Monthly Archives: March 2016

Rod Blagojevich appeal petition denied by US Supreme Court, Justices let stand ruling by 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals

Rod Blagojevich appeal petition denied by US Supreme Court, Justices let stand ruling by 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals

Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

From McClatchy DC March 28, 2016.

“Supreme Court refuses to hear Blagojevich appeal

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday dashed one of Rod Blagojevich’s last hopes to reduce his 14-year prison sentence by refusing to hear the former Illinois governor’s appeal of his remaining corruption convictions, including his attempt to sell an appointment to the vacant Senate seat once occupied by President Barack Obama.

In so doing, the justices let stand a July ruling by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago that the Chicago Democrat crossed the line when he sought money — usually campaign cash — in exchange for naming someone to fill Obama’s seat. The justices did not explain their decision.

The lower court had handed Blagojevich a largely symbolic victory by tossing five of his 18 convictions and said he should be resentenced on the 13 remaining counts. No resentencing date has been set, but it’s likely to happen this year. In its ruling last year, the 7th Circuit said that even with the dropped counts factored in, Blagojevich’s 14-year sentence may still be fair.

The former governor’s wife, Patti Blagojevich, said in a written statement Monday that she and the couple’s two children were “incredibly disappointed.”

“This was, of course, not the outcome that Rod, our daughters Amy and Annie, had hoped and prayed for,” she said. “But we continue to have faith in the system and an unshakable love for Rod. We long for the day that he will be back home with us.”

Blagojevich attorney Leonard Goodman said in a phone interview that there’s an outside chance the high court might consider a new request to hear the 59-year-old Blagojevich’s appeal after resentencing. He said that’s because one argument prosecutors made against the appeal being heard was that resentencing and other legal steps need to play out before the court should entertain the possibility of taking on the case.

“So we could consider going back to the Supreme Court again,” Goodman said.

The U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago declined any comment.”

Read more:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article68597612.html

Ted Cruz future doubtful, Mistress allegations not repudiated, Experts state Cruz appears deceptive in his response, Roger Stone Ted Cruz won’t sue because allegations are largely true

Ted Cruz future doubtful, Mistress allegations not repudiated, Experts state Cruz appears deceptive in his response, Roger Stone Ted Cruz won’t sue because allegations are largely true

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“COMING CLEAN: From what I know, at least 2 of the women named as Cruz mistresses by the National Enquirer are accurate”…Drew Johnson, Twitter

 

Ted Cruz is innocent until proven guilty.

The National Enquirer has accused Cruz of having had 5 mistresses.

Journalist Drew Johnson has confirmed 2.

Up until the past week, the biggest gripe I had with Ted Cruz was his disregard for the US Constitution in regard to his eligibility to be president.

I have been searching for corroboration of the National Enquirer story.

I have found no hard evidence yet to repudiate the Enquirer story but I did find some circumstantial evidence supporting the plausibility of it.

From Law Newz March 27, 2016.

“Experts: Ted Cruz Appears Deceptive in His Response to Sex Scandal

Phil Houston is CEO of QVerity, a training and consulting company specializing in detecting deception by employing a model he developed while at the Central Intelligence Agency. He has conducted thousands of interviews and interrogations for the CIA and other federal agencies. His colleague Don Tennant contributed to this report.

The eyebrow-raising story that appeared earlier this week in the National Enquirer, citing claims that Sen. Ted Cruz had engaged in five extramarital affairs, drew a sharp response from the Republican presidential contender. Sharp as it was, however, it was strikingly weak in terms of denial, and strong in terms of attack. And that combination is a telltale sign of deception that leads us to conclude that this is a matter that warrants further investigation.

The statement that Cruz released on his Facebook page on Friday immediately drew our attention:

“I want to be crystal clear: these attacks are garbage. For Donald J. Trump to enlist his friends at the National Enquirer and his political henchmen to do his bidding shows you that there is no low Donald won’t go. These smears are completely false, they’re offensive to Heidi and me, they’re offensive to our daughters, and they’re offensive to everyone Donald continues to personally attack. Donald Trump’s consistently disgraceful behavior is beneath the office we are seeking and we are not going to follow.””

“We should note that these two statements constitute the only material that we currently have at our disposal to analyze, which is far from ideal. Obviously, the more material available for analysis, the greater our confidence in our findings. With that said, however, we were struck by the volume of deceptive behavior that we identified in these statements.

Behaviorally, when the facts are the ally of an individual, he or she almost always tends to focus on the facts of the matter at hand. In this case, if the key fact was that he had not had these affairs, Cruz would almost certainly have been much more strongly focused on the denial. That is, he very likely would have made a point of explicitly stating something along the lines of, “I did not have these affairs.””

Read more

Experts: Ted Cruz Appears Deceptive in His Response to Sex Scandal Story

From the Gateway Pundit March 27, 2016.

“Roger Stone on Cruz Sex Scandal: Ted Cruz Won’t Sue “Because the Allegations Are Largely True””

“But these rumors did not start with Donald Trump.

And the rumors did not start with Roger Stone.

** The rumors were started by the Rubio Campaign and anti-Trump GOP elites.

Today Roger Stone told AM 970 radio on Sunday that Ted Cruz won’t sue because the allegations are largely true.”

Roger Stone: Again, why won’t he sue. It won’t cost him anything, he’s a lawyer himself… To be absolutely clear, Ted Cruz won’t sue because the allegations are largely true. That’s why he won’t sue.”

Read more:

Roger Stone on Cruz Sex Scandal: Ted Cruz Won’t Sue “Because the Allegations Are Largely True”

Roger Stone is a very interesting man and likely knows what he is talking about.

He certainly pegged Obama.

From the New Yorker June 2, 2008.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/06/02/the-dirty-trickster

 

 

Ted Cruz PA eligibility challenge appeal fast tracked in Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Elliott v. Cruz, Elliott represented by attorney David J. Farrell, Cruz a natural born citizen?, PA primary scheduled for April 26

Ted Cruz PA eligibility challenge appeal fast tracked in Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Elliott v. Cruz, Elliott represented by attorney David J. Farrell, Cruz a natural born citizen?, PA primary scheduled for April 26

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”…Jesus, John 8:32

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

From The Legal Intelligencer March 21, 2016.

“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has set a quick timetable in the appeal of a ruling allowing Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to remain on the state’s presidential primary ballot.

The court said Monday that challenger Carmon Elliott had until 4 p.m. Tuesday to submit his brief in Elliott v. Cruz. Presidential hopeful Cruz then has until 4 p.m. Wednesday to file his response. There was no indication of whether or when oral arguments would be scheduled in the case. Pennsylvania’s primary is scheduled for April 26. The court did say in its order that the parties could submit the same briefs they submitted to the Commonwealth Court.

Elliott, who represented himself before the lower court, is now being represented by Norristown attorney David J. Farrell, who had initially submitted his own challenge to Cruz’s ballott eligibility but withdrew it in advance of the Commonwealth Court hearing.

Commonwealth Court Senior Judge Dan Pellegrini rejected earlier this month Elliott’s claim that Cruz was not a “natural-born citizen” as defined by the U.S. Constitution because he was born in Canada to a mother who was a citizen of the United States.

Pellegrini spent half of his decision determining whether the judiciary had jurisdiction over questions of eligibility to run for president. Cruz argued it was a question only for the Electoral College or Congress to determine, and that the court should be barred from hearing it under the political-question doctrine. But Pellegrini rejected that contention, finding there was no support for it under various sections of the U.S. Constitution, nor under the 12th Amendment. In doing so, he became what appears to be the first judge in the country hearing Cruz ballot challenges to address the merits of the issue.

The dispute as to whether Cruz was a ­citizen eligible for the presidency came down to the interpretation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “‘no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States … shall be eligible to the office of president.'”

Pellegrini said the term “natural-born ­citizen” was not defined and the U.S. Supreme Court has never addressed its meaning within the context of the eligibility of a candidate.

Elliott is a registered Republican voter in Pennsylvania. He argued “natural-born citizen” required a candidate to be born within the geographical boundaries of the United States to be eligible. Cruz, on the other hand, argued he was a natural-born citizen regardless of where he was born because his mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born and Cruz was therefore a U.S. citizen from the time of his birth, Pellegrini said.”

Read more:

http://www.thelegalintelligencer.com/id=1202752679252/Appeal-of-Cruzs-Ballot-Eligibility-FastTracked#ixzz4478Divhp

From the Indiana Law Review:

“D. Whether a State May Refuse To Put a Presidential Candidate on the Ballot Because It Concludes the Candidate Is Not Qualified ”

” If a state chooses to evaluate the qualifications of presidential candidates, there is no inherent power of Congress standing in its way,”

“Just as there was historical precedent for states including unqualified candidates on the presidential ballot, so, too, is there precedent for states excluding unqualified candidates from the ballot. In fact, there has been a trend of state regulation increasingly scrutinizing the qualifications of presidential candidates, even apart from pending legislation in the “birther” context.”

“They arguably have the power to add qualifications to candidates seeking the office of President.359 The less intrusive step of examining existing constitutional qualifications is likely within the purview of state control.”

“The 20th Amendment does not prevent a state from excluding a presidential or a vice presidential candidate who is not qualified to hold the office.”

“A state inquiry into qualifications could take one of several forms.377 It might be simply ministerial, requiring candidates to verify that they are qualified. It could include a certification, such as a signature under penalty of perjury affirming that one meets the qualifications. It may require a low level of verification, such as an attachment of copies of documentary support for proof of residence and citizenship. Or it may require a high level of verification, such as original source documents (like a “long-form birth certificate”). The inquiry might be required as a disclosure when a candidate seeks to file for office, or as one that an election official is authorized to make under certain circumstances. Such state regulations would be permissible as long as they simultaneously existed within other constitutional boundaries.”

http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11145&context=ilj

Hat tip to CDR Charles Kerchner.

 

Drew Johnson tweet confirms Ted Cruz cheating, Washington Times fires Johnson scrubs links, Why was Drew Johnson fired?, Big Brother thought police?

Drew Johnson tweet confirms Ted Cruz cheating, Washington Times fires Johnson scrubs links, Why was Drew Johnson fired?, Big Brother thought police?

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“”You’re a traitor!” yelled the boy. “You’re a thought criminal!”“…George Orwell, “1984”

 

***  Update Below  ***

 

Drew Johnson tweeted the following on March 25, 2016.

COMING CLEAN: From what I know, at least 2 of the women named as Cruz mistresses by the National Enquirer are accurate

The Washington Times responded

Drew Johnson responded.

. If we haven’t had a relationship in over a year, why do you still pay me for columns I write?

A internet search reveals this entry:

“Drew Johnson – Bio, News, Photos – Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com › Topics
The Washington Times
Latest news and commentary on Drew Johnson including photos, videos, quotations, and a biography.”

And Wikipedia reports:

“Jason Andrew “Drew” Johnson (born August 5, 1979 in Johnson City, Tennessee)[1] is an American political commentator and former think tank executive. He was the founder and first president of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, now known as the Beacon Center of Tennessee.[2] He later edited the editorial page of the Chattanooga Times Free Press. He was columnist at The Washington Times.[3], but was fired in March 2016[4] shortly after commenting[5] on allegations that Sen. Ted Cruz has had several mistresses.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Johnson

From Nooga.com.

“How did the job with The Washington Times come about? 

After I was fired for criticizing Obama, The Washington Times, along with a number of other large conservative and libertarian-leaning publications and websites, reached out with their support. The Washington Times, in particular, gave me the opportunity to write a few editorials here and there over the last six or eight months when an issue came up that I wanted to sound off about. It was a wonderful platform to get my thoughts out at a time when I was working on some large projects for think tanks and didn’t have much of an outlet to respond to what was going on in the news.

A few weeks after my wife and I moved to D.C., the Times called and told me they liked my writing and very generously asked if I was interested in joining their opinion page as an editorial writer and columnist. Honestly, I’d been so busy writing for think tanks and developing my website project that writing daily editorials again hadn’t really crossed my mind. But The Washington Times is such an important publication with such a large audience—so many free market, limited government types like me read the Times’ opinion section online every morning—that I felt compelled to jump at the opportunity.”

http://nooga.com/printme/165987

More on the Ted Cruz cheating controversy.

“It wasn’t Donald Trump who spilled the beans as Ted Cruz expected. Instead, it was the National Enquirer who first ran the story about Cruz and his alleged mistresses. The magazine teased the story in a two-page spread, but for social media, it was all too easy to decipher the blurred profile images (through reverse image search). Drew Johnson claims to have inside information about at least two women who were implicated in the magazine.”

“While it’s still unclear who the women are, Twitter seems to have identified who 3 of the 5 are:”

Could this explain why Heidi Cruz was found in a park crying?

 

Read more:

http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=12237

Sounds like Big Brother and the Thought Police are active again.

***  UPDATE  ***

Here is the Bio of Drew Johnson at the Washington Times as of March 25, 2016 courtesy of the Wayback Machine:

“Drew Johnson is a columnist, editorial writer and government waste expert at The Washington Times. Mr. Johnson founded and served as president of Tennessee’s free-market think tank, is the former opinion page editor at the Chattanooga Times Free Press and serves a Senior Fellow at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.”

https://web.archive.org/web/20160325161544/http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/drew-johnson/

 

 

Blagojevich US Supreme Court appeal still shows DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 25, 2016, You would never know it if we didn’t show it

Blagojevich US Supreme Court appeal still shows DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 25, 2016, You would never know it if we didn’t show it

Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

Blagojevich US Supreme Court appeal still shows DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 25, 2016. You would never know it if we didn’t show it.

No. 15-664
Title:
Rod Blagojevich, Petitioner
v.
United States
Docketed: November 19, 2015
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  Case Nos.: (11-3853)
  Decision Date: July 21, 2015
  Rehearing Denied: August 19, 2015

 

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 17 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 21, 2015)
Dec 16 2015 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 20, 2016.
Dec 21 2015 Brief amici curiae of Current and Former Elected Officials, et al. filed.
Jan 7 2016 Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including February 19, 2016.
Feb 19 2016 Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
Mar 8 2016 Reply of petitioner Rod Blagojevich filed.
Mar 9 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 25, 2016.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15-664.htm

Stupid Charlotte transgender bathroom ordinance overturned by NC legislature and governor, North Carolina governor Pat McCrory signs bill that prevents cities and counties from passing their own anti-discrimination rules

Stupid Charlotte transgender bathroom ordinance overturned by NC legislature and governor, North Carolina governor Pat McCrory signs bill that prevents cities and counties from passing their own anti-discrimination rules

“Republicans and their allies have said intervening is necessary to protect the safety of women and children from “radical” action by Charlotte. There have been arguments that any man — perhaps a sex offender — could enter a woman’s restroom or locker room simply by calling himself transgender.”…Greensboro News Record March 24, 2016

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre. With the feeling that he was speaking to O’Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote:

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984”

 

Thank God the Democrats are not running NC.

When I heard about Charlotte passing an ordinance to allow anyone, despite their biological sex organs, to use the public bathroom of their choice, I was obviously concerned about the safety of children and other citizens and the lack of good judgement of the government of the largest city in North Carolina.

From the Greensboro New Record March 24, 2016.

“McCrory signs bill that reins in local governments, transgender rule”

“North Carolina legislators decided to rein in local governments by approving a bill that prevents cities and counties from passing their own anti-discrimination rules. Gov. Pat McCrory later signed the legislation, which dealt a blow to the LGBT movement after success with protections in cities across the country.

The Republican-controlled General Assembly took action Wednesday after Charlotte city leaders last month approved a broad anti-discrimination measure. Critics focused on language in the ordinance that allowed transgender people to use the restroom aligned with their gender identity.

McCrory, who was the mayor of Charlotte for 14 years and had criticized the local ordinance, signed the legislation Wednesday night that he said was “passed by a bipartisan majority to stop this breach of basic privacy and etiquette.”

Although 12 House Democrats joined all Republicans present in voting for the bill in the afternoon, later all Senate Democrats in attendance walked off their chamber floor during the debate in protest. Remaining Senate Republicans gave the legislation unanimous approval.

“We choose not to participate in this farce,” Senate Minority Leader Dan Blue of Raleigh said after he left the chamber.

Senate leader Phil Berger of Eden said the Democrats’ decision to leave was a “serious breach of their obligation to the citizens that voted to elect them.”

Republicans and their allies have said intervening is necessary to protect the safety of women and children from “radical” action by Charlotte. There have been arguments that any man — perhaps a sex offender — could enter a woman’s restroom or locker room simply by calling himself transgender.

“It’s common sense — biological men should not me be in women’s showers, locker rooms and bathrooms,” said GOP Rep. Dean Arp of Monroe before the chamber voted 82-26 for the legislation after nearly three hours of debate.

Gay rights leaders and transgender people said the legislation demonizes the community and espouses bogus claims about increasing the risk of sexual assaults. They say the law will deny lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people essential protections needed to ensure they can get a hotel room, hail a taxi or dine at a restaurant without fear.”

Read more:

http://www.greensboro.com/news/mccrory-signs-bill-that-reins-in-local-governments-transgender-rule/article_830dcc07-75a2-519c-a15c-3ea204b08429.html

 

Einer R. Elhauge US Supreme Court Amicus brief, Ted Cruz not eligible as natural born citizen, Harvard Law Professor, Former Chairman of Obama Antitrust Advisory Committee

Einer R. Elhauge US Supreme Court Amicus brief, Ted Cruz not eligible as natural born citizen, Harvard Law Professor, Former Chairman of Obama Antitrust Advisory Committee

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

 

This would have been reported earlier except for problems accessing Birther Report.

Another Harvard Law Professor states in a Amicus Brief to the US Supreme Court that Ted Cruz is not eligible for the presidency as a natural born citizen.

From Birther Report March 16, 2016.

“Harvard Law Professor Files Amicus Curiae Brief
In Canadian-Born Cruz NY Ballot Access Challenge

Harvard Law Professor, Former Chairman of the Antitrust Advisory Committee to Obama’s campaign, Einer Elhauge, filed an amicus brief at the New York Supreme Court advising the court that Canadian-born Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president under the Article II natural born Citizen requirement. Elhauge also says it’s not a political question.”

“In short, the text, history, canons of interpretation, contemporaneous dictionaries, and other evidence strongly indicate that by “natural born citizen” the Constitution meant someone who was a natural born citizen at common law, meaning someone who was born either (a) in a United States territory or (b) to a U.S. official serving his country abroad. Contrary to the Cruz brief, see Cruz Brief at 33, this understanding is entirely consistent with the common understanding that John McCain was a natural born citizen because McCain actually met both of these grounds. John McCain was both (a) born in a U.S. territory (the Panama Canal Zone) and (b) born to parents who were both U.S. soldiers serving their nation abroad. However, the Constitutional meaning of “natural born citizen” excludes Ted Cruz because he was (a) born in Canada rather than a U.S. territory (b) to a father who was not a U.S. citizen and to a mother who was a private U.S. citizen who was not serving for the U.S. in Canada.

The Constitutional Meaning of Natural Born Citizen Has Not Been Expanded by Decisions or Statutes. Contrary to the analysis above, the Cruz brief asserts that: “Every judicial decision and virtually every constitutional authority agrees that a ‘natural born Citizen’ is anyone who was a citizen at the moment he was born—as opposed to becoming a citizen through the naturalization process at some point after his birth.” Cruz Brief at 29.

The Supreme Court’s Understanding. The Cruz Brief’s assertion that “every judicial decision” adopted this understanding of “natural born citizen” conflicts with the very first decision the brief cites in support of this claim, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1897). That Supreme Court decision expressly stated:

Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

Id. at 702-03. The highlighted portion of Wong Kim Ark thus explicitly stated that persons who are born abroad and become citizens at birth only because a Congressional statute makes them so are “naturalized”, not natural born citizens.”

Read more:

http://www.birtherreport.com/2016/03/obama-advisor-harvard-law-professors-ny.html

 

Vaccines vaccinations 2016 presidential cycle, Follow the money, Follow the ideology, All diseases and vaccines not created equal, Thought criminal for asking questions?

Vaccines vaccinations 2016 presidential cycle, Follow the money, Follow the ideology, All diseases and vaccines not created equal, Thought criminal for asking questions?

“I’m also a little concerned about how they’re bunched up. My kids had all of their vaccines, and even if the science doesn’t say bunching them up is a problem, I ought to have the right to spread out my vaccines out a little bit at the very least.”…Rand Paul

“it is true that we are probably giving way too many in too short a period of time.”…Ben Carson

“”You’re a traitor!” yelled the boy. “You’re a thought criminal!”“…George Orwell, “1984”

 

 

Vaccines and vaccinations have been brought to the forefront of the American consciousness this 2016 presidential election cycle.

I am grateful for that.

We are becoming a nation of dumbed down robots who are criticized for questioning “authority” and the status quo on vaccinating our young children.

“Thought Criminals” as portrayed in George Orwell’s “1984.”

Vaccines and vaccinations are of deep interest and concern to me on a personal basis as well as national level.

Vaccines are not a monolithic, simplistic “monster” or “cure all” that should be addressed and questioned that simplistically.

Not all diseases are created equal, i.e. have the same impact and not all approaches to vaccinations are either.

I am old enough to remember 2 basic concepts.

1. We all got the measles, mumps, chicken pox, etc. and we lived through it without vaccinations.

2. Diseases such as polio were devastating and vaccinations were a God send.

My position meshes well with 2 physicians and candidates, Rand Paul and Ben Carson.

I believe that we are subjecting children too young to too many vaccines.

I also believe that some vaccines should be optional.

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are two examples of follow the ideology to explain their answers on vaccines.

Clinton is also another example of follow the money.

From the Washington Examiner May 15, 2015.

“Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation and spent a portion of its $23.1 million in lobbying expenses from 2009 alone on issues at the State Department.

Pfizer was also a top sponsor of the U.S. pavilion at the 2010 World’s Fair in Shanghai. The expo was an early Clinton priority for political reasons, and the former secretary of state tapped her vast donor network to foot the entire $60 million bill during her first year in office.”

Read more:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/most-firms-that-gave-to-clinton-foundation-also-lobbied-state-department/article/2564553

From NBC New York.

“Pharmaceutical company Merck & Co. is also a member of the Clinton Global Initiative, company spokeswoman Amy Rose said. Merck joined CGI in 2006, when dues were $15,000, and also was a member in 2007 and in 2008, when membership dues rose to $20,000. As part of its commitment to CGI, Merck sponsors public health initiatives around the world, Rose said. Merck joined CGI on its own initiative, she said.

Sen. Clinton wrote a November 2005 letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt urging approval of the human papillomavirus vaccine. Merck applied in December 2005 for approval of its HPV vaccine, Gardasil, and the vaccine was approved for use in females ages 9 to 26. Merck is still seeking approval for use in older women, Rose said.”

Read more:

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/NATLNew-Conflict-of-Interest-Just-Before-Clinton-Confirmation.html

“THE TOP 10 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES: VACCINE STANCES”

http://www.dinnerforthought.com/blog/the-top-10-presidential-candidates-vaccine-stances

 

 

Rod Blagojevich reply brief to Solicitor General brief in opposition, March 10, 2016, Attorney Len Goodman, Draw the line between lawful political activity and crimes, Delaying review unwarranted given that Blagojevich will remain imprisoned during the delay

Rod Blagojevich reply brief to Solicitor General brief in opposition, March 10, 2016, Attorney Len Goodman, Draw the line between lawful political activity and crimes, Delaying review unwarranted given that Blagojevich will remain imprisoned during the delay

Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

ROD BLAGOJEVICH, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
_______________________
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
REPLY BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER

“REPLY BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER

1. This case is, and has been from the start, fundamentally about where to draw the line between lawful political activity and crimes of extortion, bribery and honest services fraud. That is an important issue of bipartisan concern, directly impacting all candidates seeking or holding public office and their supporters, and one which this Court recently agreed to review in McDonnell v. United States, No. 15-474 (certiorari granted Jan. 15, 2016). Blagojevich’s case is particularly important because it involves only the solicitation or attempt to obtain campaign contributions, which this Court has held are a form of protected political speech that warrants heightened scrutiny. Indeed, regardless of one’s views about money in politics, a bright-line rule distinguishing lawful campaign fundraising activities from unlawful political corruption is necessary to avert a chilling effect on candidates’ First Amendment right to solicit (and receive) campaign contributions, and donors’ First Amendment right to respond with contributions. Clarity about where to draw that line is also essential to avoiding arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement against politicians who are outspoken, controversial, polarizing or simply unpopular. It is an issue that impacts our longstanding system of private financing of election campaigns from President of the United States to local alderman, and one that the lower courts have struggled with consistently since Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992).”

“2. The government’s opposition does not dispute that the lower courts have expressed confusion—and signaled the need for further clarity and guidance from this Court—regarding what effect Evans had on McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991), in the context of public corruption prosecutions involving the solicitation of campaign contributions. To the contrary, the government’s attempt to minimize the degree of conflict among the circuit courts on this issue (Opp. 18-21) proves the essence of Blagojevich’s petition: that the lower courts have acknowledged a significant lack of clarity regarding whether Evans modified or relaxed McCormick’s “explicit promise or undertaking” requirement to prove public corruption offenses involving campaign contributions; that the confusion arises in part from uncertainty regarding whether this Court’s holding in Evans was meant to weaken the requirement for proving extortion involving campaign contributions; and that the circuits have expressed particular confusion about what McCormick’s requirement that a quid pro quo be “explicit” means in light of Evans. The government also concedes (Opp. 20) that since Evans some courts of appeals have (appropriately) recognized the distinction between public corruption cases involving campaign contributions and those involving other payments, and have indicated or suggested that extortion cases involving campaign contributions require heightened proof of an “explicit” agreement under McCormick. ”

Read more:

Click to access Blagojevich-v-United-States-cert-reply-FINAL-March-8-2016.pdf

 

Blagojevich appeal update March 5, 2016, US Supreme Court opposition brief filed by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. Feb 19, Petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied, Blagojevich knew he was offering to exchange official actions for money

Blagojevich appeal update March 5, 2016, US Supreme Court opposition brief filed by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. Feb 19, Petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied, Blagojevich knew he was offering to exchange
official actions for money

Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

 

The  opposition brief filed by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr.on  February 19 in the Rod Blagojevich US Supreme Court appeal finally showed up.

“No. 15-664
In the Supreme Court of the United States

ROD BLAGOJEVICH, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION

DONALD B. VERRILLI, JR.
Solicitor General
Counsel of Record”

“QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether the court of appeals correctly upheld
petitioner’s conviction for extortion under color of
official right where the jury was instructed that the
government must prove that petitioner “agree[d] to
accept money or property believing that it would be
given in exchange for a specific requested exercise of
his official power.”

2. Whether the court of appeals correctly held that
petitioner may not defend against charges of extortion,
honest-services fraud, and bribery by claiming
that he genuinely believed that he could lawfully exchange
his official actions for money.”

“1. As an initial matter, the Court’s review is unwarranted
at this time because the case is still in an
interlocutory posture. The court of appeals vacated
five counts of conviction, vacated petitioner’s sentence,
and remanded to the district court for retrial
and resentencing. Pet. App. 23a. This Court normally
“await[s] final judgment in the lower courts before
exercising [its] certiorari jurisdiction.” VMI v. United
States, 508 U.S. 946 (1993) (Scalia, J., respecting denial
of certiorari); see Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf
Bros. & Co., 240 U.S. 251, 258 (1916) (describing interlocutory
posture as “a fact that of itself alone furnishe[s]
sufficient ground for the denial of” certiorari).
That practice ensures that all of a defendant’s claims
will be consolidated and presented in a single petition.
Here, the interests of judicial economy would be
served best by denying review now and allowing petitioner
to reassert his claims—including any new
claims that might arise following resentencing or
retrial, if one occurs—at the conclusion of the proceedings.
See Major League Baseball Players Ass’n
v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504, 508 n.1 (2001) (per curiam)
(“[W]e have authority to consider questions determined
in earlier stages of the litigation.”).

2. Petitioner contends (Pet. 17) that this Court’s
review is needed to resolve a disagreement in the
lower courts on whether a jury must be instructed
that Hobbs Act extortion involves an “explicit” exchange
of official actions for campaign contributions.
No such conflict exists; petitioner’s argument is without
merit; and this would be a poor case to address the
argument in any event.”

“Elonis involved a prosecution under 18 U.S.C.
875(c) for communicating threats, and it addressed the
“requirement that a defendant act with a certain mental
state in communicating a threat.” 135 S. Ct. at
2008. Applying background presumptions about the
mens rea required for criminal liability, the Court
concluded that the defendant must be more than negligent
about the threatening nature of the communications.
Id. at 2011. But Elonis did not hold that Section
875(c) requires proof that the defendant knew his
actions were criminal. To the contrary, the Court
rejected the notion “that a defendant must know that
his conduct is illegal before he may be found guilty.”
Id. at 2009; see ibid. (“The familiar maxim ‘ignorance
of the law is no excuse’ typically holds true.”). The
Court thus focused on the defendant’s mental state
with respect to his own actions, while making clear
that knowledge of the legal consequences of his actions
is not required. Ibid. (“[A] defendant generally
must know the facts that make his conduct fit the
definition of the offense, even if he does not know that
those facts give rise to a crime.”) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). That same focus applies
here as well: Petitioner could validly be convicted
because he knew that he was offering to exchange
official actions for money—whether or not he also
knew that doing so was illegal.”

“CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be
denied.”

Click to access 15-664_blagojevich_v._us_opp.pdf