Felito Cruz – Canadian by Birth

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

CRUZ

Among those running for president of the United States is one Rafael Edward “Felito” (Ted) Cruz, currently a US Senator from Texas. There is a problem with Cruz’ candidacy – he was born in Calgary, Alberta on December 22, 1970 and lived there until age 4, at which time his mother took him and moved to Houston, Texas to rejoin his father, Rafael Beinvenido Cruz, who had previously abandoned his family and fled to Houston, but who had experienced a religious conversion and decided he wanted his family back.

Cruz is not the first presidential candidate who’s had Constitutional problems due to having been born outside the United States. The most recent was Arizona Senator John McCain, who was born on a US military base in the Canal Zone, which at the time was a US possession (Jimmy Carter gave it to Panama in 1979.) Furthermore, his father was in the Canal Zone on assignment with the US Navy. Unresolved questions of the birthplace of President Barack Obama have been raised, but no proof was ever offered that he was born anywhere other than Hawaii. Michigan Governor George Romney was born in Mexico but he withdrew from the 1968 presidential race before the question of his birth had been resolved. As it stands currently, although a number of “experts” have offered their opinion that a child born outside the United States to US citizen parents is “natural born,” the matter has yet to actually be resolved.

Actually, the matter is quite simple – when interpreting a document, whether it’s the US Constitution or the King James Bible, it must be taken literally. Anything else is a “liberal” interpretation, meaning the interpretation is left up to the interpreter. Using a liberal interpretation, a document can be interpreted to mean anything. There’s no doubt what the Founders meant when they inserted the words “natural born” into Article II of the Constitution – only someone born in what had been the British Colonies was eligible to be president at the time and future presidents had to be born in the United States. The 1790 Naturalization Law stated that children born abroad to US citizens were “natural born citizens” but the law was superseded five years later and the phrase was changed to simply “citizens.” Yet even though the law was superseded, liberals point to it as proof that children born to American citizens abroad are “natural born.” However, this theory is not supported by any actual rulings. There have been rulings regarding the status of children born in the US and its territories to aliens – they are natural born citizens – but not the status of children born outside of US jurisdiction other than that they are citizens. However, there are qualifications (the following is current law, as established in 2000, Cruz was born in 1970):

“Citizenship Through Parents

There are two general ways to obtain citizenship through U.S. citizen parents, one at birth and one after birth but before the age of 18.  The term “parents” includes:  the genetic father, the genetic mother, and the non-genetic gestational mother, if she is the legal parent at the time of birth under the law of the relevant jurisdiction.  For more information, see USCIS Policy Manual guidance on Children of U.S. Citizens.

Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories

For information on who qualifies as a “child” for citizenship purposes, see USCIS Policy Manual guidance on Children of U.S. Citizens.

In a general, a Child Born Outside the U.S. is a Citizen at Birth when the Child’s Parents Are Married to each other at the Time of Birth IF… AND…
Both parents are U.S. citizens at the time of birth, At least one parent lived in the U.S. or its territories prior to the birth.
One parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth and the birthdate is on or after November 14, 1986 The U.S. citizen parent had been physically present in the U.S. or its territories for a period of at least five years at some time in his or her life prior to the birth, of which at least two years were after his or her 14th birthday.

If the U.S. citizen parent spent time abroad in any of the following three capacities, this can also be counted towards the physical presence requirement:

  • Serving honorably in the U.S. armed forces;
  • Employed with the U.S. government; or
  • Employed with certain international organizations.

Additionally, time spent abroad by the U.S. citizen parent while the U.S. citizen parent was the unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person who meets any of the three conditions listed above can also be counted.

In general, a Child Born Outside the U.S. is a Citizen at Birth when the Child’s Parents Are Not Married to each other at the Time of Birth…IF  AND…
The genetic or non-genetic gestational legal mother  is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth, and the birth date is after December 23, 1952 The mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of at least one year.
The genetic father is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth, the mother is an alien, and the birthdate is on or after November 14, 1986
  • A blood relationship between the person and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence,
  • The father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the person’s birth,
  • The father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the person reaches the age of 18 years, and
  • While the person is under the age of 18 years one of the following occurs:
    • The person is legitimated under the law of the person’s residence or domicile
    • The father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or
    • The paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a competent court, and

The U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. or its territories for a period of at least 5 years at some time in his or her life prior to the birth, at least 2 of which were after his or her 14th birthday.
If the U.S. citizen parent spent time abroad in any of the following three capacities, this can also be counted towards the physical presence requirement:

  • Serving honorably in the U.S. armed forces;
  • Employed with the U.S. government; or
  • Employed with certain international organizations.

Additionally, time spent abroad by the U.S. citizen parent while the U.S. citizen parent was the unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person who meets any of the three conditions listed above can also be counted.

 

Automatic U.S. Citizenship After Birth – But Before the Age of 18

A Child Born Outside the U.S. is a Citizen after Birth IF… AND…
The child was under 18 or not yet born on February 27, 2001 At least one parent is a U.S. citizen, the child is currently under 18 and residing in the U.S. in the legal and physical custody of the U.S. citizen parent pursuant to lawful admission for permanent residence.
The child was under 18 from December 24, 1952 to February 26, 2001 The child was residing as a Green Card holder in the U.S. and both parents naturalized before the child’s 18th birthday; OR

  • If one parent died, that the surviving parent naturalized before the child turned 18.
  • If the parents legally separated, that the parent maintaining legal and physical custody naturalized before the child turned 18.
  • If the child was born out of wedlock and paternity has not been established by legitimation, the mother naturalized before the child turned 18.

NOTE:  The order in which the child meets the conditions does not matter so long as the child meets all the conditions before his or her 18th birthday.

 

A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth​

A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a person born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.​ [1] See INA 301(a) and INA 301(b). Children of certain diplomats who are born in the United States are not U.S. citizens at birth because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. See 8 CFR 101.3.

In general, a person born outside of the United States may acquire citizenship at birth if:​

•The person has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen; and​

•The U.S. citizen parent meets certain residence or physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession prior to the person’s birth in accordance with the pertinent provision.​ [2] Any time spent abroad in the U.S. armed forces or other qualifying organizations counts towards that physical presence requirement. See INA 301(g).

A person born abroad through Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) to a U.S. citizen gestational mother who is not also the genetic mother acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under ​INA 301​ or ​INA 309​ if:​

•The person’s gestational mother is recognized by the relevant jurisdiction as the child’s legal parent at the time of the person’s birth; and​

•The person meets all other applicable requirements under either ​INA 301​ or ​INA 309​.​ [3] For a more thorough discussion, see Chapter 2, Definition of Child for Citizenship and Naturalization, Section E, Child Born Abroad through Assisted Reproductive Technology [12 USCIS-PM H.2(E)].

The preceding is from the Customs and Immigrations Service. Note that in Paragraph A of the excerpt from the USCIS web site defines the citizenship of children born in the United States, then goes on to state that children born outside the US “may acquire” citizenship under certain conditions. In short, a child born in the Unites States is a citizen because of their birth while those born abroad are able to obtain citizenship. However, their citizenship is not automatic. The parent (or the child) has to apply for it prior to age 18. (The age requirement is found in the referenced documents.)

Felito was born in 1970, at which time the following applied:

INA: ACT 320 – Children born outside the United States and residing permanently in the United States; conditions under which citizenship automatically acquired 1/

Sec. 320. [8 U.S.C. 1431] (a) A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all of the following conditions have been fulfilled:
(1) At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization.
(2) The child is under the age of eighteen years.
(3) The child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence.
(b) Subsection (a) shall apply to a child adopted by a United States citizen parent if the child satisfies the requirements applicable to adopted children under section 101(b)(1) .
This Act has since been superseded by the following:

SEC. 101. AUTOMATIC ACQUISITION OF CITIZENSHIP FOR CERTAIN CHILDREN BORN OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 320 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1431) is amended to read as follows: 
“CHILDREN BORN OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND RESIDING PERMANENTLY IN THE UNITED STATES; CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH CITIZENSHIP AUTOMATICALLY ACQUIRED
“SEC. 320. (a) A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all of the following conditions have been fulfilled:
“(1) At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization.
“(2) The child is under the age of eighteen years.
“(3) The child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence.

SEC. 102. ACQUISITION OF CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP FOR CERTAIN CHILDREN BORN OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 322 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1433) is amended to read as follows: 
CHILDREN BORN AND RESIDING OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONDITIONS FOR ACQUIRING CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP
“SEC. 322. (a) A parent who is a citizen of the United States may apply for naturalization on behalf of a child born outside of the United States who has not acquired citizenship automatically under section 320. The Attorney General shall issue a certificate of citizenship to such parent upon proof, to the satisfaction of the Attorney General, that the following conditions have been fulfilled:
“(1) At least one parent is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization.
“(2) The United States citizen parent–
“(A) has been physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years; or
“(B) has a citizen parent who has been physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.
“(3) The child is under the age of eighteen years.
        “(4) The child is residing outside of the United States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent, is temporarily present in the United     States pursuant to a lawful admission, and is maintaining such lawful status.
“(b) Upon approval of the application (which may be filed from abroad) and, except as provided in the last sentence of section 337(a), upon taking and subscribing before an officer of the Service within the United States to the oath of allegiance required by this Act of an applicant for naturalization, the child shall become a citizen of the United States and shall be furnished by the Attorney General with a certificate of citizenship.”
Now that the law has been established, let’s take a look at Felito’s history. Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz is the son of Rafael Bienvenido Cruz and Eleanor Elizabeth (Darragh) Wilson. Cruz was born in Cuba and lived there until age 18 when he was accepted at the University of Texas in Austin, Texas and left the country after having supported Cuban revolutionary Fidel Castro. He married and had a couple of children then was divorced. While working for an oil company in New Orleans, he met Wilson, who was using her former husband’s name (without his knowledge.) She was a Delaware native who graduated from Rice University in Houston with a degree in mathematics. She and her first husband lived in London – where they were divorced. She got pregnant and had a child out of wedlock that died of crib death. British records show the child died in 1966. At some point after the child’s death, Wilson returned to the United States and ended up in New Orleans where she met Cruz.
Cruz and Wilson married and moved to Canada to pursue business interests. http://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/ted-cruz-made-in-canada/. They were not transferred there by an American company. They initially worked for a Canadian company but soon started their own company. Their son Rafael Edward was born in Calgary on December 22, 1970. At the moment of his birth, Rafael became a Canadian citizen. He DID NOT, however become an American citizenship although by virtue of his mother’s citizenship he had the right to apply for and be granted American citizenship. As the rules posted above stipulate, in order for a child to become a citizen automatically, they had to be residing in the United States. The Cruz family was residing in Canada. Therefore, Felito’s mother had to apply for citizenship for her son. The  current procedure is for the parent to present evidence of her child’s birth to a US Consulate and request a “birth of child born abroad” certificate. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/156216.pdf. However, this is current procedure as a result of amended law published in 2000. As noted above, when Cruz was born, in order for a child to be automatically granted citizenship, the parent had to be residing in the United States.
From all appearances, Rafael and Eleanor Cruz had emigrated to Canada, as evidenced by Rafael’s Canadian citizenship. Although he had lived in the United States for a decade, he had not become a US citizen. He became a Canadian citizen In 1973, four years after the couple moved there. The couple had a successful business and a reputation for partying. Although the details aren’t known, sometime in 1974 Rafael decided to abandon his family and left Calgary for Houston. Eleanor remained in Calgary with her child for several months. While he was in Houston, Rafael somehow became involved in a Bible study and left Catholicism and became a Baptist. His newfound faith led him to seek reconciliation with his wife and he returned to Canada and resumed his role in the family business. For some reason, Rafael decided they should relocate to the United States so he and Eleanor sold their shares in their business and left Calgary. (According to a former employee, Rafael was so wrapped up in business he had to drive Eleanor and the boy to the airport.) The family became involved in Baptist churches and Felito attended private Christian schools. He also got tired of being teased by his classmates – he was called names like Dorito and Cheeto – so he started telling everyone his name was Ted.
Although there is  no doubt Felito Cruz is an American citizen by virtue of his birth to an American citizen. the question is when he officially became one. It wasn’t until a Dallas newspaper published his Canadian birth certificate and revealed that he was a Canadian citizen that he acknowledged that he is Canadian. He then announced that he was renouncing his Canadian citizenship. http://time.com/2854513/ted-cruz-canadian-citizenship/. Cruz also claimed that he didn’t know he was a Canadian citizen (which is doubtful.) Cruz recently released his mother’s birth certificate but he has not released the Report of Birth Abroad that he would have to have in order to get a passport and otherwise prove his citizenship.  Did his mother go to a US Consul and have his birth recorded when he was born or did she wait until she returned to the United States with her husband in 1975 when the boy was four years old? Although he was entitled to citizenship, it wasn’t automatic. It had to be applied for. Which brings up to Ted (Felito) Cruz’ eligibility for the presidency.
Article II of the US Constitution states that a person must be “natural born” to be president of the United States. (The Constitution also states that a  vice-president must be natural born.) There is no doubt that a child born in the United States is natural born. The question is whether this term can also refer to children born on foreign soil to a citizen parent. Until the matter is settled by a Federal court, it is simply a matter of opinion and there is no doubt that it will have to be settled before Ted Cruz, or anyone else born on foreign soil (there are exceptions for citizenship to children of military personnel stationed on foreign soil) can assume the office.
Incidentally, Cruz claims that his birth is the same as that of a child born to a service member. By no stretch of the imagination would this be true. A service member is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States which sent him to foreign soil but Cruz’ mother had emigrated to Canada and had no connection to the United States. From all indications, neither she or her husband had any intention of returning to the United States until left her, then had a religious conversion and decided they should settle in Houston (probably because he wanted to be involved in Baptist churches.)
The irony is that Ted Cruz,  who graduated with honors from Harvard Law School, claims he is a Constitutional “originalist,” meaning he believes the Constitution should be interpreted as it was originally written. Yet when it comes to his personal desire to be president, he takes the liberal view. That makes Felito Cruz a hypocrite.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Johnny Manziel – It’s All Crap

Let me start this off by stating (not admitting, stating) that I have no interest in spectator sports, particularly the NFL. I could care less who wins the playoffs and goes  to the Super Bowl and who wins it. None of it is going to make a fraction of a penny’s difference in the overall scheme of things. Everyone on the two teams gets a ring and the winner’s fans gets to brag about how their team won – until next year when that team goes on the skids.

Now, I had never heard of Johnny Manziel until a front page article came out about him in Texas Monthly. The article told how he had taken his Kerrville team from nothing to a championship team, then how he had gone to Texas A&M (after turning down an offer to a school in Oregon) and after being redshirted (whatever that means) won the Heisman Trophy the first year he played and was given the name Johnny Football. That fall I watched A&M games and was entertained by the young quarterback’s efforts on the football field. Personally, I wish he had stayed at A&M to graduate but he chose to declare for the NFL draft, which was his choice. Now, he should have been drafted by the Houston Texans, who have had quarterback problems for almost the past decade. Instead, they took a lineman named Jadevon Clowney, apparently because he played for Texan owner Bob McNair’s alma mater, the University of South Carolina, in spite of his dismal record the previous year. (Sports writer – who know very little – were pushing him to be the number one pick. He was, and he’s bombed in Houston.)

Manziel was picked by the Cleveland Browns but instead of playing him, they put local boy Brian Hoyer in the starter position and it wasn’t until Hoyer went bust that they finally played Manziel. Granted, he didn’t do well but it was the Browns defense who allowed the Cleveland Bengals to run away with them. Manziel was injured in his next game and sat out the rest of the season. Immediately after the season, Manziel checked himself into a treatment facility but no reason has ever been given for the decision he made himself. Bloggers and Manziel haters, of which there are many, concluded (without basis) that it  was for drug and alcohol abuse when it could have been for anything, including depression caused from being stuck in Cleveland. Thee 2015 season was a repeat as the Browns brought in Josh McCown, who had done okay with the Chicago Bears then bombed in Florida. But then McCown got hurt in their first game and Manziel started against the Tennessee Titans – and promptly whomped them while showing that he is a much better quarterback than the highly touted Marcus Mariota. As the season progressed, the Browns won three games –  two under Manziel – and lost 13, most of which were when other QBs were on the field. The Browns kept the Kansas City Chiefs to 17 points and scored 13 themselves while playing in Winter Storm Goliath.

Yet in spite of Manziel’s actions on the field, an army of “bloggers” went after him for “his conduct off the field.” TMZ, an internet celebrity gossip site, posted a short clip taken with a cell phone showing Manziel walking through a bar in Austin carrying what may have been a bottle of champagne and mouthing the words to a rap song. Now, it was a very short clip but Manziel haters immediately concluded that he was “inebriated”. Now, the clip was allegedly taken during a Browns bye week right after Manziel was named starting quarterback. Because gossip spreads quickly, the clip was shown all over “social media” by “ain’t it awful” bloggers and Twitterers. The Browns coach, who is no longer the Browns coach, overreacted and allegedly benched Manziel for the next game – which the Browns lost by a considerable margin. Manziel played the next game and ran all over Oakland. The next game was against the Chiefs, and although the odds were 83% in favor of the Chiefs, the Browns played a great game in high winds and possibly would have won if they hadn’t taken too long lining up for the last play and the clock ran out.

During those two weeks after Manziel returned the game, there was very little anti-Manziel on social media, but then another short video was posted showing him at a party on Christmas Eve in a private residence and all the ain’t-it-awful crap started again. This time the Browns paid little attention. They had one game left in the season and Browns management had other things to worry about, namely their jobs (which they lost.) A few days later,  Manziel went to the Browns’ medical department complaining of a headache and was determined to have a concussion, a concussion suffered during the game with the Chiefs, which he finished and did a marvelous job.

Now, concussions have become a big deal in the NFL, which had established a protocol teams are supposed to follow. Now, this is not a treatment protocol, but a series of actions the team is required to take before the player is allowed to return to the practice field and, ultimately, to the game. Depending on the seriousness of the concussion, the protocol varies from a day or so to weeks. Manziel was at the medical facility on Saturday morning before the Browns’ final game. The media claims it was for “a treatment” but there’s no treatment for concussions other than initial rest than avoiding situations when another concussion might occur and taking pain killers for any headaches. The NFL protocol calls for limited gradually increasing activity until the player is pronounced fit.

On Saturday evening before the Browns’ final game, rumors started that Manziel had been seen in Las Vegas. Manziel himself posted a picture of himself with his dog showing that he was in Ohio. On Sunday USA Today’s web site posted an article claiming that he was in Vegas and referred to claims by a waitress and someone who claimed to have talked to him. The Browns have basically ignored it, although the owner said on Sunday evening (after the Browns lost to the Steelers) that Manziel “did not show up for treatment” Sunday morning. Since then, a story has been circulating that Manziel wore “a blonde wig and a mustache and used the name Billy.” Now, this story contradicts the original story which claimed that he was at Planet Hollywood with his girlfriend and using his real name. Either one is true and (more likely) the other isn’t or neither is true. One celebrity site posted a photograph that shows someone resembling Manziel at a table accompanied by four guys – no girlfriend, no blonde wig, no mustache.

Now, it really doesn’t matter whether Manziel was in Vegas on Saturday night or not. He had been restricted from playing in the Browns’ final game and was forbidden from even being present on the sidelines. There was no requirement for him to be at the game. In fact, players with concussions aren’t supposed to be in any kind of situation where they are exposed to excitement. Sunday was the last day of the Browns’ season and he would not be returning to the practice field, much less playing. A week had passed since he suffered the concussion. No one knows what the doctor told him on Saturday. All that’s known is that he didn’t appear at the medical facility on Sunday morning,  according to Haslam. There are also reports that he wasn’t answering his phone and that “the Browns couldn’t find him.” Now, the question is, why would they have even been looking?

Manziel’s problem is not alcohol, it’s undue social media attention by bloggers who hate him and who jump on any opportunity to place blame on him, even though there’s nothing to blame him for. Social media is used by sports bloggers for their web sites – the “accounts” are all the same and never really say anything and then they are repeated on legitimate outlets. In fact, much of what passes for “news” in today’s world is actually rumor gleaned from Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. In nearly every case, the claims are exaggerated. They often refer to Manziel’s “brushes with the law” when in fact he’s only been arrested once in his life, and that was after he got into an altercation in College Station after someone called his buddy by a racial slur and he was found to have a fake ID. During the off-season before his final year, the attention was focused on Tweets he had made, including one in which he expressed how glad he would be to leave College Station after his car was towed. This was during the period when there were allegations that he had been paid to autograph football paraphernalia, allegations that were never proven and for which he was suspended for the first half of A&M’s opening game against the University of Houston. That, by the way, was the first college football game I ever watched. Within five minutes after Manziel got in the game, he scored. By the way, the U of H is one of the best college teams in the nation.

Because of who he is, Manziel draws attention from two kinds of people, those who hate him  because of jealousy and those who hate him because of their own self-righteousness. So what that he likes to party? There have been all kinds of claims that he’s addicted to alcohol or drugs – or both – but the only proof ever offered are photographs and short video clips of him either in bars or at parties. Although hundreds of bloggers claim that he was treated for alcohol and drugs, there is no proof that he was. No one even knows for certain where he was treated, much less what for. His family gave a clue in 2013 when his father commented that he has anger issues, which is not uncommon with competitors. There’s no doubt that he was angry with the Browns offensive line because they let the clock run out on the Chief’s game. When the whistle blew, he threw his helmet on the ground and stormed off.

What I hate is that the “allegations” against Manziel are all based on rumor and unqualified photographs and short video clips. If he’s photographed in a bar or at a party, he’s automatically “inebriated.” A lot of people seem to believe that the Browns have prohibited him from alcohol. (There have been claims that the Browns told him to breakup with his girlfriend after an incident in October when she threw his wallet out the window of his automobile. Really? Since when has any employer been able to dictate who a person is romantically involved with? His girlfriend is actually a college student from Houston. Social media has labeled her a “party girl.”)  Somebody found a post by one of her friends on Instagram (or somewhere) saying “Headed to Vegas” and used it to “substantiate” the claim that Manziel was in Vegas Saturday night.

Not only are bloggers speculating about where Manziel was on Saturday night, they’re claiming that the Browns are “through” with him and are going to dump him. However, right now the Browns doesn’t even have a management team. They have a general manager but he’s new to the job and is a lawyer, not from the NFL. Browns owner Jimmy Haslam told the media that it would be up to the new coach and general manager as to the makeup of the team. He did comment that he has input and also commented that the Browns will have second pick in the draft in May, which bloggers took to mean that he is planning to dump Manziel. If so, the question is why? It is because of rumors, innuendo, short video clips and photographs posted by wannabes? It’s certainly not because of how he plays. Personally, I hope Manziel does leave and comes back to Texas. The Cowboys seem to be looking at him. The Texans ought to be. In fact, they should have drafted him instead of Jadevon Clowney, who has been the bust that Manziel haters falsely claim he is. It’s like those who weren’t there calling Douglas MacArthur “Dugout Doug.” Neither label is deserved.

 

 

North Pole Above Freezing? Not Really

This past week several newspapers and web sites carried headlines that a strong winter storm in the Atlantic was pushing warm air into the Arctic and that the North Pole would see temperatures above freezing, which would cause the ice at the Pole to start melting.  It was true that warm air was deflected northward into the Arctic but it wasn’t true that the Pole would be above freezing or that there were would be any melting. These articles, which were repeated, are a good example of how the media hypes anything having to do with weather and climate. After the “warm” air mass reached the vicinity of the North Pole, the media reported that the temperature had risen several degrees above freezing. Some claimed temperatures of 40F. None of these claims are true.

When discussing “the North Pole,” it is important to understand a few thing. For one, there are actually two “North Poles,” the actual North Pole, which at 90 degrees north latitude, and the magnetic North Pole, which is actually several hundred miles south of the actual North Pole, and which is constantly shifting. There is also a geomagnetic North Pole, which exists only in theory as the point at which magnetic forces between the Earth and Sun converge. To complicate the issue even further, there is a town in Alaska named North Pole, a suburb of Fairbanks which is located over 1,500 miles south of the geographical North Pole and over 100 miles south of the Arctic Circle. On Wednesday, December 30 when the temperature at the Pole was supposed to be above freezing, North Pole, AK was 40F. Another factor that is important to consider is the distance between degree of latitude, which is approximately 60 nautical miles or 69 statute miles. The actual distance varies from the equator to the Pole, with the distance at the North Pole being slightly more than 69 miles statue.

Unlike the South Pole, which is a geographical feature located on the continent of Antarctica, the North Pole is a geographical point in the Arctic Ocean. For all practical purposes, both Poles are located on ice but the ice at the North Pole, which averages from 6 to 10 feet thick, floats and moves while the South Pole is on an ice sheet and does not move. This is important to understand because, except for summer when research teams (sometimes) visit the North Pole and take measurements, all weather observations are taken from buoys which drift considerable distances and are not physically located at the Pole. This link is to a table of all of the buoys in Arctic – http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/maps_daily_table.html. Note that the closest buoy to the North Pole, Buoy # 6400474 is a little over 70 miles from the Pole. At 0603Z (GMT) on December 30, the temperature reached -.9C, or just over 30F. This temperature was the high mark of a period of roughly 24 hours in which the temperature rose toward the freezing mark then dropped again to temperatures well below 0F. Another buoy, Buoy # 6400476, rose to .7C (33.26F) for one observation than immediately began dropping and was down to -16C nine hours later. This particular buoy is 180 miles south of the Pole and 110 miles further south than Buoy #474. In spite of the distance, a Washington Post writer used this buoy to imply that temperature at the Pole rose above freezing – while ignoring the closer buoy which showed that it didn’t. The same article used data from the GFS model, a US National Weather Service model that predicted temperatures several degrees above freezing at the Pole as “proof” that the Pole became “unfrozen” without acknowledging that the GFS is a computer model rather than an observation.

Granted, an exceptionally strong storm forced warm air from the Gulf of Mexico up over the North Atlantic and over Iceland and into the Arctic, however, the “warm” temperatures only lasted for a few hours. The current temperature at the North Pole as reported by the Canadian weather site The Weather Network is -31C (-23.8F). http://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/weather/nunavut/the-north-pole. No, the ice at the North Pole isn’t melting, nor is the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.

Incidentally, this is the same storm that brought heavy snow to Texas and the Midwest while pushing warm air up the East Coast before it moved out into the Atlantic and brought high winds to Ireland.