Posted on 02/16/2016 8:35:51 AM PST by SatinDoll
I'm liking this...
Donald Trump dramatically escalated his feud with rival Ted Cruz on Monday, threatening to sue the Texas senator over his eligibility for office if he does not retract alleged **lies** about Trumps positions – and calling on the Republican National Committee to intervene on two fronts.
The billionaire businessman wants the RNC to pressure Cruz, and also stop allowing so many donors at the debates. If the RNC does not **get its act together,** Trump warned, they would be violating the **pledge** he signed to support the eventual GOP nominee.
I think he should sue.
Cruz either has a CRBA from the State Department or he does not. For a citizen born outside the United States that document is the proof that you were born as a citizen of the United States, just as a US birth certificate is the proof that you were born here as a citizen if you are born in the United States, as I have written on before.
But there is more here that Trump has every right to be angry over. First, the GOP misappropriated his name and likeness to solicit donations for the GOP. They recently solicited donations allegedly for **Trump supporters** but the funds they were soliciting will go to the GOP generally, not to Trumps campaign, and they did it without his permission.
Absent some sort of formal agreement by Trump to allow his name and likeness to be used in this fashion that is an outrageous abuse and breaks a number of laws, including the fact that the GOP needs a photo release for the picture they used since it was used for commercial, not editorial, purpose.
The law on such is quite-clear, incidentally. I can take a photo of you (provided I have or acquire the copyright) and use it for editorial purpose, or for that matter I can sell the image as a work of art. But if I use that image to sell something (e.g. a brand of soda, a brand of shirt, etc) then I have to have a release from every person in the picture or I have violated your rights and the person who does the advertising (not the photographer) can be sued and will probably lose.
Well, GOP? Where is your photo release? You do not have one, do you?
That is what I thought.
Then there is the stacking of debate audiences, **strategic** placement of microphones in the stacked portions of the audience and worse, blatant electronic **enhancement** of both boos and cheers, all of which has happened in the last two **contests.**
Remember that Trump signed his pledge to the Republican Party under the specific condition that his candidacy be treated fairly.
Any one of the above would be a clear violation of that constraint and thus free him from his pledge. But he does not have one violation, he has at least three, never mind the phony GOP solicitation made under his name but for the GOPs benefit, not his.
There is a basic reality that the GOP has to face here: The establishment GOP is not in charge when it comes to Trump, nor for that matter, are they in charge when it comes to voters.
They may think they are but we have a candidate in the race this time around who is more than willing to stick up the middle finger when it is called for -- and in my opinion that line was crossed quite some time ago with all the phony promises of **reducing spending**, **erasing the deficit**, **enforcing the rule of law** and similar flat-out lies.
As for people like Starnes who wish to blame Republican voters for "screwing this up" by refusing to vote for Romney, **** you with a rusty chainsaw. Neither I or anyone else are under any obligation to vote for anyone. The party that wishes me to vote for their candidate instead of either staying home or voting for Cthulu has the affirmative obligation to run a candidate worth voting for, and if they cannot be bothered to do that they deserve to be destroyed as a political force in this or any other nation.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Yep, you’re just way too logical for me dude. Trump has no loyalty to anyone but himself.
That is a good summary. The Dems would turn Cruz anyway but loose. It would be a legal and media circus, and no fun for our side at all.
I’m sorry, I was just a poor, dumb soldier boy from the country and apparently haven’t gotten any smarter.
I already read the link, but thanks for reminding me; my old feeble mind almost forgot. At any given point in my career (from 1974 to 1995), I could’ve shown you pictures of Army barracks that were as bad or worse than those. Is that an indictment of a president? Hardly. We used to joke that, “In the Army, we train to be miserable” and say, “All we need to be happy is three hots [meals] and a cot.”
Now here are a couple for you, since you’re into research:
And, regarding Trump and his friends:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-in-2008-hillary-clinton-would-make-a-great-president/
So which Donald Trump are you voting for? Yeah, I know, “He’s gonna build a wall!” (God save us from idiots!)
So... Your hero has delivered money to 15% of the organizations promised money.
Sounds like a great way to get 3.3 million in big money special interest dollars into the Trump Foundation coffers with no accountability.
I don't. I would like to see Scotus resolve it, but they will resolve it in the anchor baby direction.
I guess I'd really prefer an amendment to resolve both it and the anchor baby problem.
I've decided that no one should be eligible who isn't THIRD GENERATION American on both sides. If I ever got that hypothetical amendment, it would render Trump ineligible, but at least it would clarify 'loyalty to the US' as a crucial qualification.
-PJ
Trump has loyalty to his supporters. He is the head of a movement that is not controlled by the donor class and the political elites. He is funding his own campaign.
Uh huh. To paraphrase Obama, “The future does not belong to those who slander The Donald...”
-PJ
This is an introductory part of a letter from President Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Stackhouse: "More for the information of your excellency, than to set forth any claim to your notice or attention I would inform you that I am a native American of the state of Pensylvania but a resident of this place since my youth." http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=FOEA-chron-1800-1809-01-27-5
"Resident of" is the formulation I have found in 2 of the 3 versions of the law of 1795 I have seen.
"Resident in" is the other version of this 1795 law that I have seen. In this letter to John Adams from J.D. Planter, you see the 'resident in' formulation: I flatter myself you will excuse this presumption, when I inform the business that led me hither—A native of England (late a resident in Virginia.) http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/FOEA-03-01-02-0086
What we have, in sum, is a law that says being born overseas to a US citizen is not automatically a citizen of the US.
1. Not if the father was not 'resident of' of the United States.
2. Not if the person born overseas was "proscribed" by a state for some reason
3. Not if the person can be proven to have fought for the British.
So, I was born in Ohio of US citizen parents. I didn't have to meet any provisions at all.
I believe the Trump will fulfill his promises. I can say that I do not believe that Rubio or Jebby will honor any of their promises if elected president. Look at the last 28 years of Republican presidents, they did squat on abortion. Your GOP heroes in the Congress and Senate didn’t do anything to defund Planned Parenthood, explain that!
GOP stands for Gutless Old Pu$$ies.
I believe the Trump will fulfill his promises. I can say that I do not believe that Rubio or Jebby will honor any of their promises if elected president. Look at the last 28 years of Republican presidents, they did squat on abortion. Your GOP heroes in the Congress and Senate didn’t do anything to defund Planned Parenthood, explain that!
GOP stands for Gutless Old Pu$$ies.
This didn’t make anymore sense than it did the first time you posted it. You are too far sighted for me to argue with. The width and depth of intelligence presented here is irrefutable.
Thank you for your wit, your insight and your predictions.
Thanks for that fascinating info. Elsewhere I have seen it stated that prior to women’s suffrage, Cruz wouldn’t have been a US citizen at all; citizenship derived from the father solely. So he is a citizen by statute. Not, apparently, that anyone cares.
“Citizen by statue”
That’s how I see it regarding how the Founders would have viewed him.
That’s why I researched the dates of Canadian citizenship on his father and the mother’s information which is incomplete at this point.
Cruz was born in Canada. There is no denying that. His father was probably a Cuban citizen pursuing Canadian citizenship at the time of Cruz’s birth in 1970.
His mother is the key. Did she enter a process that would have renounced her US citizenship or did she ever do so and then pick it up again?
That’s not just a fanciful question. It deserves an answer, since she did move to Canada and her husband did acquire Canadian citizenship and her child was born in Canada.
Thanks WENDLE. This is good!
True. You received birthright citizenship (jus solis) Persons born abroad receive derivative citizenship, by birth, thur jus sanguinis. And not every American mother or father can convey US citizenship. Certain condition delineated by statute must be met. I provided you the current laws governing a child born to an Amcit mother and alien father abroad.
Iti s the sole instance in the constitution where a difference is made among citizens. It could not be more obvious. The Framers wanted to make sure that no person with possible divided loyalties could ever be president and Command in Chief of the army.
Money laundering? Trump’s hotels spend more than that kind of money for dishwasher detergent. 6 million is a rounding error.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.