Demand Hillary show us her Medical Records. A Commander in Chief must be competent !

Hillary Health Horrors

 

Medical experts raise red flags, question her claimed recovery from brain trauma.

A traumatic brain injury Hillary Clinton suffered that she apparently never recovered from could render her unfit for the intense daily rigors of the presidency, a new report suggests.
After the former secretary of state returned late to the stage following a commercial break in a Democratic presidential candidates' debate in New Hampshire last month, many observers picked up on an excuse that there was a long lineup for the bathroom that forced Clinton to return to the stage when the debate had resumed.

But Breitbart News suggests that all-too-convenient explanation may have been a cover story that deflects from what really happened. A law enforcement source told Breitbart that "health issues stemming from a previous brain injury" kept Hillary from the stage and also hindered her ability to walk after the debate. Clinton's campaign denied their candidate was in poor health and said she quickly recovered from a concussion she suffered but her husband, former President Bill Clinton, is on record as saying that Hillary's injury “required six months of very serious work to get over.”
"These long-lasting symptoms stemming from a concussion and blood clot, according to a neurologist, suggest Clinton is suffering from post-concussion syndrome, which can severely impact her cognitive abilities," the Breitbart report states.
“Strong source just told me something I suspected. Hillary’s debate ‘bathroom break’ wasn’t that, but flare up of problems from brain injury,” former New York cop John Cardillo who provided VIP security details tweeted.
“I got this from both a [federal agent] … and I also got it from a New York [NYPD] guy who worked security at a Hillary event in New York City,” Cardillo said, adding:

"These are two people that aren’t just personal friends. I worked with one and then post law-enforcement worked with another on some related things. So, these aren’t anonymous people. These are good friends. Both of them told me the same thing, that after her speeches, whether she did a talk or a policy speech, she had to sit behind – she would come off the podium backstage – and have to sit and rest before making it back to the car because she was so fatigued, dizzy and disoriented."

Cardillo said his two sources, who don’t know each other and don't reside in the same state, have stories that "were almost identical.” One of the sources indicated Clinton was “very pale, kind of disoriented. He said she looked like she was about to faint. She was very pale, almost sweaty.”
GOP strategist Roger Stone, who used to work for GOP frontrunner Donald Trump, said he too has received inside information about Mrs. Clinton's failing health.
“A number of New York Democrats, very prominent, well-known, wealthy New York Democrats, told me last year that Hillary had very significant health issues and that they were surprised that she was running in view of her health problems and her lack of stamina,” Stone said. “So far, she’s run a very controlled campaign,”
“I don’t think she has the physical stamina to be president,” he stated. “I have no doubt that Sen. Marco Rubio won’t call her on it, but [Donald] Trump certainly would.”
“We also know that in the emails, of course, Huma Abedin … says that she is easily confused,” Stone added, referencing comments top Clinton aide Huma Abedin made about her boss in emails while working at the Department of State.

Trump has publicly questioned whether Clinton has the "stamina" be be president. “She goes out and she sees you guys for about 10 minutes, she sees you for a little while, it’s all rehearsed and staged,” Trump told Fox News recently.
“They’ll pick a couple of people out of the audience that are like, you know, 100 percent. She’ll sit around a little plastic table, they’ll talk to the people for a while. It’s ridiculous,” Trump said. “And then she goes away for five or six days and you don’t see her. She goes to sleep.”
According to Unlikeable: The Problem with Hillary, a book by Edward Klein, Clinton has suffered a series of strokes and is "frequently plagued" by "blinding headaches." In 2012 Clinton experienced a life-threatening concussion-related blood clot of her brain that made her "constantly worried" she would develop a new clot. On the campaign trail she has "felt faint and nearly swooned," but "[t]hose incidents were kept secret."
During the debate last month, Clinton was surprisingly incoherent at times.
Clinton appeared to compare Second Amendment supporters to Islamic terrorists. After discussing building a coalition to fight terrorists abroad, Hillary clumsily segued into disjointed commentary in which she seemed to argue that gun owners are a greater threat to the republic than jihadists:

"Because I think if you only think about the coalition abroad you’re missing the main point, which is we need a coalition here at home. Guns, in and of themselves, in my opinion, will not make Americans safer. We lose 33,000 people a year already to gun violence, arming more people to do what I think is not the appropriate response to terrorism. I think what is, is creating much deeper, closer relations and, yes, coalitions within our own country. The first line of defense against radicalization is in the Muslim American community. People who we should be welcoming and working with."

Then there was a bizarre gaffe Hillary made in November.
In a speech to the NAACP about forbidding prospective employers from asking job applicants about their criminal history, Mrs. Clinton, who is now under FBI investigation, offered what appeared to be a weird Freudian slip:

"Earlier today, I announced that as president I will take steps to ban the box so former presidents won’t have to declare their criminal history at the very start of the hiring process. That way they’ll have a chance to been seen as more than someone who has done time."

After examining a 2012 ABC News report about Clinton's concussion and blood clot, Board-certified neurologist Dr. Daniel Kassicieh of Sarasota, Fla., said Clinton's head injury appears to be adversely and significantly impacting her everyday performance.
“They were trying to poo-poo this off as a minor concussion, but I would just say that reading it and trying to take all the politics out of it, and just read it purely from a medical standpoint,” said Kassicieh, whom Breitbart discloses is a registered Republican.
"Considering the point of what happened with Hillary over this time period… the timeline… and then what has happened here more recently… the break at the debate, I saw that and even the commentators that were sitting there made a comment that, ‘Gee, that seems awful long for a break.’ Just looking at it from a neurological standpoint, the risk factors for developing post-concussion syndrome, one of them is age, and she was 65 when this happened… just from a physiologic standpoint that’s an older individual. Being female is a risk factor for post-concussion syndrome as well."
“For someone who has treated many post-concussion syndrome patients and that’s what I really believe she’s suffering from based on reading these reports and reading what’s happened,” Kassicieh said. “I think she has latent post-concussion syndrome, and I can understand that as a politician they would want to be covering that up.”
Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, said the ABC News report raised concerns.
“Factors predisposing to clots include air travel, dehydration, hormones, immobilization as during surgery, blood abnormalities, cancer,” she said. “Concussions can cause long-term damage including cognitive problems, even when standard studies including CT or MRI look normal.”
“Not saying Mrs. Clinton has any of the above – just speaking generally and hypothetically,” she added.
In older adults post-concussion syndrome, Kassicieh said, "can be characterized by symptoms of persistent dizziness, complaints of memory difficulties, forgetfulness, loss of ability to focus on complex tasks or concepts and indecisiveness ... “Latent depression and overt anxiety are also common in this condition.”
The ABC News report established that Hillary wasn't "fully functional" as secretary of state, he said.

"As a neurologist, I would interpret these and more recent events involving Hillary as possibly showing signs of post-concussion syndrome. This condition could have serious impact on the cognitive and intellectual functioning of an individual, particularly a high level job as [President of the United States]."

Nationally syndicated talk show host and medical doctor Dr. Drew Pinsky told Breitbart that it's serious when a head injury patient is still exhibiting symptoms a year or more later.
“In my clinical experience, it’s very common for them to have six months and even up to a year of exercise intolerance, and sort of [needing] frequent rest, and can easily get overwhelmed,” he said of head injury victims. “But after a year, that’s something else.”
Pinsky said Clinton’s symptoms “are very serious.”
Breitbart sent eight specific questions about Hillary's medical condition to her campaign and got a cookie-cutter response. “These questions are all addressed in her health statement,” said a spokesperson in a reference to a July letter from Clinton’s physician, Dr. Lisa Bardack— chair of internal medicine at the Mount Kisco Medical Group in New York.
Bardack called Clinton a “healthy 67-year-old female whose current medical conditions include hypothyroidism and seasonal pollen allergies,” adding “[h]er past medical history is notable for a deep vein thrombosis in 1998 and in 2009, an elbow fracture in 2009 and a concussion in 2012."
“In December of 2012, Mrs. Clinton suffered a stomach virus after traveling, became dehydrated, fainted and sustained a concussion,” Bardack wrote, indicating that her patient was determined "to have a transverse sinus venous thrombosis" for which she began anti-coagulation therapy to dissolve the clot.
The concussion resolved itself, as did the thrombosis, the doctor wrote.


HILLARY HAS AN OBLIGATION TO VOTERS TO PROVIDE HER COMPLETE MEDICAL HISTORY.

SHE IS A 70 YEAR OLD WOMAN WANTING TO RUN AMERICA...

I SAY #NEVERHILLARY! 

BUSTED EXPOSED TED CRUZ WAS A SOCIALIST IN COLLEGE

BOMBSHELL REPORT: Ted Cruz’s College Political Past EXPOSED, He Doesn’t Want YOU To Know THIS

Of course Rabid Cruz Bots ..... will call into question whether the information is true... all they really have to do is use their own resources and check it out for themselves. The INTERNET IS A HUGE RESOURCE!! USE IT..

Here is page one of google on this matter

BREAKING: We Just Discovered DIRTY Secret About Ted ...
://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/.../discovered-dirty.../
Apr 14, 2016 - Perhaps Cruz wanted extra reading time so he could proof read his political advertisements considering he wrote “three(sic) should be a ... Most notably, Ted Cruz tried to prevent Princeton from spending money to put locks on the dorm halls after the campus saw an incredible increase in sexual assaults.
Ted Cruz College Anti-Rape Activist - Business Insider
www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-college-anti-rape-acti...
Business Insider
Dec 8, 2014 - Ted Cruz Was 25 Years Ahead Of His Time On Fighting Campus Rape ... Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the issue of sexual assault on college ... After leaving Princeton in 1992, Cruz said, he continued his efforts to fight sexual assault. ... "I'd like to see an increase in lighting and rape prevention education," he said in ...
April | 2016 | Traditional Catholic Crusader
tridentinecatholic.com/ctp/?m=201604
After spending weeks attacking anyone who critiques candidate Ted Cruz, the motives of Mark Levin ... IndyStar attempted to survey all 57 delegates. ..... Most notably, Ted Cruz tried to prevent Princeton from spending money to put locks on the dorm halls after the campus had seen an incredible increase in sexual assaults.
Traditional Catholic Crusader | Nam in Ecclesia, et in Gente ...
tridentinecatholic.com/ctp/
IndyStar attempted to survey all 57 delegates. ... Ted Cruz, the third candidate on the GOP side, is also campaigning hard in Indiana, where his .... Most notably, Ted Cruz tried to prevent Princeton from spending money to put locks on the dorm halls after the campus had seen an incredible increase in sexual assaults.
Ted Cruz was a bizarre politician in college. He hopes you forget that he lobbied for liberal causes while the school was facing a $1 million dollar deficit, that he opposed spending when it came to campus safety and dorm intrusion, that he was a proponent of spending when it came to social events and parties, and that if he was ever a maverick, it was in his forerunner status as a ‘rape culture’ fear monger.  Ted wants you to forget that the closest person in his life–whether it was his best friend in college, or his wife today–has always been inexorably linked to the financial institutions on Wall Street.
Most of all, Ted wants you to forget how badly he let his school down after a series of violent rapes took place, how he was preoccupied with parties, and how he tried to derail the implementation of a dormitory lock program every step of the way because he was afraid it would draw money away from social programs.

We have already unraveled his past as a liberal globalist lawyer, its high time we examine the younger Cruz.

Spend Liberal, Think Little

 

“Officials expect challenges in university’s fiscal future” Daily Princetonian, Nov 15, 1990

The truth is often stranger than fiction. PoliticalWave and America’s Freedom Fighters are able to report that Ted Cruz, while running for numerous positions within student government at Princeton (and failing miserably multiple times), proposed a bizarre platform of big spending for social services including meal forgiveness, the building of an excessive public facility, and extended study periods.  Perhaps Cruz wanted extra reading time so he could proof read his political advertisements considering he wrote 

“three(sic) should be a three-day reading period before mid-terms.” (see above) This isn’t to say that Cruz was actually a socialist in the reddest sense of the word. In fact, he also heavily lobbied to reduce spending on multiple occasions. 

Most notably, Ted Cruz tried to prevent Princeton from spending money to put locks on the dorm halls after the campus saw an incredible increase in sexual assaults.  That’s right. Cruz was a big liberal spender on parties and a conservative on security.  But don’t worry folks, he will totally build us The Wall that he ripped off from Trump–but if you actually believe that I’m not sure its worth reading the rest of this article.  If you are not as naive as some of the most ardent Cruz supporters, have a look at this later advert from when Cruz was running for re-election. He could be applying for Greenpeace!

His Words, Not Mine

While commenting for the Daily Princetonian in 1990, Cruz was skeptical about how practical campus security measures were. “I personally don’t think it’s the best way of improving safety,” Cruz said. “I think the effect (locked entryways will have) in keeping people out of dorms is negligible. I do think it serves to be an inconvenience of being restrictive.” While Cruz said he believed locks would improve safety to a certain degree, he added, “perhaps the money could be better spent elsewhere.” Cruz was clearly okay with spending money on more social activities–he told his classmates just what they wanted to hear while running for class president. He just didn’t want to increase campus security.  This is all somewhat surprising considering he has often bragged about how important sexual assault has been to him “since” college, when Cruz was arguably one of the biggest enablers of it on Princeton–fighting the security staff the whole way through the process of security implementation.  Writing for Business Insider, Hunter Walker tried to claim that Cruz was “Ted Cruz Was 25 Years Ahead Of His Time On Fighting Campus Rape” and–forgive me Hunter–this is nothing more than complete bull.  Maybe Hunter just did a poor job researching for his piece and maybe it had to do with the fact that Cruz offered him an exclusive interview, but whatever the case Cruz was no advocate for women back in 90s and he isn’t one today either.  Based off of his promises to create more social opportunities, its hard to not wonder whether Cruz had difficulty getting his priorities straight. With the rising deficit looming in the background of administrators’ minds, its possible that Cruz felt security and parties were an either or decision and lobbied for what was most momentarily important to him.
It should probably be noted that Cruz opposed all of these minor security measures while serving on the Campus Safety Committee–a committee that he was a founding member of and a committee that was created for the purpose of implementing these very same measures.  The Daily Princetonian had this to say about the Safety Committee’s formation: “The ad hoc group was created in response to two incidents which took place within a week of each other — a rape in Prospect Gardens in January 1989 and a stabbing in Wilson College library.”  Keep the event in the Prospect Gardens in mind for a moment and we’ll come back to that in just a tick.  With a bit of speculation, its not hard to imagine that Cruz joined this Committee under the auspices of protecting the vulnerable all while fully intending to use it as leverage against a door locking program that he felt was too expensive.  This speculation is supported by a bit of evidence from another founding member who specifically cited “leaving doors unlocked” as one of the primary concerns of the group when it was formed. This concern seemed to quickly dissipate once Cruz got involved–which one former member would later point out.

Ted Cruz’s Bizarre Goal Develops

A year after the formation, Cruz was using the delegation as a means to push a radical low-budget agenda on security–an agenda that was not viewed well by his peers that almost unanimously ran on platforms of “campus safety, locked entryways and the addition of a second fulltime counselor for the Sexual Harassment/Assault, Advising, Resources and Education program.” Regardless of the will of the Princeton people, Cruz and his tight-knit crew converted cohorts began to aggressively demand a debate with faculty on the matter.

Interestingly enough, one of Cruz’s biggest allies in his ‘fight against safety’ was David Panton. Panton was Cruz’s debate partner and roommate during his later years of college.
[As an aside, it’s been rumored that Cruz, despite being almost universally disliked on campus, was stomached because of the universal popularity of Panton–the former of the debating duo would go on to work for the Bush campaign where he would meet his wife Heidi, a future Goldman Sachs executive, and the latter would begin working at Navigational Capital Partners–a private equity firm with close working ties to Goldman Sachs and would heavily contribute to Cruz’s Senatorial campaign and be one of the leading voices encouraging him to make a 2016 election bid. The best friend and wife of the would-be “outsider” are just at the periphery of the most universally distrusted Wall Street behemoth in America. A coincidence, I am sure.]
Back on topic. Panton, was also coincidentally a member on the Safety Committee (because Cruz wouldn’t try to jury pack a committee he was interested in influencing, of course) and had an alarming vision of what the goal of a safety committee should be: “The goal of the safety committee will be to restrain the university and keep them from splurging.” Odd, I thought the primary concern would be to encourage the university to take proactive and commonsense measures (like, I dunno, locks?) to prevent crime on campus.  The group was formed in response to a violent rape and stabbing, after all.
At the debate Cruz demanded take place (and hosted by the debate club Cruz played a leadership role in), Dick Spies, the vice president at the time, made sure to reference the 64 uninvited intruders that entered into the dormitories in the Fall semester of 1989 alone. Despite this inconvenient truth, Cruz put on his best show of feminism arguing that “the greater problem is date rape, or assaults by other students, which the planned system would do nothing to stop.”  That’s right, Cruz was a ‘Rape Culture’ pioneer–but only to prevent people from locking the doors on dorm halls, because Cruz didn’t want other measures to be implemented outside of the dorms either.  Do you remember that vicious rape mentioned above that took place in the campus Prospect Gardens?  It was suggested that those gardens should be locked at night to prevent assailants from taking advantage of their seclusion–Cruz was an opponent of that measure too. The only measure that he was in favor of was better campus lighting. But why did he oppose locking off the campus gardens? Because Cruz didn’t “like the statement it makes!”   Walls don’t make great statements either.  Just like locks their presence is a giant “Do Not Enter” sign.

The Tale Of Two Teds: His And Reality’s

 

Now, all of this is very strange because Cruz won over support (if 50 students finding his argument valid isn’t substantial, it is still 50 students more than one should expect) among the student body. He was able to manipulate the agenda of the committee he had gained a seat on within one year, so that the group which was founded with the intention of locking the dorms, now opposed the security measure entirely.

Barry Langman,  former member of the committee, was understandably confused by the swift transition from support to opposition.  Eventually, Ted’s cabal accepted a pilot program in a select number of dorms–but only after there was a special button added to the door systems so that students could complain if any issues cropped up.  Jerrold Witsil, was the Director of Public Safety during this debacle and his final words to Ted on the matter were as follows: “Ted! Ted! Give it up, Ted! We’re not looking at the locks on entryway doors in a sense of ‘that’s the answer,’ It’s a package. There are more lights and more phones coming.”
Still, Ted did not “give it up.”  A year later, using campus funds, the wannabe fiscal conservative was still going at it and hosted an event to further assess the program.  This was Ted’s final stand, and The Daily Princetonian seemed to have had enough of Cruz’s shenanigans, running an article titled “Forum on dormitory locks draws extremely sparse student turnout,” this time it was Dick Spies and student government ally, Sharon Simpson, that got the last word. “It is the university’s responsibility — and my responsibility to decide on behalf of the university —to create a safe environment on campus,” said Spies.  And, Simpson with an obvious quip at Cruz agreed “No system is going to work,” she said, “if the students don’t care and don’t cooperate.”

Ted’s war on safety, his encouragement of fiscal irresponsibility for the sake of parties, his distaste for sensible expenses for the sake of security, and his incessant need to argue and be proven right in the eyes of his peers thankfully all failed. But Cruz’s campaign against campus security would be warped and woven into a narrative about being a personal champion of “protecting” women’s rights.  How he thought he was protecting them by encouraging an “another year of vulnerability,” as Spies would describe it, I don’t know.  Maybe he wanted to have the money spent “elsewhere,” maybe he wanted to power trip over administrators. One thing is sure from this example: just like Cruz’s fake filibuster and just like the time he assisted in shutting down the government–Cruz has never been one to make deals, never one to compromise. He has always been an obstinate instigator and he cannot be trusted with the Oval Office for that reason alone.

SHARE THE FACTS!

Ted Cruz ( Like Obama) did not file for Selective Service which is required by Law!

Revealed: U.S. Senator Ted Cruz’s Selective Service Registration Released Under FOIA

 

 

Exclusive:

Ted Cruz’s Selective Service Registration

“AUTOMATED RECORD” RELEASED

 

Via the Selective Service:

[The law requires virtually all male U.S. citizens (regardless of where they live), and male immigrants residing in the U.S. (permanent resident aliens), to register within 30 days of their 18th birthday. Therefore, to be in full compliance with the law, a man turning 18 is required to register during the period of time beginning 30 days before, until 30 days after his 18th birthday...a 60-day window.

Late registrations are accepted, but not once a man reaches age 26. Men who do not register within the 60-day window are technically in violation of the law and should register as soon as possible.]

It appears that Ted Cruz decided not to register for Selective Service as he was require to by law until he wanted to get a Pell grant for college. He learned he could not get a grant, so, more than a year late, he was forced to register.

The Military Selective Service Act
Section 462. Offenses and penalties

(f) Student Financial Aid and the Registration Requirement

(1) Except as provided in subsection (g), any person who is required under section 3 (section 453 of this Appendix) to present himself for and submit to registration under such section and fails to do so in accordance with any proclamation issued under such section, or in accordance with any rule or regulation issued under such section, shall be ineligible for any form of assistance or benefit provided under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.).

(2) In order to receive any grant, loan, or work assistance under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq. (and 42 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.)), a person who is required under section 3 (section 453 of this Appendix) to present himself for and submit to registration under such section shall file with the institution of higher education which the person intends to attend, or is attending, a statement of compliance with section 3 and regulations issued there under.

— Through a recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, we have obtained a copy of presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz’s Selective Service registration with an explanatory letter from Richard S. Flavahan, Associate Director of Public & Intergovernmental Affairs.

Did Sen. Ted Cruz possess U.S. citizenship from birth?
Can he be considered a “natural born Citizen” as
required by the Constitution for the presidency?

Flavahan’s signature also appeared on letters accompanying the release of Barack Hussein Obama’s purported Selective Service registration form and “DLN” printout requested by at least several individuals early in Obama’s first term in the White House.

Registration with the Selective Service System is required for all males in order to secure employment with the federal government.

On March 23, 2015, Cruz announced that he was seeking the presidency in 2016.  Born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada to a Cuban father and American mother, Cruz’s constitutional eligibility in regard to the “natural born Citizen” clause in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution has been questioned by many.

The “natural born Citizen” requirement is believed by numerous constitutional scholars to indicate a higher level of citizenship and allegiance than simply “a Citizen.”

Swiss philosopher Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise on citizenship and international relations, “The Law of Nations,” which was used as a reference by the Framers of the Constitution, states in Section 212 that “in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen.”

Columnist JB Williams has suggested that both of Cruz’s parents obtained Canadian citizenship while they were working in the oil industry in Canada in the late 1960s.  Cruz’s father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, has affirmed that he became a Canadian citizen during that time.

On August 19, 2013, The Dallas Morning News reported that Cruz was born a dual Canadian-U.S. citizen, although no documentary evidence has been presented.  Cruz’s birth certificate released to the publication at the time confirms his Canadian birthplace.  In response, Canadian immigration attorneys and government officials reportedly told the newspaper that anyone born in Canada, regardless of the parents’ citizenship, is automatically granted Canadian citizenship.

Cruz claimed not to have been aware that he was a Canadian citizen for his entire life until renouncing that citizenship in May of last year in apparent preparation to launch a presidential campaign.

The News additionally reported that Cruz’s mother “registered his birth with the U.S. consulate” and that Cruz traveled on a U.S. passport in 1986 while on a high school trip.  However, no documentation supporting the claims was presented.

The week before announcing his bid for the U.S. presidency, two former Solicitors General wrote an opinion piece published in the Harvard Law Review asserting that Cruz is a “natural born Citizen” because he has one U.S.-citizen parent.

Obama’s eligibility has been in doubt since late 2007 when commentator Chris Matthews stated that Obama was “born in Indonesia” while speculating whether or not Hillary Clinton would raise the issue as she vied with Obama for the Democrat Party nomination.

Obama’s life narrative now states that he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961, but his literary agent reported his birthplace as Kenya between 1991 and April 2007, two months after he announced his presidential candidacy.

Obama supporters have contended that he is eligible by virtue of having been born to a U.S.-citizen mother on U.S. soil.  Obama’s claimed father was never a U.S. citizen.

Blogger Debbie Schlussel had first suggested, after receiving documents obtained by a FOIA requester, that Obama’s Selective Service registration form was falsified resulting from two requesters having received different DLN printouts associated with Obama’s record.  The registration form bears a two-digit date, while The Sonoran News reported that more than a dozen others received through a FOIA request in 2009 bear a four-digit year.

Through a criminal investigation, the Maricopa County, AZ Cold Case Posse reported in March 2012 that Obama’s Selective Service registration form is a “computer-generated forgery” along with his long-form birth certificate, which has been posted on the White House website since April 27, 2011.

Selective Service System Director Lawrence Romo, an Obama appointee, refused lead investigator Mike Zullo and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio an opportunity to inspect Obama’s original Selective Service registration form presumed to be in the possession of the agency, advising them to contact the FBI if they believed a crime had been committed.

Registration with the Selective Service is mandatory for all U.S.-citizen males, permanent residents, “undocumented immigrants,” and “refugees” are also required to register before they turn 26.

U.S. citizens possessing dual citizenship with another country are also required to register unless certain conditions are present.

Today, the U.S. State Department recommends that American parents whose child is born outside of the United States file a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) with the nearest U.S. consulate in their country of residence so as to render the obtaining of a U.S. passport or other proof of citizenship uncomplicated.

In speaking with an attorney experienced in U.S. immigration law approximately one month ago, we were told that it is not mandatory that a CRBA be filed to prove U.S. citizenship for a child born outside the U.S.

FOIA requests filed with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) resulted in the release of 116 pages of memos and letters Cruz signed while he served as Policy Director between 2001 and early 2003.  We additionally asked for any application forms Cruz might have completed to obtain the position as well as performance reviews but was told that those are protected from disclosure through exemption 6(b).

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied the request for Cruz’s naturalization documents if, in fact, they exist, based on privacy exemptions despite his declared presidential candidate status.

Our request to the Selective Service System asked for a copy of Cruz’s “Selective Service registration form and accompanying DNS record.”

Cruz SSS FOIA 03-24-15

On April 23, we received the following explanatory letter and form from the Selective Service System.

If Cruz and fellow Sen. Marco Rubio, who was born in Florida to two Cuban-citizen parents, are considered as meeting the “natural born Citizen” requirement, then the apparent contemporary definition has changed from “born on U.S. soil to a U.S.-citizen mother” in Obama’s case to “born to a U.S.-citizen mother in a foreign country” to “born on U.S. soil to foreign-citizen parents.”

Children in the latter category are often referred to as “anchor babies” because they are granted U.S. citizenship without consideration of the parents’ allegiance.  Some recent movement has taken place in the Congress to repeal “birthright citizenship,” which became standard after the passage of the 14th Amendment.  Many consider that interpretation of the amendment defective.

In April 2008, a U.S. Senate resolution declared Sen. John McCain a “natural born Citizen” despite his birth in Panama based on his parents’ having been U.S. citizens and his father an admiral in the U.S. Navy at the time.

SO DID TED CRUZ REGISTER FOR THE DRAFT?? 

 

ISLAM IS NOT CONNECTED TO CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM.. PROOF!!

IS MOHAMMED A DESCENDANT OF ISHMAEL BASTARD SON OF ABRAHAM????
HELL NO!

YOU SHOULD KNOW...

The ISLAMIC RELIGION/CULT HAS TRIED TO VALIDATE THEIR RELIGION BY CONNECTING THIS MADE UP FACT

TO CONNECT THEIR "CULT" TO

CHRISTIANITY & JUDAISM!

IT IS A FAKE CONNECTION...THEY ARE JUST A VERY SUCCESFUL AND BRUTAL MILITANT RELIGIOUS CULT!

ISLAMIC PROPAGANDA AND THE LEFT HAVE A PROPAGANDA MACHINE THAT WORKS TO VALIDATE THIS CULT. THEY HAVE LIED ABOUT THIS FOR YEARS. BUT YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT THERE ARE ONLY TWO "ABRAHAMIC" RELIGIONS .. NOT THREE. ISLAM MUST BE EXCLUDED JUST LIKE MORMONISM.

Muslims have been taught to believe that Mohammed is a descendant of Ishmael. As proof of their position, Muslims refer to genealogies written around 770-775 A.D. by Ibn Ishak.

What he has written is simply not true.  Ishmaelite tribes, especially the tribe of Nebaioth from which, according to Ibn Ishak, Mohammed is said to have come, were nomadic tribes who lived in the Sinai and Fertile Crescent deserts. These tribes disappeared after the 7th century B.C.

Mohammed's family was a Sabaean Yemeni family, while the Ishmaelites, who lived in the deserts of the Fertile Crescent, became extinct many centuries before Mohammed's family left Yemen.

Historians say that the family of Mohammed was a  family which lived in Saba-Yemen. In the 5th century A.D., Qusayy Bin Kilab, the 8^th ancestor of Mohammed, gathered an alliance of many Yemeni families forming Quraish, the tribe from which Mohammed later came.  These families only came to occupy Mecca in the 5^th century A.D. The city of Mecca was built by the tribe of Khuzaa'h in the 4^th century A.D.

 Mohammed’s family is not connected to any Ishmaelite tribe because Mohammed’s family didn’t leave Yemen until the 5th  century A.D., and that’s about  1,100 years  after the Ishmaelites disappeared. Mohammed’s tribe could not have lived in the same locations as the Ishmaelite tribes at any time throughout history.

The genealogy fabricated by Ibn-Ishak contradicts the sayings of Mohammed, who expressed his ignorance about his ancestors prior to his 17^th ancestor.

Ibn Ishak was considered by the Muslim scholars of his time as being guilty of forgery and fabricating false genealogies.[1][i]

Long before Ibn Ishak, Muslims who lived in Mohammed’s own time also fabricated genealogies in an attempt to connect Mohammed to the descendants of Ishmael.  Mohammed, himself, rejected all of these false genealogies, and he put limits regarding the genealogy of his ancestors. Regarding Mohammed’s own rejection of the false genealogies, Amru bin al-As wrote:

Mohammed genealogized himself regarding his ancestors until he reached al-Nather bin Kinaneh, then he said, “anyone who claimed otherwise or added further ancestors, has lied.”[2][ii]

By this, Mohammed confessed that neither he, nor anyone else, knew about his ancestors beyond al-Nather bin Kinaneh. Nather bin Kinaneh is the 17th ancestor in the genealogy which Mohammed recognized as true. Other narrations of the customs, or sayings, of Mohammed, called Hadiths, show Mohammed refused to be genealogized prior to Maad,  معدwho some suggested, was the 4th ancestor prior to al-Nather bin Kinaneh.[3][iii]

When we look at the ancestors of Mohammed, it’s reasonable to estimate 30 years for each generation of the 17 ancestors of Mohammed. Therefore, we can conclude that Mohammed knew about the genealogy of his tribe as far back as about 510 years. If we want to add the other four ancestors that Mohammed listed, we would go back 630 years. The truth is, nobody knew beyond such date. How, then, could Ibn Ishak and his followers reliably document a genealogy back to Ishmael, who lived in 2050 B.C.?  This gives approximately 2000 years between the 21st ancestor of Mohammed and Ishmael. How could Ibn Ishak claim the Ishmaelites lived in Mecca during this period and give details about their history when Mohammed himself said that nobody knew about his relatives prior to his 17th or 21st ancestor?  Mecca was not even in existence during this period, as we have clearly demonstrated. Ibn Ishak’s genealogy contradicts Mohammed’s own claims that he did not know his ancestors farther back than al-Nather bin Kinaneh, the 17th ancestor before himself.

All the genealogies that appeared at the time of Mohammed were considered by Mohammed and his close followers to be false.

Many versions of Hadith of Mohammed coming from the followers of Mohammed all report that Mohammed opposed to be genelogized until Ishmael. All his closest contemporaries and followers considered the genealogies appearing at his time to be false. Among the people who reported Mohammed’s opposition to such genealogies were his wife, Aisheh, and his cousin, Ibn Abbas, one of the most important reporters of Mohammed’s Hadith.[4][iv]  Ibn Ishak went against what all these people had said by creating genealogies which connect the ancestors of Mohammed with Ishmael.

Ibn Ishak altered the genealogies listed by Moses in Genesis; he inserted Arabic names from his time and contradicted the history regarding Amalek.

The fabrication went beyond this. The genealogies created by Ibn Ishak and others who came after him inserted Arabic names into the genealogies which we find in Genesis.  For example, Ibn Ishak inserted the Arabic name “Ya’rab,” which comes from the word  “Arab,” listing him as the son of “ Khahtan.” Ibn Ishak then replaced Khahtan for Joktan, mentioned in the book of Genesis as the son of Eber, the son of Arphaxad, and the third son of Shem, the son of Noah.[5][v] We know that the term “Arab” didn’t exist until the 10th century B.C.  How, then, could it be inserted into history shortly following Noah, perhaps around 5500 B.C.?

Ibn Ishak went still farther. He changed the name of Lud, the fourth son of Shem, to Luth. He then made Luth the father of Amalek, who fathered the Amalekites. He also claimed that Amalek and his tribe lived in Mecca, and he claimed that the ancient Egyptians were also descendants of Amalek. He then made Amalek’s original name “Arib,” just to connect him with the Arabs.[6][vi] Indirectly, through these false genealogies, Ibn Ishak claimed that Mecca existed at the time of Noah and his grandson, Lud. This directly contradicts the historical facts we examined before, showing that Mecca didn’t exist until the 4th century A.D.

Amalek is a descendant of Esau, the son of Isaac. Genesis 36:12 states that Timma was a concubine of Eliphaz, the first born of Esau, and that she bore Amalek to Eliphaz. Amalek became the father of the Amalekites, which was an Edomite tribe which originally lived in southern Jordan, but moved to the eastern part of the Sinai, as was attested at the time of Moses. The Amalekites became extinct after the 10th century B.C. There’s no mention of Amalek in any inscription or in the writings of any Greek historian, which would indicate that the tribe lived in central, western or northern Arabia.

Refuting the Claim About Jurhum

Ibn Ishak claimed that the tribe of Jurhum lived in Mecca as far back as the time of Abraham. He also claimed that Jurhum was the grandson of Joktan, the son of Eber. He further claimed that Jurhum’s original name was “Hathrem.”[7][vii] The significance of the name “Hathrem” is that it is characteristic of Arabic-style names used at the time of Ibn Ishak, which was in the 8th century A.D. The names given in the inscriptions of Yemen and northern Arabia are totally different from the style of the names given in Ibn Ishak’s genealogies, which reflect the names of his generation. It is a fact that no inscription, no Greek or Roman historian, and no geographer who visited Arabia, ever mentioned a tribe called Jurhum. The first mention of Jurhum we find it in a poesy of Ummyya bin Abi al-Salet, the maternal cousin of Mohammed, who also claimed to be a prophet. The poem attributed to Ummyya says “the Lord of Ad and Jurhum” [8][viii]. First of all, the poem most probably was composed after the event of Islam, because we do not have in Jahiliyah pre-Islam any mention about Jurhum. The idea that many of the Jahiliyah poetry were added after Islam is embraced by great scholars such as Tah Hussein, the famous Egyptian scholar. Secondly, for the case of argument, if we want to admit the originality of such verse, we could not build upon it a history that a nation called Jurhum existed in Arabia since the time of Abraham, because Ummyya was contemporary of Mohammed, and he can't be a source of documentation about a nation which would have existed prior to his time by 2700 years. Because there were no archiving methods and no printing like we have today, it’s commonly accepted that tradition can be considered accurate only if it was written within four centuries of the writers. If Jurhum existed as tribe in Arabia, it could have been a small tribe that appeared some time after the Christian era. Since no classical writer mentioned this tribe, if existed, it should have been insignificant. Ummyyia's poems are full of myths: such as his claim that the Queen of Saba, who visited king Solomon was his aunt; he claimed this to justify his claim to the role of prophecy. In addition, Ummyyia had relationship with a Jinn-devil, who used to instruct him, which proves that he was a part of the occult religion of Arabia. If we want to accept this poem as composed by him, how can we rely on poems of such personality to establish history dating back to 2700 years before his time?

Enormous historical mistakes exist in the Quran, and the genealogies created after the rise of Islam, to support the Quran.  Some examples are the genealogies regarding Thamud and Nimrod.

There are other serious historical mistakes in the Islamic genealogies regarding the tribe of Thamud. Thamud is an Arabic tribe which appeared in the 8^th century B.C., as was attested at the time of the Assyrian King Sargon II through his Inscriptions. Thamud later lost its political power about the 5th century A.D. The Islamic genealogies attempted to back statements made in the Qur’an which placed Thamud and Ad – another Arabian tribe which appeared after Thamud-as tribes which came right after Noah. So they created a father for the tribe of Thamud and named him “Thamud.” Then they claimed he was the grandson of Shem, the son of Noah.[9][ix]  All this was created just to fit the narration of the Qur’an.

The Qur’an claims that the tribe of Thamud was the third generation after Noah, ( The Qur'an made the Arabian tribe of Ad to be second generation after Noah's generation; then Thamud as the third generation, See Surah 7:69; 23:31,32;14:8,9)  and it was condemned by Allah to be punished by a wind. (The wind was the god who brought judgment in Zoroastrianism. We know this is also an enormous historical mistake. Not only did Thamud not appear until the 8th century B.C., but the official history, as shown by Assyrian inscriptions, demonstrates that Thamud continued to exist during the 7^th century B.C. Also, writings by various Greek and Roman geographers who wrote about Arabia, said Thamud continued until the 5th century A.D. as a politically-organized tribe which occupied a large part of northern Arabia.  No wind destroyed the tribe, as the Qur’an claims.

This should be enough to convince us, but there’s yet another enormous historical mistake in the Islamic genealogies. This one concerns Nimrod. According to Genesis 10:8-11, Nimrod was the first builder of the old cities of Mesopotamia. He was the son of Cush, the son of Ham, the son of Noah.We can date him to between 5000 and 4500 B.C.  Islamic genealogies correctly state that Nimrod was the son of Cush, but incorrectly state that he lived around the time of Abraham.[10][x] This false claim about Nimrod was made to conform to a mistake in the Qur’an, which made Nimrod reign at the time of Abraham. The Qur’an says Nimrod persecuted Abraham and cast him into a fire which did not harm him. We read this in Surah al-Anbiya' 21:51-70 and Surah al-Safat 37:95. The narration of the Qur’an is taken from the Jewish book called Midrash Rabbah, chapter 17.

We urge Muslims to study history, and to compare the facts to what they have been told in the Qur’an and in Islamic tradition. The claims of Mohammed, the Qur’an and Islam are clearly unfounded. Even if such historical errors were accepted by the followers in Mohammed’s time, we now have so much more evidence which proves them in error. How can anyone embrace these enormous mistakes, when a simple study of history demonstrates how wrong they are.

No one has the right to claim he descended from a specific man who lived 2,000 years before him, unless he has written documents which testify to his claim. In Mohammed’s case, those documents simply do not exist. We have no proof that the ancestors of Mohammed were the descendants of Ishmael

I will continue to analyze the Islamic genealogies which began to appear in the 8th century A.D., and which endeavor to connect Mohammed with Ishmael. I already quoted the Hadith of Mohammed, in which he prohibited any genealogy which described him any further back than Nather bin Kinaneh, who lived 17 generations before him. Other Hadith of Mohammed state that he didn’t want to be genealogized prior to Maad معد ,  which some suggested to be the fourth person prior to Nather bin Kinaneh. The many genealogies which appeared since the 8th century A.D. confirm the same information, that the genealogy of Mohammed is limited to probably 17 generations before him, but certainly not more than 21 ancestors.

Why is this significant in our search for Mohammed’s genealogy?  In the first place, Mohammed himself confessed that he didn’t know of any ancestor before his 17th ancestor.  Secondly, after the 17th generation, we begin to notice the differences in these genealogies.  After Maad bin Adnan, number 21, the genealogies begin to contradict themselves with big differences, reflecting the fact that the authors of such genealogies couldn’t find resources on which to build their genealogies.  That’s because Mohammed prohibited his contemporaries from going any further back than his 17th ancestor. Thus, every one fabricated Mohammed’s genealogy differently from the other.

Another interesting feature of their work is that all of the biographers used Arabic-style names of the 8th and 9th centuries A.D., but they applied the names to the generation in which Ishmael lived. As an example, we find a genealogy mentioned by Tabari, in which the author of the genealogy said Nebaioth, the first-born of Ishmael, begot a son under the name of al-Awam  العوام , and al-Awam to beget al-Saboh الصابوح. Notice the Arabic names. In the genealogy, designations of al-Awam, and al-Saboh, respectively, follow the names.[11][xi]  We don’t find this style even in the inscriptions of North Arabia before the Christian era.  Instead, we see these names are of the same style as the Umayyad and Abassid periods, after the 8th and 9th centuries A.D.( the Abassid period began in the year 750 A.D.).

When we return to the genealogy fabricated by Ibn Ishak, on which other Muslim writers built in more recent times, we notice his Arabization of the genealogy. As I stated previously, he listed the son of Nabaioth, first-born of Ishmael, as Yashjub يشجب, his son is Yarob يعرب.  Yarob is, in itself, a word derived from the word Arab. Ibn Ishak did this in order to make Ishmael appear to be an Arab. Though we know that the word “Arab” was not known before the 10th century B.C., this style for names like Yarob and Yashjub is characteristic of the 8th century A.D., in which Ibn Ishak lived.  A common characteristic to all these genealogies is that they claim Mohammed was descended from Ishmael, and they all give a limited number of ancestors between Mohammed and Ishmael.

There are 2,670 years between Ishmael and Mohammed; a large span of time which cannot be covered with only 40 generations.

Ibn Ishak listed 40 ancestors. He wasn’t aware, when he fabricated his genealogy, that 40 ancestors are not sufficient to cover the great time span between Ishmael and Mohammed. Ishmael lived around 2050 B.C., while Mohammed emigrated to Medina around 620 A.D. Therefore, there are about 2,670 years between Ishmael and Mohammed. How can this great period be covered by only 40 ancestors?

By contrast, the Gospel of Matthew reports the genealogy of Jesus Christ as far back as Abraham. We find 42 ancestors between Abraham and Jesus, though it’s a period of only l,950 years. The genealogy of Mohammed must account for another 720 years.

Another thing to consider is that a Jewish generation is longer than an Arabian generation. Consider the ancestors of Isaac from Abraham to King David. Many of these men fathered their first-born when they were 40 or 50 years old. We see that between the captivity in Babylon in 586 B.C., and the birth of Jesus, there are 14 generations. This shows that the Jewish generation in that period was around 41 years. But when we come to the Arabian generations, we can’t allow 41 years for each generation. Scholars consider an Arabian generation to have been about 20 years,  because Arabians married when they were about 17-20 years old, due to weather and their cultural environment.

The Archaeology of Arabia Confirmed the Relative Brevity of an Arabian Generation

Archaeology confirms the lower figures for the generations in Arabia. If we study the series of kings in Arabia, both in northern Arabia and Yemen, we come to verify the shortness of Arabian generations when compared to generations in other places, such as Israel. For example, the series of rulers in Saba and Himyar of Yemen begin with the Karibil A. in the 9th century B.C., and run through Maadikarib III, King of Himyar, who was number 102, the last one in the series. He reigned between 575- 577 A.D.[12][xii] We see 102 generations of kings in a span of about 1,400 years. Remembering that a few of these rulers were brothers of other kings in the same generation, we find between 75 to 80 generations, and we conclude that the average Arabian generation was about 17-20 years.

Considering the shortness of the Arabian generation, let’s suppose that each generation in Mohammed’s genealogy is 20 years. Since Mohammed is separated from Abraham and Ishmael by 2,670 years, there must have been a little over 133 generations between them. When we do the math, we have 2,670 years divided by 20 years, which equals 133 and one-half generations, not 35 or 40, as claimed by Ibn Ishak and the others who fabricated genealogies for the ancestors of Mohammed. We see how unprepared and unwise they were to claim Mohammed is descended from Abraham and his son, Ishmael.

Except for the lineage of Jesus, which was documented by written books of the Bible through the centuries, no other family in history has ever accounted for their ancestors over a period of 2,000 years.

Let’s look at this another way. If we assume that the 21st ancestor of Mohammed is known,  and if we make a generation 25 years rather than 20 years, then ancestor number 21 would still be 525 years distant from Mohammed. This means that the 21st ancestor of Mohammed lived between 50-70 A.D. This would make the gap between him and Ishmael about 2,000 years.

Except for the linage of Jesus, no family in history had ever verified their ancestors over a period of 2,000 years. The family of Joseph, who was from the royal lineage of Judah, and the family of Mary, who was from the same tribe, could account for their ancestors as far back as Abraham. Because there have been documented, written books of the Bible in each generation, the facts are verified again and again. They give testimony to the promise God made to Abraham and to Isaac, son of Abraham, which God then confirmed to almost every member of the Messianic genealogy. God’s divine promise accompanied others in the Messianic line, such as Isaac, his son, Jacob, and Jacob’s son, Judah, as it was recorded by Moses in the book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible.

  The genealogy continued to be recorded in many other books of the Bible. For example, we see God confirming the continuity of the Messianic line in the book of Ruth through Boaz, one of the ancestors of King David. The promise of God concerning the birth of a divine child as Savior was confirmed to David and his son, Solomon, then to many other kings, until we reach the last king who governed Judah at the time of Babylon’s captivity, around 586 B.C. The confirmation of God’s promise continued after the captivity of Babylon. In fact, God renewed His promise to another ruler in David’s royal line, Zerubbabel, who became governor of Judah around 538 B.C.

Many prophets prophesied God’s incarnation in human form after Zerubbabel was governor. The series of prophesies continue until we reach the prophet Malachi, who wrote the last book of the Old Testament around 436 B.C. The first chapter of Malachi begins with these words:

Behold I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple.

It is clear that the God of the Old Testament, who spoke to Malachi and to all the prophets, was the One who promised to come, announcing the sending of a messenger to prepare the way for Him as a sign of His coming. This messenger was John the Baptist, whom God called in the same generation in which Christ was incarnated, and who testified in John 1:26, 27 concerning Jesus. He said:

I baptize with water, but there stands one among you whom you do not know. It is he who, coming after me, is preferred before me, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to untie.

Later, when John was asked by the Jews if He was the Messiah, said in Matthew 3:2 that he was “the voice of one crying in the wilderness.”  He was the one who came to prepare the way before the Lord, fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah 40:3. John the Baptist pointed to Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, and the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

There is a complete continuity of documented records and historical testimonies regarding the Messianic genealogy of Jesus.

The royal lineage continued to be well-known between the time of Malachi and Jesus. In fact, rulers in Judah continued their rule in Jerusalem at the time of the Maccabees during the 2^nd century B.C. This means that the period, which was covered only by oral tradition until we reached Mary and Joseph, doesn’t exceed 120-140 years. That was a short time in which families would know about the father of their grandfather who lived 140 years earlier.

When we consider John the Baptist, of whom there is a written testimony, not just in the New Testament, but also in historical literature, such as the writings of Josephus Flavius , the Jewish-Roman historian, we have a complete continuity of documented records and historical testimonies regarding the Messianic genealogy of Jesus.

The absence of any record between Mohammed and Ishmael which would support the Islamic claim that Mohammed is descended from Ishmael.

On the other hand, when we come to the family of Mohammed, whose oldest disputable ancestor was 21 people distant from him, and who lived in Yemen in the first century A.D., how can we connect Mohammed’s 21st  ancestor with Ishmael who lived in Sinai 2,000 years before him? No Arabian documents written before Mohammed even allude to such a claim.

Islam also claims that Abraham and Ishmael founded the city of Mecca, but Mecca was not in existence prior to the 4th century A.D. There’s no historical document written during the 2,000 years between Mohammed’s 21st ancestor and the time of Ishmael, which claims the 21st ancestor of Mohammed was a descendent of Ishmael. And there is no credible document written between the time of Mohammed’s 21st ancestor and his own time.

As if this were not enough evidence that Mohammed couldn’t have descended from Ishmael, we have the testimony of thousands of inscriptions, annals and archaeological records which speak about hundreds of rulers in Arabia who belonged to many different tribes, but no inscription or record includes material on any of the ancestors of Mohammed. This can only confirm that Mohammed’s family was an ordinary and unknown family like any other family in Yemen, and that it never ruled in any city in western Arabia, even though Islamic tradition claims it ruled in Mecca.

The Impossibility of the 21^st Ancestor of Mohammed Claiming to be Descended from Ishmael

Because Mohammed came from an average Yemeni family, how can his 21st ancestor possess information about ancestors who lived at the time of Abraham?  Although printing was invented in the 15th century, and archiving and documentation has since become more organized, and easier, than in previous centuries, none of the families in our generation know the names of their ancestors who lived 1,000 years ago. How, then, could an ordinary man, such as the 21st ancestor of Mohammed, who lived around the 1^st century A.D., know anything about an ancestor who lived 2000 years before him?

 From Assyrian records dated between the 9th and 7th century B.C., we know that Ishmaelite tribes lived as nomads in Sinai and the Fertile Crescent. But none of these records include the name Ishmael. No inscription shows that they called any person by that name. This demonstrates to us that they didn’t know their lineage from Ishmael. Otherwise, they would certainly have been proud to be his descendants, and they would have recorded Ishmael in each subsequent generation, just as the Israelites recorded Isaac as part of their Israelite religious heritage in every ancient book they wrote.

 Because Ishmael received no spiritual call from God, his only historical descendants were the twelve tribes which descended from his sons. In consequent generations, even his sons' descendents forgot about him, including his name, even though the time between Ishmael and these tribes was  only about 1,200 years (between the 7th and 9th century B.C.). Since this is the case for the true descendants of Ishmael, how can a man who lived in Yemen, far from where Ishmael lived, conclude he descended from Ishmael who lived 2,000 years before him? If the Ishmaelites themselves were not aware of their ancestry from Ishmael, who would have told the 21^st ancestor of Mohammed that he was descended from Ishmael?

There is no proof that Mohammed’s ancestors,  number 17 or number 21, ever claimed to be descendants from Ishmael. There’s no written document before Mohammed that make such a claim. Even if such document were to have existed, still this ancestor would have no right to claim descendancy from a man who lived 2,000 years before him, without written documents in each generation to prove his case.

 It is clear that the claim of Islam about Mohammed coming from Ishmael progeny is farther from the truth than if I claimed that I came from the line of Julius Cesar who lived 2,000 years before my time. Though I would claim that my 21st ancestor was from Julius Cesar, I have nothing to confirm my claim. Such a claim is impossible to verify by anyone living in our generation. That’s why no one today, even in Rome itself, claims descendancy from Julius Cesar, nor did any Italian who lived 1,000 years ago dare to make such a claim. It’s understood that even 1,000 years without any documented testimony renders the claim ridiculous.

It was a common custom in Arabia at the time of Mohammed for many who claimed to be prophets to claim that they were descended from Biblical figures.

Such claim, if anyone would embrace it, would be considered as transgressing honesty and logic. Yet, there were those people in Arabia, specifically at the time of Mohammed, who knowingly held to the claim that they were descendents of Biblical figures. Men who claimed to be prophets often claimed to descend from known figures in history, or from people mentioned in the Bible. Umayya bin abi al-Salt, a maternal cousin of Mohammed, claimed to be a prophet. He said the Queen of Sheba, who visited Solomon, was his aunt.[13][xiii]  He said this to establish that he was from the line of her brother. Also Tubb'a (the Yemeni leader who ruled between A.D. 410 and 435 and occupied Mecca) claimed to be a prophet and claimed that the Queen of Sheba was his aunt.[14][xiv]  Throughout history we have had people like Umayya bin Abi al-Salt, who wanted to be prophets over their people.   They made their claims because knew that many around them were naive and ignorant and wouldn’t refute their claims.

 Although false prophets in Arabia had the audacity to claim they were offspring from a man who lived 1,000 years before them, Mohammed claimed to descend from Ishmael who lived 2,700 years before him, yet without any historical written document. My heart goes out to our Muslims friends who continue to trust their eternal destiny to a claim which is against logic and history.

Mohammed claimed to have ascended to heaven, met Abraham, and learned that he was a true copy of Abraham, so as to convince his followers that he was descended from Abraham.

We saw how Mohammed claimed that Ishmael was his ancestor. He claimed this, even though the time between Mohammed and Ishmael was about 2,700 years, and there were no written documents at any time to support this claim.

But there is more involved than supporting an unhistorical claim. Mohammed connected himself to Abraham by saying he was a physically-true copy of Abraham, because he had ascended to heaven where he encountered many Biblical figures –  and among them was Abraham.

He also claimed that heaven has seven layers, copying the idea embraced by many religions and sects of his time, such as Gnosticism, Manicheism and Zoroastrianism. Gnostic literature makes man responsible for each of the sky’s seven layers. Mohammed claimed the same. Mohammed placed Abraham in the sky’s seventh layer,[15][xv] where he ruled over believers who did more works, and performed more religious rites, than the inhabitants of the lower layers.

In order to persuade his followers that he was the offspring of Abraham, Mohammed claimed that he was a true copy of Abraham.  

When his followers asked Mohammed what Abraham looked like, he told them that Abraham was a copy of Mohammed himself. He told them:

I did not see a man similar to him like your friend, nor is your friend likened to any person like him.[16][xvi] (By “friend,” Mohammed meant himself.)

Al-Bukhari, the authoritative book of Mohammed’s Hadith, quotes Mohammed as saying, “I am the most likened son to Abraham.”[17][xvii] Mohammed wanted to persuade his followers that he was the offspring of Abraham, so he claimed that physically he was a copy of Abraham. Isaac did not dare to make such a claim, though he was Abraham’s son, and his mother was Abraham’s step sister.  Neither did Jacob, or any of his descendants who were close to Abraham’s time, claim that they were a physical copy of Abraham. How could a man who lived 2,700 years after Abraham make such claim?

FACTS ARE FACT.. ANYONE WANT TO DISPUTE THIS... BRING ME FACTS!