text:
London's New Muslim Mayor: Extremist or Opportunist?
May 9, 2016 /in Culture War, Elections, Featured, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Clarion Project
During the election, questions arose about Sadiq Khan's long history of association with extremists.
Majid Nawaz's assessment of London's new Muslim mayor, the newly elected Sadiq Khan, is that he is not an Islamist extremist. He is merely a manipulative politician willing to use guile and duplicity to achieve his electoral aims — not so different from the average politician.
Leading up to the mayoral vote, questions arose about Khan's association with extremists, which constitutes a long list in the new mayor's political history.
In 2001, Khan was the lawyer for the American radical Islamist group Nation of Islam, successfully arguing in front of the UK's High Court to overturn the ban on its leader, Louis Farrakhan.
In 2003, Khan appeared at a conference with Sajeel Abu Ibrahim, a member of the banned al-Muhajiroun group that was founded by hate preacher Omar Bakri Muhammad (now prohibited from entering the UK) and led by hate preacher Anjem Choudary (whose many organizations have been said to have contributed "the single biggest gateway to terrorism in recent British history"). Sajeel also ran a terrorist training camp in Pakistan attended by 7/7 bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan.
In 2004, Khan testified to the House of Commons as head of the Muslim Council of Britain's legal affairs committee. As council legal head, Khan argued in parliament that the Muslim Brotherhood's spiritual leader Yusuf Al-Qaradawi "is not the extremist that he is painted as being." Qaradawi (also banned in the UK for his extremist views) advocates, among other sharia principles, for wife beating and suicide bombings against Israeli citizens. After the murder of an Ahmadi Muslim in Scotland for wishing his Christian customers a peaceful Easter, the council "condemned" the incident by pointing out that Ahmadis are not Muslims.
Khan was the defense lawyer for Zacarias Moussaoui, a 9/11 terrorist and confessed member of Al Qaeda.
Khan attended events for the extremist group CAGE and wrote a forward for one of their reports. CAGE is a primary supporter of the Islamic State executioner known as "Jihadi John," who they described as a "beautiful young man."
Khan appeared on panels with Muslim community leader and cleric Suliman Gani, a supporter of the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL), no less than nine times.
In 2010, Khan shamelessly played the Ahmadi card, flaring up sectarian hatred in his reelection bid to the parliament when faced with stiff competition from Nasser Butt, an Ahmadi who had opposed the war in Iraq unlike Khan who had voted in favor of it.
Defending himself against charges of extremism, Khan points to his record on supporting rights for homosexual and transsexual rights. Since he was first elected to parliament in 2005, that support has been unwavering.
Khan has been an outspoken critic of anti-Semitism. Most recently, he stated he was "embarrassed and sorrowful" about the glaring anti-Semitism that has been spotlighted in his own party.
As the Muslim Public Affairs Committee in the UK (MPAC-UK) derogatorily pointed out in a comment piece on their website posted just two days before the election, "A Vote for Sadiq Khan in the London Mayor Elections is a Vote for Israel."
Much to MPAC-UK's chagrin and dismay, Khan is an opponent of the anti-Israel BDS movement. Although he called for sanctions against Israel in 2009, he says he has since changed his mind.
On the last day of his campaign, it was revealed that in an interview Khan gave in 2009 on Iranian television, he referred to Muslims fighting extremism as "Uncle Toms." (He has since apologized.)
Still, Majid Nawaz insists that Khan is no extremist. Khan was Nawaz's lawyer when he was arrested in Egypt for working for the banned Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Nawaz, now a prominent counter extremism campaigner, says he is forever indebted to Khan for visiting him in Egypt's Mazra Tora prison, "while the world gave up on me."
Ironically, it was Nawaz's counter-extremism foundation Quilliam that were targeted by Khan in his "Uncle Tom" remarks.
Nawaz refrained from commenting on Khan and his electoral bid until after the election. In his first piece penned after the election, Nawaz paints a picture of Khan as a realist (read: opportunistic) and consummate politician.
"When push comes to shove, gaining power becomes more important for politicians from all parties, than defending principles," writes Nawaz. "And sadly, extremists remain among the most powerful organized forces in Britain's Muslim grassroots."
Nawaz explains the unfortunate political climate in today's Britain: "By 2009, extremism had grown so rife among my own British Muslim community that, in a sign of our times, a Muslim government minister for Social Cohesion [Khan] would find it politically expedient to call a group of Muslims, who were not in government, 'Uncle Toms' simply for criticizing extremism."
Yet, Nawaz doesn't give Khan a free pass, saying, "It did not need to be like this. As a column in the Wall Street Journal recently noted, 'Other Muslim leaders took a different approach.'
"The struggles that reforming liberal and ex-Muslims face every day, the dehumanization, the delegitimization, the excommunication, the outcasting, the threats, intimidation and the violence makes this inexcusable … Why is it okay for a mayor to have shared panels with all manner of Muslim extremists, while actively distancing himself from, and smearing, counter-extremist Muslims?"
A good question it would behoove the new mayor to answer.
ABOUT MEIRA SVIRSKY
Meira Svirsky is the editor of ClarionProject.org
Muslim Anti-Semite Elected London Mayor Jihad Khan Defended 9/11 Terrorists
UK Student Union President Opposed Condemning ISIS
UK Arrests Five Terror Suspects
What Do Young British Muslims Think About the Caliphate?
Shock Poll: 23% of British Muslims Want Sharia Rules in UK
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Sadiq-Khan-HP.jpg 320 640 Clarion Project http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png Clarion Project2016-05-09 09:39:282016-05-10 06:59:19London's New Muslim Mayor: Extremist or Opportunist?
PODCAST: Trump Wins, what's it mean? Londonistan's Muslim Mayor!
May 7, 2016 /in Elections, Must Read, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion, Video/by Wallace Bruschweiler
Now that the Republican primary has concluded, Donald Trump promises to be the most disruptive presidential candidate in decades. What do his positions on trade and immigration mean for the country, and why are so many "conservatives" so opposed to his candidacy?
Across the ocean, London has elected their first Muslim mayor. Along with Merkel's insistence that borders remain open, is there a way to reverse the Islamification of western culture? Meanwhile, security concerns continue domestically as the FBI busts a would-be terrorist operation in Florida. And finally, who is Ben Rhodes, and how has his "fictional" view of the world shaped the modern Middle East?
Topics of Discussion:
FBI busts would-be terrorists in Florida
Implications and Aspirations of a Trump Presidency
London's First Muslim Mayor & Merkel's Doubling Down on Open Borders
Who the heck is Ben Rhodes?
& more . . .
Kerry slams Trump's wall, tells grads to prepare for 'borderless world'
How Washington Politicians Wasted Billions Trying to 'Invest in Our Future'
Trump's Foreign Policy Speech: Did He Jump Into Bed With Putin?
Collaborators: Understanding Trump's Rebellion
The Pharisees of Our Time vs. the Blue Collar Billionaire
EDITORS NOTE: You may listen to USA Transnational Report live on JJ McCartney's Nightside Radio Studios.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/USA-transnational-report-banner-trump-londonstan.jpg 363 640 Wallace Bruschweiler http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png Wallace Bruschweiler2016-05-07 14:21:592016-05-09 07:21:49PODCAST: Trump Wins, what's it mean? Londonistan's Muslim Mayor!
Should President Trump tell Paul Ryan 'Your Fired!'?
May 7, 2016 /in Elections, Featured, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier
Representative Paul Ryan when asked if he would support the Republican nominee for President said, "I'm just not ready to do that at this point. I'm not there right now. This is the party of Lincoln, of Reagan, of Jack Kemp. [W]e hope that our nominee aspires to be Lincoln and Reaganesque and that that person advances the principles of our Party and appeals to a wide vast majority of Americans."
There are ninety-nine other Republicans who have said they do not support the GOP nominee (see the list below).
Why is Speaker Ryan straddling the fence?
Breitbart News recently published a story claiming:
"Speaker Ryan is perhaps Congress's greatest advocate for open borders. Dating back to his time as a Capitol Hill staffer in the mid-90s, Ryan was part of the effort to derail the bipartisan immigration curbs inspired by Civil Rights leader and late-Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. In 2013, Ryan actively campaigned on behalf of Marco Rubio and Barack Obama's amnesty and immigration expansion plan.
As House Speaker, Ryan passed an omnibus spending bill which included a massive increase in the number of low-skilled foreign workers to fill U.S. jobs. Ryan's omnibus spending bill also funded visas for nearly 300,000 Muslim migrants for this year alone."
Clearly Donald Trump and Paul Ryan are at odds on the issue of immigration.
World Net Daily reports on Donald Trump's versus Hillary Clinton's positions on a number of issues including:
Supreme Court appointments: Trump has publicly committed to compiling a list of potential nominees who would be well-vetted constitutional conservatives. Conservatives are certain Clinton would appoint progressive judicial activists who would ignore the Constitution.
Immigration: Trump has vowed to tighten the process for both legal and illegal immigration. Clinton has expressed no problem with the status quo and has publicly said she wants to raise Obama's 10,000 Syrian refugees (almost all of whom would be Muslim, with an unknown number affiliated with ISIS) to 65,000.
Military: Trump has vowed to rebuild the nation's military while Clinton has aligned with President Obama's program of making vast reductions, as well continuing social experimentation in the military, such as directing the Pentagon to end the ban on allowing transgender personnel serve openly.
After Donald Trump's victory in Indiana the media, Democrats and some Republicans are crying in their beer. Paul Ryan is one of those who cannot understand why the people choose Trump.
If the goal of the GOP is to take back the White House and keep a majority in both houses of Congress, the game is in their hands. The goal is to win! Trump has energized the American voters. His campaign is now an insurgency. The GOP cannot fear the insurgents, rather they must embrace them.
The insurgents are the American people.
Politicians no longer control the bully pulpit. The American people do. That is how the Republican Party has been fundamentally transformed over the past nine months. It is a new Republican Party, one with a broad base of support. One that is energized. One that is ready for change to bring back the hope of making America great again.
Trump won with his simple message – Americans first!
The GOP will be facing Hillary Clinton, a candidate that is flawed, the consummate politician and beholding to special interests. Trump is the exact opposite. He has never run for public office until now and for the highest seat in the land. He is not a politician and because he is self-funding, is beholding to none other than the American people.
Now is the time for the GOP to play its Trump card.
Priebus: Don't Worry, Trump and Ryan Will Talk It Out
Trump Spokeswoman: Ryan Shouldn't Be Speaker
RELATED VIDEO: House Speaker Paul Ryan has a Wisconsin primary opponent Paul Nehlen. Nehlen did an interview with Breitbart. Nehlen called Ryan "a mercenary champion of this Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership," stating "and that's why I'm running. … I was outside Abbott Labs just a week and a half ago … 180 employees, IT workers, Americans, have been replaced by H1-B visa holders. Here is Nehlen's campaign ad:
EDITORS NOTE: The Hill complied a list of almost 100 Republicans who currently say they won't back Trump as the nominee:
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich.
Gov. Charlie Baker, R-Mass.
Brian Bartlett, former Mitt Romney aide and GOP communications strategist
Glenn Beck, radio host
Michael Berry, radio host
Max Boot, former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.
Brent Bozell, conservative activist
Bruce Carroll, creator GayPatriot.org
Jay Caruso, RedState
Mona Charen, senior fellow at Ethics and Public Policy Center
Linda Chavez, columnist
Dean Clancy, former FreedomWorks vice president
Eliot Cohen, former George W. Bush official
Former Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn.
Charles C. W. Cooke, writer for National Review
Doug Coon, Stay Right podcast
Rory Cooper, GOP strategist, managing director Purple Strategies
Jim Cunneen, former Calif. assemblyman
Rep. Carlos Curbelo, R-Fla.
Steve Deace, radio host
Rep. Bob Dold, R-Ill.
Erick Erickson, writer
Mindy Finn, president, Empowered Women
David French, writer at National Review
Jon Gabriel, editor-in-chief, Ricochet.com
Michael Graham, radio host
Jonah Goldberg, writer
Alan Goldsmith, former staffer, House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Stephen Gutowski, writer Washington Free Beacon
Rep. Richard Hanna, R-N.Y.
Jamie Brown Hantman, former special assistant for legislative affairs for President George W. Bush
Stephen Hayes, senior writer at The Weekly Standard
Doug Heye, former RNC communications director
Quin Hillyer, contributing editor at National Review Online; senior editor at the American Spectator
Ben Howe, RedState writer
Former Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C.
Cheri Jacobus, GOP consultant and former Hill columnist
Robert Kagan, former Reagan official
Randy Kendrick, GOP mega-donor
Matt Kibbe, former FreedomWorks CEO
Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill.
Philip Klein, managing editor at the Washington Examiner
Bill Kristol, The Weekly Standard editor
Mark Levin, radio host
Justin LoFranco, former Scott Walker aide
Kevin Madden, former Mitt Romney aide
Bethany Mandel, senior contributor at The Federalist
Tucker Martin, communications director to former Gov. Bob McDonnell's, R-Va.
Former RNC Chairman Mel Martínez
Liz Mair, GOP strategist
Lachlan Markey, writer for the Free Beacon
David McIntosh, Club for Growth president
Dan McLaughlin, editor at RedState.com
Ken Mehlman, former RNC chairman
Tim Miller, Our Principles PAC
Joyce Mulliken, former Washington state senator
Ted Newton, political consultant & former Mitt Romney aide
James Nuzzo, former White House aide
Katie Packer, chairwoman of Our Principles PAC
Former Gov. George Pataki, R-N.Y.
Former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas
Katie Pavlich, Townhall editor and Hill columnist
Brittany Pounders, conservative writer
Rep. Reid Ribble, R- Wisc.
The Ricketts family, GOP mega-donors
Former Gov. Tom Ridge, R-Pa.
Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Va.
Mitt Romney, 2012 GOP presidential nominee
Paul Rosenzweig, former deputy assistant secretary, Department of Homeland Security
Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post conservative blogger
Patrick Ruffini, partner, Echelon Insights
Sarah Rumpf, former BreitBart contributor
Mark Salter, writer and former aide to John McCain
Rep. Mark Sanford, R-S.C.
Sen. Ben Sasse, R- Neb.
Elliott Schwartz, Our Principles PAC
Gabriel Schoenfeld, senior fellow, Hudson Institute
Tara Setmayer, CNN analyst and former GOP staffer
Ben Shapiro, editor-in-chief The Daily Wire
Evan Siegfried, GOP strategist and commentator
Ben Stein, actor and political commentator
Brendan Steinhauser, GOP consultant
Stuart Stevens, former Romney strategist
Paul Singer, GOP mega-donor
Erik Soderstrom, former field director for Carly Fiorina
Charlie Sykes, radio host
Brad Thor, writer
Michael R. Treiser, former Mitt Romney aide
Daniel P. Vajdich, former national security adviser to Ted Cruz
Connor Walsh, former digital director for former Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., founder Build Digital
Former Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla.
Peter Wehner, New York Times contributor
Former Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, R-N.J.
George Will, writer
Rick Wilson, Republican strategist
Nathan Wurtzel, Make America Awesome super-PAC
Bill Yarbrough, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Ohio
Dave Yost, Ohio auditor of state
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Ryan-and-Trump-800x445.jpg 356 640 Dr. Rich Swier http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png Dr. Rich Swier2016-05-07 07:05:002016-05-10 06:17:07Should President Trump tell Paul Ryan 'Your Fired!'?
Clinton and Trump: Where Do They Stand on Islamism?
May 6, 2016 /in Elections, Immigration, National Security, Policy, Politics/by Clarion Project
With Trump and Clinton the de facto nominees, it is time for voters to begin weighing the national security policies of each candidate.
Donald Trump is the all-but-declared Republican presidential nominee and Hillary Clinton on the cusp of winning the Democratic nomination. It is time for voters to begin weighing the national security consequences of each candidate's potential administration.
You can read our full profiles of the candidates' positions related to Islamist extremism by clicking here for Donald Trump and here for Hillary Clinton. Below is a summary of six policy areas where they differ:
Defining the Threat
Trump defines the enemy as "radical Islam." Clinton defines it variably as "jihadism," "radical Jihadism" "Islamists who are jihadists."
Defeating the Ideology
Trump said in his foreign policy speech that "containing the spread of radical Islam must be a major foreign policy goal of the United States." His policy proposals include a vague commitment to use the U.S. military more aggressively, deterring terrorists by killing their families, closing down the most radical mosques and banning Muslim immigration into the U.S. until the homeland is secure and an effective vetting process is established.
Trump is adamantly opposed to democracy-promotion and overthrowing regimes; instead, he favors alliances with authoritarian rulers who cooperate on counter-terrorism. He says, "our goal must be to defeat terrorists and promote stability, not radical change."
He criticizes Clinton for supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Bashar Assad in Syria. However, a reputable senior foreign policy adviser to Trump, Dr. Walid Phares, is an expert on combating the Islamist ideology and believes in promoting human rights and civil society.
Clinton's national security platform calls for "defeating ISIS and global terrorism and the ideologies that drive it." Her strategy emphasizes civil society and a foreign policy that promotes freedom, women's rights, free markets, democracy and human rights, all if which she believes are necessary in order to "empower moderates and marginalize extremists."
Clinton says the U.S. needs an "overarching strategy" to defeat the ideology like the U.S. used to win the Cold War. Clinton wants the State Department to better "tell our story" overseas by confronting anti-American propaganda via public engagement.
Clinton's speech on foreign policy and ISIS also includes confronting state sponsors of extremism like Qatar and Saudi Arabia and identifying "the specific neighborhoods and villages, the prisons and schools, where recruitment happens in clusters, like the neighborhood in Brussels where the Paris attacks were planned."
ISIS, Iraq and Syria
Trump says he will appoint effective generals who will quickly crush the Islamic State. He believes the U.S. has "no choice" but to send 20-30,000 troops to fight the Islamic State. He would also attack the families of Islamic State members, bomb oil sites held by the Islamic State and then seize them for U.S. companies to rebuild and own.
He would not support Syrian rebels against the Iran-backed Assad regime; Trump supported Russia's military intervention in Syria to save the dictatorship. Trump believes he can be a partner with Russian President Putin. He says he would establish safe-zones in Syria to stop the flow of refugees, but neighboring Arab countries like Saudi Arabia would have to pay for it.
Clinton's speech on ISIS emphasized her opposition to a large ground campaign by U.S. forces, but she does support President Obama's deployment of about 5,000 troops to Iraq with a limited role. She disagreed with President Obama when she urged U.S. support for Syrian rebels at the beginning of the civil war in order to prevent Islamist extremists from gaining ground.
Clinton also supported using the U.S. Air Force to implement a no-fly zone in Syria and to create safe zones for refugees. Clinton remains committed to ending the civil war in Syria by forcing Assad to resign from power as part of a political transition.
In Iraq, she favors direct U.S. military assistance to Sunni tribes and Kurdish forces fighting ISIS and expanding the U.S. forces' role to include embedding personnel in local Iraqi units and assisting with airstrikes.
Trump would terminate the nuclear deal with Iran immediately and pledged to "dismantle" Iran's global terrorism network in his speech about Israel and the Middle East. He supports placing severe sanctions on Iran to pressure them into a deal that dismantles their nuclear program and ends their support for terrorism.
Clinton supports the nuclear deal with reservations. She has released a 5-point plan to respond to the deal's negative consequences, Iran's sponsorship of terrorism and human rights abuses of the Iranian regime. She supports expanding sanctions on Iran for these actions.
Neither candidate has explicitly endorsed overthrowing the Iranian regime, but Clinton took a step in that direction in 2010 when she said she hopes there will be "some effort inside Iran, by responsible civil and religious leaders, to take hold of the apparatus of the state." She regrets that she and the Obama Administration did not more forcefully support the 2009 Green Revolution and promises "that won't happen again."
Neither candidate has endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act and concerns have been raised about both candidates' advisers.
One of Clinton's closest aides, Huma Abedin, was the assistant-editor of an Islamist journal with her family members, some of whom have Muslim Brotherhood links. She has not directly said anything extremist and is married to a pro-Israel Jew. Critics point out that although she has a security clearance, her familial ties may influence her advice to Clinton.
In her book, Clinton seems to understand that the Brotherhood is hostile to the U.S., deceptive and closely linked to Hamas. However, she seems to accept Islamist political parties like the Brotherhood as potential democratic partners. Her State Dept. operation in Egypt gave election training to Brotherhood members and a Clinton Foundation member belonged to the Brotherhood.
One of Trump's top campaign aides, Paul Manafort, was a lobbyist for Saudi Arabia in the 1980s and a lobbyist for a Pakistani ISI intelligence front in the U.S. that was also closely linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Trump has never said anything kind about the Muslim Brotherhood and wanted the U.S. to help keep Egyptian President Mubarak in power.
ABOUT RYAN MAURO
Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org's national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.
Grading Clinton, Trump on religious freedom
Why Does the Cold War Matter Today?
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/election-Trump-Clinton-640.gif 320 640 Clarion Project http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png Clarion Project2016-05-06 09:28:142016-05-08 07:21:28Clinton and Trump: Where Do They Stand on Islamism?
VIDEO: What do the past behaviors of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton tell us?
May 6, 2016 /in Culture War, Elections, Politics, Video/by Dr. Rich Swier
This is an interesting analysis of Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton using documented statements. It is not, as the WeAreChange narrator notes, a true psychological analysis by an expert. Rather it reveals each candidates' character based upon their past actions.
Many agree that Hillary is a psychopath. The evidence presented in this video is compelling.
Many can understand Donald Trump wanting to become his own man. given his life living under the shadow of his father Fred, which the narrator suggests still hangs over him.
According to the video one candidate, Hillary, has no social conscience. The other, Donald, craves the spotlight. One strives to be ever more successful the other covers up her failures.
From this analysis it makes sense that Trump picked the campaign slogan "Make America Great Again!" It is a reflection of his lifelong effort to be the best he can be in whatever he has done. Now, he has an opportunity to do something greater than himself. To help America. Being elected President gives him an opportunity to not only do something his father never attempted but to be greater by giving back something his father never can.
Watch this interesting analysis of Hillary and Trump. Then you decide who is best qualified to be President of the United States.
WeAreChange notes:
In this video Luke Rudkowski [who is not a psychologist] gives his psychological analysis of the two leading presidential front-runners Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. We go over past and current behaviors of the two and its deeper meanings to who the candidates actually are as human beings.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/…
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/11/1…
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/02/21…
http://www.theweek.co.uk/60339/eleven…
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2…
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-c…
http://www.snopes.com/wordpress/wp-co…
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/02/25/…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mY7m…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn6yk…
http://hillaryclintonquotes.tumblr.com/
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/h…
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/…
http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com.br/201…
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/donald…
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/20…
EDITORS NOTE: Readers may support WeAreChange by subscribing to their YouTube channel HERE. To learn more visit their main website for more breaking news. WeAreChange offers citizens an opportunity to learn how to be a journalist in today's media world by going to http://wearechange.org/change-media-u… and enrolling in their online college program. High school students still get this program for free, in order to activate the youth of the future.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-clinton-2.jpg 360 640 Dr. Rich Swier http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png Dr. Rich Swier2016-05-06 06:40:062016-05-09 05:14:00VIDEO: What do the past behaviors of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton tell us?
What Difference Does It Make? The First Question We Should Ask…
May 6, 2016 /in Elections, Must Read, Politics/by T. M. Ballantyne
When Wild Bill's Hillary was pressed, on her conflicting story about what incited the attack on our embassy – or (not-so) 'safe' house – in Benghazi, Libya, which resulted in the murder of four U.S. citizens, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, on the night of September 11, 2012, her response would soon become a part of the American Political Lexicon, denoting typical elitist disdain for being held personally accountable to the People. We all know what she said.
This afternoon, host Lou Dobbs, had former Speaker Newt Gingrich on to talk about Donald Trump's possible VP picks. It appeared that Newt had been appraised of the question in advance, as he clearly articulated three qualifications he considered paramount, in order:
They must be "capable of being President" in the event that that should become necessary.
They must be "compatible with Donald Trump, his partner, 'junior partner,' but still partner."
"If they meet the first two tests, and only if they meet the first two tests," they must "bring something to the ticket," "help carry a state," "help bring in an ethnic group," or be able to "do" something to help Trump "get elected."
There is a bit of irony here, as Newt was spot on with his first requirement; but while I fully agree with the point he was making, he, like virtually everyone else out there in the political hierarchy (including Trump himself), probably isn't even conscious of the literal meaning of what he said: The first requirement is that the person or candidate must be constitutionally "capable," constitutionally-qualified, to be President, precisely because that could at some point become necessary. Meanwhile, at least four of the people whose names are now being excitedly bandied about are not…but once again, what difference does it make?
While most were (are) either unaware of the fact, or have simply forgotten it, what the ever-disdainful Secretary asked in full was: "What difference at this point does it make?" In truth, her complete question is even more applicable "at this point" … but why?
It is more applicable because we are now at a point at which we have had a constitutionally-unqualified Commander in Chief for now seven-plus years; having also had fully four unqualified/ineligible GOP presidential candidates of the original field of seventeen. So given those facts – and they are facts (see Trump vs. The Political/Media Establishment for thorough and irrefutable legal proof) – "What difference at this point does it make?"
A better, or more pertinent question is this: Does the Constitution itself still matter? – or have we come to a point, in large measure due to 'political correctness' (fully-proscribed/prohibited speech, as well as thought) where we have disregarded the Constitution for so long that it is no longer even relevant?
Does anyone want to know the real, even obvious answer to that question?
Here it is: We have absolutely come to the point where the Constitution is a mere afterthought at best – and that by the so-called 'Opposition Party' – or a twisted means of justifying patently unconstitutional acts on the part of the current regime and its apologists.
I would here note two things: First, if any doubt that the Constitution has become all but irrelevant (and there is really no need to include the words "all but," frankly), he or she need look no further than the very issue we are discussing. It would be one thing if there were honest debate on the actual intended meaning of Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 (I was going to use the phrase "natural born citizen," but realized without the slightest hesitation that the phrase itself was/is strictly 'off limits'), but as any informed person is fully aware, to even raise the issue is categorically verboten…which brings me to my second point: If any doubt that this prohibition is the result of now rigidly-enforced political correctness, I would simply ask: When was the last time you heard the issue raised with any of the candidates, aside from Donald Trump raising it with respect to Ted Cruz?
Which brings me to yet a third point. One might ask why anyone would raise the question of eligibility with respect to any of the seventeen GOP candidates, or with respect to Barack Obama, in the previous two elections. In the case of Bobby Jindal, the question arises from the fact that it is well known that he is of Indian descent – both of his parents were born in India. Singling him out, however, to ask the obvious question about his constitutional fealty, would immediately be branded 'racist,' would it not? (After all, Jindal was clearly born in the United States, was he not?)
And while the place of birth was questionable in the case of Barack Obama (and still is, given that it has never been legally proven, or even reasonably demonstrated – proffering a digital 'document' not only immediately gives rise to reasonable doubt, but would be completely unacceptable to any agency of any kind, as well as in any court of law on any level), it was and is an undisputed fact that Ted Cruz was not born in the United States; thus the cries of racism (Cruz is "Hispanic" given his Cuban ancestry) were not leveled at those questioning his citizenship/eligibility.
Nonetheless, Establishment Conservatives immediately rushed on stage to quell any questions over this clearly-legitimate legal/constitutional concern, by authoritatively proclaiming the whole thing 'settled science' ("settled law" in this case, but same idea). In addition, they hastened to make it clear that even raising such questions was itself "silly," 'conspiratorial,' and would not be tolerated. In other words, these paragons of political correctness – on the so-called 'Right' (we once thought this was a malady which afflicted only those on the Left) – wanted to make it perfectly clear that even entertaining such questions (in speech or thought) was strictly prohibited…unless one wanted to either be "silly," or be considered/labeled such by 'everyone else.'
So, there you have it. According to the Political/Media Establishment, which absolutely includes the GOP and alleged "Conservatives" – as has been seen on full display over the past month or so – whether or not a candidate for President (or Vice President) of the United States meets the simple, but strict requirements set forth in the Constitution, exclusively for the nation's highest office, that of its Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, is not only irrelevant ("silly" in the words of both Obama and Cruz, as well as other 'constitutional authorities'), but to raise such issues will be met with cries of 'racism,' 'heresy,' et al.
And besides, What difference does it make?
EDITORS NOTE: To learn more about these critical issues, read the author's most recent book, Trump vs. The Political/Media Establishment; The Establishment vs. The Rule of Law. The author, T. M. Ballantyne, Jr., has written a half-dozen previous books, including Oh Really, O'Reilly! (an in-depth look at the eligibility of Barack Obama) and Uncommon Sense…Apparently!
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/question-mark.jpg 349 640 T. M. Ballantyne http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png T. M. Ballantyne2016-05-06 05:48:592016-05-06 05:50:56What Difference Does It Make? The First Question We Should Ask…
VIDEO: Will Hillary's anti-Trump Ad Backfire?
May 5, 2016 /in Culture War, Elections, Featured, Gun Rights, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier
Brit Hume Tweeted a link to a new anti-Trump Hillary Clinton campaign political ad. It gives a list of things that a President Trump and his administration will do on the first day in office and beyond.
Hume Tweeted, "And so it begins in earnest. This is just a sample of what Trump will be facing."
Question: Does the anti-Trump ad benefit Trump?
The GOP primary has shown that the more Trump is attacked, the more votes he gets. In Indiana 64,000 negative ads were run against Trump and he won the Hoosier state in a landslide. Is Brit Hume wrong in his Tweet?
Twenty years ago, David Brooks longed for "confidence and vigor" in a president. Doesn't this video show a president with confidence and vigor? Do voters see confidence and vigor in Hillary Clinton? That is the question on the November 8th ballot.
Some think Hillary's ad will backfire because it depicts a strong, principled and vigorous president. Some view the ad as pro-Trump. It reinforces his policy statements at a time when voters are looking for a strong America and a different direction.
Will the voters see Hillary's ad and think this is exactly what America needs?
You may view the full ad below:
Does this ad make the case for why people should vote for Trump?
Please leave a comment and tell us what you think.
Feminism Misunderstands What Women Really Want
RELATED VIDEO: Young Mexican kids give the finger and yell obscenities at Trump supporters. In this video clip a group of Mexican immigrants and their children, some as young as 10, yelled obscenities at cars loaded with Trump supporters that would make the creepiest truck drivers blush. The kids yelled 'f_ _k trump' and called people 'puta', the Spanish word for whore. WARNING VIDEO GRAPHIC LANGUAGE AND GESTURES:
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-nominee-e1462461134238.png 340 640 Dr. Rich Swier http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png Dr. Rich Swier2016-05-05 10:40:592016-05-09 09:01:09VIDEO: Will Hillary's anti-Trump Ad Backfire?
'National' Doesn't Mean 'Federal'
May 5, 2016 /in Elections, Must Read, National Security, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier
Donald Trump's campaign slogan "Make America Great Again" has been portrayed by some as a form of national socialism. Democrats, Republicans, political pundits and conservatives alike have criticized Trump on his nationalistic rhetoric. But is this justified?
Young boy holding a "Make America Mexico Again" sign at an anti-Trump protest.
In a 1993 article in Foreign Affairs magazine titled "The Clash of Civilizations?" Samuel P. Huntington wrote:
World politics is entering a new phase, and intellectuals have not hesitated to proliferate visions of what it will be-the end of history, the return of traditional rivalries between nation states, and the decline of the nation state from the conflicting pulls of tribalism and globalism, among others. Each of these visions catches aspects of the emerging reality. Yet they all miss a crucial, indeed a central, aspect of what global politics is likely to be in the coming years.
It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.
Conflict between civilizations will be the latest phase in the evolution of conflict in the modern world.
I believe that those Americans who have voted to make Donald Trump the Republican nominee for President of the United States understand this idea of a "clash of civilizations."
Trump's focus on national sovereignty (i.e. protecting the U.S. borders, limiting immigration, bringing jobs back from overseas and America's global partners, such as NATO, paying their fair share for defense) is a reflection of his understanding that the world has changed. Trump understands that those who gave him the nomination yearn for a revitalized and restored American culture.
After all the United States of America is the only Constitutional Republican form of government in the world.
In 1997 David Brooks wrote a column in The Weekly Standard titled "A Return to National Greatness: A Manifesto for a Lost Creed." Brooks wrote:
The fact is, if liberals choke on the "greatness" part of national greatness, conservatives choke on the "national" part. Most conservatives have come to confuse 'national' with 'federal.' When they hear of a national effort, they think "big government program." Conservatives have taken two sensible ideas and ballooned them to the point of elephantiasis. The first is anti-statism.
They took a truth — that government often causes suffering when it interferes in the free market — and stretched it into a blanket hostility to government. Instead of arguing that government should be limited but energetic, slender but strong, they have often argued that government is itself evil."
Some "conservatives" confuse Trump's nationalism with growth of the federal government's power. I propose they are wrong. Trump's nationalism is focused outward, not inward. His nationalism is couched in terms of respect from other nation states to further U.S. national security interests. His focus is on a coherent foreign policy, which puts America's, and its allies, interests first.
Donald Trump made a major foreign policy speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. to a gathering of The National Interest Magazine, and its parent institution, The Center for the National Interest. Trump set his vision, purpose, direction and strategy for an "America First" foreign polity:
America is going to be strong again.
We're getting out of the nation-building business and instead focusing on creating stability in the world.
I will not hesitate to deploy military force when there is no alternative. But if America fights, it must only fight to win.
The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense, and if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves.
Our goal is peace and prosperity, not war and destruction.
In the Middle East our goals must be, and I mean must be, to defeat [Islamic] terrorists and promote regional stability, not radical change.
Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, cannot be allowed. Remember that, cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
Finally, we must develop a foreign policy based on American interests.
Trump's "America First" foreign policy aligns with the current threat of a clash of civilizations but creates a federal government that is limited but energetic, slender and strong.
Trump is leading an insurgency to make America great again. Trump is the leader because he follows the lead of the insurgents – the American people.
Only five countries out of 28 spent the NATO-required 2% of GDP on defense last year
What a 19th Century Political Thinker Can Teach Us About 'True' Conservatism
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Zassle.com.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-america-first-2-e1582200133643.png 401 637 Dr. Rich Swier http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png Dr. Rich Swier2016-05-05 07:48:152016-05-05 15:19:04'National' Doesn't Mean 'Federal'
The Surprising Modern Origins of Trump's Ideology by Jeffrey Tucker
May 5, 2016 /in Elections, Featured, Politics/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)
Twenty years ago, David Brooks longed for "confidence and vigor" in a president.
Donald Trump says government should make the nation great. Where did he get this language? He didn't make it up on the spot. There is a deeper modern history here.
"National Greatness Conservatism" was first advanced by the Weekly Standard in 1997. At the time, this revision of traditional conservative thinking set of a huge controversy on the right side of the political spectrum.
Here is what David Brooks wrote, as the voice of the neoconservatives who are now screaming that Trump is not what they had in mind:
"It almost doesn't matter what great task government sets for itself, as long as it does some tangible thing with energy and effectiveness. The first task of government is to convey a spirit of confidence and vigor that can then spill across the life of the nation. Stagnant government drains national morale. A government that fails to offer any vision merely feeds public cynicism and disenchantment.
But energetic government is good for its own sake. It raises the sights of the individual. It strengthens common bonds. It boosts national pride. It continues the great national project. It allows each generation to join the work of their parents. The quest for national greatness defines the word 'American' and makes it new for every generation."
Why They Wanted Greatness
Consider the context of these paragraphs. A few years earlier, the US-Soviet Cold War had come to an end. The political center of the previous forty years was no more. There was a great deal of public pressure to end the imperial adventures, to reallocate the federal budget away from endless foreign adventures, to normalize and even depoliticize the country. The "war on terror" existed but at nowhere near the level it became after 9/11.
The political milieu was not that different from what followed both world wars. Public opinion was turning against politicians of all sorts. Wartime expenditures and controls lacked justification. Big government was in search of purpose.
Bill Clinton was president at the time, and his political agenda amounted to not much at all. His health-care plans went bust, so he turned to welfare reform, enacting a policy that actually curbed national commitments to a grand social vision. The liberals of his party seemed out of ideas, while the conservatives were increasingly focussed on cutting or even gutting government as their central rhetorical principle.
The Weekly Standard was founded to be the official organ of neoconservative opinion. It distinguished itself by its less-hostile attitude toward the state than one might find in mainstream conservative publications. The neoconservatives needed a vision to impart as a way of bolstering centralized control. Brooks put himself forward as their house philosopher. His manifesto was advanced as a rhetorical template for a new national mission: to make America great again.
The bulk of Brooks's essay consisted of throwing around ideas for what government could do. It could make more Mount Rushmores. It could dig more canals. It could make more highways. It could democratize more countries. The specifics didn't matter that much, said Brooks, so much as the ethos. Government is the thing that unites us, so we dare not risk dismantling it for fear of a loss of meaning in our lives.
To be sure, Brooks's "greatness" had different priorities than Trump's current version. Brooks emphasized democracy and nation building through an imperial foreign policy. Today Trump pushes nativism, national identity, and protectionism. But they fundamentally agree about what makes up a "nation" and what makes it "great."
The Liberal Alternative to Greatness
Both views are hostile to the old liberal view of what society is and should be. Neither conceive of the nation as a network of harmonious, voluntary associations. In this way of thinking, plain-old freedom — characterized by disparate millions working out their lives in creative peace and cooperation with each other — is boring, directionless, and uninspiring. They see society, not as an interplay of individual wills, but as a collective project guided by a central mission carried out by powerful, charismatic leaders.
In other words, both conceive of the American nation, not as a civilization, but as a herd, shepherded by the government. Both the neoconservatives and the Trumpists long to make America the herd great again. And by "great," they mean big, imposing, fearsome, and awe-inspiring. In F.A. Hayek's terminology (drawn from Michael Oakeshott) the nation must be a telos not merely a nomos.
One side stresses the teleocratic offense, the other the teleocratic defense. The neoconservatives believe that the public can find meaning in grand government initiatives such as military stampedes around the world: something awe-inspiring enough to drive people to back a fully-funded and sufficiently powerful leviathan.
The Trumpists have a different view: national meaning is imparted through trade barriers, immigration controls, and top-down, business-like management. A collective identity rooted in blood and soil, not a country on global mission, is the thing that will make us great.
Neither understand that real prosperity and true security are achieved, not by the brute might of human herds, but by the dynamic power of voluntary cooperation among free people. To be free is the only mission. What people do with that freedom is up to them, not a national leadership. It is not greatness but simple goodness that defines the free society.
What's more, government doesn't raise our sights, strengthen our bonds, or boost our pride. It limits, divides, and diminishes us. Government is bureaucrats and politicians. They take our stuff, tell us what to do, and make us less free.
Brooks once longed for "a spirit of confidence and vigor" in the executive. Trump is all that and more. So what does Brooks say today? He finds Trump to be "epically unprepared to be president. He has no realistic policies, no advisers, no capacity to learn… Trump is perhaps the most dishonest person to run for high office in our lifetimes."
Here's the thing. You build power and power takes its own course. You long for national greatness and you have to live with the results.
A RETURN TO NATIONAL GREATNESS: A Manifesto for a Lost Creed
Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE and CLO of the startup Liberty.me. Author of five books, and many thousands of articles, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World. Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook. Email.
EDITORS NOTE: Mr. Tucker seems to have missed a key paragraph in David Brooks 1997 article. Brooks wrote, "The fact is, if liberals choke on the "greatness" part of national greatness, conservatives choke on the "national" part. Most conservatives have come to confuse 'national' with 'federal.' When they hear of a national effort, they think "big government program." Conservatives have taken two sensible ideas and ballooned them to the point of elephantiasis. The first is anti-statism. They took a truth — that government often causes suffering when it interferes in the free market — and stretched it into a blanket hostility to government. Instead of arguing that government should be limited but energetic, slender but strong, they have often argued that government is itself evil." [Emphasis mine]
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-white-house-slogan.jpg 376 640 Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)2016-05-05 06:31:302016-05-09 07:22:24The Surprising Modern Origins of Trump's Ideology by Jeffrey Tucker
The GOP must play its Trump Card
May 4, 2016 /in Commentary, Elections, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier
After Donald Trump's victory in Indiana the media, Democrats and some Republicans are crying in their beer.
Trump Indiana victory speech:
This has been described as the "election of the century." In reality it is a "battle royal between the individualist and the collectivist."
Ayn Rand wrote a short nineteen page paper asking: What is the basic issue facing the world today? Rand, in her paper makes the case that, "The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism and Collectivism." Rand defines these two principles as follows:
Individualism – Each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.
Collectivism – Each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.
It appears the ideal of collectivism is alive and well. Collectivism is what drives the followers of Marx, Mao and Mohammed. The new Collectivists are now in power. Obama has fundamentally transformed the Democratic Party. But this malaise can and must be reversed.
Ayn Rand wrote:
"The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country's official ideology."
Donald Trump is contesting the absurdities that Americans have had to deal with for over one-hundred years. Trump is not politically correct, and the people love him for it. Trump hates the absurd. The greatest absurdity being that government is smarter than the individual.
That is the battle, that is the war, that is the conflict.
This war must be won at all cost. To do otherwise is to doom our children and grandchildren to a life of slavery under a tyrannical government.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-card.jpg 358 640 Dr. Rich Swier http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png Dr. Rich Swier2016-05-04 10:53:202016-05-04 11:58:15The GOP must play its Trump Card
Message to GOP: Cruz — Never Again!
May 4, 2016 /in Elections, Featured, Politics/by J.B. Williams
The Cruz campaign working in concert with D.C. Republican Party insiders, has been trying to hijack the 2016 GOP nomination… not from Trump, but from the millions of Americans who have voted for Trump. It isn't Trump who is disenfranchised by the Cruz delegate wrangling, but rather more than ten million voters who cast a ballot to make Trump the GOP frontrunner.
With all the facts out in the public about Ted's Canadian citizenship from birth in December 1970 through May 14, 2014, literally everyone knows that Ted Cruz is not constitutionally eligible for the Oval office… even though many pretend not to know, simply because they do not care.
Yet, despite loss after loss in the GOP primaries, Ted continues to pretend that he has a pathway to the nomination, naming a VP running mate less than 24 hours after a five state total bludgeoning last week, as if bringing aboard the 2016 primary one-percenter Carly Fiorina, will somehow turn things around and guarantee Ted the nomination that Trump has already won.
Meanwhile, numerous legal challenges concerning Ted's ineligible status continue to be rejected by courts that will never rule Ted "ineligible" because they would have to rule Obama "ineligible" at the same time. Oh, it's true, neither is eligible for the Oval Office… but as long as Obama occupies that office, no court in the USA is going to rule against Ted and Ted knows it.
So, I receive a daily flow of read email and for over a month now, the number one subject is –
"How do we get Ted out of the race and hold him legally accountable for his massive fraud?"
Because we have a usurper in the White House right now, no court in the country is going to disqualify anyone and remove them from the ballot on the basis of not being a natural born Citizen of the USA. So, those who continue to ask the courts this question, are going to continue getting the same result that this issue has received for 7 ½ years now.
Until someone asks the right questions, they will never get the right answers…
Texan's hold the silver bullet that will end Ted Cruz's entire political career…
This is documented proof (hard admissible evidence) that Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz was born a legal citizen of Canada on December 22, 1970.
Unless Ted also has a United States birth record from 1970, the result of a CRBA (Consular Report of Birth Abroad), he has no proof (admissible evidence) to support his claim that he was a "dual citizen" of both Canada and the United States on December 22, 1970. Despite endless requests by numerous sources, no such proof has been offered by Ted Cruz or his campaign.
This document is proof (admissible evidence) that Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz remained a legal citizen of Canada from his date of birth until May 14, 2014.
These two authenticated official documents (admissible evidence) are the only citizenship papers offered by Ted Cruz or his campaign as proof of legal citizenship. Both of these documents are from Canada, and are admissible evidence proving that Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz was as his wife state in Indiana yesterday, an "immigrant to the USA" who was born Canadian and remained Canadian for 43 years, until deciding to seek the U.S. Presidency.
Now, a very important date lies in between December 22, 1970 and May 14, 2014….. and that date is January 3, 2013… the day Ted Cruz was sworn into the U.S. Senate as a (secret) legal citizen of Canada.
Texans hold the cards…
Article I of the US Constitution has the following requirements for a seat in the U.S. Senate…
"No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen."
In order to appear on the Texas ballot for U.S. Senate in 2012, Cruz had to file an application with both the Texas Republican Party and Texas Secretary of State (the chief elections officer in the state) swearing under oath that he meets these requirements. If his statements on that application were false, if he did not meet those requirements, then he committed "fraud" all the way back in 2012.
Ted was at least thirty years of age and he was an inhabitant of Texas… but was he a legal citizen of the United States, as he claimed on his application to appear on the ballot?
Contrary to Cruz campaign talking points memos, the United States does not recognize any "undocumented" inhabitant residing in the United States as a "legal citizen" of the United States. In short, if you are not a "documented citizen," you are not a legal citizen at all.
It is a documented FACT that Ted Cruz was a documented citizen of Canada from birth until May 14, 2014, which means he was a documented citizen of Canada in 2012 and 2013 when he ran for and became a U.S. Senator for Texas. However, to date, no documentation of legal U.S. citizenship has been provided for Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz… He remains "undocumented" as of today, and is therefore, NOT a "legal citizen of the United States" as of today.
It is also a documented FACT that Ted never disclosed his legal Canadian citizenship to Texas Election Officials or Texas voters in 2012. It is a FACT that Ted Cruz has been able to offer NO U.S. documentation of any type of legal U.S. citizenship to date. Which means, we know a few more critical facts…
The Republican Party of Texas failed to properly vet Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz in 2012. If they had, they would have learned that Ted was in fact a legal citizen of Canada at that time and not eligible for either chamber of the U.S. Congress.
The Texas Secretary of State (the states chief elections officer) also failed to properly vet Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz in 2012, or they would have denied his application to run for U.S. Senate on arrival.
The result of these failures was the defrauding of millions of Texas voters and campaign donors, which has since led to the defrauding of millions of American voters and donors in the Cruz bid for the Oval Office.
The Silver Bullet
The question is not what is a natural born Citizen, or is Ted a natural born Citizen eligible for the Oval office…. The question is, how did a legal citizen of Canada become a U.S. Senator from Texas in 2012-2013?
Texas voters are in the unique position (legal standing) to ask the right authorities in Texas this very simple and obvious question… The Texas GOP and Texas Secretary of State are the right authorities to ask…
How did a legal citizen of Canada become a U.S. Senator from Texas?
Eight months after Ted Cruz was sworn into office in the U.S. Senate, the Dallas Morning News reported the fact that Cruz was born Canadian and still remained a legal citizen of Canada. The legal beagle rush to create a viable back-story and common law argument to protect Cruz from his act of fraud was underway. But none of those arguments could overcome the reality that all of Ted's authenticated citizenship documents say Canada, and none of them say United States.
The only legal U.S. citizens are "documented" U.S. citizens… Natural Born, Native Born and Naturalized are the only types of legal U.S. citizens, all of which possess authentic U.S. documentation as proof of legal citizenship. Ted has none of the three…
When Texas voters decide to deal with this fraud, they need go no further than asking the right question of the right Texas authorities. Ted's documentation (admissible evidence) proves beyond any doubt that Ted was always a legal citizen of Canada from his birth until May 14, 2014…. Unless Ted can come up with any authenticated documentation of United States citizenship, he is undocumented in the United States, which means, illegal and guilty of massive fraud on a level comparable to Obama's fraud.
End of story!
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/cruz-drop-out-fox-news-e1462368695894.png 360 640 J.B. Williams http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png J.B. Williams2016-05-04 09:31:442016-05-04 09:35:22Message to GOP: Cruz — Never Again!
Helpful Wives: Ted Is An 'Immigrant' and Kenya Is Barack's 'Home Country'
May 3, 2016 /in Commentary, Elections, Policy, Politics/by T. M. Ballantyne
I had planned to do a piece on why I (and countless other staunch Conservatives) support Donald Trump, but then I heard Heidi Cruz talk about her husband, saying, "Ted is an immigrant. He is Hispanic." and I had to weigh in. Hearing her tout this immediately brought to mind Michelle Obama's betrayal of her own husband's apparent birth place when she proudly offered, while speaking to the LGBT Delegate, The World as it Should Be, "Barack has led by example. When we took our trip to Africa, and visited his 'home country' in Kenya, we took a public HIV test."
The latter, of course, was confirmed by Obama's publicist, Dystel & Goderich, in official brochures in both 2003 and 2007, which noted that "He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii and Chicago."
This was only further corroboration of the fact that virtually the entire African continent claimed the then-new U.S. President as its own native son…but I digress!
Referring once more to Heidi Cruz's offering, spokeswoman Catherine Frazier later explained: "As she has in numerous speeches over and over, Heidi was referring to Ted as being the son of an immigrant." Fair enough. "Jane, Joan, whatever!" – for those who remember the 1995 Bud Light commercial (well worth watching again!).
Some years back I heard Ayn Rand Institute President, Yaron Brook, speak at the Tea Party Annual Conference, held in Phoenix, AZ. He said something that should resonate with ever Constitutional Conservative, when he pointed out that, "Before Congress ever considers taking up any law, the members should ask themselves one question: Do we, under the Constitution, have the authority to consider this?"
While that is a paraphrase from memory, the rationale for asking such a question is undeniable. With respect to a Presidential Candidate, I'd suggest that we ask a similar question, before asking anything else: Is he or she eligible, under the Constitution, to hold this high office? I suggest that the rationale for asking this question is also undeniable.
The Left (and now, apparently, many on the Right) prove the overriding significance of the stiffer requirements for becoming Commander in Chief, by referring to Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5, as the "stupidest," or "worst" provision in the Constitution," etc., etc.
In his 1995 article, found in the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, Professor Robert Post, Dean of the Yale Law School (not Harvard, but close) transparently reveals the following: "Without doubt Joseph Story correctly identified the purpose of this prohibition as cutting 'off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.' " (That is taken from Joseph Story's celebrated, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, page 541.)
So, while Dean/Professor Post seeks to dismiss this as the "Constitution's Worst Provision," he helpfully, at least, points out its precise and, frankly, self-evident purpose; something only mentioned by the clause's current detractors (mostly on the "Right" these days) in a derogatory fashion, as does the good professor here. In other words, these constitutional "scholars" never mention the clause's obvious and critical purpose – to prevent a person with potentially-divided ("foreign") loyalties from becoming "the Command in chief of the american army" (in the words of John Jay) – except to deride it.
As a particularly relevant aside, I will note that the current occupant of the Oval Office – who has, for the most part succeeded in "fundamentally transforming" the once-greatest nation on earth, mocking and destroying its spiritual foundations, wrecking its economy, trampling on its Constitution/laws, and decimating its military – would have been the very poster child for the type of man the framers were seeking to preclude from ever becoming our Commander in Chief…in spite of his great "love" for America. As a further aside, if Mitt (short for Mittens?) Romney had ever had the courage to lash out at Michelle's Barack in that manner, he may well have been the nation's 45th President, rather than the man he has recently excoriated…a little too much, but also too late!
So let's end this by answering the question: Is Heidi's Ted eligible to hold the highest office in the land? While it seems that a preponderance of courageous "Conservatives" have taken up the pen to pronounce Mr. Cruz's eligibility "settled science," we can dismiss this assertion by answering a single question: If the higher constitutional bar of "natural born citizen," set exclusively for the President and Commander in Chief [Senators and Congressmen need only be "citizens"], can be met by one born of not two, but only one U.S. citizen parent, in a foreign land, outside of our national boundaries, then what could possibly be the lower citizenship bar included in the Constitution?
Well, that is simple. The only possible lower bar would be for one to be born outside of the United States to no U.S. citizen parent. That, of course, can be done, via the process of naturalization…but there were yet no "naturalized" citizens at the time of the writing or the adoption of the Constitution, and yet the Constitution itself recognizes two other distinct types of citizens in its language (including that of Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5): normal, if you will, "citizens," and "natural born citizens."
Clearly one born abroad of only a single U.S. citizen parent would not qualify as the clearly more exclusive class of "natural-born citizens." So that is essentially all a reasonable person needs to know about the "settled science" of this critical issue…and if the constitutional eligibility of the Commander in Chief of the United States military is not an important issue, or matter of grave concern, I can't honestly imagine what would be!
RELATED VIDEO: Michelle Obama states that her husband Barack's home country is Kenya – full statement:
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Western Journalism. The featured image is of Heidi Cruz and Michelle Obama.
To learn more about this critical issue, please read the author's most recent book, Trump vs. The Political/Media Establishment: The Establishment vs. The Rule of Law. Author T. M. Ballantyne Jr. has written a half-dozen previous books, including Oh Really, O'Reilly! and Uncommon Sense…Apparently! – also available on Amazon.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/heidi-cruz-michelle-obama.jpg 358 640 T. M. Ballantyne http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png T. M. Ballantyne2016-05-03 16:24:162016-05-03 17:08:33Helpful Wives: Ted Is An 'Immigrant' and Kenya Is Barack's 'Home Country'
A Trump Executive Speaks: 'The Trump Family That I Know' [Video]
May 3, 2016 /in Elections, Must Read, Politics, Video/by Dr. Rich Swier
A black woman who is an executive with the Eric Trump Foundation posted a YouTube video titled, "The Trump Family That I Know." Here name is Lynne M. Patton.
Ms. Patton [pictured right] is the Director of The Eric Trump Foundation and an Assistant to Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr.
Her responsibilities include acquiring ETF's celebrity entertainment, high-end donations and overseeing the planning all major fundraising events for The Eric Trump Foundation. Lynne Patton also identifies and develops viable partnerships/research projects with St. Jude Children's Research Hospital and played a critical role in ETF's decision to donate $20 million dollars specifically for the construction of The Eric Trump Foundation Surgery & ICU Center. Lynne oversees all social media responsibilities for The Eric Trump Foundation and assists the Trump family with respect to the same. Lynne played a primary role in helping to cast the 2012 & 2014 seasons of The Celebrity Apprentice, as produced by Mark Burnett Productions, NBC and Trump Productions. Prior to joining The Trump Organization in 2009…
Read more about Lynne M. Patton.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Black-Female-Trump-Exec-Spills-Inner-Secrets.jpg 420 800 Dr. Rich Swier http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png Dr. Rich Swier2016-05-03 15:34:552016-05-03 15:35:54A Trump Executive Speaks: 'The Trump Family That I Know' [Video]
Trump has an 83 percent chance of winning Indiana
May 3, 2016 /in Elections, Featured, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier
The Indiana Primary is today, and it's in many ways the beginning of the end — one way or the other — of the #NeverTrump campaign.
A clean win for Cruz in the state is a win for the anti-Trump forces within the GOP, and a win for Donald J. Trump is a massive setback and potential death knell for the forces opposing the real estate magnate.
According to FiveThirtyEight polls-plus forecast based on nine polls, Trump has an 83 percent chance of winning the statewide vote.
Click here to veiw the odds and polls for presidential primaries and caucuses, updated daily.
EDITORS NOTE: FiveThirtyEight forecasts don't produce a single expected vote share for each candidate, but rather generate a range of possible outcomes, shown here. The range will be wider or narrower under certain circumstances: For instance, it narrows as the election gets closer. The FiveThirtyEight estimate of each candidate's chance of winning the state is based on these ranges.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-speaking-american-flag-e1462279146343.jpg 359 640 Dr. Rich Swier http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png Dr. Rich Swier2016-05-03 08:34:232016-05-03 09:00:21Trump has an 83 percent chance of winning Indiana
PODCAST: Trump's Foreign Policy Speech, DOJ 'Newspeak' and EU's ISIS Problem
April 30, 2016 /in Elections, Featured, National Security, Policy, Politics, Video/by Wallace Bruschweiler
Donald Trump on Tuesday swept five states and is running away with the nomination. With approximately 1,000 delegates, he is positioned to reach the 1,237 mark before the convention in Cleveland. Meanwhile, his closest competitor Ted Cruz picked his VP candidates in Carly Fiorina.
In Europe, Italian authorities arrested four would-be terrorists affiliated with ISIS, and Brussels began distributing iodine tablets (to counteract the effects of a potential dirty bomb).
Finally, with the official transition of the term "convicted criminal" to "justice-involved individual," the politically correct DOJ ushers in a new era in American Newspeak.
Donald Trump's Foreign Policy address
The State of the Republican Primary
Europe's Terror Continues in Italy and Belgium
The DOJ's Newspeak Lexicon
Potential Implications of a Trump Nomination and Presidency
EDITORS NOTE: You can listen to USA Transnational Report live on JJ McCartney's Nightside Radio Studios.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/usa-transnational-report-special-interview-e1455799395845.png 294 616 Wallace Bruschweiler http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png Wallace Bruschweiler2016-04-30 15:50:462016-04-30 15:55:14PODCAST: Trump's Foreign Policy Speech, DOJ 'Newspeak' and EU's ISIS Problem


text:
Emerging Nutrition Trends Attempting to Cure Global Malnutrition and Obesity
By Insights Care
See all Articles by insights careGet Updates on WellnessGet Updates on insights care
Health and wellness trends are changing the consumer point of view towards the nutrition products. They demand the adequate informed choices of products to be made available in the market so that they need not confront situations like malnutrition or obesity. Nutrition thus remains a major concern for public healthcare agencies around the world. On one side the problem of hunger and malnutrition is increasing in certain parts of the world like Africa and Asia while there are regions struggling with obesity in the North American continent. There is a need for implementing and scaling up changes aimed at assuring the access to nutritious foods and breaking the vicious cycle of malnutrition and ill-health. Some of the recent developments in the field of nutrition are narrated here.
Global Paradox of Two Extremes – Malnutrition and Obesity
It is a global dilemma that under-nutrition and obesity are found to exist simultaneously in many countries. Families with experience of food insecurity may have a higher risk of overweight and obesity. Poor access to food, high cost of nutritious food, the stress of living are common reasons in many regions while physiological variations developed as a result of chronic food deprivation are individual causes illnesses related to malnutrition and obesity.
According to UN reports a number of people suffering from hunger in the world in 2017 were around 821 million or one in nine adults while obese adults are 672 million or one in eight adults. There are 150.8 million (22.2%) children under the age of five affected by low height-for-age ratio while 38.3 million (5.6%) are children under the age of five who are having high weight-for-height. Moreover, it is also reported that 32.8% of women of reproductive age are affected by anemia.
Adult obesity is worsening as cases of overweight individuals are rising significantly in North America but Africa and Asia are also experiencing an upward trend. Indian situation in nutritional sufficiency can be judged from the fact that it was ranked 100th out of 118 countries. New evidence continues to signal that the number of people deprived of necessary nutrition in the world is growing and there was a slow progress on ending all forms of malnutrition.
Most healthcare professionals believe that the general wellness of a person depends on the health of his digestive system and hence digestive wellness takes the center stage of their efforts. Consumers are now aware and want to experience the maximum benefits from the food they eat and thus create a strong demand for food products that claim to provide digestive wellness. It is propelled by addition of new ingredients and emerging science of preparing the food products. The general trend of 'free-from' foods such as sugar-free, free from dairy, free from gluten, free from added flavors is catching. Some of them also want foods with ingredients like prebiotic fibers, probiotics for added benefit. The International Scientific Association of Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) is the agency bringing more awareness and scientific understanding about probiotics. Fermented foods like yogurt are considered as the 'functional food' in a diet.
Brands of nutritional supplementary foods like Huel and Innermost are popular items in the Silicon Valley Diet. It is a cult meal alternative drink that the tech community is currently obsessing over. These powdered products offer a complete nutritional meal to live a healthy balanced lifestyle on a daily basis. Similar products can be made available for masses at affordable price if healthcare agencies worldwide take initiative.
Personalized nutrition is a continuing trend as people realize that everyone has different needs. It is expected to shape the future of health and wellness market. It is the concept of bringing specific customized food pattern on the mass scale which dietitians were doing for each individual. Increased personalization of products requires more inputs for product development and investment in brand building.
Consumers are becoming more knowledgeable about the effects of readymade foods and their own dietary requirements. More personalized products such as food allergies and specific food intolerance needs are increasing in demand.
There is a kind of movement for personalized nutrition which is mostly driven by advancements in technology, in many cases just waiting for science to catch up. A nutrition tailored for a specific individual is possible in near future with the help of technologies such as wearable fitness trackers to DNA testing that will drive the demand for such services. Even packaging is getting person-centric in labels and visualizations. For instance, independent studies have revealed that consumers relate more to 'orange juice' on the ingredient label than 'Ascorbic Acid' or 'Vitamin C' though both labels are just different names of same ingredient.
The Market for Nutritional Supplement
Nutritional supplements are required for the better functioning of human bodies as they provide the most essential nutrients in required quantity. These products are delivered in a wide range from herbs, meal supplements, sports nutrition, and other related products for protein and vitamin supplement. They are used to improve the nutritional content of the diet to boost the overall health and energy. Development in the retail and pharmaceutical industries, innovation in product offerings, modernization of retail channels are driving the market of products that provide support to the immune system and to reduce the risk of illness.
Technology to the Rescue
Policies made by state agencies healthcare must pay special attention to vulnerable groups such as infants, children aged under five, adolescent girls, and women who face harmful consequences of poor quality food-availability. Consumers are moving towards health, wellness, and transparency in recent years. The ingredients that consumers trust and are familiar with should be used while delivering the nutrition supplements. Food habits of consumers and the availability of nutritious and healthy food are responsible for the health issues in the vulnerable groups.
Technology has made it easier to deliver the products consumers are seeking. For instance, Vacuum freeze drying is a process which removes water completely from a fruit or vegetable concentrate without cooking or destroying it. It converts the fruit and vegetable into a soluble powder that is very stable and retains the same flavor and nutritional value. Governments and corporates are making financially viable plans to bring in healthy foods from farms to homes with the help of technology solutions.
We are Insights Care, a publication in print and digital versions from Insights Success Media Tech LLC. Insights Care covers important issues and trends shaping the future of the healthcare industry while demonstrating thought leadership in both healthcare knowledge and technology landscape throughout the globe.
Health is the fundamental right of every human being, and Insights Care believes that "He who has Health has Hope; He who has Hope has Everything." Insights Care is an excellent platform providing a unified knowledge base of modern medical marvels and disruptive technologies reshaping and transcending the healthcare domain and the way we live.
Vocal Abuse: Causes, Characteristics, & Cure
Know About The Health Safety Measures At Vadinar Refinery
How to wake up your body for morning meditation
Application of Enzyme Technology in Dairy Research
Eggs for Brain Development
What is Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) Causes| Symptoms And Risk Factors
Mohs Reconstruction Surgery With Dr. Jejurikar in Dallas
Learn How to create a Whole Brain State
Picking the Right Care for Your Aging Parents
Identifying and Overcoming the 4 Main Causes of Stress
>> See All Articles On Wellness
Public Speaking Worries – Handling Questions & Answers
The reading process: Research supported teaching strategies
How To Keep Love Growing Through The Ups And Downs
Relationship Breakups - How To Stay Friends
***He Says He's Not Ready For A Relationship, Should I Agree To "Friends With Benefits" Instead?
***Perhaps Autism is a Spiritual Experience
New to magnetic fields? Start here
Introduction to Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields
Magnetic Acupuncture
***The Job Search - "They can hear you in your pajamas." (and taking the job search seriously)
Small Business Lead Generation – Why Spamming and Cold Calling Does Not Work
*** How Important is Budgeting for Small Businesses?
How to Manage Anger with Appropriate Assertiveness
***Are We a Civil Society?
Discover The Wisdom of Letting Go
***Spiritual Nourishment: How to Feed Your Soul in a Busy World

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The words of Jesus and Paul appear to offer very different views on prayer. Jesus seems to say that if you ask for anything, and have enough faith, you will receive it. Some take Jesus to mean that if you pray for something and don't receive it, you must not have enough faith. Such a view can be devastating for those who pray for healing and find no improvement in their condition. Such was the case for Paul, who prayed three times (which meant repeatedly) for the removal of his thorn in the flesh, usually believed to be some ailment. Yet in spite of his pleading, and we can assume strong faith, Christ tells him he will not be healed. Yet Paul comes away from this incident with increased confidence in God. How can these apparently contradictory teachings on prayer be reconciled?
The context for Jesus' statement on prayer helps reconcile any apparent differences. He has just denounced the way the Temple, a house of prayer, was turned into a den of iniquity (Mark 11:17). Then Peter is astonished that Jesus' prayer about the fig tree has come true. Jesus responds by rebuking the apostles' lack of faith. You think withering a fig tree is a big deal? You could move this mountain if you believed it would happen. Some commentators suggest this criticises a ritualistic approach to prayer as the mountain in their view would have been the temple mount. At that time, many rabbis taught that prayer in the Temple was highly effective. When the Temple was destroyed, some said that the gates of prayer were then closed. Jesus rejects this view, saying that prayer is based on faith, forgiveness and one's relationship with God.
The 'name it and claim it' approach that some see in this passage still needs to be addressed. To believe we have received what we pray for does not necessarily mean we will receive anything we pray for. How can we be confident that we will receive what we pray for? Our prayers must be based on what we know God will provide if we are to have such confidence. Jesus himself demonstrates this a few chapters later in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:35-36). Every part of him wanted to avoid his approaching suffering, humiliation and death. He pleaded with God to find another way. Yet he believed in God's will for his life. He knew what he wanted, but he had faith that what God wanted was best. This gave him the courage to face whatever would happen.
This is exactly what Paul concluded also. He pleaded with God that his thorn be removed. Yet he had confidence that God would take care of him no matter what happened. The answer to his prayer was different to what he expected. In this case, his physical weakness was more important because it reminded him of Christ's strength. When we are weak, our strength in Christ is greatest (2 Corinthians 12:10). God promises us that he will be with us and comfort us in our suffering. He does not promise to take away every illness, difficulty or insult. But in spite of this we can pray in confidence that nothing will separate us from the love of Christ (Romans 8:38-39).
that before. So wonderful to discover another person with unique thoughts on this issue.


Quality sites without long waiting times.
Suitable for small and large companies, tradesmen or individuals.
Responsive solutions suitable for all mobile and desktop devices. Using the latest principles and technologies for design coding (HTML5, SASS, CSS3, SVG) and for programming front-end/client-based solutions (Angular).
Complex programming solutions for simple or complex administrations to fit (Angular, NodeJS) or with the use of OpenSource solutions (PHP).
From websites for companies, individuals and eshops all the way to design masterpieces done with emphasis on UI/UX by our business partner Martin Gorol.
iOS applications programmed in Swife or iOS/Android applications programmed with the use of Angular Native Script.
He specializes in intuitive and creative design of websites and mobile applications.
APPSEC represents a pragmatic approach to security. They are realists, security is a process and the attacker is always a step ahead.
Complete Mail Server with custom GroupWare, calendar and intuitive web Interface. Integrated antivirus and full Microsoft Exchange Activesync support.
Low-energy family houses tailored to fit. Save up to 60% of your costs with SIPs technology. Guarantee for BAUSIP low energy homes up to 30 years!
Healthy teeth for the whole family in modern dental clinics.
Their story began in 1995. Since then, they have been focusing on improving the health in the comfort of home environment. More than 160,000 consumers have their own positive experience.
Did I catch your attention? Do you seek advice, or more detailed information regarding our services? Contact me please via a formular or phone number.
Please, try it later or contact me directly via email client or phone number.
Since I was little, I have been attracted to electronics and adrenaline. After some time, I converted my wishes into real world use, so I have been programming since high school. After that, I added downhill cycling into my free time activities in the form of Slovakian Downhill Cup and Moravia-Slovakian Cup participation. At this moment bike is on second way and I'm driver in Motor Sport where I'm driving Go-kart in Slovakian Karting Cup. More information you can find on karting sub page. I love order, I mostly listen to rock/metal music and lime green BMW is ideal of the car brand and color.


text:
311 Returns with New Single 'Five of Everything' - Take a Listen
Omaha, Nebraska's own 311 have returned with a new single called Five of Everything. KROQ's Stryker premiered the song on Monday afternoon, and the tune made its way online later in the day.
It's from 311's upcoming album Stereolithic, their eleventh overall and first since 2011's Universal Pulse. The record will be released by the band on their own label, 311 Records, and will be out on 3/11 - to coincide with their big 311 Day concert/party in New Orleans (natch). Their 2010 event was great fun - read up on that here.
Take a listen to the song below:
http://youtu.be/k2wz5fkaDLU
Straight talk: Five of Everything might be one of the better 311 singles in recent years, especially when pared up against Sunset in July, Hey You and Don't Tread on Me (the lead singles for their past three albums). From Tim Mahoney's Soundsystem/From Chaos-tuned guitar riffs (which sound as crunchy as ever) to the song's bridge (a standout moment), the song presents a lot of promise for Stereolithic, which will feature 14 other new songs.
Additionally, the band worked with producer/sound engineer Scotch Ralston this time around. Ralston was on-hand to produce 1997's Transistor and 1999's Soundsystem, arguably two of the band's most beloved albums (at least as far as the fans are concerned).
That also lends itself to some serious anticipation that Stereolithic might end up being one of their strongest outings of the past decade or so.
We'll see in a month!
Stereolithic track listing:
1.) Ebb and Flow 2.) Five of Everything 3.) Showdown 4.) Revelation of the Year 5.) Sand Dollars 6.) Boom Shanka 7.) Make it Rough 8.) The Great Divide 9.) Friday Afternoon 10.) Simple Truth 11.) First Dimension 12.) Made in the Shade 13.) Existential Hero 14.) The Call 15.) Tranquility
In the meantime, fans can pre-order the album from 311's new Pledge Music campaign - click here to pre-order your copy in a variety of formats and be rewarded with a free mp3 download of Five of Everything, behind-the-scenes videos, photos, and more.
-Cheese Sandwich
Newer:How I Live Now: In A Ramshackle, In Love With My CousinOlder:Delighting in the Character Studies of Afternoon Delight
AuthorCheese Sandwich
CategoriesMusic News
Tags311, KROQ, new album, single, Stryker


text:
Залізниця Корковаду () — залізниця зубчастого типу, що веде від підніжжя до вершини гори Корковаду в межах міста Ріо-де-Жанейро. На вершині розташована знаменита статуя Христа-Спасителя.

Історія
Лінію було відкрито 9 жовтня 1884 року імператором Педру II. Спочатку потяги використали парову тягу, але в 1910 році дорогу було електрифіковано (уперше у Бразилії). До офіційного відкриття статуї Христа-Спасителя дорогу періодично використовували для підйому частин монумента.

Щорічно залізницею користується понад 600 тисяч чоловік. Серед відомих пасажирів в різний час були папа Пій XII, папа Іоанн Павло II, Альберт Ейнштейн і принцеса Діана.

Технічні характеристики
 Довжина — 3,8 км
 Максимальна висота — 710 м
 Ширина колії — 1000 мм
 Пропускна спроможність — 360 пасажирів за годину
 Час в дорозі — 20 хвилин

Опис
Лінія має довжину 3,824 км

та чотири станції. Кінцевими пунктами є історична базова станція в  та вершина Корковаду.

Залізниця є зубчастою та має ширину колії 1000 мм з максимальним градієнтом 30%.

Це одна з небагатьох діючих залізниць, що використовують трифазну електрику з двома повітряними проводами на 800 V 60 Hz.

Рухомий склад — вагони виготовлені Stadler по індивідуальному замовленню

в 2019 році, здатні розвивати максимальну швидкість 25км/год (попередні — максимум 15км/год), що дозволяє піднятися приблизно за 15 хвилин. Під час спуску енергія відновлюється за допомогою рекуперативного гальмування, що призводить до економії 75% загального споживання енергії.

Мережа має три потяги,

кожен з яких складається з двох вагонів.

Поїздка займає приблизно 15 хвилин і відправляється кожні 20 хвилин, що забезпечує пропускну здатність 540 пасажирів на годину.
Через таку обмежену пропускну здатність очікування на вхідній станції може тривати кілька годин.
Станом на березень 2021 року лінія працює з 08:00 до 19:00

Див. також
 Корковаду (гора)

Примітки

Література
 Wansbeck C. J. Rio de Janeiro: City of contrasts, quality metro // Tramways & Urban Transit. — March 2005.
 '' and descendants, retrieved 2 March 2005, 2100 GMT .
 '' and descendants, retrieved 2 March 2005, 2100 GMT.

Посилання
 Офіційний сайт залізниці
 Virtual Pictour with information @ The Rio de Janeiro Photo Guide

Залізниці Бразилії
Транспорт Ріо-де-Жанейро

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Company of music dealers founded by James Longman. Their brand (used on the back beneath the top button) was 'Longman & Co.' between 1767–1769, then became 'Longman Lukey & Co.', then 'Longman, Lukey & Broderip' and finally 'Longman & Broderip'.
- The auction record for this maker is $13,427 in Mar 1990, for a cello.


Vico 4000 Pocket Luxury Divan Bed complete with 4000 individually pocketed springs.Contains Soft, Natural, Cotton, Silk and cashmere comfort layers.The fillings are also hypoallergenic, making the Vico 4000 perfect if you are an allergy sufferer.
There are two comfort layers of gentle pocketed mini springs, Natural latex to assist healthy movement during sleep.This is a Non Turn Mattress just rotate occasionally.
The Vico 4000 divan split base provides a firm foundation for the mattress and we offer a storage drawer and zip & link set option, with a range of luxury Headboards to matach in various fabric colours..


text:
Final Fantasy XIV Soundtrack To Include Dalmaud Minion Code
By Ishaan June 1, 2013
Square Enix are releasing the soundtrack for the original Final Fantasy XIV game under the title Before Meteor: Final Fantasy XIV. The OST will be released on Blu-Ray disc and will cost 5,250 yen.
Additionally, those who purchase the OST will get a bonus item as well—a download code for a Dalmaud minion. The OST disc will also include the "End of an Era" trailer for Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn in HD.
The OST will hit Japan on August 14th.


text:
Borupgård har flere betydninger:
 Borupgård Trinbræt - et trinbræt syd for Borup, Gørløse Sogn, Hillerød Kommune
 Borupgård (Sthens Sogn) – et ejerlav og en landbrugsejendom i Sthens Sogn, Helsingør Kommune, i dag Comwell Borupgaard
 Borupgaard Gymnasium - beliggende i Ballerup Kommune
 Store Borupgård - der gennem tiderne dannet af landsbyen Borup

 Se også
 Borupgårdcentret - Snekkersten

 Veje
 Borupgårdsvej - Snekkersten
 Borupgårdsvej - Silkeborg

 Gårde
 Borupgård - Anden større gård/Proprietærgård, Løkken
 Borupgård - Gård, Skævinge
 Borupgård - Gård, Lejre
 Borupgård - Gård, Næstved
 Borupgård - Gård, Ørbæk
 Borupgård - Gård, Brande
 Borupgård - Gård, Herning
 Borupgård - Gård, Grenaa
 Borupgård - Gård, Hornslet
 Borupgård - Gård, Silkeborg


text:
China, Pakistan pledge more efforts to build economic corridor
Updated: Dec 1,2017 2:41 AM Xinhua
SOCHI — Premier Li Keqiang and Pakistani Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi promised more efforts to build the cross-border economic corridor during their meeting in Sochi on Nov 30.
Both leaders are here to attend the 16th meeting of the Council of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Heads of Government (Prime Ministers), which is scheduled for Nov 30 and Dec 1.
Premier Li told Abbasi that China and Pakistan, as all-weather strategic cooperative partners, have cooperated well in various fields. Positive progress has been made since both countries began building the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor more than four years ago.
China is ready to continue building key infrastructure with the Pakistani side, and to carry out cooperation on production capacity, Premier Li said.
"China holds high political sincerity in exploring the building of a free-trade zone with Pakistan, to promote balanced trade between the two sides and help companies in both countries to cooperate," Premier Li said.
Premier Li extended gratitude to his Pakistani counterpart for their help in ensuring safety for Chinese companies and citizens in Pakistan, expecting Pakistan to continue to boost security measures so as to create a favorable environment for bilateral economic cooperation.
China would like to continue collaboration with Pakistan in security and defense affairs, and make contribution to regional peace and stability, Premier Li said.
Premier Li welcomed Pakistan to attend the SCO meeting for the first time as a full member and China will continue to coordinate with Pakistan closely within the SCO, in other multilateral organizations and on regional affairs.
Abassi agreed that Pakistan and China have deep friendship and close cooperation.
Both sides are all-weather strategic cooperative partners who share common goals and mutual support. Pakistan will continue high-level exchanges with China, deepen cooperation and add new impetus to the development of bilateral relations, he said.
The building of the economic corridor is going smoothly, and Pakistan will advance the project with full force and take concrete measures to ensure safety for the corridor, Abassi said.
Pakistan stands ready to cooperate with China within the framework of the SCO, he said, voicing confidence that China, which holds the rotating SCO presidency, will advance the development of the organization.
China, Pakistan vow to further deepen bilateral pragmatic cooperation
China, Pakistan vow to strengthen cooperation
Premier Li arrives in Sochi for meeting


Furley Page is one of the leading regional law firms in Kent. Our legal expertise is recognised by independent guides to the legal profession: Chambers UK, Chambers HNW and The Legal 500.
We help individuals and have acted for families for generations. We have offices in Canterbury, Whitstable and Chatham. To find out more about our services and latest events visit our website and follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter.
Please get in touch to find out we can your business.


text:
HLNY's 6th Annual Mini-Congress: Private Equity & Venture Capital Drivers of Change in Our Health System
September 28, 2022 | Events | less than a minute
Gary Herschman, Member of the Firm, speaks on a panel, "Private Equity & Venture Capital Drivers of Change in Our Health System," at the Healthcare Leaders of New York's (HLNY) 6th Annual Mini-Congress.
The traditional boundaries between public, private, and federal health care delivery have become less rigid and more permeable as health care requirements have changed. Gone are the days when a health care system could define its beneficiary population as belonging to its system alone. Patients cross the boundaries between health care systems for reasons such as access, capacity, and cost. Traditionally, this migration between health care systems would be discouraged through financial measures or by threat of disenrollment.
Today, health care systems rely on each other to provide services that they cannot provide for financial, geographical or accessibility reasons. The Veterans Administration and Department of Defense both rely on partnerships with public and private health care systems to provide care to Veterans, Service Members and dependents beyond the capability of the Federal system. Likewise, public and private health care systems enter into affiliation agreements with Federal sector health care systems for academic and research based support.
In this session, participants gain an understanding of the complexities related to documentation of episodes of care, reimbursement for completed care, and information technology challenges; the interoperability and cooperation of public, private, and federal health care systems during natural or manmade disasters; and the future of Public, Private and Federal Healthcare Delivery as it relates to the continued homogenization of their respective patient populations.
For more information and to register, please visit HLNY.org.
10:45 am - 12:15 pm ET
New York Academy of Medicine
Gary W. Herschman
Health Care Mergers and Acquisitions
gherschman@ebglaw.com
Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures
Investment Banks & Private Equity
Physician Group Practices/Management