http://www.newspaper.indianlife.org/story/2015/01/05/news/earth-has-shifted-inuit-elders-issue-warning-to-nasa-and-the-world/582.html

"Earth has shifted"-Inuit elders issue warning to NASA and the world

January 5, 2015 | volume 35, number 4

The Inuits are indigenous people that inhabit the arctic regions of Canada, the United States and Greenland and throughout history their very lives have been dependent on being able to correctly forecast weather.... and they are warning NASA and the world that global warming isn't the cause of what we are seeing with extreme weather, earthquakes and other events.

Inuit elders say the earth has shifted, tilted or as they put it, "wobbled" to the north and they all agree "Their sky has changed!" They say it is becoming increasingly hard to predict the weather, something that is a must in the Arctic.

The earth has shifted, tilted or as they put it, "wobbled" to the north and they all agree "Their sky has changed!"

The elders maintain the Sun doesn't rise where it used to, they have longer daylight to hunt and the Sun is higher than it used to be and warms up quicker than before. The elders who were interviewed across the north all said the same thing, their sky has changed.

The stars the Sun and the Moon have all changed affecting the temperature, even affecting the way the wind blows, it is becoming increasingly hard to predict the weather, something that is a must on the Arctic.

The elders all agree, they believe the Earth has shifted, wobbled or tilted to the North.

In an article in The Big Wobble Almanac, and in a video, we see some of the extreme weather events being attributed to this "wobble."

In the article it states that NASA scientists and experts are "worried" by the information the Inuit Elders are providing for them.

Sent from my iPhone

http://illinoisfamily.org/education/yes-illinois-does-have-courageous-lawmakers/

Courageous Lawmakers Fight for Student Privacy

State Representative Tom Morrison (R-Palatine) introduced the bi-partisan Pupil Physical Privacy Act (HB 4474), which if passed would require the following:

[A] school board to designate each pupil restroom, changing room, or overnight facility accessible by multiple pupils simultaneously, whether located in a public school building or located in a facility utilized by the school for a school-sponsored activity, for the exclusive use of pupils of only one sex. Defines “sex” as the physical condition of being male or female, as determined by an individual’s chromosomes and identified at birth by that individual’s anatomy. 

Signing on as co-sponsors are John D. Anthony (R-Morris), Mark Batinick (R-Plainfield), John M. Cabello (R-Loves Park), C.D. Davidsmeyer (R-Jacksonville), Mary E. Flowers (D-Chicago), Jeanne M. Ives (R-Wheaton), Dwight Kay (R-Glen Carbon), Sherry L. Jesiel (R-Gurnee), Bill Mitchell (R-Decatur), Reginald Phillips (R-Charleston), David Reis (R-Olney), Barbara Wheeler (R-Crystal Lake), and Keith Wheeler (R-North Aurora). Who knew Illinois had this many wise and courageous leaders willing to endure the deceitful epithets hurled at anyone who dares to dissent from the foolish views espoused by “progressives”?

If we lived in a rational society committed to sexual sanity, such a bill would be wholly unnecessary, and anyone who sponsored such a bill would be thought of as daft. But we don’t, and therefore the bill is necessary. These lawmakers deserve many thanks for their courage and wisdom.

Of course, there already exists a federal law that specifically states that schools have the right to maintain sex-separated restrooms and locker rooms, but “progressives” never let little things like laws (or common sense, rationality, or decency) get in the way of advocacy for their sexual delusions:

[T]itle IX of the Education Amendments of 1972…is designed to eliminate (with certain exceptions) discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program….A recipient [of federal funds] may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for students of the other sex.

District 211, the largest high school district in Illinois now facilitates confusion and undermines modesty by allowing gender-dysphoric students—that is, students who wish they were the opposite sex—to use opposite sex restrooms and locker rooms. Those students who rightly don’t want to use restrooms and locker rooms with students of the opposite sex risk being called hateful and ignorant if they express their feelings. And they most assuredly can’t expect policy to reflect their feelings and beliefs.

District administrators absurdly describe this policy as “upholding dignity,” when in reality, allowing students to use opposite-sex locker restrooms denies the dignity of gender-dysphoric students as well as those students whose privacy they’re invading. What the district is really doing is upholding the disordered feelings and perverse ideology of Leftists.

Out of compassion for students who suffer from gender dysphoria, HB 4474 provides for a rational accommodation of their desire not to use restrooms corresponding to their sex, while still respecting essential and immutable sex differences:

[HB 4474] Authorizes a school board to provide reasonable accommodations to a pupil to use a single-occupancy restroom or changing room or the regulated use of a faculty restroom or changing room if the pupil is an adult or an emancipated minor, or the parent or guardian of a minor pupil submits to school officials, in writing, a request to receive such accommodations and the pupil is a member of the male sex but does not identify as a member of the male sex or the pupil is a member of the female sex but does not identify as a member of the female sex

Parents and students who know truth

There are a remnant of wise and courageous parents and students whose minds remain unclouded by the toxic ideological stew that poisons our anti-culture. They know that physical embodiment is not only immutable but also good and that the natural modesty that derives from physical embodiment should be both respected and cultivated.

They know that students should be neither ordered, nor asked, nor permitted to use restrooms and locker rooms with those whose sex they don’t share.

They know that restroom stalls within restrooms and private changing cubicles within locker rooms do not provide sufficient privacy to separate properly boys from girls or women from men.

They know that objective biological sex is more meaningful and important than feelings about one’s objective biological sex.

To these parents and students, it makes no difference if the boy who seeks to use the girls’ restrooms and locker room likes his penis or loathes it. A boy does not belong in a girls’ restroom (and vice versa).

Gender Identity Disorder and Amputee Identity Disorder

What no school administrator or gender-dysphoric person has proved is that the mismatch between the sex of gender-dysphoric persons and their desires about their sex is a disorder of their healthy, properly functioning bodies rather than their minds. And how precisely is their discomfort with their bodies different from the discomfort of those with Amputee Identity Disorder (also known as Body Integrity Identity Disorder [BIID])?

Those with BIID identify with amputees. They believe they should have been born with missing limbs, and they have a persistent desire to have a limb or limbs amputated in order to achieve consonance between their feelings and their bodies. Because the medical establishment will not amputate healthy limbs, sometimes those with BIID will deliberately harm healthy limbs in order to force an amputation. Society and the medical establishment view this as a disorder of the mind—not the body. What rational sense does it make to view as barbaric the amputation of a healthy arm but therapeutic to amputate a healthy penis? Will schools allow those with BIID access to accommodations designed and intended for those without legs—an accommodation, by the way, that does not deny the privacy, feelings, or beliefs of others?

Remember, the Left says there are no behaviors, thoughts, or feelings that are intrinsically male or female. They believe all human phenomena are arbitrarily deemed male or female. Preferences in toys, activities, and colors are neither inherently or objectively male nor female. Ways of thinking and feeling are neither male nor female. So, all that exists immutably and objectively as male or female is biological sex. Gender-dysphoric persons cannot in reality have a male or female “identity” because there exists no such thing. Gender-dysphoric persons can’t have a male or female identity because male and female “identities” are merely arbitrary, phantasmic social constructions. The only true thing that can be said about gender-dysphoric persons with regard to maleness and femaleness is that they desire to change the one thing they cannot: their sex. Restrooms and locker rooms correspond to sex.

 “Transgender” restroom/locker room policies inculcate

Defenders of feckless, unethical, and irrational “transgender” restroom and locker room practices and policies dismiss the concerns of their opponents by claiming that most students don’t fully undress in locker rooms, or that normal students don’t mind undressing in front of gender-dysphoric students, or that there aren’t many gender-dysphoric students asking to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms. But none of those arguments are sound or persuasive. Policies that maintain sex-separated areas for students to engage in personal activities pertaining to physical embodiment not only protect the privacy, safety, and modesty of students but also teach important ideas about the immutability, meaning, and goodness of objective sex.

Conversely, policies and practices that allow boys (who will always be boys) and girls (who will always be girls) to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms teach controversial, subversive Leftist assumptions about objective biological sex, cross-dressing, modesty, compassion, and bigotry.

“Transgender” activists= 21^st Century alchemists

Like medieval alchemists, Leftists demand that all of society believe or pretend to believe that men can be transformed into women. Even some conservatives will argue foolishly that it would be acceptable for students to use opposite-sex facilities if they’ve had their penises or breasts amputated. It shouldn’t need to be said, but here goes: Men do not become women if their penises are amputated, and women do not become men if their breasts are amputated. Taking cross-sex hormones doesn’t change people into the opposite sex either. While elective amputations of healthy arms or legs actually do transform those with BIID into amputees, all that surgery and cross-sex hormones accomplish for gender-dysphoric persons is create elaborate and deceptive anatomical costumes—oh, and render them sterile.

What is coming

For now, school districts are willing to accommodate the Neanderthaloid beliefs of parents and students who know truth—I repeat, for now. The ultimate goal of “LGBTQQAP” activists and their allies, however, is to compel society to accept their subjective belief that objective biological sex is ultimately irrelevant—a meaningless, arbitrary anatomical trifle, like a birthmark or wart. To them, objective sex is meaningful only if one chooses to affirm it as meaningful. The subjective self determines the meaning and value of all phenomena. Therefore, in this brave new world, all restrooms, dressing rooms, and locker rooms will be co-ed/sex-neutral. There will remain no place in schools or public places for separation by sex.

This effort to subvert the cultural understanding of maleness and femaleness through government schools, rhetoric, law, and courts is as revolutionary and destructive as any issue in contemporary America. Americans should be at school board meetings in droves and preparing themselves for civil disobedience.

Take ACTION:

1.)  Many elementary, middle, and high schools are quietly implementing these practices with no parental notification or input. Parents: Contact your administrations and ask if they are permitting or would permit gender-dysphoric students to use opposite-sex restrooms and/or locker rooms. Further, tell your administration that under no circumstance will your child be permitted to use a restroom or locker room that students of the opposite sex are permitted to use.

2.)  If your state representative is a co-sponsor of HB 4474, contact him or her to offer your thanks.

3.)  If your state representative is not yet a co-sponsor of HB 4474, click HERE to urge him or her to sign on.

“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would” (Alice in Wonderland).

---

Worldview Conference with Dr. Wayne Grudem

We are very excited about our second annual Worldview Conference featuring world-renowned theologian Dr. Wayne Grudem on Saturday, February 20, 2016 in Barrington.

Click HERE to register today!

In the morning sessions, Dr. Grudem will speak on how biblical values provide the only effective solution to world poverty and about the moral advantages of a free-market economic system. In the afternoon, Dr. Grudem will address why Christians—and especially pastors—should influence government for good as well as tackle the moral and spiritual issues in the 2016 election.

We look forward to this worldview-training and pray it will be a blessing to you.

Click HERE for a flyer.

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/01/28/2887248/

Lawyer for Operation Rescue Claims Planned Parenthood Invoices Show Fetal Tissue Purchases

HOUSTON, Texas — Briscoe Cain, the Texas legal counsel for Operation Rescue says Planned Parenthood invoices show that fetal tissue was being purchased for medical research. Cain, and David Daleidon, the indicted president for Center for Medical Progress, claim they have financial documents which show wrongdoing on the part of Houston’s Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast.

Cain told Breitbart Texas that the bills from Planned Parenthood to four Texas universities were obtained through a Texas Public Information Act request.

Briscoe Cain, the Texas lawyer for Operation Rescue held a press conference on Thursday at the mega-Planned Parenthood in Houston.

Texas Values President Jonathan Saenz and Houston attorney Briscoe Cain answer media questions at a press conference at the Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast.

In a statement obtained by Breitbart Texas, Cain said, “The purpose of releasing these documents is to shed light on previously unseen evidence of criminal activity by Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast and to publicly release for the first time financial documents exposing the practice of purchasing aborted fetal tissue by Texas medical schools.”

Cain added, “We expect this to be key evidence used by the State of Texas as they continue their investigation of Planned Parenthood’s activities.”

Cain claims his records are comprised of invoices and emails and that they show that Texas Medical Branch Galveston, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas, and Texas Tech University Health Science Center El Paso, have purchased fetal thymus, liver, spleen, brain and lung for conducting medical research.

These invoices, Cain alleges, “appear to throw water on Planned Parenthood’s claim that they do not profit from the sale of fetal tissue, but only make enough to cover their costs.”

Cain says that the invoices include totals that are divided into two categories. The first is either described as an administrative fee or reimbursement expense. The second is called a “Consent Payment.” He said if the first is truly an administrative or reimbursement cost, this would be legal under federal law. He says a “Consent Payment,” which “depending on the meaning could equal profit,” is illegal.

Cain said “Fetal tissue must be obtained by consent before it goes to a research entity.”

“The amount charged per consent differs from invoice to invoice, even when the invoices purport to be for the same billing period. The meaning of the phrase ‘consent payment’ can only be inferred from circumstantial evidence. One way to determine the meaning is to listen to the Center for Medical Progress video taken at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast,” said Cain.

Breitbart News’ Austin Ruse reported about this fifth Center for Medical Progress undercover video. It shows the director of research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Melissa Farrell, discussing the sale of whole intact aborted babies and discussing the altering of the abortion process in order to obtain whole intact babies.

“The amount charged per consent differs from invoice to invoice, even when the invoices purport to be for the same billing period. The meaning of the phrase ‘consent payment’ can only be inferred from circumstantial evidence. One way to determine the meaning is to listen to the Center for Medical Progress video taken at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast,” said Cain.

Melissa Farrell’s signature appears on UTMB invoices. These were provided to Breitbart Texas by Cain (see attached below).

In reference to consent payment, Farrell said on the video, “I think it’s paying for the specimen itself.”

“Melissa Farrell’s statement suggests that ‘consent payment’ is code for payment received for each baby part sold,” explained Cain.

Attorney Briscoe Cain and David Daleidon.

David Daleiden, who was indicted this week by a Harris County grand jury, had this to say about the meaning of “Consent Payment.”

“Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast’s Director of Research, Melissa Farrell, has overseen their program selling aborted fetal parts over the past 10 years. Farrell admitted on camera to undercover investigators that PPGC words the per-specimen charges for fetal specimens as ‘per consent’ in order to ‘frame’ the project budget in a way that will look legal ‘on paper.'”

Daleidon added, “Whether the ‘consent fee’ for fetal tissue is $25 or $150, it is completely outside the letter and spirit of Texas Penal Code 48.02.”

In Daleidon’s statement provided by Cain he says, “Farrell even suggests that a ‘per consent’ payment can accommodate situations where a fetal specimen is unusable so a buyer would not pay for low-quality fetal parts–a clear admission that the payments are based on market value of the fetal specimens, not on reimbursement of actual costs.”

Daleidon continued, “Now, Texas taxpayers can see the illegal proxy payments for fetal specimens on PPGC’s own invoices to UT Medical Branch, which inexplicably jumped from $25 per specimen to $150 per specimen over the course of one year.”

Daleidon said in this statement, “Governor Abbott and Attorney General Paxton must hold Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast accountable for their flagrant violation of the Texas Penal Code and their abuse of Texas taxpayers’ dollars.”

As reported by Breitbart Texas, Texas’ Governor Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, and Attorney General Ken Paxton, have all vowed to continue to investigate any legal violations in connection to abortions in Texas.

This article has been updated with photographs and additional information.

Lana Shadwick is a writer and legal analyst for Breitbart Texas. Follow her@LanaShadwick2

Invoice Between UTMB Galveston and Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast

Sent from my iPhone

SALON ON U. S. MILITARY

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/09/you_dont_protect_my_freedom_our_childish_insistence_on_calling_soldiers_heroes_deadens_real_democracy/

You don’t protect my freedom: Our childish insistence on calling soldiers heroes deadens real democracy

Put a man in uniform, preferably a white man, give him a gun, and Americans will worship him. It is a particularly childish trait, of a childlike culture, that insists on anointing all active military members and police officers as “heroes.” The rhetorical sloppiness and intellectual shallowness of affixing such a reverent label to everyone in the military or law enforcement betrays a frightening cultural streak of nationalism, chauvinism, authoritarianism and totalitarianism, but it also makes honest and serious conversations necessary for the maintenance and enhancement of a fragile democracy nearly impossible.

It has become impossible to go a week without reading a story about police brutality, abuse of power and misuse of authority. Michael Brown’s murder represents the tip of a body pile, and in just the past month, several videos have emerged of police assaulting people, including pregnant women, for reasons justifiable only to the insane.

It is equally challenging for anyone reasonable, and not drowning in the syrup of patriotic sentimentality, to stop saluting, and look at the servicemen of the American military with criticism and skepticism. There is a sexual assault epidemic in the military. In 2003, a Department of Defense study found that one-third of women seeking medical care in the VA system reported experiencing rape or sexual violence while in the military. Internal and external studies demonstrate that since the official study, numbers of sexual assaults within the military have only increased, especially with male victims. According to the Pentagon, 38 men are sexually assaulted every single day in the U.S. military. Given that rape and sexual assault are, traditionally, the most underreported crimes, the horrific statistics likely fail to capture the reality of the sexual dungeon that has become the United States military.

Chelsea Manning, now serving time in prison as a whistle-blower, uncovered multiple incidents of fellow soldiers laughing as they murdered civilians. Keith Gentry, a former Navy man, wrote that when he and his division were bored they preferred passing the time with the “entertainment” of YouTube videos capturing air raids of Iraq and Afghanistan, often making jokes and mocking the victims of American violence. If the murder of civilians, the rape of “brothers and sisters” on base, and the relegation of death and torture of strangers as fodder for amusement qualifies as heroism, the world needs better villains.

It is undeniable that there are police officers who heroically uphold their motto and mission to “serve and protect,” just as it is indisputable that there are members of the military who valiantly sacrifice themselves for the sake of others. Reviewing the research proving cruelty and mendacity within law enforcement and the military, and reading the stories of trauma and tragedy caused by officers and soldiers, does not mean that no cop or troop qualifies as a hero, but it certainly means that many of them are not heroes.

Acknowledging the spread of sadism across the ranks of military also does not mean that the U.S. government should neglect veterans, as they often do, by cutting their healthcare options, delaying or denying treatment, and reducing psychiatric services. On the contrary, if American politicians and pundits genuinely believed that American military members are “heroes,” they would not settle for sloganeering, and garish tributes. They would insist that veterans receive the best healthcare possible. Improving and universalizing high quality healthcare for all Americans, including veterans, is a much better and truer way to honor the risks soldiers and Marines accept on orders than unofficially imposing a juvenile and dictatorial rule over speech in which anything less than absolute and awed adulation for all things military is treasonous.

One of the reasons that the American public so eagerly and excitedly complies with the cultural code of lionizing every soldier and cop is because of the physical risk-taking and bravery many of them display on the foreign battleground and the American street. Physical strength and courage is only useful and laudable when invested in a cause that is noble and moral. The causes of American foreign policy, especially at the present, rarely qualify for either compliment. The “troops are heroes” boosters of American life typically toss out clichés to defend their generalization – “They defend our freedom,” “They fight so we don’t have to.”

No American freedom is currently at stake in Afghanistan. It is impossible to imagine an argument to the contrary, just as the war in Iraq was clearly fought for the interests of empire, the profits of defense contractors, and the edification of neoconservative theorists. It had nothing to do with the safety or freedom of the American people. The last time the U.S. military deployed to fight for the protection of American life was in World War II – an inconvenient fact that reduces clichés about “thanking a soldier” for free speech to rubble. If a soldier deserves gratitude, so does the litigator who argued key First Amendment cases in court, the legislators who voted for the protection of free speech, and thousands of external agitators who rallied for more speech rights, less censorship and broader access to media.

Wars that are not heroic have no real heroes, except for the people who oppose those wars. Far from being the heroes of recent wars, American troops are among their victims. No rational person can blame the soldier, the Marine, the airman, or the Navy man for the stupid and destructive foreign policy of the U.S. government, but calling them “heroes,” and settling for nothing less, makes honest and critical conversations about American foreign policy less likely to happen. If all troops are heroes, it doesn’t make much sense to call their mission unnecessary and unjust. It also makes conversations about the sexual assault epidemic, or the killing of innocent civilians, impossible. If all troops are heroes, it doesn’t make any sense to acknowledge that some are rapists and sadists.

The same principle of clear-eyed scrutiny applies to law enforcement agencies. Police departments everywhere need extensive investigation of their training methods, qualifications for getting on the job, and psychological evaluation. None of that will happen as long as the culture calls cops heroes, regardless of their behavior.

You Might Also Like

An understandable reason for calling all troops heroes, even on the left, is to honor the sacrifice they make after they die or endure a life-altering injury in one of America’s foolish acts of aggression. A more helpful and productive act of citizenship, and sign of solidarity with the military, is the enlistment in an antiwar movement that would prevent the government from using its volunteer Army as a plaything for the financial advancement and political cover of the state-corporate nexus and the military-industrial complex of Dwight Eishenhower’s nightmares.

Given the dubious and dangerous nature of American foreign policy, and the neglect and abuse veterans often suffer when returning home wounded or traumatized, Americans, especially those who oppose war, should do everything they can to discourage young, poor and working-class men and women from joining the military. Part of the campaign against enlistment requires removing the glory of the “hero” label from those who do enlist. Stanley Hauerwas, a professor of divinity studies at Duke whom Time called “America’s best theologian,” has suggested that, given the radical pacifism of Jesus Christ, American churches should do all they can to discourage its young congregants from joining the military. Haurwas’ brand of intellectual courage is necessary, even among non-Christians, to combat the hysterical sycophancy toward the military in a culture where even saluting a Marine, while holding a coffee cup, is tantamount to terrorism.

The men and women who do enlist deserve better than to die in the dirt and come home in a bag, or spend their lives in wheelchairs, and their parents should not have to drown in tears and suffer the heartbreak of burying their children. The catastrophes become less common when fewer people join the military.

Calling all cops and troops heroes insults those who actually are heroic – the soldier who runs into the line of fire to protect his division, the police officer who works tirelessly to find a missing child – by placing them alongside the cops who shoot unarmed teenagers who have their hands in the air, or the soldier who rapes his subordinate.

It also degrades the collective understanding of heroism to the fantasies of high-budget, cheap-story action movies. The American conception of heroism seems inextricably linked to violence; not yet graduated from third-grade games of cops and robbers. Explosions and smoking guns might make for entertaining television, but they are not necessary, and more and more in modern society, not even helpful in determining what makes a hero.

A social worker who commits to the care and advocacy of adults with developmental disabilities – helping them find employment, group home placement and medical care, and just treating them with love and kindness – is a hero. A hospice worker in a poor neighborhood, providing precious comfort and consolation to someone dying on the ugly edges of American healthcare, is a hero. An inner-city teacher, working hard to give essential education and meaningful affirmation to children living in neighborhoods where bullets fly and families fall apart, is a hero.

Not all teachers, hospice workers or social workers are heroes, but emphasizing the heroism of those who do commit to their clients, patients and students with love and service would cause a shift of America’s fundamental values. It would place the spotlight on tender and selfless acts of solidarity and empathy for the poor. Calling all cops heroes too often leads to pathetic deference to authority, even when the results are fatal, and insisting all members of the military are heroes too often reinforces the American values of militarism and exceptionalism.

The assignment of heroism, exactly like the literary construct, might have more to do with the assignment of villainy than the actual honoring of “heroes.” Every hero needs a villain. If the only heroes are armed men fighting the country’s wars on drugs and wars in the Middle East, America’s only villains are criminals and terrorists. If servants of the poor, sick and oppressed are the heroes, then the villains are those who oppress, profit from inequality and poverty, and neglect the sick. If that is the real battle of heroism versus villainy, everyone is implicated, and everyone has a far greater role than repeating slogans, tying ribbons and placing stickers on bumpers.

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article54991080.html

More Cruz family drama: mother’s first husband is an ex-pat Texan in London

On Ted Cruz’s Canadian birth certificate, his mother is listed as Eleanor Darragh Wilson, using the last name of her first husband, Alan Wilson. The Fort Worth native and long-time resident of London, Wilson is now an unwitting player in the drama that surrounds Cruz’s family.

Wilson, who has never previously spoken about his past with the news media, told McClatchy in a telephone interview from London that he did not realize he was connected to the U.S. Texas senator, however indirect. He didn’t realize that his first wife, Eleanor, whose maiden name is Darragh, had such a well-known son, whose citizenship is at issue in the presidential campaign, or that “Wilson” is on the birth certificate.

“I’ll be darned,” said Wilson, who speaks in a soft tone with traces of his Texas origins. “No kidding. That is Eleanor’s son? I had no idea.” He said he knew that she “had married a man named Cruz” but little else and had not made the connection to the presidential candidate.

Cruz’s mother is at the center of an explosive issue in the GOP presidential primary, whether the Texas senator is eligible to be president. During Thursday night’s GOP debate, Cruz and New York billionaire Donald Trump battled over Cruz’s claim that he’s a “natural born” citizen, a requirement in the Constitution for any president.

Cruz relies on his mother’s U.S. citizenship for his “natural-born” status since his father, Rafael Cruz, held Cuban citizenship at the time of Ted Cruz’s birth.

During the debate, Cruz said it is “settled law” that a child born abroad of a U.S. citizen is automatically a U.S. citizen at birth and therefore “natural born.” But Trump disagreed, and legal experts differ on what the law provides. No U.S. president has ever been born outside the United States.

Wilson confirmed one fact critical to Cruz’s presidential campaign, that Cruz’s mother never became a British subject while she was working in London. Despite his many years in Britain, Wilson said he too never became a citizen of the United Kingdom.

Wilson makes a brief appearance in Cruz’s book, “A Time for Truth: Reigniting the Promise of America,” which was published last year. 

“In 1956, my mom married her first husband, a mathematician named Alan Wilson,” Cruz wrote. The couple moved to London in 1960 after a few years working in the U.S., and Cruz revealed something of a bombshell: his mother had given birth to a son, Michael Wilson, in 1965, who had died a crib death later in the year. 

Cruz wrote about his mother’s devastation: “Losing Michael to crib death broke my mother’s heart, and had a profound effect on her, so much so that I never even knew that I had had a brother until I was a teenager and my mother told me the story.”

Cruz added, “And the heartbreak also ended her marriage.” 

Wilson, floored to learn that he was mentioned in Cruz’s book, said, in a bombshell of his own, that the account is not accurate: He was not the father of the baby.

“We were divorced and she was living on her own,” said Wilson. He said that Eleanor asked him if she could use his last name on the birth certificate. When Michael Wilson later died, he said, “I hadn’t even met the baby.”

Alan Wilson said by chance he and Eleanor Wilson were being treated in the same hospital when she was pregnant when a nurse told him “his wife” was there – startling the Fort Worthian. “I didn’t know she was pregnant. We were definitely divorced.”

Asked what went wrong, he said, “Marriages don’t always work. It wasn’t because of infidelities or anything like that.”

He said the time frame was around 1963 that they were divorced. 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. 

Cruz’s mother did not return a phone message to her Houston home asking for comment.

Eleanor Wilson left England sometime after the death of Michael and returned to the United States, where she met Rafael Cruz, whom she married in 1969. Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, in 1970.

Told that Eleanor had used his last name on Ted Cruz’s birth certificate, Wilson said, “I see. That’s interesting.” Pressed to say how he felt about it, he said, “I don’t have any feelings about it.” He later wondered, “Why did she do that? Maybe she’s adopting that name for no reason.”

Asked about what he thought of Ted Cruz, Wilson said, “I don’t necessarily keep track of what’s going on in the States. . . I know nothing about it.” He said he was neither a Democrat nor a Republican and does not vote. “I’m not there,” he said.

Eleanor Darragh and Alan Wilson met at Rice University in Houston in the 1950s when she was studying mathematics and he was a Ph.D. student in mathematics. They married in 1956 after Eleanor, then 21, graduated from Rice. Wilson received three degrees from Rice: a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering in 1949, a Masters in mathematics in 1956 and a Ph.D. in 1958. He also served in the Air Force after getting his bachelor’s degree. 

Although Wilson lived in various places in Texas, he still remembers Fort Worth well. “I was born there – 15 years of memories,” he said.

Wilson was born at Fort Worth’s St. Joseph’s Infirmary, a now defunct hospital, in 1928 to locally well known parents, Joseph Alan Wilson and Burness Elizabeth Elliston. The father was in advertising and later became an oil executive and the couple lived on Irwin Avenue in the well-heeled Mistletoe Heights neighborhood.

Wilson went to the city’s R. L. Paschal High School but the family moved to Dallas and he spent his senior year at Highland Park High School where he graduated in 1945.

But because he still had friends at Paschal, he attended his class’s 50th reunion in 1995. “I saw Fort Worth as it had been transformed,” he said, adding it was the last time he saw the city.

Wilson had no children of his own, and was married two more times to English women. He is retired after a long career working with computers.

Asked if he would like to talk to his first wife, Wilson paused. “No, I don’t think so. I’m glad things are well. I would be glad to read about her. I wish her every happiness.” 

Fort Worth Star-Telegram research director Cathy Belcher contributed to this report.

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2011/06/17/how-to-write-your-congressman/

How to Write Your Congressman

Editor’s Note: This is a guest post from Harry R. Burger. Mr. Burger wrote his first letter to his congressman over ten years ago, and once had his state assemblyman recognize him by name from the back of a crowd.

Politics is a time honored manly pursuit. If a man doesn’t stand up for his own interests, how can he rightly expect anyone else to? While actually running for office may be a goal for some, it behooves all citizens to at least be aware of the politics and current events of their community, nation, and world. When you come across an issue you feel strongly about, instead of yelling at the television, you can actually do something about it–write your Congressman.

“Why should my Congressman care what I think?” you may ask. Well, you are one of their constituents–that makes it their job to represent you in government. They work for you, and if they don’t do their job and satisfy the people they represent, they can get voted out of office in the next election.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right of all citizens to communicate with their elected representatives:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (emphasis added)

This is a right Americans are fortunate to have–and don’t exercise nearly enough. Many men feel cynical and apathetic, that politicians are so corrupt that it’s not worth their time to petition them. But that just turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy! Things will never change if good men don’t get involved and hold their politicians accountable. Writing your representatives may seem like only a small thing, but politicians need to know that their constituents are paying attention.

Writing to your Congressman, or any other elected official, isn’t as hard or time-consuming as you might imagine. Follow the guidelines outlined below, exercise your citizenship, and make your voice heard.

Before You Write Your Representative

1. Hone in on exactly why you are writing. 

Do you have a strong opinion on an issue you heard about in the news? Do you feel you have been treated unfairly by an agency of the government? Do you have a problem you believe deserves to be addressed by a new law? Does a particular law seem unfair to you, or to have undesirable implications? Are you applying to a service academy (i.e. West Point)? Are you working on the Citizenship in the Nation Merit Badge for the Boy Scouts? Are you making a courtesy invitation? Do you really like something your representative did?

It is important to sum up your purpose in one sentence, and not the kind with six commas. This is the first step, and it is important to give you focus and inform the rest of the process. Under most circumstances, this will be the first line of your letter.

2. Figure out whom you should be addressing. 

You need to make sure you are sending your message to the right person. This can sometimes take a little bit of homework, depending on your issue. Sometimes your senator or representative is not the best person to handle your issue. For example, if you are concerned with land zoning, this is probably best addressed to your town or county level officials, and issues of state law go to your state legislator. Usually, it is best to deal with someone as low as possible in the chain that can help you, so you don’t need to wait as your message is passed down through the chain. The fewer constituents an official has, the more personal attention they can afford to give your message.

Every jurisdiction is structured differently, so it is impossible to summarize how to figure this out here. The internet has made this much easier, as almost every government branch and agency has a website these days. For federal representatives, www.govtrack.us has an interactive map setup to help you figure out what district you are in. Often, your local chapter of the League of Women Voters will maintain and publish a list of government officials, or a local library should be able to help.

“Do not ask for something they cannot deliver. A Town Supervisor, for example, cannot lower school taxes or increase Social Security Benefits.” -Frank Petrone, Supervisor, Town of Huntington, NY

You almost always want to address someone who represents you directly. If you get to vote for them they will care more about what you think, and if you accidentally address the wrong legislator they might be obligated to ignore your request out of courtesy for your actual representative. One exception to this might be if the issue affects a location that’s close to your home but technically in a different district–then your best bet is to address your concern to both representatives, and tell them both that you are doing so.

3. Pick the appropriate medium for your message.

Almost all public officials have a website these days–just Google their name and then look for the “Contact” link on their page. They may have specific instructions on how they prefer to be contacted. For example, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and anthrax mailings, members of Congress asked for emails instead of letters because of the extra security screenings and delays associated with physical mail. In general, you should choose the medium according to the issue you want addressed and how strongly you feel about it.

• Hard copy: This is the most dignified and time honored method. There is something about committing a message to paper that makes it all the more official and concrete. Generally this is your best route if you have the time to do it right, and you want to be taken seriously.

Only handwrite the final copy if you have nice, legible penmanship. Handwriting adds a more personal touch, but if the person on the other end can’t read what you want, then what’s the point of writing at all? If yours isn’t very good, perhaps it is time to start a journal for practice.

• Email: Best for when time is not particularly urgent and you don’t care all that strongly about an issue, but you still want your voice heard. Please do still follow the other guidelines here–it is far too easy to fire off an email in the heat of anger and without proofreading, which could hurt your case if the reader associates your point of view with characteristics like “uninformed” or “uneducated” or “irrational.”

You may come across a cause asking you to write in using a pre-written form letter where you only have to fill in your address and signature. While this is better than doing nothing to support the cause, it makes you just one more number; their staff will say “we got 25 letters or emails supporting XYZ.” It’s a little better if you can add a personal notation in the space usually provided, but if you really want to make an impact, it is always best to write your own message from top to bottom. You can copy out ideas or statistics or such from the form letter, but try to paraphrase and make it more personal.

• Phone call: If you hear on the news that something is being voted on today or tomorrow and you can get a live person from their office on the horn, this is the way to make sure your message gets through before it is too late. Keep it short and factual and be very clear on what your position is. If it’s not that urgent, it’s better to use another avenue.

• Meeting in person: This one has a lot of variability. There may be a public hearing for a specific issue, they might hold an event specifically to meet constituents and/or fundraise, or they may attend a meeting of civic groups like a Chamber of Commerce. My state assemblyman is known for showing up personally at Eagle Scout Courts of Honor, for example.

Usually you will not have very much time to address them, as there are many others like you waiting to do the same. Know what you want to say before you stand up to the microphone or shake their hand.

One strategy is to send a letter beforehand and at the meeting introduce yourself and refer to the main points of your letter. This lets them put a face to a name and shows that you care enough to participate in politics on multiple fronts.

Writing the Letter

1. Open the letter with an appropriate salutation. For a Representative or Senator, “To the Honorable John Doe,” is a good way to go. Using a title here is also acceptable, “Dear Supervisor Petrone,” for example. Also, make sure your full name and address is on the letter itself–envelopes can get lost, and you need to be sure they can verify if you are a constituent or not and send you a response. This is still important if you are sending an email. All the normal standards of good letter writing apply. Good stationery can’t hurt either.

“Keep it short.” -NY State Assemblyman Jim Conte

2. Get straight to the point. The first line of the letter should summarize why you are writing and what it is that you want (you should already be clear on this if you followed the above guidelines). Options include, “Thank you for…” “I support the passage of…” “Bill XYZ should not be allowed to pass,” etc. If it’s about a specific bill, include its official name and number if possible (ex. “USA PATRIOT Act HR 3162”). Don’t ramble on too long–people tend to get bored and stop reading after a page or two unless you write something interesting enough to justify it. And if you ramble, it makes you seem like a crazy man.

3. Back up your concerns. Hard facts and statistics cited from a specific, published source (be sure to say where you get the information from) can support your position much better than nebulous statements and pure opinion. Personal stories are often appropriate. If you can tell a story of how this issue affects you or your family specifically, that helps to “bring it home.” Politicians love to be able to call out their constituents by name and put a face on the cause. This also helps to develop a more personal connection between you and your representative.

4. Always remember to be respectful. This is someone of power and influence you are addressing, and generally you are looking for them to do you a favor. Impugning your recipient’s character or honesty is counterproductive. Above all, do NOT include anything that could be construed as a threat, unless you enjoy the prospect of the FBI investigating you.

Receiving a Response

Members of Congress are entitled to franking privileges, which means that their signature in place of a stamp lets them send mail to their constituents for free. Other officials may not be so lucky, but it is still in their best interest to let you know what they are doing to help you out–after all, they want your vote, and you’ve already shown them you care more about politics than most.

You may or may not receive a response, depending on the person you address, the issue you discuss, how many people wrote in about that issue, how busy the office is with other mail, how busy the official is at the moment, and other factors too varied to count. The bottom line is that if you don’t get an answer, it may not be any fault of yours. It might even just be delayed–Vice President Dick Cheney’s office once took almost three years to decline a courtesy invitation to my Eagle Scout ceremony (they blamed it on post-9/11 mail security). If getting a response is important to you, ask for one specifically.

More likely than not, any response you do get will be some sort of a form letter. Keep in mind when you are reading their response that this person most likely got to their office at least in part because they are gifted wordsmiths and diplomats, which is to say, you’ll need to read between the lines. If they can honestly say, “I agree with you and I voted accordingly,” of course they will do so. Flowery talk about taking your views into consideration or such without an explicit “I voted this way,” means they voted the other way, and they know you won’t like it, but they are trying to make it sound like they are still on your side.

If they do something special to help you out, a thank you note to let them know that your issue has been resolved is a respectful courtesy.

Like any activity, writing effective letters is a skill that improves with practice, and the first time is the hardest. Do yourself a favor and get over that hump today. Find an issue that matters to you–even if your passion for it isn’t very strong–and let your elected official know how you feel.  It’s good practice for when you do have an important cause to champion.

Sent from my iPhone

http://illinoisfamily.org/uncategorized/pastor-david-jones-on-homosexuality-and-marriage/

Pastor David Jones on Homosexuality and Marriage

There has been a sustained assault on truth with regard to sexuality for the last 55 years. For the last 45 years that assault has included successful efforts to normalize homosexuality and gender dysphoria, efforts that have intensified over the last decade.

While this has been happening, many church leaders have failed to address adequately or at all issues related to homosexuality. Some have failed because they remain ignorant of the nature and implications of the “LGBT”-affirming juggernaut, which undermines truth and respect for the authority of Scripture and threatens the temporal and eternal lives of those who experience homoerotic feelings. Other church leaders have failed because of their own cowardice.

Thankfully, there are pastors who are steadfast in their exposition of biblical truth even in the face of harsh criticism. IFI is occasionally posting sermons by men of faith who seek to honor Christ in all things, which includes preaching sermons that the world will hate.

One of these wise and courageous pastors is David Jones who is the senior pastor of the Village Church of Barrington and who also served as the associate editor of The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Crossway, 2001).

Please take 50 minutes of your time to hear some truths that are too rarely spoken by pastors and priests. Better yet, watch and discuss this video together with your children, grandchildren, friends, or in your church small groups:

---

Worldview Conference with Dr. Wayne Grudem

We are very excited about our second annual Worldview Conference featuring world-renowned theologian Dr. Wayne Grudem on Saturday, February 20, 2016 in Barrington.

Click HERE to register today!

In the morning sessions, Dr. Grudem will speak on how biblical values provide the only effective solution to world poverty and about the moral advantages of a free-market economic system. In the afternoon, Dr. Grudem will address why Christians—and especially pastors—should influence government for good as well as tackle the moral and spiritual issues in the 2016 election.

We look forward to this worldview-training and pray it will be a blessing to you.

Click HERE for a flyer.

Sent from my iPhone

OBAMA VIDEO ABOUT HIS HERITAGE

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/unearthed-video-obama-mother-in-law-glad-he-wasnt-white/

<iframe width="512" height="376" src="http://player.pbs.org/viralplayer/2365440352" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" seamless allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://usanewsflash.com/obama-wins-u-s-to-give-visas-to-300000-muslim-migrants/

OBAMA WINS: U.S. To Give Visas To 300,000 Muslim Migrants!

(Breitbart) – On Wednesday, Senate Democrats successfully and predictably blocked what many conservatives described as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)’s “Show Vote’”on refugee admissions.

It has been called a show vote because the Ryan plan, even if the President signed it, would still allow the President to bring in an unlimited number of refugees from an unlimited number of countries.

Democrats’ filibuster on the motion to proceed to Ryan’s show vote comes one month after Speaker Ryan sent President Obama a blank check to fund visa issuances to nearly 300,000 (temporary and permanent) Muslim migrants in the next 12 months alone. Ryan’s decision to fully-fund Obama’s immigration agenda arguably ceded any leverage he may otherwise have had over Democrats and ensured the large-scale migration into America would continue and grow.

Ryan’s bill, known as the American SAFE Act, was blocked by 55-43.

Ryan’s inability to develop a winning strategy suggests he failed at what he has called the “first duty of the government.”  Ryan declared after the SAFE Act’s initial passage in the House:

“The first duty of our government is to keep the American people safe. That’s why, today, the House will vote on a plan to pause our Syrian refugee program… If our law enforcement and intelligence community cannot verify that each and every person coming here is not a security threat, then they shouldn’t be allowed in. Right now, the government can’t certify these standards, so this plan pauses the program. It’s a security test—not a religious test. This reflects our values. This reflects our responsibilities. And this is urgent. We cannot and should not wait to act—not when our national security is at stake.”

Ryan informed the press that he had “reached out to our Democratic colleagues” in crafting the plan, and touted his acquisition a “veto-proof majority”—which no longer seems relevant since the Senate blocked further movement on the bill.

While Ryan and House Republicans celebrated their supposed political victory— preparing to fully fund Obama’s refugee plans while offering up a show vote—  Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) never seemed concerned. As The Hill reported at the time: “When asked about the prospect of Obama vetoing the legislation, Reid said, ‘Don’t worry, it won’t get passed. Next question?’”

Although many House Republicans seemed convinced that putting forth a toothless bill was a brilliant strategy, many conservatives were not. For instance, Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC)’s office denounced Ryan’s bill as a “show vote” that would “do nothing to cut off the funding for President Barack Obama’s plan to import tens of thousands of Middle Eastern refugees into the U.S.” Jones explained that, “defunding President Obama’s refugee program is the only way to ensure there is an actual halt to a refugee influx.”

Hot Air’s AllahPundit even observed that Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)’s bill was more substantive than Paul Ryan’s: “Another irony: when you compare the House GOP’s bill to what Senate Dems are pushing, it’s the Democratic bill that’s more substantive.”

Mark Levin slammed Ryan’s entire proposal as a fraud. “You’re not securing the homeland, you’re pretending to secure the homeland,” Levin declared, later tweeting out: “Washington fighting over phony policy and want you to think it is serious.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) explained that the legislation Ryan pushed through the House “allows the President to continue to bring in as many refugees as he wants from anywhere in the world.”

In a post entitled, “Uh, the House Bill to Pause the Syrian Refugee Program Doesn’t Really Pause the Syrian Refugee Program,” National Review’s Rich Lowry wrote: “It was nice to see the House get a veto-proof majority for its Syrian refugee bill. The problem is, when you get down to it, it doesn’t do anything.”

Given these reactions, it is unsurprising that there was no public momentum behind Ryan’s bill.

But Ryan further ensured there would be no momentum for his strategy— and no pressure on Democrats— by attacking conservatives’ desire to block Muslim immigration. Ryan went to great lengths to ensure America that, as long as he was in charge, no proposals to restrict mass Muslim migration would be tolerated.

Ryan—who, according to recent reports, is “rapidly emerging as Republicans’ anti-Trump” and as a “counterweight to Trump”—made a concerted effort to frame his refugee plan in this light.

Indeed, in early December, Ryan held a press conference publicly condemning the GOP frontrunner’s proposal to temporarily pause Muslim migration. Ryan declared that Trump’s plan “is not conservatism”—even though 65% of all conservative voters think America should allow zero refugees from the Middle East into America, according to Rasmussen. Ryan also adopted the left’s talking point—insisting that there is no need to curb Muslim migration into the United States because “the vast, vast, vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and believe in pluralism, freedom, democracy and individual rights.”

It was never publicly explained by House Republicans how there would be momentum for their strategy if Speaker Ryan was using his pulpit to ensure America that massive Muslim immigration would make America a more free, peaceful, and democratic nation.

Similarly, in a nationally televised interview with Sean Hannity, Ryan ruled out the possibility of curbing Muslim migration, proclaiming: “That’s not who we are”.

Perhaps most noticeably, Ryan helped recruit Nikki Haley to deliver the Republican’s State of the Union rebuttal, in which Haley criticized Trump’s proposal to curb Muslim migration and made the case for functionally unlimited immigration.

By framing Muslim immigration as a huge positive for America, and by putting up a show vote that did not reduce Muslim immigration in any way, the result was that there was no capacity to put any public pressure on Democrats to change their position. One aide Breitbart News spoke with put it this way:

“If we wanted to beat Democrats, we needed to highlight the attacks on women carried out by Muslims, highlight the sinister spread of Female Genital Mutilation, highlight the welfare costs, and cultural dangers, the spread of radical Islam inside our borders. Then, we need a proposal to actually pause Muslim immigration. Instead, Paul Ryan celebrated the idea of unlimited Muslim immigration— with all its transformative effects— while putting forward a bill that did nothing. Democrats never broke a sweat. Having Ryan in charge of refugee strategy is like putting the world’s fattest man in charge of your diet plan.”

Indeed, Ryan seemed much more eager to collaborate with Democrats. When pressed about his refugee bill, Ryan expressed his desire to cooperate with Democrats— not dissimilar from his $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill, which was praised by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Reid, and the White House. Ryan said:

“This should not be a partisan issue… This should not be about Republicans and Democrats. This should be about keeping America safe… We’re trying to make this bipartisan because we don’t think this should be a Republican or Democrat issue, it should be an American security issue.”

Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly warned fifty years ago that the donor-class—or Kingmakers, as she calls them—who control the Republican Party prefer lawmakers and candidates “who would sidestep or suppress the key issues” by compromising with Democrats on the issues that matter to Republican voters.

Schlafly explained that in doing so, the Kingmakers are able to create an ostensible consensus between both Party leaders—and, as a result, voters are denied their ability to choose a party that represents their interests, since both parties represent merely an echo of the other side. Thus, Ryan’s declarations that, “We don’t think this should be a Republican or Democrat issue,” and “We’re trying to make this bipartisan,” and “This should be about keeping America safe” bears striking resemblance to what Schlafly warned about in 1964:

“The kingmakers and their propaganda apparatus have launched a series of false slogans designed to mask the failure of their candidates to debate the major issues. Some of these are the following: ‘Politics should stop at the water’s edge.’ ‘We must unite behind our President who has sole power in the field of foreign affairs.’ ‘Foreign policy should be bipartisan.’ ”

In response to today’s failure, Ryan issued a tepid five-sentence response reproaching Senate Democrats’ maneuver as “irresponsible.” While Ryan’s strategy turned out to be unsuccessful, the outcome was not perhaps entirely surprising. In his “bold” Republican agenda released last week, Ryan— who has a two-decade long history of pushing mass immigration — did not include a word about an immigration crackdown. But, considering Ryan’s previous claim that migrants from the third world make the “best Americans,” Ryan himself may regard his own strategy as highly successful.

www.breitbart.com

Comments

6 comments

Sent from my iPhone