Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...l?intcmp=hpbt1

You get to hear him in his own words and make you own mind up.
He covers the Cruz citizenship issue and well as other issues.

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:51:09 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...l?intcmp=hpbt1

You get to hear him in his own words and make you own mind up.
He covers the Cruz citizenship issue and well as other issues.

Illustrative that you think this interview was "somewhat hostile".
It was about as benign as an interview can get. For example,
when asking Trump about his birther position with Cruz, he could
have played Trump back in Sept being asked about that issue.
Trumps said then that he understands that all the experts, lawyers,
etc have looked into it, there is no problem, Cruz is fine there.

Then Trump lies here and says no one knows what "natural born"
means. It's not hard to find. Here for example is an
article from the Harvard Law Review, written by two former
solicitor generals, from two different administrations, outlining
the well defined history of where the term came from and how it was
clarified by the first Congress, two hundred years ago.


http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/


All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase "natural born Citizen" has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.2×

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a "natural born Citizen" means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings."

On 1/10/2016 9:51 PM, T wrote:
Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...l?intcmp=hpbt1


You get to hear him in his own words and make you own mind up.
He covers the Cruz citizenship issue and well as other issues.

FOX is fair and give him time but people get lost in the weeds and the
sound bites. That is Trumps big deficit as too many voters just pay
attention to the sound bites and fact that he is a republican makes it
worse because liberal media thrives on feeding them to us.

| Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.
|

Could we maybe get a little break from this?
It has zero connection to home repair. There
must be political groups you can talk about
Trump in if that's how you want to spend your
time.

Mayayana wrote:
Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.


Could we maybe get a little break from this?
It has zero connection to home repair. There
must be political groups you can talk about
Trump in if that's how you want to spend your
time.

here is a hint, the subject line is VERY clear what it is.
Don't CLICK on it.
See how easy that is

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 05:19:06 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:51:09 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...l?intcmp=hpbt1

You get to hear him in his own words and make you own mind up.
He covers the Cruz citizenship issue and well as other issues.

Illustrative that you think this interview was "somewhat hostile".
It was about as benign as an interview can get. For example,
when asking Trump about his birther position with Cruz, he could
have played Trump back in Sept being asked about that issue.
Trumps said then that he understands that all the experts, lawyers,
etc have looked into it, there is no problem, Cruz is fine there.

Then Trump lies here and says no one knows what "natural born"
means. It's not hard to find. Here for example is an
article from the Harvard Law Review, written by two former
solicitor generals, from two different administrations, outlining
the well defined history of where the term came from and how it was
clarified by the first Congress, two hundred years ago.


http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/


All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase "natural born Citizen" has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.2×

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a "natural born Citizen" means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings."


+1 Shucks, you gave Todd the link I was holding back on. He could have
already checked into the facts; but instead, he keeps defending Trump.
Trump is not qualified to give Cruz legal advice. There is no need for
a "declaratory judgment". The law is already in place by congress.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 05:19:06 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:51:09 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...l?intcmp=hpbt1

You get to hear him in his own words and make you own mind up.
He covers the Cruz citizenship issue and well as other issues.

Illustrative that you think this interview was "somewhat hostile".
It was about as benign as an interview can get. For example,
when asking Trump about his birther position with Cruz, he could
have played Trump back in Sept being asked about that issue.
Trumps said then that he understands that all the experts, lawyers,
etc have looked into it, there is no problem, Cruz is fine there.

Then Trump lies here and says no one knows what "natural born"
means. It's not hard to find. Here for example is an
article from the Harvard Law Review, written by two former
solicitor generals, from two different administrations, outlining
the well defined history of where the term came from and how it was
clarified by the first Congress, two hundred years ago.


http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/


All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase "natural born Citizen" has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.2×

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a "natural born Citizen" means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings."

And what's amazing is that he makes this charge against Cruz without
admitting that the same problem applies to him. He would have you
believe he was born in NYC, but it was actually Yugoslavia. I forget
how his father got there. He was either in the US army occupying
Germany and he visited there, or he was there on business, but Trump's
mother was a Romanian and he was born in Romania. One American
parent, the same alleged problem that Cruz has.

In the same way he paid a doctor 10 or 20K extra to say he would be
the healthiest president ever**, as if the doctor knows how healthy
all the others were, he paid someone in the county clerk's office in
NYC to insert a false birth record.

**BTW, what ever happend to the bone problem serious enough for him to
avoid the draft? He or his father was rich then too. He probably
used forged X-rays from someone with a real problem.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:05:36 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

On 1/10/2016 9:51 PM, T wrote:
Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...l?intcmp=hpbt1


You get to hear him in his own words and make you own mind up.
He covers the Cruz citizenship issue and well as other issues.

FOX is fair and give him time but people get lost in the weeds and the
sound bites. That is Trumps big deficit as too many voters just pay
attention to the sound bites and fact that he is a republican makes it
worse because liberal media thrives on feeding them to us.

If the media is so liberal, how come Trump gets 20 times as much news
coverage as Bernie Sanders. Trump has has 20 or 30% of the
Republicans in polls and Bernie has had the same percentage of the
Democrats, but Trump gets 20 times as much coverage.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:17:46 -0500, Micky
wrote:



And what's amazing is that he makes this charge against Cruz without
admitting that the same problem applies to him. He would have you
believe he was born in NYC, but it was actually Yugoslavia. I forget
how his father got there. He was either in the US army occupying
Germany and he visited there, or he was there on business, but Trump's
mother was a Romanian and he was born in Romania. One American

Oops. I meant Yugoslavian and Yugoslavia. See how false rumors get
started, from typos like I made. I don't want that.

parent, the same alleged problem that Cruz has.

In the same way he paid a doctor 10 or 20K extra to say he would be
the healthiest president ever**, as if the doctor knows how healthy
all the others were, he paid someone in the county clerk's office in
NYC to insert a false birth record.

**BTW, what ever happend to the bone problem serious enough for him to
avoid the draft? He or his father was rich then too. He probably
used forged X-rays from someone with a real problem.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:17:46 -0500, Micky
wrote:


And what's amazing is that he makes this charge against Cruz without
admitting that the same problem applies to him. He would have you
believe he was born in NYC, but it was actually Yugoslavia.

Where did you get that nugget? Trump was born in Queens.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/20110328125536753.pdf

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:27:57 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:17:46 -0500, Micky
wrote:


And what's amazing is that he makes this charge against Cruz without
admitting that the same problem applies to him. He would have you
believe he was born in NYC, but it was actually Yugoslavia.

Where did you get that nugget? Trump was born in Queens.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/20110328125536753.pdf

Do you expect Fox News to work very hard to find out where he was
born, when if anyone succeeds in getting out the news, he'll buy the
station and fire him? Not just fire him, but ruin him. Believe me,
it was Yugoslavia.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:39:43 -0500, Micky
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:27:57 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:17:46 -0500, Micky
wrote:


And what's amazing is that he makes this charge against Cruz without
admitting that the same problem applies to him. He would have you
believe he was born in NYC, but it was actually Yugoslavia.

Where did you get that nugget? Trump was born in Queens.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/20110328125536753.pdf

Do you expect Fox News to work very hard to find out where he was
born, when if anyone succeeds in getting out the news, he'll buy the
station and fire him? Not just fire him, but ruin him. Believe me,
it was Yugoslavia.

Well you'll have to provide me with a credible source. You are
suggesting the Queens acting Hospital Administrator and the Attending
Physician conspired in 1946 that Trump was born in the U.S..

Per Micky:

If the media is so liberal, how come Trump gets 20 times as much news
coverage as Bernie Sanders. Trump has has 20 or 30% of the
Republicans in polls and Bernie has had the same percentage of the
Democrats, but Trump gets 20 times as much coverage.

The media is not about news.

The media is about titillation and entertainment.

Trump supplies more of each.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:55:29 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:39:43 -0500, Micky
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:27:57 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:17:46 -0500, Micky
wrote:


And what's amazing is that he makes this charge against Cruz without
admitting that the same problem applies to him. He would have you
believe he was born in NYC, but it was actually Yugoslavia.

Where did you get that nugget? Trump was born in Queens.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/20110328125536753.pdf

Do you expect Fox News to work very hard to find out where he was
born, when if anyone succeeds in getting out the news, he'll buy the
station and fire him? Not just fire him, but ruin him. Believe me,
it was Yugoslavia.

Well you'll have to provide me with a credible source. You are

I know people. But they're not prepared to go public.

suggesting the Queens acting Hospital Administrator and the Attending
Physician conspired in 1946 that Trump was born in the U.S..

No, it doesn't have to have been done then. It could have been any
time since he got interested in being president, which was 1988. 88.
Look, I can make up something like your pdf file on my computer. A
printer or caligrapher can do an even better job, even decades ago.
After all, the authentic certificates didn't appear by a miracle.
People made them, and they made one just for him too. The gold
colored thing you can't buy at Home Depot or Target, but they make
them and they'll make one for anyone if you pay them enough. The
handwriting could be by anyone. To make sure they won't squawk
later, choose someone old, who's close to dying anyhow.

If if you pay them enough and they want to spend their retirement in
the country they originally lived in, where money goes farther, that's
the one to hire. If you can't find one just like that, you just pay
more. I can't afford that but he can. I'm not saying after they
did the work, he would have the printer and the handwriters and the
gold foil supplier killed. I'm not going to suggest that.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 05:19:06 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:51:09 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...l?intcmp=hpbt1

You get to hear him in his own words and make you own mind up.
He covers the Cruz citizenship issue and well as other issues.

Illustrative that you think this interview was "somewhat hostile".
It was about as benign as an interview can get. For example,
when asking Trump about his birther position with Cruz, he could
have played Trump back in Sept being asked about that issue.
Trumps said then that he understands that all the experts, lawyers,
etc have looked into it, there is no problem, Cruz is fine there.

Then Trump lies here and says no one knows what "natural born"
means. It's not hard to find. Here for example is an
article from the Harvard Law Review, written by two former
solicitor generals, from two different administrations, outlining
the well defined history of where the term came from and how it was
clarified by the first Congress, two hundred years ago.


http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/


All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase "natural born Citizen" has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth

That's nice but it still leaves the open question, "was Cruz a citizen
at birth". According to the CFR on the subject it's an open question
until the residency for his mother for a year prior to his birth can
be pinned down. I posted the link a day or two ago. In another forum
it was also said that his mother needed to file some form at the time
of his birth to document this and so far no one has provided any
evidence the form was filed.

So Yes, much is know about what the requirements are. What is not
known is whether ALL those requirements have been complied with and
fulfilled. So it's still an open question for THIS specific case.



with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.2×

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a "natural born Citizen" means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings."

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:20:20 -0500, Micky
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:05:36 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

On 1/10/2016 9:51 PM, T wrote:
Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...l?intcmp=hpbt1


You get to hear him in his own words and make you own mind up.
He covers the Cruz citizenship issue and well as other issues.

FOX is fair and give him time but people get lost in the weeds and the
sound bites. That is Trumps big deficit as too many voters just pay
attention to the sound bites and fact that he is a republican makes it
worse because liberal media thrives on feeding them to us.

If the media is so liberal, how come Trump gets 20 times as much news
coverage as Bernie Sanders. Trump has has 20 or 30% of the
Republicans in polls and Bernie has had the same percentage of the
Democrats, but Trump gets 20 times as much coverage.

The media is OWNED by big money. Bernie is a threat to big money.
Connect the dots.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 05:19:06 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:51:09 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...l?intcmp=hpbt1

You get to hear him in his own words and make you own mind up.
He covers the Cruz citizenship issue and well as other issues.

Illustrative that you think this interview was "somewhat hostile".
It was about as benign as an interview can get. For example,
when asking Trump about his birther position with Cruz, he could
have played Trump back in Sept being asked about that issue.
Trumps said then that he understands that all the experts, lawyers,
etc have looked into it, there is no problem, Cruz is fine there.

Then Trump lies here and says no one knows what "natural born"
means. It's not hard to find. Here for example is an
article from the Harvard Law Review, written by two former
solicitor generals, from two different administrations, outlining
the well defined history of where the term came from and how it was
clarified by the first Congress, two hundred years ago.


http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/


All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase "natural born Citizen" has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.2×

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a "natural born Citizen" means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings."



Here it is again...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

look at d and g of that and tell us you have unequivocal proof that
Cruz's parents meet whichever of them is applicable.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:53:34 -0700, "Ashton Crusher"
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 05:19:06 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:51:09 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...l?intcmp=hpbt1

You get to hear him in his own words and make you own mind up.
He covers the Cruz citizenship issue and well as other issues.

Illustrative that you think this interview was "somewhat hostile".
It was about as benign as an interview can get. For example,
when asking Trump about his birther position with Cruz, he could
have played Trump back in Sept being asked about that issue.
Trumps said then that he understands that all the experts, lawyers,
etc have looked into it, there is no problem, Cruz is fine there.

Then Trump lies here and says no one knows what "natural born"
means. It's not hard to find. Here for example is an
article from the Harvard Law Review, written by two former
solicitor generals, from two different administrations, outlining
the well defined history of where the term came from and how it was
clarified by the first Congress, two hundred years ago.


http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/


All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase "natural born Citizen" has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth

That's nice but it still leaves the open question, "was Cruz a citizen
at birth". According to the CFR on the subject it's an open question
until the residency for his mother for a year prior to his birth can
be pinned down. I posted the link a day or two ago. In another forum
it was also said that his mother needed to file some form at the time
of his birth to document this and so far no one has provided any
evidence the form was filed.

So Yes, much is know about what the requirements are. What is not
known is whether ALL those requirements have been complied with and
fulfilled. So it's still an open question for THIS specific case.

Exactly. And Trump has the same problem Cruz does. I didn't go into
all the details because I'm not exactly sure, but his father never
filed any form either, and there was also uncertainty about whether he
was the father or not.



with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.2×

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a "natural born Citizen" means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings."

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:55:11 -0700, "Ashton Crusher"
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:20:20 -0500, Micky
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:05:36 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

On 1/10/2016 9:51 PM, T wrote:
Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...l?intcmp=hpbt1


You get to hear him in his own words and make you own mind up.
He covers the Cruz citizenship issue and well as other issues.

FOX is fair and give him time but people get lost in the weeds and the
sound bites. That is Trumps big deficit as too many voters just pay
attention to the sound bites and fact that he is a republican makes it
worse because liberal media thrives on feeding them to us.

If the media is so liberal, how come Trump gets 20 times as much news
coverage as Bernie Sanders. Trump has has 20 or 30% of the
Republicans in polls and Bernie has had the same percentage of the
Democrats, but Trump gets 20 times as much coverage.

The media is OWNED by big money. Bernie is a threat to big money.
Connect the dots.

Exactly. The media is not liberal. That's just another
complaint/excuse by conservatives.

On 1/11/2016 12:41 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Micky:

If the media is so liberal, how come Trump gets 20 times as much news
coverage as Bernie Sanders. Trump has has 20 or 30% of the
Republicans in polls and Bernie has had the same percentage of the
Democrats, but Trump gets 20 times as much coverage.

The media is not about news.

The media is about titillation and entertainment.

+1

Many years ago, I came out of the house to find neighbor reading a
copy of _The (National) Enquirer_. As I knew him to be reasonably
intelligent (not the sort I would imagine would read that sort
of "trash"), I commented on this, to him.

He smiled and said, "You misunderstand. This isn't claiming
to be *news* or even *factual*! It's *entertainment*! Just
like most of the shock jocks on talk radio -- their goal
is to get people talking about *them*, not the issues!"

The media needs "news" in order to serve a role (i.e., "have a job!").
So, it is in THEIR best interests to MAKE things "newsworthy"
(even if they really *aren't*!)

It's worth rethinking this sort of thing when you look at
any "societal role". Look at any role, the responsibilities
that are associated with it and guess the likelihood that
the behavior of folks in that role will be "objective".

Trump supplies more of each.

Trump is an entertainer. What's amusing is the sorts of folks
who think that he is a man of "substance"...

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:23:56 -0600, "ChairMan"
wrote:

Mayayana wrote:
Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.


Could we maybe get a little break from this?
It has zero connection to home repair. There
must be political groups you can talk about
Trump in if that's how you want to spend your
time.

here is a hint, the subject line is VERY clear what it is.
Don't CLICK on it.
See how easy that is

Even easier, put the subject in your "looney bin" and you won't see it
again. Doing that now.

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 12:24:43 PM UTC-6, Micky wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:17:46 -0500, Micky
wrote:



And what's amazing is that he makes this charge against Cruz without
admitting that the same problem applies to him. He would have you
believe he was born in NYC, but it was actually Yugoslavia. I forget
how his father got there. He was either in the US army occupying
Germany and he visited there, or he was there on business, but Trump's
mother was a Romanian and he was born in Romania. One American

Oops. I meant Yugoslavian and Yugoslavia. See how false rumors get
started, from typos like I made. I don't want that.

parent, the same alleged problem that Cruz has.

In the same way he paid a doctor 10 or 20K extra to say he would be
the healthiest president ever**, as if the doctor knows how healthy
all the others were, he paid someone in the county clerk's office in
NYC to insert a false birth record.

**BTW, what ever happend to the bone problem serious enough for him to
avoid the draft? He or his father was rich then too. He probably
used forged X-rays from someone with a real problem.

Micky, did you send an Email to me today? My reply to the return address was rejected as nondeliverable. I wanted to find out if it was really you or someone trying to spoof your name. Please let me know because I'd hate to reproduce the Email here in the newsgroup if it wasn't you. O_o

[8~{} Uncle Male Monster

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 12:55:38 PM UTC-6, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:39:43 -0500, Micky
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:27:57 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:17:46 -0500, Micky
wrote:


And what's amazing is that he makes this charge against Cruz without
admitting that the same problem applies to him. He would have you
believe he was born in NYC, but it was actually Yugoslavia.

Where did you get that nugget? Trump was born in Queens.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/20110328125536753.pdf

Do you expect Fox News to work very hard to find out where he was
born, when if anyone succeeds in getting out the news, he'll buy the
station and fire him? Not just fire him, but ruin him. Believe me,
it was Yugoslavia.

Well you'll have to provide me with a credible source. You are
suggesting the Queens acting Hospital Administrator and the Attending
Physician conspired in 1946 that Trump was born in the U.S..

Trump is wealthy and time travel is available at a very high price. He sent a time agent back to change the records because it was all on paper then.(€¢€¿€¢)

[8~{} Uncle Timely Monster

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:50:27 -0500, Micky
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:55:29 -0800, Oren wrote:

....
And what's amazing is that he makes this charge against Cruz without
admitting that the same problem applies to him. He would have you
believe he was born in NYC, but it was actually Yugoslavia.

Where did you get that nugget? Trump was born in Queens.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/20110328125536753.pdf

Do you expect Fox News to work very hard to find out where he was
born, when if anyone succeeds in getting out the news, he'll buy the
station and fire him? Not just fire him, but ruin him. Believe me,
it was Yugoslavia.

Well you'll have to provide me with a credible source. You are

I know people. But they're not prepared to go public.


So you barked up a tree, without giving any evidence. So much for you
theory. I know people too.

suggesting the Queens acting Hospital Administrator and the Attending
Physician conspired in 1946 that Trump was born in the U.S..

No, it doesn't have to have been done then. It could have been any
time since he got interested in being president, which was 1988. 88.
Look, I can make up something like your pdf file on my computer. A
printer or caligrapher can do an even better job, even decades ago.
After all, the authentic certificates didn't appear by a miracle.
People made them, and they made one just for him too. The gold
colored thing you can't buy at Home Depot or Target, but they make
them and they'll make one for anyone if you pay them enough. The
handwriting could be by anyone. To make sure they won't squawk
later, choose someone old, who's close to dying anyhow.

If if you pay them enough and they want to spend their retirement in
the country they originally lived in, where money goes farther, that's
the one to hire. If you can't find one just like that, you just pay
more. I can't afford that but he can. I'm not saying after they
did the work, he would have the printer and the handwriters and the
gold foil supplier killed. I'm not going to suggest that.

Oh. In 1946 there was a conspiracy? Got it. They ran down to Office
Depot to fabricate a document. Oh my...

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:53:34 -0700, "Ashton Crusher"
wrote:

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/


All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase "natural born Citizen" has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth

That's nice but it still leaves the open question, "was Cruz a citizen
at birth". According to the CFR on the subject it's an open question
until the residency for his mother for a year prior to his birth can
be pinned down. I posted the link a day or two ago. In another forum
it was also said that his mother needed to file some form at the time
of his birth to document this and so far no one has provided any
evidence the form was filed.


Are you talking about and application for dual citizenship?

So Yes, much is know about what the requirements are. What is not
known is whether ALL those requirements have been complied with and
fulfilled. So it's still an open question for THIS specific case.

His mother was born in Wilmington Delaware. Later got her
undergraduate degree from Rice University. Must have taken a year :-\

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:17:48 -0800 (PST), Uncle Monster
wrote:

Well you'll have to provide me with a credible source. You are
suggesting the Queens acting Hospital Administrator and the Attending
Physician conspired in 1946 that Trump was born in the U.S..

Trump is wealthy and time travel is available at a very high price. He sent a time agent back to change the records because it was all on paper then.(•?•)

That's it. They looked at an infant child and declared we can forge
documents and he will become president. Funny how that works.
--
"..,what is good is the front end if you don't have the back end"-- Kimberly Guilfoyle

"(PeteCresswell)" writes:
Per Micky:

If the media is so liberal, how come Trump gets 20 times as much news
coverage as Bernie Sanders. Trump has has 20 or 30% of the
Republicans in polls and Bernie has had the same percentage of the
Democrats, but Trump gets 20 times as much coverage.

The media is not about news.

The media is about titillation and entertainment.

No, the media is about the almighty race for higher
ratings. Truth be damned.

On 1/11/2016 2:04 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
"(PeteCresswell)" writes:
Per Micky:

If the media is so liberal, how come Trump gets 20 times as much news
coverage as Bernie Sanders. Trump has has 20 or 30% of the
Republicans in polls and Bernie has had the same percentage of the
Democrats, but Trump gets 20 times as much coverage.

The media is not about news.

The media is about titillation and entertainment.

No, the media is about the almighty race for higher
ratings. Truth be damned.

As such, the media gives its CUSTOMERS what they want -- whether
they KNOW they want it (yet), or not!

I think the nightly news, here is 2 or 3 hours! And, most of the
"stories" are little more than "press releases" read by some
talking head that doesn't even do his/her own writing!

We, long ago, gave up on the "local news" as most of it was
devoted to local sports (college/high school ball -- "Tomorrow's
used car salesmen!"), trivialized weather forecasts (yeah, its
going to be hot tomorrow... so?), repeats of NATIONAL (or,
international) news stories (that the national media will probably
cover much better than some local yokel reading something off the
newswire) or "unpaid commercials" (Apple has unveiled...; Microsoft
has released...; The opening of the new movie...; etc.)

But, this is the sort of drivel that folks will talk about around
the watercooler. *Not* the state of the roadways, pension plans,
public libraries, government corruption, etc. that *should* be
of concern (for the citizenry AND the media).

Do they really think we somehow wouldn't KNOW that a new movie
has been released? Or, that idiots^H^H^H fanboy's are lined up
waiting for the latest iPhone to go on sale? Or...

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:23:59 -0500, Micky
wrote:

Trump has been lying for a long time and he's good at it.

You've had an epiphany. Explain it the Todd.

I'm not shocked about it, at all.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:23:56 -0600, "ChairMan"
wrote:

Mayayana wrote:
Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.


Could we maybe get a little break from this?

Why? Who is "we"?

It has zero connection to home repair. There

Sure it does. Trump believes in imminent domain to take your property
and give it to a corporation.

must be political groups you can talk about
Trump in if that's how you want to spend your
time.


Your point?

here is a hint, the subject line is VERY clear what it is.
Don't CLICK on it.
See how easy that is


Her arm is broke? Can't do home repair or can't click ignore a thread
in the news reader.

On 1/11/2016 3:05 PM, Micky wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:55:11 -0700, "Ashton Crusher"
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:20:20 -0500, Micky
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:05:36 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

On 1/10/2016 9:51 PM, T wrote:
Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...l?intcmp=hpbt1


You get to hear him in his own words and make you own mind up.
He covers the Cruz citizenship issue and well as other issues.

FOX is fair and give him time but people get lost in the weeds and the
sound bites. That is Trumps big deficit as too many voters just pay
attention to the sound bites and fact that he is a republican makes it
worse because liberal media thrives on feeding them to us.

If the media is so liberal, how come Trump gets 20 times as much news
coverage as Bernie Sanders. Trump has has 20 or 30% of the
Republicans in polls and Bernie has had the same percentage of the
Democrats, but Trump gets 20 times as much coverage.

The media is OWNED by big money. Bernie is a threat to big money.
Connect the dots.

Exactly. The media is not liberal. That's just another
complaint/excuse by conservatives.


How bout you look up what percentage of the media are registered
Democrats and get back to us.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 19:03:10 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

Exactly. The media is not liberal. That's just another
complaint/excuse by conservatives.


How bout you look up what percentage of the media are registered
Democrats and get back to us.

+1 I'll standby for the answer. Liberals own the media, except in a
few cases. Think giant corporations.

Cable news, like Fox ****es them off.

On 1/11/2016 7:11 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 19:03:10 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

Exactly. The media is not liberal. That's just another
complaint/excuse by conservatives.


How bout you look up what percentage of the media are registered
Democrats and get back to us.

+1 I'll standby for the answer. Liberals own the media, except in a
few cases. Think giant corporations.

Cable news, like Fox ****es them off.


The last number I heard was 85%.

Libs also make the believe that all big business people are Republicans.
Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet and George Soros come to mind.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 19:18:28 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

On 1/11/2016 7:11 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 19:03:10 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

Exactly. The media is not liberal. That's just another
complaint/excuse by conservatives.


How bout you look up what percentage of the media are registered
Democrats and get back to us.

+1 I'll standby for the answer. Liberals own the media, except in a
few cases. Think giant corporations.

Cable news, like Fox ****es them off.


The last number I heard was 85%.

Libs also make the believe that all big business people are Republicans.
Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet and George Soros come to mind.

Best I can tell, only one media company is privately owned.

http://www.oann.com/

Two corporations want them blocked.

"...A mega-cable merger is about to take place unless the FCC hears
your voice. Charter Communications, a company that has filed
bankruptcy multiple times in the last 10 years, is preparing to
acquire two competitors, Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks.
In this case, bigger isn’t better. Charter Communications has a
history of offering unfavorable and anti-competitive terms to
independent programmers and flatly refuses to carry One America News
Network. To allow Charter to rapidly expand when it has had trouble
simply running its own business and mistreats independent programmers
isn’t good for America."

http://www.oann.com/help/

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:31:33 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:50:27 -0500, Micky
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:55:29 -0800, Oren wrote:

...
And what's amazing is that he makes this charge against Cruz without
admitting that the same problem applies to him. He would have you
believe he was born in NYC, but it was actually Yugoslavia.

Where did you get that nugget? Trump was born in Queens.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/20110328125536753.pdf

Do you expect Fox News to work very hard to find out where he was
born, when if anyone succeeds in getting out the news, he'll buy the
station and fire him? Not just fire him, but ruin him. Believe me,
it was Yugoslavia.

Well you'll have to provide me with a credible source. You are

I know people. But they're not prepared to go public.


So you barked up a tree, without giving any evidence. So much for you
theory. I know people too.



OMG, another birther conspiracy. And not a shred of evidence. I haven't
seen anything that suggests Trump was born anywhere other than NYC.

| here is a hint, the subject line is VERY clear what it is.
| Don't CLICK on it.
| See how easy that is
|

Yes, but you're missing the point. The topic
doesn't belong in this group, and we've got
almost another year of this nonsense to go.
I also like to appeal to peoples' sense of decency
and courtesy first. There's always a chance
people will do the right thing if asked politely.

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:55:08 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 05:19:06 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:51:09 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...l?intcmp=hpbt1

You get to hear him in his own words and make you own mind up.
He covers the Cruz citizenship issue and well as other issues.

Illustrative that you think this interview was "somewhat hostile".
It was about as benign as an interview can get. For example,
when asking Trump about his birther position with Cruz, he could
have played Trump back in Sept being asked about that issue.
Trumps said then that he understands that all the experts, lawyers,
etc have looked into it, there is no problem, Cruz is fine there.

Then Trump lies here and says no one knows what "natural born"
means. It's not hard to find. Here for example is an
article from the Harvard Law Review, written by two former
solicitor generals, from two different administrations, outlining
the well defined history of where the term came from and how it was
clarified by the first Congress, two hundred years ago.


http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/


All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase "natural born Citizen" has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth

That's nice but it still leaves the open question, "was Cruz a citizen
at birth". According to the CFR on the subject it's an open question
until the residency for his mother for a year prior to his birth can
be pinned down.

Nonsense. The requirement is that his mother had to have lived in the
USA for at least 10 years, at least 5 of those after attaining the age
of 14. His mother's history is known, she was born in Delaware, lived
here, attended school here, graduated from Rice University, etc.



I posted the link a day or two ago. In another forum
it was also said that his mother needed to file some form at the time
of his birth to document this and so far no one has provided any
evidence the form was filed.


Lots of things are said in lots of forums that aren't true.



So Yes, much is know about what the requirements are. What is not
known is whether ALL those requirements have been complied with and
fulfilled. So it's still an open question for THIS specific case.


Not a single person who has looked at this has raised an issue
of Cruz not being a US citizen at birth by virtue of anything
that you've brought up related to his mother meeting requirements.
The argument, with not much merit, is focused on the meaning of
"natural born". And I'd say those two solicitor generals outline
a very compelling case. BTW, where is Trump's case that shows
otherwise? It's like his claim that he can eliminate citizenship
for anchor babies, without a constitutional amendment, or issue an
exec order making killing a cop a death penalty offense. In other
words, there is no case.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:20:20 -0500, Micky

wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:05:36 -0500, Frank "frank
wrote:

On 1/10/2016 9:51 PM, T wrote:
Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...l?intcmp=hpbt1


You get to hear him in his own words and make you own
mind up.
He covers the Cruz citizenship issue and well as other
issues.

FOX is fair and give him time but people get lost in the
weeds and
the sound bites. That is Trumps big deficit as too many
voters
just pay attention to the sound bites and fact that he
is a
republican makes it worse because liberal media thrives
on feeding
them to us.

If the media is so liberal, how come Trump gets 20 times
as much news
coverage as Bernie Sanders. Trump has has 20 or 30% of
the
Republicans in polls and Bernie has had the same
percentage of the
Democrats, but Trump gets 20 times as much coverage.

The media is OWNED by big money. Bernie is a threat to
big money.
Connect the dots.

bernie isn't a threat to anyone but himself and this country

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:02:44 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 05:19:06 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:51:09 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...l?intcmp=hpbt1

You get to hear him in his own words and make you own mind up.
He covers the Cruz citizenship issue and well as other issues.

Illustrative that you think this interview was "somewhat hostile".
It was about as benign as an interview can get. For example,
when asking Trump about his birther position with Cruz, he could
have played Trump back in Sept being asked about that issue.
Trumps said then that he understands that all the experts, lawyers,
etc have looked into it, there is no problem, Cruz is fine there.

Then Trump lies here and says no one knows what "natural born"
means. It's not hard to find. Here for example is an
article from the Harvard Law Review, written by two former
solicitor generals, from two different administrations, outlining
the well defined history of where the term came from and how it was
clarified by the first Congress, two hundred years ago.


http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/


All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase "natural born Citizen" has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.2×

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a "natural born Citizen" means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings."



Here it is again...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

look at d and g of that and tell us you have unequivocal proof that
Cruz's parents meet whichever of them is applicable.

His mother was born in Delaware, lived her whole life here, went to
school here, graduated from Rice University. She more than meets
the requirements of d and g. Do you even see anyone other than
you arguing those points? What unequivocal proof do you want?
Do we have unequivocal proof that Trump was really born in NYC?
Was unequivocal proof required when Barry Goldwater, who was born
in the territory of AZ, ran? When George Romney, born in Mexico
ran? John McCain? Or does this extraordinary standard only
apply to Ted Cruz?

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:41:38 PM UTC-5, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Micky:

If the media is so liberal, how come Trump gets 20 times as much news
coverage as Bernie Sanders. Trump has has 20 or 30% of the
Republicans in polls and Bernie has had the same percentage of the
Democrats, but Trump gets 20 times as much coverage.

The media is not about news.

The media is about titillation and entertainment.

Trump supplies more of each.
--
Pete Cresswell

+1

With the exception of Fox, the mainstream media is lib. But like
you say, Trump keeps himself controversial and they cover it because
it's about ratings.