Nov 28

Ted Cruz’s eligibility: A civics lesson for the uninformed | Bradley County News

Ted_CruzTed Cruz’s eligibility: A civics lesson for the uninformed Rarely do I find and share an article in my blog. I found this gem while researching Ted Cruz’s eligibility and his status as a Natural Born Citizen. I was going to write another article based on my collective research data but declared that this article was so well written and so easy to understand that I would not improve upon the content and I would be remiss to not share it with my readers in it’s entirety. I hope you will support the website below and visit their site often as it has many other fantastic blog entries.Enjoy as I did.Laws, Codes and Eligibility – A Civics LessonBy Craig Andresen – The National Patriot and Right Side Patriots on cprworldwidemedia.netTed Cruz, as a matter of LAW and U.S. Codes…IS indeed qualified AND eligible to run for the office of president.The Constitution, clearly states that to serve as president, one must be 35 years of age, one must have resided in the United States for at least 14 years and that one must be a Natural Born Citizen. Just as clearly, the Constitution never defines Natural Born Citizen nor do any of our founding documents but…later laws and codes DO.The Supreme Court, which has NEVER entertained a case based on NBC and therefore, never issued any DECISION regarding NBC has, for a very long time, held that a Natural Born Citizen or…NBC…is one who is a Citizen at Birth or…CaB.Further…the SCOTUS has long held that NBC includes those born in the United States or abroad to parents of a U.S. citizen.Now don’t go all plural on me here as I will explain this.British Common Law held that children, whether born on British soil or abroad were subjects of the crown if their parents were subjects of the crown and our founders and framers certainly recognized this.The First Congress stated as a matter of law via The Naturalization Act of 1790 “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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”Yes…I know that Ted Cruz’s father was not a U.S. citizen but…this is not the end of the line in our civics lesson. Far from it in fact. The Naturalization Act of 1790 also included children whose MOTHERS were U.S. citizens so long as the FATHER had,

Source: Ted Cruz’s eligibility: A civics lesson for the uninformed | Bradley County News

Nov 28

War on Poverty at 50 — despite trillions spent, poverty won | Fox News By Michael D. Tanner January 8, 2014

hooverville_01aFifty years ago today, President Lyndon Johnson delivered his first State of the Union address, promising an “unconditional war on poverty in America.” Looking at the wreckage since, it’s not hard to conclude that poverty won. If we are losing the War on Poverty, it certainly isn’t for lack of effort.  In 2012, the federal government spent $668 billion to fund 126 separate anti-poverty programs. State and local governments kicked in another $284 billion, bringing total anti-poverty spending to nearly $1 trillion. That amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three. Spending on the major anti-poverty programs increased in 2013, pushing the total even higher. Over, the last 50 years, the government spent more than $16 trillion to fight poverty.    Yet today, 15 percent of Americans still live in poverty. That’s scarcely better than the 19 percent living in poverty at the time of Johnson’s speech. Nearly 22 percent of children live in poverty today. In 1964, it was 23 percent. How could we have spent so much and achieved so little? It’s not just a question of the inefficiency of government bureaucracies, although the multiplicity of programs and overlapping jurisdiction surely means that there is a lack of accountability within the system. Rather, the entire concept behind how we fight poverty is wrong. The vast majority of current programs are focused on making poverty more comfortable – giving poor people more food, better shelter, health care, etc. – rather than giving people the tools that will help them escape poverty. As a result, we have been successful in reducing the worst privations of poverty. Few Americans live with out the basic necessities of life, yet neither do they rise out of poverty. Moreover, their children are also likely to be poor. Our goal should not be a society where people struggle along in poverty, dependent on government for just enough to survive, but rather a society where as few people as possible live in poverty, and where every American can reach his or her full potential.

Source: War on Poverty at 50 — despite trillions spent, poverty won | Fox News

Nov 27

‘Scientists Agree World Is Colder,’ New York Times Declared in 1961 | MRCTV

global_warming_hoax“After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder.”No, that’s not a recent quote from a group of global warming dissenters. It’s the first line of an article published in The New York Times on Jan. 30, 1961.The article was topped with one bold declaration of a headline: “Scientists Agree World Is Colder.” Yep. Fifty years ago, before deciding to scare the world witless with prophesies of planetary heating, scientists were afraid of freezing to death.The only problem was, the scientists in question couldn’t seem to reach a consensus on why the planet’s temperature was allegedly dropping. In the article, scientists from America to Australia to Hungary blamed everything under the clearly-not-hot-enough sun for the impending glacial apocalypse, including the “shape of the Earth’s orbit around the sun,” “the tilt of the earth’s axis,” the solstices, the sun, “changes in transparency of the atmosphere,” dust spewed from volcanic eruptions, industrial smoke blocking sunlight, and the presence of too much or not enough ice in the Arctic.By November of 1974, the Earth’s chilling situation appeared even more dire. An article published in the Ukiah Daily Journal, and dug up by Climate Depot, reported the United States and Russia were considering damming up the Bering Strait in an effort to deliberately warm the Earth’s temperature and avoid a catastrophic ice age.The newspaper quoted a former arms technologist named Lowell Ponte, who pointed to global cooling as “the primary cause of world food shortages.”Sounds like he’d had gotten along well with Sen. Bernie Sanders, who likes to blame global warming for everything from droughts to famines to the number of terrorists running around with bombs.Back in 1974, Ponte warned of a global ice age that could last anywhere from 200 to 10,000 years, and result in “rivers of solid ice again as far south as Yosemite in California and Cincinnati, Ohio.” The paper added that scientists had proposed about 60 theories to explain the cooling phenomenon.

Source: ‘Scientists Agree World Is Colder,’ New York Times Declared in 1961 | MRCTV

Nov 17

‘The Heavens Declare:’ Discovery of ‘Baffling’ Features on Pluto’s Surface Defies Evolutionary Models | Christian News Network

galaxy_nasa_wideNATIONAL HARBOR, Md. – A NASA spacecraft has discovered what appear to be ice-spewing volcanoes on the surface of Pluto, puzzling scientists who believed the distant world was old, dead, and dormant.Last week, scientists at an American Astronomical Society meeting in National Harbor, Maryland, announced new findings from NASA’s “New Horizons” spacecraft, which flew by Pluto earlier this year. “New Horizons” was the first spacecraft to visit Pluto, so the data and images it collected have helped astronomers better understand the dwarf planet.Prior to the Pluto flyby, Christian astronomers predicted that “New Horizons” would find evidence that Pluto is much younger than secular scientists allege.“Rather than weakening the case for creation, data collected by previous spacecraft have only strengthened the case that our solar system was designed and is much younger than the age of 4.5 billion years that secular scientists have assigned to it,” wrote Dr. Jake Hebert, a physicist with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). “Christians should not be surprised if data collected by the New Horizons spacecraft continues this trend.”As Hebert foretold, “New Horizons” has returned findings that suggest Pluto is relatively young. For example, in July, the spacecraft captured images that show the surface of Plato has far fewer impact craters than expected.“This is a serious challenge to secular thinking because any surface in our solar system that is billions of years old ought to have experienced many, many impacts,” observed Dr. Jason Lisle, an astrophysicist with ICR. “Lack of heavy cratering

Source: ‘The Heavens Declare:’ Discovery of ‘Baffling’ Features on Pluto’s Surface Defies Evolutionary Models | Christian News Network

Nov 14

BOMBSHELL: Republicans Just SHUT DOWN Obama’s Plan For Bringing Terrorists To America!

Obama-Muslim-BrotherhoodFor some reason, Obama is determined to shut down Guantanamo Bay. He has released record numbers of All-star terrorists under the guise of a trade for Bergdahl for example and others because they “have been rehabilitated…” THEY HAVEN’T BEEN REHABILITATED YOU COMMIE MORON! Now the Kenyan wants to house these terrorists here on American soil! Coming to a city near you folks! Unbelievable! The Republican Congress has just passed a bill that aims to make sure he won’t be able to fulfill that threat, according to Political Insider.From the Associated Press:Congress sent President Barack Obama a $607 billion defense policy bill Tuesday that bans moving Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States — something Obama has been trying to do since he was sworn in as president.The Senate’s 91-3 vote gave final legislative approval to the measure. The House overwhelmingly passed it last week, 370-58.

Source: BOMBSHELL: Republicans Just SHUT DOWN Obama’s Plan For Bringing Terrorists To America!

Nov 13

How Eisenhower Dealt With America’s First Illegal Alien Crisis…Operation Wetback

illegal_alien_border_aThis is not the first time the US has dealt with an illegal immigration problem nor will it be the last. Unlike Obama, Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower dealt with the problem quickly and decisively.During his tenure as president of the United States from 1953 to 1961, Eisenhower knew that as long as illegals were willing to take less money to pick fruit that the farmers would continue to use them. He realized that these illegals would cause major problems in our country and he recognized that the problem had to be nipped at the bud. Eisenhower has the task of ridding our nation of the three million illegals that were living and working in our country.The first thing he did was to seal the border.  Remarkably, he was able to do it with only 1,075 border patrol agents.  That’s less than 10% of what we have today.

Source: How Eisenhower Dealt With America’s First Illegal Alien Crisis…

Nov 11

City Council Votes to Remove Veteran Display…City Votes to Remove Council | The PC Graveyard

DEFENDERS OF FREEDOMOne citizen in Knoxville, Iowa complained about a temporary display on city grounds that depicted the shadow of a soldier and a cross.  Based on that one complaint a heathen liberal group came in and threatened to sue for separation of church and state.  I don’t know what caliber of heathens they are but as lawyers, they don’t stack up.  Separation of church and state does not appear in the Constitution.  That phrase is actually from the charter for the state of Rhode Island, written by Roger Williams.  Second of all, a city is not a federal government, so enforcement would be questionable even if it did appear in the constitution.Voters warned the council there would be retribution at the voting booth should they fail to heed the angry voices opposed to moving the display.  On November 2nd, the council voted 3-2 to remove it.  As luck would have it, the 3rd was election day.  One of the three who voted for removal wasn’t running for reelection.  The other two,  April Verwers, Carolyn Formanek, were seeking reelection.  Not only did they lose but they lost big time.  Neither managed to receive 15% of the vote.The council and the mayor used the excuse that it could lead to a costly lawsuit.  But if the people who pay the taxes are willing, who are the elected officials to oppose them.  Secondly, the lawsuit may never have happened.  These liberal organizations threaten to sue knowing taxpayers don’t like their money being wasted and often win as in this case just by making threats.  If it was up to me, I would have sent the city’s lawyers to meet with the group and explain how the city planned to countersue for bringing a frivolous lawsuit and how they would seek damages and legal fees.  I would point out that I would bury them in so much litigation, their grandchildren would need lawyers.The city backed by the voters would have no pressure on them but the liberal group would stand to lose a lot of money in long protracted court proceedings, especially if the city’s lawyers would continually ask for continuances.As for the two councilwomen, they got what they asked for.

Source: City Council Votes to Remove Veteran Display…City Votes to Remove Council | The PC Graveyard

Nov 03

Blue Stars Confirm Recent Creation | The Institute for Creation Research

galaxy_nasa_wideOrion is one of the most well-known and easily recognized constellations of the winter sky. The three bright blue stars in Orion’s belt seem to draw our attention instantly.1 Such stars are a strong confirmation of the biblical timescale.Most stars generate energy by the process of nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium in the stellar core. This is a very efficient power source. Theoretically, a star like the sun has enough hydrogen in its core to keep it burning for ten billion years. But that’s not the case with blue stars.Blue stars are always more massive than the sun. This means they have more hydrogen available as fuel. Yet, blue stars are much brighter than the sun; some are over 200,000 times brighter!2 They are “burning” their fuel much more quickly than the sun, and therefore cannot last billions of years. Based on their observed luminosity, the most massive blue stars cannot last even one million years before running out of fuel.None of this is a problem for the biblical timescale of about 6,000 years for the age of the universe. But if the universe were 13.7 billion years old, as secularists allege, then it really shouldn’t have blue stars. Yet blue stars abound in every known spiral galaxy. It seems that these galaxies cannot be even one million years old.Secular astronomers must assume that new blue stars have formed recently to replace all those that have burned out over deep time. They claim that some nebulae (clouds of hydrogen gas) eventually collapse under their own gravity to form a new star. Some astronomy textbooks even have pictures of nebulae labeled as “star-forming regions” or “stellar nurseries,” as if star formation were an observed fact. But it is not. Star formation has never been observed.Star formation is problematic at best.3 Gas is very resistant to being compressed. On earth, gas always fills its container. In space, there is no container. So gas expands indefinitely. If the gas could be forced into a sphere that is very small (in comparison to a nebula) such as the sun, then the gas would be held together by its own gravity. However, in a typical nebula, the gas pressure far exceeds the miniscule force of gravity. Secular astronomers now believe that external forces, such as a shockwave from an exploding star, are necessary in most cases to trigger star formation.4 Observations confirm

Source: Blue Stars Confirm Recent Creation | The Institute for Creation Research

Nov 03

Antarctica is actually gaining ice, says NASA. Is global warming over? –

global_warming_hoaxA new NASA study found that Antarctica has been adding more ice than it’s been losing, challenging other research, including that of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that concludes that Earth’s southern continent is losing land ice overall. In a paper published in the Journal of Glaciology on Friday, researchers from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, the University of Maryland in College Park, and the engineering firm Sigma Space Corporation offer a new analysis of satellite data that show a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001 in the Antarctic ice sheet. That gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008. Recommended: Climate change: Is your opinion informed by science? Take our quiz! Climate scientists caution that these findings don’t mean it’s time to start celebrating the end of global warming. More than anything, the paper shows how difficult it is to measure ice height in Antarctica and that better tools are needed. TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE Climate change: Is your opinion informed by science? Take our quiz! PHOTOS OF THE DAY Photos of the day 11/02 It could take only a few decades for the ice melt in Antarctica to outweigh the ice gains, the paper’s authors say. “I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses,” Jay Zwally, NASA glaciologist and lead author of the study, said in a press release.

Source: Antarctica is actually gaining ice, says NASA. Is global warming over? –

Nov 02

Five reasons that the benefits that flow from guns far outweigh the risks inherent in guns

gunWith the shooting at Umpqua Community College having reanimated the Progressives’ demands that we withdraw guns from citizens’ hands and leave them solely in the hands of government operatives (a strange demand from the BLM-supporting crowd if you think about it), it’s time for me to rehash my five-point argument explaining why, the risks of guns notwithstanding, we are much safer with guns than without them.  I originally published this post in June 2014 and have made only a few changes to enhance clarity: I. INTRODUCTION God forgive me, but I used to be so anti-gun that I donated to The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence. I know. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Since that time, I’ve done a complete 180 and become a fervent gun supporter and a proud member of the NRA. This change did not come about because I suddenly became a psychopathic killer, with guns as my weapon of choice. I do kill (spiders, fleas, and ticks) and I do eat dead bodies (cows, pigs, chicken, and fish), but I’m scarcely Hannibal Lecter. Instead, my reversal on guns came about because I realized that gun’s are a predicate requirement for individual freedom and security.  I’ve created five principles that justify this conclusion.  These principles are:  (1) Armed citizens are the best defense against the world’s most dangerous killer: government; (2) I am a Jew; (3) I am not a racist; (4) a self-defended society is a safe society; and (5) the only way gun-control activists can support their position is to lie. I develop each of these principles below. II. ANALYSIS A. Armed Citizens Are The Best Defense Against The World’s Most Dangerous Killer: Government. 1.  Progressives fear individuals, who kill only in small numbers; Second Amendment supporters fear

Source: Five reasons that the benefits that flow from guns far outweigh the risks inherent in guns

Older posts «