Clinton achieved it with a Republican Congress led by Newt Gingrich in the House, where as you should know, all money bills must originate.

Remember the Contract With America?

i therefore conclude that Newt Gingrich earned the laurels for balancing the budget. now please tell me who of the democrats was responsible that under the tenure of Jorge pequeño de Tejas balance budgets were not achieved and the national debt ballooned. can one perhaps blame certain "accomplished missions" which turned out to be quite expensive?

Perhaps it is also worth mentioning that under the tenure of GWB, the US was struck with the most serious attack in it's history (9/11) and one of the costliest natural disasters in history (Katrina).

The stimulus package cost us $700 Billion at the end of Bush's tenure, even though Obama had half of it at his disposal to pay off his union backers, et al.

sep 11 did not put any strain on the U.S. budget and neither did hurricane Katrina. both unfortunate incidents cost the federal government peanuts compared to the adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq.

the stimulus package was triggered by "the crisis". dozens of other countries had to spend pro rata an equivalent amount to overcome the crisis and bail out their banksters.

Clinton achieved it with a Republican Congress led by Newt Gingrich in the House, where as you should know, all money bills must originate.

Remember the Contract With America?

i therefore conclude that Newt Gingrich earned the laurels for balancing the budget. now please tell me who of the democrats was responsible that under the tenure of Jorge pequeño de Tejas balance budgets were not achieved and the national debt ballooned. can one perhaps blame certain "accomplished missions" which turned out to be quite expensive?

Perhaps it is also worth mentioning that under the tenure of GWB, the US was struck with the most serious attack in it's history (9/11) and one of the costliest natural disasters in history (Katrina).

The stimulus package cost us $700 Billion at the end of Bush's tenure, even though Obama had half of it at his disposal to pay off his union backers, et al.

No, it's not worth mentioning. The 9/11 chip on America's shoulder should not be, and is not in reality, the excuse for the financial woes of America today, much as the right will have the world believe.....unless you count the spurious and decietful way in which the 9/11 tragedy was used by Bush et al, in which case you could argue that 9/11 was a trigger for the situation today.

Rather than supporting them, you should actually be really pissed with Bush, Rumsfeld, Powel and cohorts for using the tragedy in such a way, and furthermore be even more incensed that the way they manipulated the propaganda has resulted in dire straits for the country.

No, it's not worth mentioning. The 9/11 chip on America's shoulder should not be, and is not in reality, the excuse for the financial woes of America today, much as the right will have the world believe.....unless you count the spurious and decietful way in which the 9/11 tragedy was used by Bush et al, in which case you could argue that 9/11 was a trigger for the situation today.

Rather than supporting them, you should actually be really pissed with Bush, Rumsfeld, Powel and cohorts for using the tragedy in such a way, and furthermore be even more incensed that the way they manipulated the propaganda has resulted in dire straits for the country.

Many Americans still have a 12/7/41 "chip" on the shoulder. The 9/11 one is justified as well.

Why not share with us exactly what you would have done if you had been President of the US on 9/12/01. Just a straight up answer would be nice to get.

I'll not even call it hind-sight.

No, it's not worth mentioning. The 9/11 chip on America's shoulder should not be, and is not in reality, the excuse for the financial woes of America today, much as the right will have the world believe.....unless you count the spurious and decietful way in which the 9/11 tragedy was used by Bush et al, in which case you could argue that 9/11 was a trigger for the situation today.

Rather than supporting them, you should actually be really pissed with Bush, Rumsfeld, Powel and cohorts for using the tragedy in such a way, and furthermore be even more incensed that the way they manipulated the propaganda has resulted in dire straits for the country.

Many Americans still have a 12/7/41 "chip" on the shoulder. The 9/11 one is justified as well.

Why not share with us exactly what you would have done if you had been President of the US on 9/12/01. Just a straight up answer would be nice to get.

I'll not even call it hind-sight.

The fact that "many" Americans still bear a grudge for Pearl Harbour, or what I would have done after 9/11 has absolutely no bearing on the fact that people such as yourself use the events as an excuse to 1. Justify invading another country, or 2. Explain the financial woes of America today.

You brought up Katrina and 9/11 as excuses for the debt America has...and as Naam has so rightly responded, neither of those events actually cost the country much at all (relatively).

No, it's not worth mentioning. The 9/11 chip on America's shoulder should not be, and is not in reality, the excuse for the financial woes of America today, much as the right will have the world believe.....unless you count the spurious and decietful way in which the 9/11 tragedy was used by Bush et al, in which case you could argue that 9/11 was a trigger for the situation today.

Rather than supporting them, you should actually be really pissed with Bush, Rumsfeld, Powel and cohorts for using the tragedy in such a way, and furthermore be even more incensed that the way they manipulated the propaganda has resulted in dire straits for the country.

Many Americans still have a 12/7/41 "chip" on the shoulder. The 9/11 one is justified as well.

Why not share with us exactly what you would have done if you had been President of the US on 9/12/01. Just a straight up answer would be nice to get.

I'll not even call it hind-sight.

The fact that "many" Americans still bear a grudge for Pearl Harbour, or what I would have done after 9/11 has absolutely no bearing on the fact that people such as yourself use the events as an excuse to 1. Justify invading another country, or 2. Explain the financial woes of America today.

You brought up Katrina and 9/11 as excuses for the debt America has...and as Naam has so rightly responded, neither of those events actually cost the country much at all (relatively).

Yeah, as is typical of people like you. You can criticize the US but you won't offer concrete steps on what you would have done under the same circumstances.

Pretend for a minute that you are a person of some importance and tell us what you would have done on 9/12/01.

Anyway, as far as "The Donald" is concerned, he is but a shameless self promoter and since failing candidates cannot keep campaign contributions he will not be running for anything. He may make a speech or two infurtherance of his commercial interests, but that will be about it IMO. It's a freaking tragedy that names like Trump and Palin even come up when discussing presidential politics.

"And where are the clowns? Send in the clowns. Don't bother they're here." -- Stephen Sondheim

I was damned offended reading his opinion about the oil in Iraq, and who should take it.

I was damned offended reading his opinion about the oil in Iraq, and who should take it.

a thief and fraudster will always be a thief and fraudster.

No, it's not worth mentioning. The 9/11 chip on America's shoulder should not be, and is not in reality, the excuse for the financial woes of America today, much as the right will have the world believe.....unless you count the spurious and decietful way in which the 9/11 tragedy was used by Bush et al, in which case you could argue that 9/11 was a trigger for the situation today.

Rather than supporting them, you should actually be really pissed with Bush, Rumsfeld, Powel and cohorts for using the tragedy in such a way, and furthermore be even more incensed that the way they manipulated the propaganda has resulted in dire straits for the country.

Many Americans still have a 12/7/41 "chip" on the shoulder. The 9/11 one is justified as well.

Why not share with us exactly what you would have done if you had been President of the US on 9/12/01. Just a straight up answer would be nice to get.

I'll not even call it hind-sight.

Perhaps, I would go on to explain to the good {yet blind} American folks that this incident reflected just a fraction of the bad kharma that America has built up over the century and the nasty things put upon the world in the American peoples name.

No, it's not worth mentioning. The 9/11 chip on America's shoulder should not be, and is not in reality, the excuse for the financial woes of America today, much as the right will have the world believe.....unless you count the spurious and decietful way in which the 9/11 tragedy was used by Bush et al, in which case you could argue that 9/11 was a trigger for the situation today.

Rather than supporting them, you should actually be really pissed with Bush, Rumsfeld, Powel and cohorts for using the tragedy in such a way, and furthermore be even more incensed that the way they manipulated the propaganda has resulted in dire straits for the country.

Many Americans still have a 12/7/41 "chip" on the shoulder. The 9/11 one is justified as well.

Why not share with us exactly what you would have done if you had been President of the US on 9/12/01. Just a straight up answer would be nice to get.

I'll not even call it hind-sight.

Perhaps, I would go on to explain to the good {yet blind} American folks that this incident reflected just a fraction of the bad kharma that America has built up over the century and the nasty things put upon the world in the American peoples name.

Yep, a dam_n shame how many people got shot in the back trying to escape West Germany, or South Koreans fleeing to North Korea, because of the abuses of the U.S.

No, it's not worth mentioning. The 9/11 chip on America's shoulder should not be, and is not in reality, the excuse for the financial woes of America today, much as the right will have the world believe.....unless you count the spurious and decietful way in which the 9/11 tragedy was used by Bush et al, in which case you could argue that 9/11 was a trigger for the situation today.

Rather than supporting them, you should actually be really pissed with Bush, Rumsfeld, Powel and cohorts for using the tragedy in such a way, and furthermore be even more incensed that the way they manipulated the propaganda has resulted in dire straits for the country.

Many Americans still have a 12/7/41 "chip" on the shoulder. The 9/11 one is justified as well.

Why not share with us exactly what you would have done if you had been President of the US on 9/12/01. Just a straight up answer would be nice to get.

I'll not even call it hind-sight.

Perhaps, I would go on to explain to the good {yet blind} American folks that this incident reflected just a fraction of the bad kharma that America has built up over the century and the nasty things put upon the world in the American peoples name.

Perhaps you could go to a US Embassy, any US Embassy, and explain the bad kharma to all those people standing in lines as they await their interviews for a chance to enter the US.

Or hold meetings in the US telling some of the 11 to 15 million illegal immigrants that the US has done some bad things over the past century and they should go home.

The US is still the land of opportunity in the eyes of many, although only about a dozen of them are members of this forum.

...and I don't think Trump will even run.

He'd never get elected in England with a name like that

He'd never get elected in England with a name like that

What's wrong with "Donald"?

No, it's not worth mentioning. The 9/11 chip on America's shoulder should not be, and is not in reality, the excuse for the financial woes of America today, much as the right will have the world believe.....unless you count the spurious and decietful way in which the 9/11 tragedy was used by Bush et al, in which case you could argue that 9/11 was a trigger for the situation today.

Rather than supporting them, you should actually be really pissed with Bush, Rumsfeld, Powel and cohorts for using the tragedy in such a way, and furthermore be even more incensed that the way they manipulated the propaganda has resulted in dire straits for the country.

Many Americans still have a 12/7/41 "chip" on the shoulder. The 9/11 one is justified as well.

Why not share with us exactly what you would have done if you had been President of the US on 9/12/01. Just a straight up answer would be nice to get.

I'll not even call it hind-sight.

The fact that "many" Americans still bear a grudge for Pearl Harbour, or what I would have done after 9/11 has absolutely no bearing on the fact that people such as yourself use the events as an excuse to 1. Justify invading another country, or 2. Explain the financial woes of America today.

You brought up Katrina and 9/11 as excuses for the debt America has...and as Naam has so rightly responded, neither of those events actually cost the country much at all (relatively).

Yeah, as is typical of people like you. You can criticize the US but you won't offer concrete steps on what you would have done under the same circumstances.

Pretend for a minute that you are a person of some importance and tell us what you would have done on 9/12/01.

OK, lets pretend. First, lets pretend that your argument that 9/11 was significant in the state of America's finances today was never made. and didn't make you look silly.

Lets also pretend that if I did offer a reasonable alternative to what was actually done after 9/11, that you wouldn't discard it simply because it shows that you've been supporting a stupid and illegal cause or simply because the alternative came from me.

OK...9/11...first of all, I would have immediately excused myself from the classroom full of children so that I could attend to the emergency.

Initiate the rescues, etc.

Initiate a series of investiagtions.

Discarded the trumped up evidence.

...skip ahead to actually having evidence and knowing Bin Laden was behind the attack.....

Understand that the Taliban's refusal to hand OBL over until furnished with evidence was reasonable and legitimate.

Negotiate from there on in.....Perhaps send in a covert assasination team, depending on how negotiations went.

Understand that the Taliban's refusal to hand OBL over until furnished with evidence was reasonable and legitimate

a logical but wrong assumption Harcourt. strong fundamental traditions, followed in the Middle East till Afghanistan, some it its northern bordering states and tribal areas of Pakistan would have never allowed the Taleban to extradite bin-Laden. the dilemma for the Taleban was enhanced by the fact that Osama was an important jihadi when the Afghans fought the Soviets.

to give you an example. a bedou who killed another bedou, enters the dwelling of the killed ones brother and asks for sanctuary will be protected by said brother by all available means.

Understand that the Taliban's refusal to hand OBL over until furnished with evidence was reasonable and legitimate

a logical but wrong assumption Harcourt. strong fundamental traditions, followed in the Middle East till Afghanistan, some it its northern bordering states and tribal areas of Pakistan would have never allowed the Taleban to extradite bin-Laden. the dilemma for the Taleban was enhanced by the fact that Osama was an important jihadi when the Afghans fought the Soviets.

to give you an example. a bedou who killed another bedou, enters the dwelling of the killed ones brother and asks for sanctuary will be protected by said brother by all available means.

Not an assumption, Naam, but a suggestion of how things could have been done. America's stance was one of demand with absolutely no discourse.

To say that the Taliban are absolutely incorruptible makes for an interesting situation, don't you think?

Many Americans still have a 12/7/41 "chip" on the shoulder. The 9/11 one is justified as well.

Why not share with us exactly what you would have done if you had been President of the US on 9/12/01. Just a straight up answer would be nice to get.

I'll not even call it hind-sight.

The fact that "many" Americans still bear a grudge for Pearl Harbour, or what I would have done after 9/11 has absolutely no bearing on the fact that people such as yourself use the events as an excuse to 1. Justify invading another country, or 2. Explain the financial woes of America today.

You brought up Katrina and 9/11 as excuses for the debt America has...and as Naam has so rightly responded, neither of those events actually cost the country much at all (relatively).

Yeah, as is typical of people like you. You can criticize the US but you won't offer concrete steps on what you would have done under the same circumstances.

Pretend for a minute that you are a person of some importance and tell us what you would have done on 9/12/01.

OK, lets pretend. First, lets pretend that your argument that 9/11 was significant in the state of America's finances today was never made. and didn't make you look silly.

Lets also pretend that if I did offer a reasonable alternative to what was actually done after 9/11, that you wouldn't discard it simply because it shows that you've been supporting a stupid and illegal cause or simply because the alternative came from me.

OK...9/11...first of all, I would have immediately excused myself from the classroom full of children so that I could attend to the emergency.

Initiate the rescues, etc.

Initiate a series of investiagtions.

Discarded the trumped up evidence.

...skip ahead to actually having evidence and knowing Bin Laden was behind the attack.....

Understand that the Taliban's refusal to hand OBL over until furnished with evidence was reasonable and legitimate.

Negotiate from there on in.....Perhaps send in a covert assasination team, depending on how negotiations went.

Thank you for finally responding to a question. Let us now examine the response.

1. Your statement that I have been supporting a "stupid and illegal cause" is your opinion and is one that I reject. The statement that I would reject your alternative course of action because you came up with it is also your opinion and is also rejected.

2. You state Bush should have immediately excused himself from the classroom and started attending to the emergency. How, exactly, was he supposed to attend to the emergency when nobody really knew what the emergency consisted of? He was in a semi-secured area with limited information and options and a very fluid situation. It would seem prudent to me for him to remain at his current location until such time as more information was available and precautions could be put in place to move him to into a more secure location. Running around on the streets of Sarasota, Florida, might have been great television drama but would likely have done nothing to settle the situation down. It would seem he took the only wise course of action. Remain where he was until he could be safely moved to Air Force One, the portable White House, where decisions could be made backed up by facts.

3. Next you claim he should have initiated rescues? The WTC Towers were located in New York City and the primary responsibility for rescues fell on them, not the federal government. I expect Bush called Mayor Giuliani during the emergency and offered the assistance of the federal government but that is all he could have done. He could take no federal action concerning any rescue attempt without a prior request from the Governor of New York State.

4. Now you claim he should have initiated a series of investigations. How do you know he did not activate an investigatory process? You were not privy to his discussions that day, or any other, with the FBI Director, CIA Director or his National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice. I would give you odds that he probably did tell at least one of them to find out what happened and get back to him. Now don't you think that is a real possibility?

5. OK, I'll bite. What "trumped up evidence"?

6. Skipping right along, your claim that he had no evidence to support Bin Laden's participation in the events of 9/11 is, again, without foundation because you simply do not know what evidence he had or did not have.

7. The Taliban's insistence that they would only hand Bin Laden over after they were provided evidence of his participation was reasonable and legitimate. I never claimed otherwise. However, their statement they would only hand him over to a very limited number of Islamic countries was not reasonable and barely legitimate, knowing full well he would never be extradited to the US.

8. Negotiate with whom?

9. Assassination teams were sent in. Why do you think he started living in caves in Bora Bora?

As you will notice I did not attack your alternative because you presented it. It was your alternative that is full of holes, not your personality.

...and I still do not believe Donald Trump will run for the Presidency. He's trying to drive up ratings for his reality show.

Understand that the Taliban's refusal to hand OBL over until furnished with evidence was reasonable and legitimate

a logical but wrong assumption Harcourt. strong fundamental traditions, followed in the Middle East till Afghanistan, some it its northern bordering states and tribal areas of Pakistan would have never allowed the Taleban to extradite bin-Laden. the dilemma for the Taleban was enhanced by the fact that Osama was an important jihadi when the Afghans fought the Soviets.

to give you an example. a bedou who killed another bedou, enters the dwelling of the killed ones brother and asks for sanctuary will be protected by said brother by all available means.

But when he leaves the sanctuary of the deceased Bedouin's brother, he and his family will be hunted down and killed.

Understand that the Taliban's refusal to hand OBL over until furnished with evidence was reasonable and legitimate

a logical but wrong assumption Harcourt. strong fundamental traditions, followed in the Middle East till Afghanistan, some it its northern bordering states and tribal areas of Pakistan would have never allowed the Taleban to extradite bin-Laden. the dilemma for the Taleban was enhanced by the fact that Osama was an important jihadi when the Afghans fought the Soviets.

to give you an example. a bedou who killed another bedou, enters the dwelling of the killed ones brother and asks for sanctuary will be protected by said brother by all available means.

But when he leaves the sanctuary of the deceased Bedouin's brother, he and his family will be hunted down and killed.

that is correct. but we were discussing a hand-over or extradition of Osama by the Taleban which was, as demanded, out of question. Osama was in Afghanistan ruled by the Taleban. all Afghanistan was his sanctuary and most probably Waziristan is now his sanctuary (as opposed to the joke that he is running now a liquor shop in Jersey). but don't ask me what alternatives/options Bush had who, most probably guided by his advisers, shot from the hip and could not withdraw the bullet.

anyway, what counts is the result. actually the lack of any result even though the bleeding apologistic hearts try to diversify by bringing up burqas, the education of girls and the potential change of a zillion century or perhaps millennia old traditions and customs. reality is that neither in our nor in our childrens life time this country will change to what we westerners consider a "civilised" country.

Understand that the Taliban's refusal to hand OBL over until furnished with evidence was reasonable and legitimate

a logical but wrong assumption Harcourt. strong fundamental traditions, followed in the Middle East till Afghanistan, some it its northern bordering states and tribal areas of Pakistan would have never allowed the Taleban to extradite bin-Laden. the dilemma for the Taleban was enhanced by the fact that Osama was an important jihadi when the Afghans fought the Soviets.

to give you an example. a bedou who killed another bedou, enters the dwelling of the killed ones brother and asks for sanctuary will be protected by said brother by all available means.

But when he leaves the sanctuary of the deceased Bedouin's brother, he and his family will be hunted down and killed.

that is correct. but we were discussing a hand-over or extradition of Osama by the Taleban which was, as demanded, out of question. Osama was in Afghanistan ruled by the Taleban. all Afghanistan was his sanctuary and most probably Waziristan is now his sanctuary (as opposed to the joke that he is running now a liquor shop in Jersey). but don't ask me what alternatives/options Bush had who, most probably guided by his advisers, shot from the hip and could not withdraw the bullet.

anyway, what counts is the result. actually the lack of any result even though the bleeding apologistic hearts try to diversify by bringing up burqas, the education of girls and the potential change of a zillion century or perhaps millennia old traditions and customs. reality is that neither in our nor in our childrens life time this country will change to what we westerners consider a "civilised" country.

Surprisingly, I agree with your last sentence..."reality is that neither in our nor in our childrens life time this country will change to what we westerners consider a "civilised" country."

Surprisingly, I agree with your last sentence...

there's always a first time

Surprisingly, I agree with your last sentence...

there's always a first time

Let us bask in the moment. :jap:

Poll Finds Few Favorites as G.O.P. Fight for President Gels

By JIM RUTENBERG

Published: April 21, 2011

Excerpt:

While that might indicate that there is a receptive audience for the real estate mogul Donald J. Trump as he raises questions about Mr. Obama's citizenship, the poll also pointed to potential roadblocks for him should he pursue a formal candidacy.

Mr. Trump has been getting considerable attention as a possibly strong contender, but just about as many Republicans view him favorably as view him unfavorably — 35 percent favorably and 32 percent unfavorably— and nearly 60 percent of Republicans interviewed said they did not believe he was a serious candidate. (Far more of all voters view him unfavorably — 46 percent — than view him favorably, 25 percent.)

Article:

http://www.nytimes.c...ans.html?emc=na

LaoPo

Poll Finds Few Favorites as G.O.P. Fight for President Gels

By JIM RUTENBERG

Published: April 21, 2011

Excerpt:

While that might indicate that there is a receptive audience for the real estate mogul Donald J. Trump as he raises questions about Mr. Obama's citizenship, the poll also pointed to potential roadblocks for him should he pursue a formal candidacy.

Mr. Trump has been getting considerable attention as a possibly strong contender, but just about as many Republicans view him favorably as view him unfavorably — 35 percent favorably and 32 percent unfavorably— and nearly 60 percent of Republicans interviewed said they did not believe he was a serious candidate. (Far more of all voters view him unfavorably — 46 percent — than view him favorably, 25 percent.)

Article:

http://www.nytimes.c...ans.html?emc=na

LaoPo

I wouldn't let yourself get caught up in all these media hype stories Lao Po. It's just about the money.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/don-t-call-stimulus-2012-election-spending-likely-20110414-084921-208.html

Though, I'm rather indifferent - this citizenship issue is quite intriguing. How much does anyone know of Obama's background as a youth......and birthplace? Has documentation been brought forth?

The issue is really a non-starter. Even Fox news said he was born in Hawaii. Trump's big thing is that the verification of his birth is not his original birth certificate, but something akin to a certification of live birth from Hawaii.

It does not matter because his mother was a natural born U.S. citizen and his citizen would be conferred by her, even if he were born somewhere else.

His mother was an anthropologist, so to speak, and spent time in Indonesia when Obama was a child and he attended school there.

You can bet your bottom dollar that the circumstances of his birth were fully investigated by the Republicans prior to the election.

It's a matter of planting the seeds that many want to believe--he is really a Muslim and he was born in Africa.

By the way, I didn't do a search of what I just stated, so corrections/additions are welcomed.

i agree with you, but very much suspect that he is hiding something. My guess is that his long-form birth certificate says that his religion at birth was Muslim - which I personally could care less about, but it would hurt him politically.

The issue is really a non-starter. Even Fox news said he was born in Hawaii. Trump's big thing is that the verification of his birth is not his original birth certificate, but something akin to a certification of live birth from Hawaii.

It does not matter because his mother was a natural born U.S. citizen and his citizen would be conferred by her, even if he were born somewhere else.

His mother was an anthropologist, so to speak, and spent time in Indonesia when Obama was a child and he attended school there.

You can bet your bottom dollar that the circumstances of his birth were fully investigated by the Republicans prior to the election.

It's a matter of planting the seeds that many want to believe--he is really a Muslim and he was born in Africa.

By the way, I didn't do a search of what I just stated, so corrections/additions are welcomed.

Your statement cited below is correct up to a point.

"It does not matter because his mother was a natural born U.S. citizen and his citizen would be conferred by her, even if he were born somewhere else."

The fact that one of his parents was a US citizen at the time of his birth would bestow US citizenship on him.

The problem with this guy is he ran for and was elected President of the US.

Article Two of the Constitution states the following:

" 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."

He MUST have been born in the continental US or one of the '57' states to hold the office.

I think he was probably born in Hawaii. Having said that he refuses to permit his long form birth certificate to be released for publication and the question is raised as to why he is blocking the release of the document.

It would be so simple for him to put this matter behind him, as well as questions concerning his college transcripts and records, by just releasing them.

It begs the question...is he trying to hide something?

The Muslim at birth issue is much like the US citizenship issue. According to the Muslim religion, any child born to a Muslim father is automatically a Muslim until such time as he/she denounces the Islamic religion...which then opens them up to blasphemy charges. This is a no win situation.

I believe that natural born citizen has been interpreted by the Constitution to include people who are born outside the US, but are 'natural born citizens' by virtue of their birth. In other words, not a naturalized citizen.

Why he wouldn't present his entire birth certificate, I don't know. I doubt it wold put the issue to rest. I am sure the right-wing Christians would then want to see his Baptismal certificate to prove he wasn't really a Mulsim, which wouldn't put that to rest either.

Everthing you need to know about Donald Trump:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Donald-Trump-net-worth-Im-cnnm-1699260472.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=5&asset=&ccode=