School Elections Thrown Out After Too Many Whites Elected

Elections were held at Everett Middle School Oct. 10, but on Oct. 14 principal Lena Van Haren sent an email to parents saying the results were being ignored, without being made public, because those elected did not reflect how diverse the school is. While Everett is more than 80 percent non-white, Van Haren said the election results “weren’t representative” of that.

Source: School Elections Thrown Out After Too Many Whites Elected | The Daily Caller


If attacked, do you want to be Victor or Victim?
SacredHonor.US, we hate it when people die embarrassed.
And at
Protect.FM, we believe good estate plans protect families.
We make it easy for your family to attain the comfort of skill at arms.

David R. Duringer, JD, LL.M, is a concealed firearm instructor and tax lawyer specializing in business and estate planning. He is managing shareholder at Protective Law Corporation, headquartered in Laguna Hills, primarily serving Orange County and Southern California with a satellite office located in Coronado (San Diego County).

© Protective Law Corporation as per date of publication captioned above. All rights reserved unless otherwise noted. Sharing encouraged with attribution and/or link to this page.

Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio, and Governor Jindal Should Not Be Allowed to Participate in the Presidential Debates Because They, Like De Facto President Obama, Are All Not Natural Born Citizens and Therefore Not Eligible to Be President

Natural Born Citizen – A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio, and Governor Jindal Should Not Be Allowed to Participate in the Presidential Debates Because They, Like De Facto President Obama, Are All Not Natural Born Citizens and Therefore Not Eligible to Be President.

Comments Off on Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio, and Governor Jindal Should Not Be Allowed to Participate in the Presidential Debates Because They, Like De Facto President Obama, Are All Not Natural Born Citizens and Therefore Not Eligible to Be President Posted in Lenin's Opiate, Natural Born Citizen

#GlennBeck Blows it Again, This Time on the Value of #EstatePlanning with Continuing Trusts #tcot #ccot

I am a huge fan of Glenn Beck’s radio show.  I listen every morning and usually agree.  But sometimes they blow it, and this humble blog is my only recourse.  My previous posts have pointed out their errors on matters such as: the eligibility of Ted Cruz and the definition of “natural born citizen”; and an occasional hiccup evidencing lack of familiarity with guns (though he is generally good on that issue), for example the several times he urged listeners to “shoot to kill” in the context of self-defense, a mindset that clearly goes against the teachings of Thomas Aquinas to whom legitimate self-defense would not include specific intent to kill.

So what happened this morning?  Glenn Beck said he thought estate planning with continuing trusts was a very bad thing and that assets should be given outright to kids.  He gave as an example Ted Turner locking up some environmentally dear real estate for centuries, but severe restraints on alienation like that are an issue distinct from continuing purpose-built trusts with assets that can be turned over by a trustee.  In fairness, Glenn admitted his opinion may suffer from a lack of expertise.  It does.

I’m with Glenn as far as eliminating death taxes.  But giving all assets outright to children?  A trust is necessary to avoid court involvement if the child is a minor, and even adult children will almost always blow their inheritances within a very short time.  Compare the descendants of the Rothschilds to those of the Vanderbilts and you will see that incentive trust planning is needed to avoid the perils of unearned wealth.

Besides, for most families, comprehensive estate planning these days is as much about avoiding income tax as it is avoiding death tax, through use of such techniques as the Clayton election.

To me, the biggest argument in favor of continuing trusts is that they are really the only way to transmit your values to succeeding generations.  Glenn said he was against “the hand ruling from the grave” but wouldn’t it be nice if the Founders transmitted their firearm legacy?  The militia ethic had seriously declined by the War of 1812, and of course is in pretty bad shape now.  Relying on word of mouth alone is like playing the game of telephone, so now, hardly anyone speaks Constitution.

Primer on Logic for Cruz Supporters #tcot #tpot #ccot #2A

All poodles are dogs.
Bubbles is a dog.

Therefore, Bubbles is a poodle.

Natural Born Citizen – A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: The Fallacies of Congressional Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen”.

ANOTHER #WorldNetDaily Article Omits Mention that Father of #TedCruz was Cuban Citizen #tcot

There were the expected attacks on Cruz’s citizenship, since he was born in Canada – although his mother was an American citizen.

Anti-Cruz missiles fly.

In addition, the article makes it sound like those contesting Cruz’ eligibility are hypocrites and that those maintaining neither Cruz nor Obama are eligible are the exception rather than the rule:

Ironically, many of those claiming that he would not be eligible to run for president are the very ones who yell “Birther!” at those who questioned President Obama’s eligibility. (Donald Trump is a notable exception. He has questioned the eligibility of both Obama and Cruz.)
Comments Off on ANOTHER #WorldNetDaily Article Omits Mention that Father of #TedCruz was Cuban Citizen #tcot Posted in Lenin's Opiate

#WorldNetDaily Article Omits Fact that Father of #TedCruz was Cuban Citizen at Ted’s Birth #tcot #tpot

Cruz was born in 1970 in Alberta, where his Cuban-born father was working for an oil company. Cruz’s birth certificate indicates his mother was born in Delaware, making her an American citizen. Cruz was automatically registered as a Canadian citizen but also an American citizen. His family moved back to the United States when he was 4 years old.

Donald Trump goes birther on Ted Cruz.

The title of the WND article derides Trump for being a birther, which is ironic because WND led the birther fight against Obama.  Place of birth is actually irrelevant to this issue (see my prior posts on this subject).  Ted Cruz is not ineligible because he was born in Canada.  He is ineligible because his father, a citizen of Cuba, was not a US citizen at the time of his birth.  In fact, his father did not get around to becoming a US citizen until 2005!


Comments Off on #WorldNetDaily Article Omits Fact that Father of #TedCruz was Cuban Citizen at Ted’s Birth #tcot #tpot Posted in Lenin's Opiate

#GlennBeck Lying on Behalf of #TedCruz? Says on Air Both Parents Were US Citizens at Birth #tcot

On the way to the office this morning, listening to Glenn Beck as I normally do, I heard some propaganda so vile I decided to post about it.  I am a big fan of Glenn Beck and Mark Levin, listen to both of them quite a bit and agree with them mostly, but also expect too much perhaps and occasionally what they say makes me angry enough to post something here on this blog.  Recently, I responded to Levin’s shoddy conclusion that Cruz is a natural born citizen, as that phrase must be interpreted under the constitution, and his name-calling of those who disagree with him.

This morning, Glenn Beck surpassed Levin’s shoddiness and also engaged in name-calling of those who believe Cruz is not eligible.  In playing clips of “The View” where those hosts brought up that Ted Cruz was born in Canada (a total red herring and straw man because place of birth is not relevant to the question of whether one is a “natural born citizen” in the constitutional sense; only citizenship of the father at birth is relevant to that question), Beck proceeded to make fun of these hosts (okay fine, they are fools) but then Beck makes the statement on air (and I paraphrase since I caught it driving in):

“Every constitutional scholar agrees that if a person is born abroad and both parents are US citizens at time of birth, that person is eligible to run for president.”

I don’t have any problem with that statement, on its face.  [Mario Apuzzo, Esq., a scholar on natural born citizenship whom I respect, would also require birth in US in addition to both parents being US citizens at time of the birth.  However, I disagree that place of birth is at all relevant because if you accept that the Founders adopted the natural law view that each individual is natural born citizen (NBC) of one and only one country, then you must also take the traditional view that NBC is inherited (your children don’t become subjects of another country simply because you are traveling), and such inheritance must come through one parent only because parents may have differing citizenship and a “both parents” rule would result in some children not being considered NBC of ANY country–an obviously ludicrous result inconsistent with natural law.  Traditionally, it has always been the father’s citizenship that was inherited.  (There are good reasons for this–for example, it is mainly fathers that fight.  BTW, did you know that Ted’s father fought to put Fidel Castro in power?)  At time of the founding, wife’s citizenship generally followed that of the husband’s.  As distasteful as it may be in our politically correct age, you have to pick one or the other or the entire natural law view of the clause, as originally intended, is meaningless.]

What really bothers me about Glenn Beck’s statement is the LOUDLY IMPLIED assertion that both of Ted Cruz’ parents were US citizens at time of Ted’s birth–which is PALPABLY FALSE!  Ted Cruz’ father was a Cuban citizen at that time, and in fact never became a US citizen until just a few years ago.  GLENN BECK NEVER POINTED THIS OUT.  Ted Cruz himself was a dual citizen of both US and Canada until he recently renounced his Canadian citizenship (acquired by reason of his birth in Canada) less than a year ago.  Did the Founders intend dual citizens to be eligible?  I think not!  Is the concern of the Founders remedied by simply filling out a renunciation form?  I think not!  The Founders insisted that a president be a NATURAL born citizen under natural law principles because you can only be NBC of one and only one country.

Look, Ted Cruz is an exciting candidate, a true patriot, and more Reaganesque than Reagan himself.  I would have a hard time not voting for him if he wins the nomination even though he is not NBC because the alternative would be electing a Democrat and all the unnatural ACTS that implies.

My concern is that enough of the grassroots will be concerned about the NBC issue that it will weaken grassroots support for Cruz perhaps even more than the grassroots were weakened by nomination of moderate Romney.  Nor can we expect the Left to ignore the issue (even if their understanding of it is imperfect as with “The View”).

A bit later in the broadcast, as I pulled in to my parking lot, Beck commented that the Nazis through Goebbels learned about propaganda from the US.  Goebbels would be proud of what conservative commentators such as Beck and Levin are doing on behalf of Cruz.

Bullying can be used for positive social change, environmental author suggests #tcot #ccot #cnut

Sounds Alinsky-ish, be prepared:

Bullying can be used for positive social change, author suggests – Winnipeg Free Press.

Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish #TedCruz as Natural Born Citizen #tcot #tpot #2A

I really appreciate the scholarship undertaken by Mario Puzzo, Esq., on the issue of what constitutes “natural born citizenship”–including his refreshing analysis and conclusion that Rick Santorum IS a natural born citizen while many other potential GOP presidential candidates are NOT eligible natural born citizens.  In particular, conservative pundits have shamefully and foolishly come to Ted Cruz’ rescue lately with a lot of name-calling but little in the way of substantive analysis.  An example of very recent vintage is The Blaze’s promotion of this article in Harvard Law Review, to which Puzzo very capably responds:

I read the March 11, 2015 article entitled, “On the Meaning of a ‘Natural Born Citizen,” written by Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, found at 128 Harv.L.Rev.F 161, and accessed at .  The first sentence of the article says:  “We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General.”  The article repeats the existing talking points offered in support of the constitutional eligibility of Senator Ted Cruz (all born citizens are natural born citizens) and offers nothing new.  Mr. Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen (Cuban) father.  I have written a recent article in which I conclude that Mr. Cruz is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President because he does not satisfy the one and only common law definition of a natural born citizen confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), which is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.  The article is entitled, “What Do President Obama and Senator Cruz Have In Common? They Are Both Not Natural Born Citizens,” accessed at .  Katyal and Clement maintain that any child who becomes a citizen at birth, regardless of where born or by what means, is a natural born citizen.  They add that since Mr. Cruz became a citizen from the moment of birth and did not need any naturalization after birth he is a natural born citizen.  But there is no historical and legal evidence which demonstrates that this is how the Framers defined a natural born citizen and the authors surely have not presented that evidence even if it did exist. 
The authors’ argument suffers from the fallacy of bald assertion.  They provide no convincing evidence for their position on who is included as an Article II natural born citizen.  They do not examine what was the source of the Framers’ definition of an Article II natural born citizen, let alone what was the definition of a natural born citizen when the Framers drafted and adopted the Constitution and when it was eventually ratified.  They ignore so much of the historical and legal record in coming to their bald conclusions. For a discussion of this historical and legal evidence, see the numerous articles that I have written and posted at my blog, .

Read Puzzo’s full response here (mandatory reading!!):
A Response to Neil Katyal and Paul Clement on the Meaning of a Natural Born Citizen.

Notice how skimpy the ten-paragraph Harvard Law Review article is–coincidentally, the same number of paragraphs as the skimpy piece by Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro, upon which Mark Levin predicated his name-calling rant against so-called “birthers”; in fact, the issue of natural born citizenship has less to do with place of birth than citizenship of the parents (in particular, the father), and anyone using “birthers” as a pejorative is either clueless about the real issue, or setting up a straw man because they have no way to counter the real argument.  At least Shapiro admits bias in terms of being Canadian and a friend of Cruz.  Any regular listener of Levin’s (me included) knows that Levin is also a friend and longtime supporter of Ted Cruz.

The law review article was written by two former solicitors general and Mark Levin is rightfully respected as a constitutional lawyer and scholar, yet when you look for substantive analysis, there’s no “there” there.  Why?  Because these guys are friends of Ted Cruz, and/or they do not trust in the grassroots’ ability to properly analyze this issue.  And to some extent they are right.  I know many good conservatives who are lazy on this issue (probably because they are treading water on so many other issues, God help us) and just point to commentary by experts such as Levin without demanding more.

Even loyal listeners need to insist that Levin engage in some serious, lawyerly research before again  name-calling dissenters as “birthers” and “kooks”–otherwise, “SHUT UP YA DUMB JERK!” (as he at times ends calls).  Lacking good arguments, these pundits prefer to engage in polemics laced with ridicule–a harbinger of the discord risked if Cruz were to actually be nominated.

The point is not how a court would actually rule on this issue–the point is that real arguments can be made against Cruz’ eligibility, and the resulting discord will render the grassroots as impotent as nominating a moderate.  Better to have that discussion prior to nomination.