CRUZ HITS THE WALL AT INDY

Putting the hammer down, Ted Cruz took his last gasp of air in order to save his imploding campaign. Victory is out of reach, but he had little choice; greasing his team with a female fatale was the last thing on anyone’s mind. Definition (an attractive and seductive woman, especially one who will ultimately bring disaster to a man who becomes involved with her). And  it turns out her addition to the team will be responsible for a collision of his own doing.

Tomorrow, Cruz will hit Indy’s brick wall in turn number one. The pole sitter, Donald Trump, will roar on to victory lane, crowds cheering frantically as they get a glimpse of the next President of the United States.\

Fox News shows Trump up by 15 points in Indiana.

“LYING TED CRUZ” – NEW FOX POLL OUT – TRUMP CRUZING TO VICTORY

Senator Ted Cruz knows the truth, a Harvard graduate with a Juris Doctor degree. Cruz was also an adjunct professor at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, where he taught U.S. Supreme Court litigation. Ted Cruz was born in Calgary Canada to an American citizen mother and to a Cuban born father with Canadian citizenship. This leads us to the Constitution.

Reading the following paragraph, it is up to you to ascertain the eligibility or non-eligibility of CRUZ to be the President of the United States.

Qualifications for the Office of President

Age and Citizenship requirements – US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident .

The preceding rendering is crystal clear, spelling out in clear unadulterated English the eligibility requirements for President. Note, where it says “or a citizen of the United States, as the time of the adoption of this Constitution”, this clearly implies that one seeking the highest office in the Land must be today a Natural Born Citizen which conclusively means, “BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.” Why would it add “or……?”

The aforementioned Article needs to be litigated now, the record must be set straight; The Supreme Court must determine with clarity the eligibility requirements once and for all. If not frauds perpetrated on the American people will continue.

Ted Cruz knows in his heart that he is NOT ELIGIBLE to be President. There is no two ways about it.

(CLICK HERE) NEW FOX POLL DEVASTATING FOR CRUZ

Mitch McConnell SAYS THE GANG IS ALL HERE

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell finally weighed in on this years primary. Another RINO, a Kentuckian at that, who does not have the backbone to do what is right. Daniel Boone, a proud Kentuckian would be aghast at McConnells behavior.  Don’t count on seeing McConnell’s likeness on any coinage in the next 1000 years. What has McConnell done? He indicated that the Republican Primary would see a second round. Interpreting his statement, one can conclude that he is against Trump which means he is against the people.

Quoting McConnell: Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said on Monday that he is “optimistic” that the Republican National Convention in July will need a second ballot to decide the party’s nominee.”

Therefore, based on McConnell’s posture he can best be described as a scallywag.

Urban Dictionary: scallywag

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scallywag

Urban Dictionary

Top Definition. scallywag. 1. A person who is known to be a treacherous lying son-of-a-bitch, and usually smells bad. 2. A term of endearment used by pirates. 1.

“DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN”

Don’t let the ink splatter get you down. No way in hell was Wisconsin ever going for Trump,  but the rag trade made everyone think that a Trump loss was a disaster. No such thing. A bunch of scallywags have ganged up on Trump and found the best way to be him is by coagulating around Ted Cruz; Republicans feel that they are better off with Cruz rather than see Trump as the last man standing.

So what do they do, put Ted Cruz up as a Trojan Horse.  America remembers Cruz fighting with fellow Senators, nobody would speak with him because of the 21 hour Obamacare filibuster.  Cruz scorched the earth and became radioactive, not one Republican would touch him with a ten foot pole. However, the enemy of my enemy in this circumstance can be my friend. Now that the Republican RINO’s have embraced Cruz we pose the question, why would they do that? Because these imbedded politicians want the Status Quo. Anything that will upset the applecart is detrimental to those currently holding office. And so that is the story in a nutshell.

What can we do about it? PLENTY! Thirty five to forty percent of the population are in the “WE WANT A REVOLUTION” NOW CAMP. They have seen politicians steal and lie for decades without any punishment. Politically correct politicians, better yet, lying politicians, heretics to the cause. Roused the crowds to get elected then forgot the people who put them into office. Tell you folks, REVOLUTION IS THE ONLY SOLUTION.”  trumptimetrumpbillboard3

 Don’t write Trump off just yet!

MELANIA TRUMP vs HEIDI CRUZ

Breitbart's Profile Photo

They’re wrong.

There’s been a lot of pearl-clutching lately over Donald Trump’s tweet about Heidi Cruz, in which he compared a flattering picture of his own wife to a particularly dour-looking snap of Cruz’s. Critics say Trump’s not-so-subtle attack on Heidi’s looks was un-presidential and uncalled for.

CLICK HERE  FOR TRUMP’S RESPONSE.

CLICK HERE FOR CRUZ’S RESPONSE

TRUMP’S ONE STEP CLOSER TO THE NOMINATION – “LYING TED IS NOT ELIGIBLE”

Mr. Trump secured the 58 – winner take all – votes in Arizona, once again showing the resilience of his formidable campaign. Cruz won Utah with the help of Mitt the turncoat Romney, who lobbied on Cruz’s behalf in the Mormon State; this was no surprise. As the board now stands, Trump is closer to securing the nomination as he piles up delegates and increases his lead over Cruz. Kasich is far behind, with no chance to bring home the top prize. So expect some sort of deal, it is inevitable, between the Kasich and Trump.  However, read the following paragraph in order to ascertain the eligibility or non-eligibility of CRUZ. trumpbillboard3TRUMP

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident . To us the preceding eligibility requirements are crystal clear. Note, where it says “or a citizen of the United States, as the time of the adoption of this Constitution”, this clearly implies that one seeking the highest office in the Land must be today a Natural Born Citizen which conclusively means, “BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.” This must be litigated because according to the Constitution Ted Cruz is NOT ELIGIBLE. There is no two ways about it.

DOES TRUMP HAVE A VALID QUESTION?

“Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: ‘Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?’ That’d be a big problem,” Trump told The Washington Post in an interview published Tuesday night.

Donald Trump is not a lawyer, Ted Cruz is. Senator Cruz, a Harvard graduate cum laude, should no if he is qualified or not. According to the Constitution, the President must be a natural born citizen. Naturalized has not been wholly defined. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”

The Naturalization Act of 17908×8. Ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103 (repealed 1795). provided that “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 . . . .”

The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point. But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current presidential election were born. Thus, in the relevant time period, and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are “natural born Citizens.”

That conclusion about what the drafters meant is based partly on a law passed in 1790 by the first Congress, providing that the children of U.S. citizens born outside the country “shall be considered as natural born citizens.” The law is no longer in effect, but it’s considered evidence of the intent of the founders.

Then, in 1964, the Supreme Court muddied the waters by seeming to say, without deciding, that “natural born” meant born inside the United States.

Image: Barry Goldwater
Sen. Barry Goldwater in 1958. AP, file

In an opinion on an unrelated issue, the court observed, “The rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President.”

But that language is not legally binding, and the Supreme Court has never actually ruled on what “natural born” means.

Writing last year in the Harvard law Review, two former holders of the Justice Department’s top courtroom advocate job — Solicitor General — said Cruz met the qualification.

“All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding,” Neal Katyal and Paul Clement wrote.

But until the Supreme Court rules on the issue, or the Constitution is amended, the issue will remain officially unsettled.

St. George Tucker, the editor, says this in a footnote:

Persons naturalized according to these acts, are entitled to all the rights of natural born citizens, except, first, that they cannot be elected as representatives in congress until seven years, thereafter. Secondly, nor can they be elected senators of the United States, until nine years thereafter. Thirdly, they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States. Persons naturalized before the adoption of the constitution, it is presumed, have all the capacities of natural born citizens. See C. U. S. Art. 1, 2.

In an 1829 treatise, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, William Rawle (1759-1836), formerly the U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania (1791-1799), wrote that

The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. … [He] who was subsequently born the citizen of a State, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. …. Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that … no person is eligible to the office of President unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.

The issue was examined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the dissenting opinion of J. Curtis (which should be read in combination with the dissenting opinion of J. McLean for a better understanding of the issues in the case) in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U. S. 576 (1856):

The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth. At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been in conformity with the common law that free persons born within either of the colonies were subjects of the King that by the Declaration of Independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States, except so far as some of them were disfranchised by the legislative power of the States, or availed themselves, seasonably, of the right to adhere to the British Crown in the civil contest, and thus to continue British subjects.

ustice Gray explained in that case:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

It was also touched upon in Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913):

Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.

The closest the U.S. Supreme Court has come to addressing eligibility to be president was in Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939):

There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States… [citing to Steinkauler’s Case, which was an opinion given by Edwards Pierrepont, who was Attorney General for Ulysses S. Grant].

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INTRIGUE ON THE QUESTION, WHAT DOES NATURAL BORN MEAN. WILL THE SUPREME COURT RULE ON THIS RUDIMENTARY QUESTION?

CRUZ WILL GIVE THE ETHANOL FARMERS THE GAS

Ethanol subsidies are not to be touched. That is the old paradigm, but Ted Cruz says they must go.

ETHANOL SUBSIDIES – WELFARE TO THE WEALTHY

As the Iowa primaries begin to put the focus on the front runners, the question arises, who are the pandering politicians who will continue the ruse on America.  See below for the ethanol scam perpetuated by lying bought off politicians who don’t give a good God Damn about you. They are bought, time is now to out them. By the way Ted Cruz against ethanol subsidies.

The corn ethanol industry has received more than its fair share of subsidies over the past 30 years. Through federal tax credits, loan guarantees, grants and other subsidies, billions of taxpayer dollars have been squandered on an industry that relentlessly seeks additional special interest carve-outs. A nearly identical tax credit to the one proposed by the president – the “Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property Credit” – has been available to gasoline stations dispensing 85 percent ethanol.

It expired last year but has a history of being renewed in “tax extenders” packages. A federal Renewable Fuel Standard also mandates the use of 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol by 2015. While the biofuels industry as a whole was intended to help achieve American energy independence, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and spur rural economic development, the corn ethanol industry has fallen short of achieving these goals while spurring numerous unintended consequences and long-term liabilities that have resulted in more harm than good.

So it was great news that the (otherwise terrible) 2014 farm bill (officially the Agricultural Act of 2014) prevents the mature corn ethanol industry from receiving subsidies to purchase pumps dispensing higher blends of corn ethanol.

Now for the bad news. Less than a month after signing the farm bill into law, the president proposed new subsidies for ethanol blender pumps in his FY 2015 budget proposal. The overall budget was released last Tuesday, with detailed back up documents following in the last few days. Buried on page 158 of the “Analytical Perspectives” document, released Monday, is up to $200 million in new advanced energy manufacturing tax credits for the “construction of infrastructure that contributes to networks of refueling stations that serve alternative fuels,” or in other words, more subsidies for corn ethanol blender pumps and other alternative fuel infrastructure projects. Such is the power of the corn ethanol lobby.

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Mark down May 29 as the date when the last tether connecting ethanol subsidies to reality came unhitched, and the fuel made from corn and tax dollars achieved a kind of postmodern perfection. On the same day the Obama Administration conceded that the U.S. auto fleet cannot practically consume enough ethanol to fulfill Congress’s quotas, it announced a new program so motorists can consume more ethanol.

In other words, the point of the subsidy is the subsidy, and therefore the U.S. must subsidize ethanol because the U.S. already subsidizes ethanol. Once in place, such self-referential mandates appear to be eternal.

The 2007 energy bill’s renewable fuel standard requires certain annual volumes of ethanol to be bootlegged into the U.S. gasoline supply, but for years the mandate has crashed into the “blend wall.” Ethanol is corrosive, and gallons of conventional gas with concentrations of the stuff higher than 10% damage the engines and fuel systems of most of the cars and trucks on the road today.

The problem is that Americans aren’t guzzling enough gallons to achieve Congress’s mandates at E-10—that is, 10% ethanol, 90% gas. Either we need to drive more in less fuel-efficient cars, consuming more overall. Or the concentration of ethanol in a given gallon needs to rise, risking accidents, breakdowns and valve, pump, cylinder and injector replacements rarely covered by consumer warranties. For model years 2001 through 2011, no car makers allow blends above E-10, and a little fewer than half say it is safe to fill up with E-15 for the last two model years.

To avoid filling this ethanol junkyard but also to avoid displeasing the corn lobby, the Environmental Protection Agency simply refused to finalize the quotas for 2014 and 2015. So the EPA has finally admitted in a regulation that “due to constraints in the fuel market to accommodate increasing volumes of ethanol, along with limits on the availability of non-ethanol renewable fuels,” the volume targets “cannot be achieved.”

The EPA thus proposed quotas that are 3.75 billion gallons below the statutory minimums for 2014, 2015 and 2016. Renewable Fuels

ETHANOLICS TO IOWA

 

Ethanol

Ethanol is a major market for Iowa corn – 47% of Iowa corn goes into ethanol production. Today, over 95% of all fuel sold in the U.S. is blended with 10% ethanol.

There are more choices for consumers to use more green fuel in their tank. One in ten vehicles sold in Iowa can fill up on E85, or midlevel blends like E30.  The EPA approved E15 (that’s 15% ethanol) for 2001 and newer cars, light-duty trucks, medium-duty passenger vehicles (SUVs), and all flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) and that’s over 80% of all vehicles on the road today.

Retailers need to hear from drivers like you that you want to drive with higher blends of a home-grown fuel from E15 to E85. The time is now to fill up with home-grown fuels. Tell your retailer today! Print this card and leave with the manager or attendant at the counter. Do your part to support Iowa!

All eyes are will be focused on Iowa in 2016. Why? The first presidential caucus is in Iowa on February 1, 2016; currently Ben Carter holds a lead over Donald Trump. One may wonder why Iowa is so liberal. Ethanol? The good people of Iowa are drunk on ethanol.

From watchdog.org. So what’s the hold-up on subjecting ethanol subsidies to the Hammers of Justi… ah, ‘market forces’?  The largely Iowa-based ethanol lobby, of course.  Speaking purely dispassionately, ending ethanol subsidies would cause a certain amount of disruption in that state.  Speaking not quite as dispassionately… the vigorous defense of government subsidies is not precisely a conservative virtue.

Corn based ethanol increases the cost of food at the expense of subsidizing wealthy Iowa farmers. Where no politician dear to tread is the ethanol subsidy or now what is called the renewable fuel standard.  America’s Renewable Future, is planning a multi-million-dollar media blitz to promote candidates who support the fuel standard and attack those who don’t in the run-up to state’s first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses. 

“They’re going to be in real trouble if they don’t, because we’re going to educate people on where the candidates stand,” said Eric Branstad, the son of Iowa’s governor and the director of the pro-ethanol campaign, billed as the industry’s most aggressive entry into presidential politics.

Effectively, the campaign to keep ethanol in gasoline continues. Iowa reaps billions of dollars a year because of it and their soul motive is to keep the status quo. This is at your expense and their gain.  “I think renewable fuels can be a big issue in the race,” said Monte Shaw, executive director of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association. Shaw, who lost a Republican House primary in Iowa earlier this year, says about 10,000 households in the state are directly invested in or employed by the renewable fuels industry, and nearly 300,000 Iowans are “pretty much directly engaged in agriculture,” he said. “That’s a lot of voters.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/ethanol-fuels-iowa-109557#ixzz3pwEa4DmR

So in a nutshell America should understand why Iowa is as liberal a state as you can get; the corn farmers are hooked on government subsidies. Welfare to the rich is alive and well. It could be said another way, Iowan’s are eating your lunch.

THE BEGINNING OF THE END – CIVIL WAR IS NOT A REMOTE POSSIBILITY IT IS A PROBABILITY

The Supreme Court cowards who have the audacity to make law will soon feel the noose of public opinion. To have six liberal justices rewrite the letter of the law violating the Constitution by subjugating the independence of States rights.. The time for revolt has come. Click here of the Hannity interview of Ted Cruz.