License Plate Fees
#45 Liquor Taxes
#46 Local Corporate Taxes
#47 Local Income Taxes
#48 Local School Taxes
#49 Local Unemployment Taxes
#50 Luxury Taxes
#51 Marriage License Taxes
#52 Medicare Taxes
#53 Medicare Tax Surcharge On High Earning Americans Under Obamacare
#54 Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax (if you don’t buy “qualifying” health insurance under Obamacare you will have to pay an additional tax)
#55 Obamacare Surtax On Investment Income (a new 3.8% surtax on investment income)
#56 Parking Meters
#57 Passport Fees
#58 Professional Licenses And Fees (another form of taxation)
#59 Property Taxes
#60 Real Estate Taxes
#61 Recreational Vehicle Taxes
#62 Registration Fees For New Businesses
#63 Toll Booth Taxes
#64 Sales Taxes
#65 Self-Employment Taxes
#66 Sewer & Water Taxes
#67 School Taxes
#68 Septic Permit Taxes
#69 Service Charge Taxes
#70 Social Security Taxes
#71 Special Assessments For Road Repairs Or Construction
#72 Sports Stadium Taxes
#73 State Corporate Taxes
#74 State Income Taxes
#75 State Park Entrance Fees
#76 State Unemployment Taxes (SUTA)
#77 Tanning Taxes (a new Obamacare tax on tanning services)
#78 Telephone 911 Service Taxes
#79 Telephone Federal Excise Taxes
#80 Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Taxes
#81 Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Taxes
#82 Telephone State And Local Taxes
#83 Telephone Universal Access Taxes
#84 The Alternative Minimum Tax
#85 Tire Recycling Fees
#86 Tire Taxes
#87 Tolls (another form of taxation)
#88 Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
#89 Use Taxes (Out of state purchases, etc.)
#90 Utility Taxes
#91 Vehicle Registration Taxes
#92 Waste Management Taxes
#93 Water Rights Fees
#94 Watercraft Registration & Licensing Fees
#95 Well Permit Fees
#96 Workers Compensation Taxes
#97 Zoning Permit Fees
Yet despite all of this oppressive taxation, our local governments, our state governments and our federal government are all absolutely drowning in debt.
When the federal income tax was originally introduced a little more than 100 years ago, most Americans were taxed at a rate of only 1 percent.
But once they get their feet in the door, the social planners always want more.
Since that time, tax rates have gone much higher and the tax code has exploded in size.
Why do we have to have the most convoluted tax system in the history of the planet?
Why can’t things be simpler?
In a previous article entitled “24 Outrageous Facts About Taxes In The United States That Will Blow Your Mind“, I listed a number of reasons why our federal income tax system has become a complete and utter abomination that is entirely out of control…


READ MORE

Climate records show no evidence of increasing extremes in wet-dry climate in the twentieth century that is projected by current climate models, shows new study

A new study published in Nature has looked at 1,200 years of water history in the northern hemisphere, and found a rather different story to that simulated by climate models for the same period.
Scientist: No evidence of extreme drought and floods in the twentieth century

Former Soviet professor Yuri Glazov, Jamie Glazov's father

My father was a scholar at the Soviet Academy of Sciences and a professor at Moscow State University. His main field of study concerned Oriental languages and cultures, with a specialty in the Chinese, Sanskrit and Tamil areas. Despite his rewarding career, my dad put everything on the line and began to attend human rights demonstrations in Moscow on behalf of political prisoners. He also started to sign letters of protest against the political repressions that were heightening in the country in the 1960s, connected as they were to the re-Stalinization of the Soviet Union after the Khrushchev thaw. The activities my dad engaged in could land a Soviet citizen in the gulag or a psychiatric hospital for decades.

On February 24, 1968, my father signed the Letter of Twelve, a letter written and signed by twelve Soviet dissidents to the Supreme Congress of Communist Parties in Budapest denouncing Soviet human rights abuses. He was immediately fired from his work for being “unprofessional” in his scholarly studies (even though he previously had received high praise for his academic studies).

The picture of my dad, shown above, was taken by a friend who had come to visit him the evening of the day he was expelled from the Academy. . .
READ MORE

Sunday, April 10, 2016

ALERT: Three U.S. Churches to Vote on Anti-Israel Resolutions this Spring

Legal Insurrection:
Spread the word about how a minority of committed anti-Israel, and in many cases anti-Semitic, activists are trying to steer some of America’s oldest churches astray toward a morally suspect agenda.

Because the best antidote to hate is exposure.
READ MORE

You don't become a "natural born citizen" at age 43!

Excerpt from Ted Cruz: Neither a Natural Born Citizen Nor “TrusTed” (3/7/2016):
...maybe Senator Cruz, Chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness, can tell us what he knows about persons born in foreign countries getting a security clearance from the U.S. Government. Cruz said that “as a U.S. Senator, I believe I should be only an American,” but he did not disclose to the people of Texas that he was a citizen of Canada at birth when he ran for that office. This is even with U.S. Senators, among the various responsibilities they have relative to U.S. relations with foreign nations, being called upon to vote on treaties with foreign nations. In 2014, after being confronted by the public media about his Canadian birthright citizenship, Cruz did renounce that Canadian citizenship with which he was born. That was 18 months after he took the oath of office as a U.S. Senator. But Cruz, born to a Cuban citizen father, was also born potentially a Cuban citizen at birth. To date, he has not mentioned his potential Cuban citizenship at birth, even though he could have qualified through his Cuban father for that citizenship under the Cuban Constitution.[8] What have Cruz’s activities been in the U.S. Senate relative to the United States normalizing relations with Cuba? I am not faulting and never would fault Cruz for his birth circumstances. But a U.S. Senator and President, acting in a public capacity, has to disclose to the public what his or her private interest via-a-vis a foreign nation may be.

Regardless of what Cruz knew or did not know about his Canadian citizenship, Cruz was born in Canada presumably to a U.S. citizen mother, but to a non-U.S. citizen father. Hence, he was not born in the country to parents who were its citizens, which means that he is not nor can he be a citizen through his birth circumstances alone. Rather, he is what Minor called an “alien of foreigner” in need of naturalization.[9] Therefore, he is not nor can he be a natural born citizen. Not being a natural born citizen, for him to be a citizen he needed the aid of a positive law, which in his case is a naturalization Act of Congress. He was not born in the United States and so he could not rely upon the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides the floor standard of citizenship for those born in the United States, requiring that they be at least born subject to its jurisdiction. Being born in a foreign country, he had to rely upon a naturalization Act of Congress, without which Cruz would have been born an alien. This means that Cruz is at best a naturalized "citizen" of the United States "at birth," so made only by a naturalization Act of Congress (in his case it is the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952[10]). Congress through a naturalization Act made Cruz a citizen of the United States “at birth,” meaning that he did not have to go through any naturalization process after birth.[11] But still, it is only because of this naturalization Act that his birth circumstances allowed him to be a citizen of the United States at birth. In other words, Cruz's birth circumstances alone would have made him an alien and not a citizen. It is only by virtue of that naturalization Act which took up his birth circumstances and allowed him to become a citizen at birth. He therefore is not and cannot be a “natural” born citizen.

Cruz and his supporters proclaim that the Framers would have accepted Cruz as a true natural born citizen because of how the First Congress treated persons such as him in the Naturalization Act of 1790.[12] First, Congress does not have the constitutional power to make anyone a natural born citizen. In matters of citizenship, the Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 gives to Congress only the power [t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . throughout the United States.” This naturalization power does not include the power to make anyone a natural born citizen, who does not need any naturalization Act of Congress or any other law to be a citizen. Congress was not given any powers to bestow citizenship upon anyone through any process other than naturalization. Hence, if Congress made those foreign-born children citizens of the United States, it did so only through its naturalization powers.

Second, that Act is a naturalization Act of Congress and surely a natural born citizen does not need a naturalization Act of Congress to be a "natural" born citizen.

Third, the Act provided: “And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” Congress treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens who could naturalize as citizens of the United States upon their parents naturalization if done during their children’s minority and when they shall be dwelling in the United States. This was consistent with the definition of a natural born citizen which provided that only children born in the country to parents who were citizens were natural born citizens and therefore also ipso facto citizens of the United States. As to children born out of the United States, the Act said that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents (both father and mother had to be U.S. citizens) "shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States." Hence, it only treated children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents for all intents and purposes as natural born citizens, meaning that it gave by statute to those children the same privileges, immunities, and rights enjoyed by true natural born citizens which under the Constitution could not include the privilege of being President. Fourth, Congress, under the leadership of James Madison and with the approval of President Washington, repealed that Act in 1795, when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795,[13] which provided in Section 3: “And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” As we can see, Congress, again consistent with the definition of a natural born citizen, treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens, allowing them to become citizens of the United States upon their parents naturalizing if done during their children’s minority and if those children shall be dwelling in the United States. It also surgically removed the "shall be considered as natural born citizens” language of the 1790 Act and replaced it with "shall be considered as citizens of the United States." What is critical to understand is that Congress treated children who naturalized after birth and those who became citizens at birth by birth out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents the same, i.e., as “citizens of the United States.” Congress clearly informed that those children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents were not to be accepted as natural born citizens, but rather as citizens of the United States, like children who become citizens through naturalization after birth. Congress has never again used the natural born citizen language in any of its naturalization Acts. Rather, it has since 1795 told us that any person becoming a citizen under one of its naturalization Acts is a citizen of the United States. It is amazing that those who rely upon the 1790 Act to demonstrate that Cruz is a natural born citizen omit from their story that Congress repealed that Act in 1795 and in the 1795 Act said that those children shall be considered as citizens of the United States and not as natural born citizens.

Fifth, Cruz was born to an alien father which means that he could not benefit from the 1790 Act which required a child born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States be born, not only to a U.S. citizen mother but also to a U.S. citizen father to be bestowed U.S. citizenship at birth. The 1790 Act, along with that of 1795 and 1802, also required that the citizen father be a resident of the United States prior to his child’s birth. Not until 1934 could someone like Cruz, born in a foreign country to a U.S. citizen mother and alien father, become a citizen of the United States.[14] Somebody born under the birth circumstances of a Ted Cruz, born in a foreign country presumably to a U.S. citizen mother and to an alien father, was not even a citizen of the United States let alone a natural born citizen of the United States until 1934, when Congress passed a naturalization Act for the first time allowing children born out of the United States to a U.S. citizen mother and to an alien father to qualify as a citizen of the United States. Cruz and his supporters also hide this little inconvenient truth from the public. Surely, we are not to reasonably believe that someone born under the same birth circumstances as Cruz, who was under the Constitution and under the naturalization Acts of Congress an alien from 1776 until 1934 and only become a citizen in 1934, could be a natural born citizen.

Cruz is correct that if he wants to be President and Commander in Chief, he has to be “only an American.” But for a natural born citizen, that status starts at birth, not at age 43, which is when Cruz renounced the foreign citizenship with which he was born.

The Founders and Framers wrote the Constitution in a way that best provided for the protection of our unalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. They sought to do that by giving us a constitutional republic and providing for the survival and preservation of that republic. In the governmental scheme that they gave us, they provided for the Office of President and Commander in Chief, a singular and all-powerful office involving the concentration of both civilian and military power into one person. Because of such concentration of power in one individual, the Framers recognized that such offices also presented great risk to the republic and its people. They therefore gave us the “natural born Citizen” clause as one basis for eligibility to such offices. Through the natural born citizen clause, they instructed us that such power must fall into the hands of a person who can be trusted with it to the greatest degree possible and that such guarantee is of much greater importance to the survival and preservation of the constitutional republic than the fleeting politics and personal favor of having one person necessarily occupy that office. What is profound is that the Founders and Framers put their trust in “Nature and Nature’s God”[15] and not in political and legal institutions to accomplish that end. This historical and legal evidence, not meant to be exhaustive, provides a clear picture that Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President.[16] So, is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen and to be “TrusTed?” I think not.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 7, 2016
http://puzo1.blogspot.com

Thursday, March 31, 2016

Hamas, Islam, and Israel

The Journal of Conflict Studies:
This article will attempt to prove that the ideology of Hamas has a very strong claim to be considered authentically Islamic. It is no mere perversion of Islam. It is important to recognize at the outset that Islam is not a single monolithic faith; there are several versions of Islam, each with its own reasons for claiming to be authentically "Islamic." Those who repeat this truism, however, often fail to notice its corollary, namely, that more violent and aggressive versions of Islam can make a strong claim to be at least as authentic as more progressive and peaceful versions. The ideology of Hamas and its parent, the Muslim Brotherhood, is one of several variants of Islam in the world today. The article will demonstrate that a careful study of Islamic history and doctrine will prove that this ideology, while by no means the only possible or actual interpretation of Islam, is indeed deeply rooted in classical Islamic principles relating to the acquisition and use of political power.
READ MORE

Sunday, March 27, 2016

When someone just nails it...

From a VERY politically astute friend some of you know:
"As you well know, general election polls are meaningless. All that matters is the Electoral College, just ask President Al /Gore.

Trump expands the electoral map with Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Minnesota, Florida and arguably a few other states.

What state did Romney lose that Cruz can win?

Trump may not win in November, but at least he has a fighting chance. Cruz has no chance in a general election. None."

NOTE: I accidentally deleted this post, so I am reposting it!

Understanding Jihad lies is the first step toward self-defense

Radicals in the Democratic Party used to follow Moscow. Today they follow Tehran and Riyadh. Our population has been dumbed down so much that Americans are blind to clear and present danger...the new Left-Jihad alliance that started in the 1970s when Saudi Arabia learned to buy up Western politicians with OPEC money and price manipulation.
READ MORE

Friday, March 25, 2016

BOMBSHELL UPDATES TO THE TED CRUZ NATIONAL ENQUIRER SCANDAL


Three of the women now positively identified:

READ MORE


Thursday, March 24, 2016

Breaking: New Trump Scandal, Devastating Info Released



Saturday, March 19, 2016

1979: DEMOCRATS BANNED MUSLIMS FROM ENTERING THE UNITED STATES

The year was 1979 and the United States had been attacked by Islamic extremists in Iran. Hundreds of U.S. citizens were taken hostage as thousands of radicalized Muslims changed, “DEATH TO AMERICA!”

Democrats were in charge of both the White House and Congress.

What did they do?

They banned Iranian Muslims from entering the United States and kicked Iranian Muslims out of the country.
READ MORE

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Donald Trump testifies at a House hearing on economic recovery - 1991. Get ready to be wowed!

The media needs to go back to videos like this to show Donald Trump addressing real problems in an intelligent and common sense manner - 25 years before he ran for President. Does he come off as a "clown" or "buffoon", or "not a serious candidate" here? You be the judge:
READ MORE

All Natural Born Citizens are Citizens, but not all Citizens are Natural Born Citizens

This concept has been well-defined and well-precedented throughout history. First precedent and proof of concept: Ancient Greece. To be a citizen OR a ruler in ancient Greece, you had to be born to two citizen parents on the soil of your city-state. Everyone else was an alien, who could enjoy the protections of the nation but couldn't vote or participate in the political process in any way.

It is well-documented in the writings of Solon and Isocrates, chief legal writers of ancient Greece, but also in Plato and others’ writings. It was also the first example in world history of self-government of a republic by citizens under the Rule of Law based on Natural Law.

America is only the second such example in the world. The second definition of the natural born concept in history is found only in Vattel, who gave it the name: Natural Born Citizen, as quoted here, which inspired our framers sufficiently enough to include it in Article II as our presidential eligibility requirement. From our nation’s founding period until today there have been some 1063 references to ‘natural born citizen’ in legal, historical and court documents and written opinions. In every case where the term was defined in those writings, it was defined only one way: as being born to two citizen parents on the soil of the nation.
READ MORE

Saturday, March 12, 2016

Blacks take orders from old white man who uses them as pawns:

SOROS FUNDED MOVEON.ORG TAKES CREDIT FOR VIOLENCE IN CHICAGO
A precursor to activity the organization will engage in as as the election approaches

READ MORE

Wednesday, March 09, 2016

These are authentic factual photographs from the 1924 Democratic National Convention


These are authentic factual photographs from the 1924 Democratic National Convention. The 1924 Democratic National Convention, also called the Klanbake, held at the Madison Square Garden in New York City from June 24 to July 9, 1924, took a record 103 ballots to nominate a presidential candidate. It was the longest continuously running convention in United States political history. It was the first major party national convention that saw the name of a woman, Lena Springs, placed in nomination for the office of Vice President. It was also known for the strong influence of the Ku Klux Klan. John W. Davis, initially an outsider, eventually won the presidential nomination as a compromise candidate following a virtual war of attrition between front-runners William Gibbs McAdoo and Al Smith.

Davis and his vice presidential running-mate, Charles W. Bryan of Nebraska, went on to be defeated by the Republican ticket of President Calvin Coolidge and Charles G. Dawes in the 1924 presidential election.

Sunday, March 06, 2016

Anti-Semitism at German universities in the 1920's is not much different from anti-Semitism at today's universities

After a series of articles at American Thinker (see below) about the rampant anti-Semitism in universities, my husband, Gary Starr, penned a response:
“So, the ripened halls at Oxford are dripping with Jew Hatred and anti-Semitism. What a surprise. The Brits have never exactly been pro-Israel or friends of the Jews. For about 3-4 years they actively blocked European Jews from going to Israel after WWII....they actually kept Jewish refugees penned up in some of the German concentration camps. While not gassing them the Brits didn't provide much food despite millions of tons of allied food drops throughout post-war Europe. Saving the Jews during the war was an afterthought.

The point is that virulent anti-Semitism gains it's legitimacy, initially, at the university.....you know....where "freedom of thought" is encouraged so long as it is the politically correct freedom of thought.

In the early 1920s German student political activity was dominated by the Deutscher Hochschulring which was a militant anti-Semitic group. By 1926 the National Socialists had replaced the Deutscher Hochschulring as the dominant force in anti-semitism on campus. These students eventually became the National Socialists apparatchiks and SS officers that carried out the Holocaust.

Today the Saudi backed Muslim student groups preach Jew hatred and dispense pro palestinian propaganda. Combine that with Soros funded black lives matter and you have a lethal cesspool of Jew hatred, tacitly sanctioned by the leftist dominated Democrat party, Obama and the Clintons.

Crackpot pseudo-scientific lectures on race theory and eugenics then.........Crackpot pseudo-scientific lectures on race theory and eugenics now....with a dose of climate change thrown in for good measure. These are the new Nazi foot soldiers.

It's bad enough that this garbage flourishes in the Ivy League and other elitist universities funded by clueless alumni or fellow travelers.

What really stinks is that the tax payer is also funding Jew hatred at state universities like the University of California at Irvine, Los Angeles, Riverside and Berkeley.

I can only imagine what goes on at Columbia in NYC.

Trump 2016. Time to take the leftist trash out. I can hear the garbage trucks down the block right now."

“Anti-Semitic Bigots at Oxford and Elsewhere”:

“Anti-Semitism at Oberlin 1 – College President”:

“Anti-Semitism at Oberlin 2 – the Trustee”:

R.I.P. Nancy Reagan


Saturday, March 05, 2016

Of the 99 guys (no girls in those days) in our class, there is not one who I know who has a bad word to say about Donald Trump.

"I know this man. He is a lot of things, but he is not evil. He is a decent honest guy who loves this country, and who is willing to sacrifice so much of what is left of his life, because he knows that this country needs to be fixed, and that it is going to require someone who can do the job. He just doesn't see anything around him other than political hacks, so he is willing to take this huge responsibility.
I'm not saying that he is the only one who can do the job. My point is simply as to his motivation and his goodness."
VOTE AS YOU WISH, AND LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT TRUMP - - A personal note from Peter Ticktin who knows the guy from high school:

As a law firm, we at The Ticktin Law Group do not like to get involved in politics. As soon as we endorse one side, we risk alienating everyone on the other side. Also, our lawyers and staff are, themselves, on both sides. Politics is not our game. However, Justice is!
If you saw a guy get publicly smeared, and you knew him well from the days you were friends and seniors together in high school, if you knew him to be a decent and honest man, would you want to say something? This is why I need to share what I know.
I was aghast at watching last night's debate. It was a set-up. The moderators, Cruz, and Rubio were all like little alligators trying to take a bite out of Trump. Yes, Donald Trump has had some failures, but he has been exceedingly successful. None of this came out. Instead, there was a general attack. Rubio simply makes up lies. He pretends that Trump has small hands and makes fun of him for something which isn't even real. He pretends that Donald wets his pants, and makes fun of him, as though it was true, and then he calls Donald Trump a "Bully."
I am not suggesting that you should vote or not vote for anyone. I just need to defend a former friend who is being smeared.
Like Donald Trump, I attended New York Military Academy ("NYMA") for high school. In fact, in our senior year, together, Donald was my captain, and I was his 1st Platoon Sergeant. I sometimes joke that I ran his first company for him, Company "A."
People don't really change much from the ages of 17 and 18, and I know this guy. I know him to be a good decent guy. We lived and breathed an Honor Code in those years. It wasn't just a rule. It was our way of life. Neither Donald, nor any other cadet who graduated with us would ever lie, cheat, or steal from a fellow cadet. These values became irreversibly intertwined in the fabric of our personalities, of who we are.
Of the 99 guys (no girls in those days) in our class, there is not one who I know who has a bad word to say about Donald Trump. Think of it. With all the jealousies which arise in high school and thereafter, with all the potential envy, not one of us has anything other than positive memories of this man. How could we? He was an "A" student, a top athlete, and as a leader, he was highly respected. We never feared him, yet we never wanted to disappoint him. He had our respect. He was never a bigot in any way, shape or form. He only hates those who hate. Of course he denounces the KKK.
As to the discussion with the New York Times, it is his choice to release the 'off the record' remarks. However, if he does, it opens the door for all political opposition to make that demand for everyone, and that means that our press will never get those 'off the record' remarks which help them to understand the realities of the campaign. Moreover, the idea that Donald Trump confessed some alternate theory of his position is preposterous. Can anyone believe that all those NY Times reporters are walking around knowing some deep dark nasty secret about a guy who is seeking an endorsement?
The Republican establishment is afraid of Donald Trump. Why? They are afraid that he will lose to Hillary. They don't hate Donald. They hate her. They are so fearful that they fail to see that by expanding the base of voters for Trump, he is more likely to win.
Watching the chorus of whiners, decriers, denigrators, and self-righteous put-down experts from so many directions, from Mit Romney, to Megyn Kelly, Little Mario, it has to make you wonder. Why? Why are so many people so angry with Donald Trump, that they are lying, name calling, ridiculing, and demeaning him as they do. Either they are afraid, or they know him to be evil.
This is why I feel the need to speak out at this time. I know this man. He is a lot of things, but he is not evil. He is a decent honest guy who loves this country, and who is willing to sacrifice so much of what is left of his life, because he knows that this country needs to be fixed, and that it is going to require someone who can do the job. He just doesn't see anything around him other than political hacks, so he is willing to take this huge responsibility.
I'm not saying that he is the only one who can do the job. My point is simply as to his motivation and his goodness.
This next decade is going to be one of major changes. We all see the climate changing, and the world food supply is getting lower. Our fish stock around the world is running low. Oil prices will cause countries to fail. The Middle East is beyond repair, and we have become weak and ineffective around the world. Donald Trump sees the issues and knows that he can assemble leaders who would have the best chance of fixing things. This is why he is running. He does not need it for his own aggrandizement. He doesn't need another big jet or to take up residence in the White House. He just wants things to be fixed, and he knows that the politicians won't fix anything.
I knew Donald Trump and was close to him in our senior year in high school. I just want you to know that there is nothing to fear from him. His character is as good as it gets. He is a patriot, taking on a heroic task, and being thanked by massive abuse.
If you want to see a true reflection of a man, look at his children. Need I say more?


Is Donald Trump really a conservative? Who cares!!


My husband just sent me this, and I'd love to share it with my readers!
Trump may not be a conservative, but I can tell you the people who are definitely not conservative.....it's the Rockefeller/Republican progressive socialist elites posing as conservatives who have been going along to get along since the Wilson presidency.

You know them...they are the folks who sold the conservative base out after we gave them majorities in Congress....Boehner, McConnell, Ryan, McCain, etc. They are the folks who tried to undermine Reagan at every turn. They are the phonies on the radio....Medved and Hewitt specifically. They are the pundits at Fox and the Wall St. Journal..and David Brooks at NYT, Krauthammer at the Wapo

They are the folks who would rather lose and keep their little corner of power as the loyal opposition (which means no opposition to the Dem Socialists).

These elitist clowns cannot be allowed to dictate our candidate to us or lead us around by the nose. We are not liberals. We are the true conservatives.

I'm tired of this nowhere debate about who's a conservative. I don't care anymore. The last debate after Super Tuesday was an embarrassment and a disgrace for Fox and CRuzio

My presidential requirements are few.
1) Kill the Muslims overseas
2) Deport the Muslims who are here.....terminate if necessary
3) Build the wall......Deport the illegals
4) Re-build our military
5) Create a business friendly environment so business can hire again
6) Repeal Obamacare, make the insurance companies compete across state lines
7) Trash the existing trade deals and have business savvy people negotiate them.

That's what Trump said he would do. No one else is saying that. 

I could give a rat's behind about Trump U., or if he had some Polish workers contracted to work on one of his construction sites

Who cares if he's not a "true conservative". And who is the oh so special group of elites that gets to claim the mantel of "true conservative"? Who gave them this royal power? They took it for themselves. In November let's take it back.

Trump 2016.

Saturday, February 27, 2016

11 STEPS TO PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College.

According to the U.S. State Department, Bureau of Consular Affairs, the U.S. citizen parent(s) of a child born on foreign soil must obtain a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA, Form FS-240) at some time prior to the child’s eighteenth birthday if the parent desires to pass on their U.S. citizenship to their offspring. Published rules of the Bureau read as follows:
“If you determine that the child born abroad qualifies for U.S. citizenship, please follow the instructions below in order to complete the required forms, prepare the necessary documents, and make an appointment at the U.S. Consulate General in Montreal. All applicants will need to provide the following forms and documents:
  • Completed Form DS-2029 (50KB PDF). Please complete the form, but do NOT sign.
  • Completed Application for a Social Security Number (Form SS-5-FS).
  • Child’s original civil birth certificate.
  • Proof of parent’s or parents’ U.S. citizenship (i.e. U.S. passport, Certificate of Naturalization and Citizenship, Consular Report of Birth Abroad, etc.).
  • Proof of identity of parents and child (i.e. passports, regardless of nationality).
  • Parents’ original civil marriage certificate.
  • Termination of any previous marriages of either parent (i.e. divorce decree, death certificate, etc.) if applicable.
  • Fee of US$100 payable in cash (U.S. or Canadian), or Visa, Mastercard.
  • If only one parent is a U.S. citizen, evidence of his/her physical presence in the United States sufficient to transmit citizenship to the child (as indicated in http://canada.usembassy.gov/consular_services/birth-abroad.html).
  • Make an appointment online before you show up at the Consulate.
  • All children must appear in person with the parent signing.
Please bring a return Canada Post Express Post envelope with you to your appointment so that we can mail your Consular Report of Birth Abroad to you when it is ready. Alternatively, you can pick it up two weeks later during our public hours.”
In other words, it is not simply a matter of stopping off at the nearest U.S. Consulate with a newborn infant to announce that you are a U.S. citizen, that the child was born on foreign soil, and that you would like to insure that your American citizenship is passed on by descent to the child in question.

So the question arises, did Ted Cruz’s parents assemble all the necessary documents and then drive or fly to the office of the U.S. Consulate General in Montreal, a distance of 2,196 miles? Or did they simply rely on the fact that his mother was a U.S. citizen, assuming that her U.S. citizenship would be automatically passed on to her son?

READ MORE

Thursday, February 25, 2016

Two questions: Did Ted Cruz's mother live in the U.S. for the required amount of time for him to have acquired U.S. citizenship? And can the Cruz family prove it??

Steven Lubet, a Northwestern University law professor, spies another possible land mine. Cruz qualified for citizenship because his mother was an American citizen (unlike his father). But "under the law in effect in 1970, Cruz would only have acquired U.S. citizenship if his mother had been 'physically present' in the United States for 10 years prior to his birth, including five years after she reached the age of 14," Lubet wrote in Salon.

That raises two questions: Did she live in this country for the required amount of time? And can the Cruz family prove it?
READ MORE

Sunday, February 21, 2016

Archaeologists Discover Remains of Egyptian Army From the Biblical Exodus in Red Sea

For centuries, the famous biblical account of the “Red Sea Crossing” was dismissed by most scholars and historians as more symbolic than historical.

This astounding discovery brings undeniable scientific proof that one the most famous episodes of the Old Testament was indeed, based on an historical event. It brings a brand new perspective on a story that many historians have been considering for years as a work of fiction, and suggesting that other themes like the “Plagues of Egypt” could indeed have an historical base.
READ MORE

Friday, February 19, 2016

THE FALSE PROPHET AND IMAGE OF THE BEAST OF REVELATION

The false prophet is mentioned as such, 3 times in the book of Revelation.
  • Rev 16:13 (KJV) "And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet."
  • Rev 19:20 (KJV) "And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone."
  • Rev 20:10 (KJV) "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."
The beast, as I have shown previously, is the Papacy or Roman Catholic Church. Revelation 19:20 is the key to identifying who the false prophet is. Here it associates the false prophet with miracles performed for the beast. This is a link to Rev 13:11-14 where the same miracles are performed by a second beast with two horns like a lamb, that speaks like a dragon. So this second lamb-like beast is also the false prophet. Now to identify just who the false prophet is, we need to look at Rev 13:10, which will give us a time hack-
READ MORE

What do you think?


Thursday, February 18, 2016

Is Ted Cruz a 'natural born Citizen'? Not if you're a constitutional originalist.

Thomas Lee is a professor of constitutional law and international law at Fordham Law School:
People looking to the Supreme Court to settle the debate once and for all are likely to be disappointed. The federal courts have repeatedly refused to allow voters to bring lawsuits disqualifying presidential candidates on the basis of the “natural born Citizen” clause because voters don't have the proper “standing”— their alleged injury is too generalized to justify a court order of relief.

But voters do have recourse: The ballot box may be the final arbiter of the constitutional meaning of the clause. In other words, if you are an originalist, vote against Cruz because he is ineligible to be president.

It's a neat irony: The most conservative constitutional interpreters must find Cruz ineligible to be president; liberals must grin and bear him. Cruz himself purports to embrace originalism as the correct view of the Constitution. To be faithful to his understanding of what the Constitution means, the senator may have to disqualify himself.
READ MORE

Monday, February 15, 2016

HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH – PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH

Because Chester Arthur covered up his British citizenship, any precedent he might have set that the country has had a President born of an alien father is nullified completely as Chester Arthur was a usurper to the Presidency. He wouldn’t have been on the ticket if it was public knowledge. Nobody knew Arthur was a British subject because nobody looked in the right place for the truth.

And it’s no precedent to follow.
Leo C. Donofrio

READ MORE

Scalia Was Almost Never The Most Conservative Justice On The Supreme Court

A very interesting report with good charts:
With the death of Antonin Scalia on Saturday, the Supreme Court lost not only its longest-serving justice but also the most outspoken member of its conservative wing. A careful analysis of his tenure, however, shows that Scalia was almost never the most conservative justice on the court, and in fact moved leftward during the second half of his 30 years on the bench. With the exception of the 2014 term, he was usually in the majority in the court’s rulings, and the future direction of the court pivots on his replacement.
READ MORE

The other side of the story - UPDATES

Ari David is the host of the Ari David Show Podcast on iTunes
Follow him on Facebook: Ari David USA
And Twitter: @AriDavidUSA
Just watched the PBS documentary "Hiroshima" about how horrible the U.S. is for nuking those nice Japanese in WWII.
Awwww those poor snowflakes!

No mention of the vivisection the Japanese practiced on American POWs and Chinese civilians just to do torture experiments on them. No mention how these "surgeries" were performed sans anesthesia and done in a way to keep the victim alive, conscious and feeling every tear, cut, laceration, gut, disembowelment, castration, eyeball extraction and amputation so that the victim would not die until every possible agony was prolonged to the maximum extent.

No mention of the humiliations and agonies unleashed on our soldiers unlucky enough to fall into Japanese custody in the pacific war.

No one mentioned how the nuclear detonation led to the end of the Japanese imperial dynasty which, had it survived, would likely resemble the repression of the regime of modern North Korea but because of its destruction, the Japanese people from the end of WWII to today into the foreseeable future essentially lived and continue to live in freedom and liberty.

Instead of hating us for the bomb, the Japanese should thank us. It saved their nation from total annihilation that a full scale invasion and American victory would have resulted in. It also saved them from the totalitarianism their own government imposed on them and would have continued imposing if God forbid they were victorious against us.

All I can say to the people of Japan is "you're welcome."

Sometimes life makes us make tough choices and given the alternatives, the Japanese got off on the cheap.

PBS sucks for telling so much less than the whole story. Shame on them for telling almost none of it. I'm sure the victims of the bomb had a time that really sucked but the fault lies entirely on the side of the Japanese government. Not America for doing all it could do to defeat what was up to that time, one of the two most barbaric regimes in human history.
UPDATE:

This was a comment on Ari David's Facebook post:
Most people have never heard of the Japanese unit 731, and their horrendous undertakings ....

UPDATE #2:

In December of 1937, the Japanese Imperial Army marched into China's capital city of Nanking and proceeded to murder 300,000 out of 600,000 civilians and soldiers in the city. The six weeks of carnage would become known as the Rape of Nanking and represented the single worst atrocity during the World War II era in either the European or Pacific theaters of war.
[The History Place]

南京大屠杀 Nanking Massacre (Full Edition)




THE RAPE OF NANKING