Posted on 01/24/2016 1:04:47 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I. GOLF CHEAT
Americans are a forgiving people. They'll forgive a guy who cheats in business or on his wife. (Trump's been accused of both.) But will they forgive a man who cheats at golf? According to the Washington Post's Ben Terris, Trump is in trouble if they don't.
Despite Trump's allegedly having a 4 handicap and owning scores of golf courses ("the best in the world"), he plays about as straight as a corkscrew. When Alice Cooper was asked who is the worst celebrity golf cheat he's ever played with, he responded, "I played with Donald Trump one time. That's all I'm going to say."
Sportswriter Rick Reilly, who played golf with Trump for his book Who's Your Caddy?, gave Trump an 11 on a 10-point cheating scale, telling the Post that Trump fabricated scores on his scorecard, called gimmes on chip shots, and conceded putts to himself by raking his ball into the hole rather than actually putt-ing. "He rakes like my gardener!" Reilly said.
When Mark Mulvoy, then-managing editor of Sports Illustrated, played golf with Trump in the mid-'90s, the two were forced to take cover when a storm rolled in. After the rain subsided, Mulvoy returned to the green to see a ball that he didn't remember 10 feet away from the pin. When he asked whose ball it was, Trump replied, "That's me."
"Give me a f-ing break," Mulvoy told Trump. "You've been hacking away in the ....weeds all day. You do not lie there." According to Mulvoy's recollection to the Post, Trump responded: "Ahh, the guys I play with cheat all the time. I have to cheat just to keep up with them."
Trump, for his part, denied knowing who Mulvoy is, claimed never to have played with Alice Cooper, and of Reilly, he said, "I always thought he was a terrible writer. I absolutely killed him, and he wrote very inaccurately."
Maybe. Or maybe cheating jibes with Trump's worldview. As Trump told Timothy O'Brien in TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald: "If you don't win, you can't get away with it. And I win, I win. I always win. In the end, I always win, whether it's in golf, whether it's in tennis, whether it's in life." -- Nine Tales of Trump at his Trumpiest
Doesn't matter. The Donald® is Barack's replacement messiah and can make no mistakes forever and ever amen.
Anyone who won't give up their home for The Donald® to turn into cash for his own personal use is a traitor and should be shot at the very least. [But once he's elected it'll be drawing and quartering, BECAUSE ... WINNING!!!]
I don't know.
I did some digging on it myself, and found out he offered her money for the property three times and she refused to sell. If you are old and settled in, a house has memories. Money might not be as important to you as those, familiarity with your surroundings, even the view out the window. Those intangibles can be more valuable than money if you have enough money to get by. You can only spend so much in a lifetime anyway, so money loses value to you.
What I do know is that after attempts to purchase the property failed, Mr Trump tried to have her house taken by eminent domain.
Whether he was successful or not is moot to me. Trying to do so, making her have to defend her property rights in court, is where I have the problem.
I don't agree with Kelo, I find it an abuse of what should be a limited power which should be reserved for things which are essential to the well being of a community or national security, and then used sparingly. To say that the community will benefit by getting more tax money is a stretch, and an abuse of a power that taken in that regard could be used to take homes from people to expand any business district or build multi-family dwellings in place of single family homes because of the increase in tax base.
I could go on with my personal beliefs about property rights, but we are seeing a similar issue in Oregon over ranch land, and have seen a lot of that in the West over the years. I know others in the East who are effectively being denied the use of their property for what amount to "scenic reasons", not to put in anything ugly, but to harvest timber that was planted by ancestors 180 years ago (at its prime harvest age or a little beyond). That timber is worth millions of dollars, but will rot on the stump before the governmental agencies allow it to be cut yet the property owners still have to pay taxes on the land and the blocking of their use of that land is not seen as a 'taking'.
This issue is settled law. The only reason it becomes unsettled (and in this sense it is very much unsettled) is that the public is ignorant of the law, and deliberately misled by the likes of Cruz, Congress, this Mr. Cole, Katyal, Clement and a host of others.
There are many ways to get to the conclusion that Cruz is naturalized. There is one way to get to the conclusion that he is not - resort to the widely-held misconception that unless one participates in a naturalization ceremony, one cannot be naturalized.
One gets to the conclusion that Cruz is naturalized by view of the US Constitution, standing alone. Another way is to view SCOTUS precedent involving the label affixed to person born abroad and made citizens-at-birth.
If one uses the authorities of US Constitution and citizenship case law (and I submit that on this question of con-law, those are the right authorities), the answer is opposite the one that Mr. Cole and others get by allowing public misconception to control the outcome.
When that happens, one can only assume your preference is to avoid an issue on which you can't prevail.
In his briefs, Cruz argues standing when it is appropriate (but it isn't, here), and also argues that the court lacks jurisdiction, and that the issue is not ripe.
On the question of jurisdiction, Cruz argues that only the electoral college and Congress have the power to decide questions of eligibility (so, a state is required to put all applicants on the ballot?), and that until the general election has been decided, it is premature to even ask the question (not ripe).
For the most part, courts don't want to be in the middle of a public controversy, so they dismiss the cases. But some DEM judge is going to make himself into a hero by finding Cruz to be unqualified, and ordering a Sec. of State to take his name off the ballot.
It was Ted’s tweet - click through and see for yourself.
And it’s a lie. It doesn’t matter how many red herrings are thrown out, or how many times the goal posts are moved. It is a lie. No amount of ad hominems or strawman logical fallacies will change the fact the statement is a lie. And it’s in Ted’s tweet, in the opening post of the thread about the ad here on FR, AND on the ad site linked from the thread.
Read and see the unbelievable contortions some go though to avoid admitting the statement is a lie;
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3387649/posts?page=13#13
LOL!
I'm not trying to impugn your character by making you into a lawyer, but I ask, have you studied law? Are you a lawyer?
And whether you are a lawyer or not, have you read the Rogers v. Bellei case, and understand it?
And whether you are versed in law or not, have you "started from scratch," and considered who the constitution considers to be citizens, by its own words?
Do you think SCOTUS would render a decision that removes NBC from the constitution, allowing naturalized citizens to assume the office? You lay 2:1 odds that it would do that?
I too hope the case gets to SCOTUS, and I do not doubt or fear the outcome, not in the least.
Trump on the Cruz ad yesterday in Pella IA;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh8-8ZakkMo&feature=player_detailpage#t=3992
The thing as per the 1952 statute he is eligible:
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title8/chapter12/subchapter3&edition=prelim
:§1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was 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:”
Cruz got the part wrong about Trump taking the house, but it is a fact that Trump took this woman to court in an effort to take her property. You can overlook that all you want, but you can’t dispute Trump trying to take an old woman’s home.
"By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States, and of the State in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306."
"This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do
Page 169 U. S. 725
to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not this subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired."
To be "completely subject" to the political jurisdiction of the United States is to be in no respect or degree subject to the political jurisdiction of any other government.
The fact that Cruz's citizenship depends on a statute makes him naturalized. The touchstone for "naturalized" isn't a naturalization ceremony. All the case law, and it is voluminous, uses the framework that naturalization is making an alien into a citizen, by any means whatsoever. But for the statute, Cruz would be an alien at birth.
She is just as wrong now as she was in 2012 and 2008. Unfortunately I was with her those two times by I finally learned my lesson.
SCOTUS? Seriously? I don’t see them as following the constitution any more than congress or Obozo.
When people raised this issue about Barack Hussein Obama, Ann Coulter would ridicule them as cranks and birthers. As far as I am concerned, Ann Coulter is estopped from making this argument.
... Cruz tweets not only ridiculous claim but additionally a glaringly obvious lie:
Some seek truth. Trumpees only seek what supports trump.
What is wrong with this picture?
You too will gloss over the lie??
And you ask me “what’s wrong with this picture”??
They left out TWO provisions of that 1790 law that also apply. I'm amazed they keep doing that. The first provison applies to the father and the second to the state.
In other words, it's possible to be born overseas to a US citizen and an alien, but you will NOT qualify as a natural born citizen IF you do not satisfy those 2 provisions.
In sum, being born overseas to a US citizen and an alien was NOT sufficient to make one a natural born citizen.
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.