McCain -- too soft on hate
I was asked to have a "fun time defending this jerk" (John McCain), who today apologized for comments that he didn't even make, ones that were made by a talk-radio host introducing McCain -- who slammed Obama and repeated his middle name over and over (gee, I wonder why anyone would repeat "Barack Hussein Obama" over and over *cough* fearmongering *cough*).
Then, of course, after McCain took full responsibility for remarks he didn't even make, within hours, Rush Limbaugh was mocking him with his usual vitriol for -- being a nice guy? Having some sense of integrity?
Is there any doubt left that, of the three politicians left standing (I'm not counting Huckabee, here), two of them are decent guys and one is not afraid to use the "kitchen sink" attack on her opponent in the primary?
Yes, it's tough as hell to defend a decent guy and an authentic hero, I gotta say.
And is there any doubt left that the oozing pus-filled sore that is the Clinton Machine will do anything to get elected? I may not agree with Barack Obama on...well, almost everything...but I do think he's a decent guy who doesn't deserve to be smeared by a power-lusting bitch who is lashing out now that she's cornered.
posted by Kip Lange @ 9:39 PM
27 comments
27 Comments:
Hey Kip,
Will you please address the topic of McCain not being a natural-born citizen. I know your initial reaction will be to say that anyone who thinks someone that was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 is not a citizen is an idiot, let me hear your take on why that is the case. My reading is that people who are born on military bases outside of the US are not subject to the same rules and regs as people that are born here and that citizenship is not automatic for these people. It seems that this would indicate that they are not indeed natural-born citizens.
Anyway, let me know what your take is.
Thanks.
You're not an idiot. Perfectly valid question, delivered without personal insults. I will gladly answer to the best of my knowledge (and I just researched this for you).
First, according to law, if you are born to two American citizens in any country -- *any* country -- you are considered an natural-born American citizen. Even in Antartica. If both your parents are American, it does not matter where you were born, you are automatically a natural-born U.S. citizen.
Second, the Panama Canal Zone, in 1936, was U.S. soil. So even if McCain's parents had not been American, being born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 meant you were born on American soil and therefore you are, again, a natural-born American citizen, and can run for President.
That's what I came up with, and I *did* research this.
And you're very welcome.
Here, this should clear what I said up a little, if you still have any questions:
http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmUyMGRiOWVmYjYxNzczNTMzNThiYzk3ZmVmYzhjN2E=
This post has been removed by the author.
Let me try to make this a regular link you can click...
By the way, now that I've done some legwork that really wouldn't have taken you that much time -- mind if I call you an idiot? ;-)
OK,
All I really wanted was your "opinion" on it as it is not an open and shut issue. I figured you would take a one-sided view of it given that you are a die-hard conservative. However, given that you seem to be mildly intelligent, I would have figured that you would have done what the thinking man would do and say that it is undetermined.
As I'm sure you know, the Supreme Court has yet to rule on exactly what the definition of a "natural born citizen" is. Yes, McCain is an American Citizen, but the question is whether or not he is a natural born citizen for constitutional purposes.
It is likely that this is a non-issue as there is currently a bill making it's way through the system that will declare all children born to US Citizens outside of the country engaged in military service "natural born citizens".
In any event, I'm surprised that you would take a hard-line stand on this without leaving some room for error as it is an unresolved issue.
Take a look at this for more analysis:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23415028/
Yes it *is* an open-and-shut issue. This has *nothing* to do with military bases, get that out of your head. Did you read the statute? The statute dates to 1790, for the love of God. Any child born anywhere to two American citizens is considered a natural-born child. On top of that, the Panama Canal Zone was U.S. soil -- not a military base -- in 1936.
I know you're excited about this as it's been making its rounds on the Internet as the tinfoil-hat-wearer's topic de jure, but take some time to read the statute.
Or take some time to research what the Panama Canal Zone was in 1936.
Open. Shut. Done.
Oh dear, MSNBC said something about it, and we all know that MSNBC is the Word of God.
Look up the statute. It dates to 1790. Then, as I said, look at what the Panam Canal Zone was ruled as in 1904 -- American soil -- which extended to 1936, easily.
Open.
Shut.
Don't let the virtual door hit your ass on the way out.
I'd also like to add this:
It's amazing that you know this is somehow unresolved, that apparently a vast number of people know this, but somehow it has escaped making waves at the New York Times, CNN, Fox, the Wall Street Journal. One would think that the reporters for these outfits would have the vast and unlimited resources that you apparently do.
What you do have is a link to MSNBC -- the one network *nobody* watches since it's so incredibly silly.
You should take your information on this to the New York Times immediately. You'll win a Pulitzer. I don't know how they've missed it.
Statute. 1790. Born to two American citizens in *any* country, you are a natural born citizen. READ THE STATUTE. The statute is *law*.
This was also bandied about regarding George Romney, Mitt Romney's father, as he was born in Mexico. However, since both his parents were American citizens, he was ruled a natural-born citizen of the United States.
LOOK. IT. UP.
I'm not here to do your homework for you.
And also:
This "debate" is now over. I have given you the law, the 1790 statute. I have given you the information on the Panama Canal Zone's status in 1936. Double your pleasure, double your fun, not just one, but *two* things that confirm McCain's status as a natural-born citizen.
I simply don't have time to waste on a discussion this stupid. If this was even remotely true, the DNC would be out there handing out talking-points memos to reporters and pundits everywhere. It would be huge.
And when I say I don't have time to deal with an issue, and a person, as dumb as yourself, that's saying a lot -- because I have a lot of free time.
If you choose, you can continue to live in your fantasy world where this is an "unresolved" issue. Say hello to Puff the Magic Dragon for me while you're there. Make sure you have the tinfoil covering your head so the evil US government can't beam thoughts into the chip in your head. Hang out for a while with Elvis (another "unresolved" issue, according to many people borderline mentally retarded such as yourself).
That's it. I'm late for an appointment to twiddle my thumbs and scratch my nose, so I don't have time for this.
In regards to the above exchange between you and the anonymous poster, Kip, I just wanted to clarify one thing with the anonymous poster:
The last time I checked, the Earth is still round, although there are people who still maintain it's an unresolved issue. According to my inside information, many of these people work at MSNBC.
That is all.
Wow! Yeah, McCain is fine, but I was just trying to have a dialog with you about what many find to be an interesting issue.
Obviously legal arguments are not your strong suit. If they were, you might have stopped to take a closer look at what many might see as the controlling authority. As I'm sure your research showed you, the 14th Amendment plays an integral role in your analysis.
In pertinent part, the Amendment reads:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
So this apparently means that everyone born in the United States, except those people not under jurisdiction of the U.S. government are citizens for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. People born in the United States, and those born abroad to two U.S. parents, are born American citizens and are citizens at birth under 8 USC 1401.
However, it remains debatable whether people who were born US citizens and are declared citizens at birth under U.S. law are also considered citizens "by birth," or whether they should be classified as "naturalized."
Also debated is whether there is a meaningful distinction between citizens "at birth" and citizens "by birth" since there is no distinction as far as U.S. law goes, and the Fourteenth Amendment never uses the term "at birth."
Many U.S. statutes define select people born overseas as "citizens at birth." One interpretation of the Constitution is that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. According to this interpretation, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States; otherwise, he is a citizen "by law" and is therefore "naturalized."
Just food for thought.
And I quote:
According to the Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be borne beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States."
What part of that is unclear to you?
Kip, I have been following this stupid thread since it started. Don't ask me why.
The statute is clear enough for anybody who wants to look it up, including our resident expert on the 14th amendment here. You don't have to go further and point out he was born in what was an American territory at the time. The statute should be enough.
Me, I'm glad "legal arguments are not your strong suit", because whoever keeps posting this shit is so fucking annoying I want to give whoever the fuck it is a purple nurple like they've never seen before.
Bro, why do you bother responding to these people? Its not like you, me, and the whole fucking world doesn't know that if this was a legit issue, the 'Rats would be all over it like flies on shit.
Peace out, man. I'm gonna tell you once more, don't waste your time getting your blood pressure up over these assholes. I thought you were done posting to them anyway? Just let them continue to post, they're making asses of themselves without your help. :-)
Come on Kip, this is not open-and shut. If you would have really "looked it up" you would know better. I'm not here trying to stir shit up, and for the record I don't think McCain is ineligible. I'm just aknowledging that there is confusion regarding the issue, and after reading the following, you will probably agree that a clearer definition would be nice. Yes, some this is heavily plagiarized from wikipedia and gov't websites, so sue me.
- The 1790 the naturalization law (act) did, as you said, define children born to citizens as "natural born citizens".
- This act was addressed in the Dred Scott case in 1790 as a form of naturalization.
- The 14th ammendment overturned the Dred Scott case (this is your big ommission, Kip), and defined two (new?) types of citizenship: born by land, and born by law (naturalization). A person cannot be both (mutually exclusive).
Now in 1952 the Immigration and Naturalization Act had a section which I guess was intended to clear up the confusion:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
Later in the Act, McCain's situation is addressed more clearly:
Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
Because the statement uses the language "declared to be a citizen" it can be implied to mean naturalization (and not "born by land" as defined in the 14th ammendment). Hence the confusion.
Once again, while I think McCain would be a terrible president, I do not think that "declared to be a citizen" implies naturalization. IMO naturalization is a process that occurs sometime after birth, whereas McCain was instantly a citizen upon his birth, and effectively natural-born and everything else.
In any case, if this has legs, I hope it is cleared up thru the legislative process and not thru jackasses in black robes.
Mike
Hi there. Kip has asked me to come and comment on this issue because I am a practicing attorney and cum laude graduate of Harvard Law. Some of you might have a guess as to who I am, if you know Kip.
Yes, this is an open and shut case.
Other than you, I know of no sane person who takes this argument seriously.
By the way, please cite the legal authority ruling that the 14th Amendment overtuned the 1790 statute.
Furthermore, do you have any opinion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Hi, thanks for stopping in.
For starters, I did not say the 14th Ammendment overturned the 1790 statute. The statute was used as an exhibition in the Dred Scott case, which was itself overturned, and of course called into question the 1790 statute. Do you not agree with this? By re-defining (and newly-defining) citizenship in the 14th ammendment, it can be assumed that these new definitions superceded the 1790 statute. I'm sure you have some big legal words to explain this, so go ahead.
Furthermore, if the 1790 statute was still the law of the land with regard to Canal Zone residents, then why the need for the Canal Zone language in the Immigration Act of 1952? Obviously lawmakers in 1952 did not agree with you that McCain's citizenship status was "open and shut". And why does the Canal Zone language leave open to interpretation the meaning of naturalization with respect to persons born there of US parents?
Thanks for your time in clearing up this matter.
Mike
P.S. The reason no one dares take the argument seriously is because of McCain's "glorious" history as a US citizen. The legal questions remain valid nonetheless. Thanks again for your time.
Alright, man, I'll try to get G.W. back. He specifically mentioned the Dred Scott ruling to me, saying, "I don't want to go into that, because the main thrust of that legal argument is whether a slave is a person and has no bearing on the statute in question -- but he's going to want me to."
Also...since I don't know how long it will be until he gets back to you:
"This person reminds me of a philosopher trying to prove the world exists. To which my response is the '2x4' argument. Which consists of hitting the idiot over the head with a 2x4 while shouting, 'The world exists.'"
And, finally:
"He reeks of first-or-second year law student, and they are the most tedious people to have to deal with -- he needs to get his ass out of moot court, I think, and understand that the law in practice is not anything like your first or second year in law school...these are specious and annoying comments..."
That's pretty much verbatim. I also know about the Dred Scott ruling, and *my* immediate response would be to say that the 1790 statute has never been overturned. You say "calls into question" the 1790 statute. That is a far cry from actually *striking down* the 1790 statute.
Further, I don't see why you can't get it through your head that the Panama Canal Zone was NOT a military base, but an American territory, so the double whammy kicks in, the second point having nothing to do with the first, namely, that McCain was born on American soil.
I cannot be held responsible for what G.W. is going to say to you, although I think it will be a bit more brief and you're going to get shorter words than you think. Much shorter. :-) I know the man well.
That is, if I can even get him to post again, because he considers this a tremendous waste of his time. "I am not his professor unless he wants to pay me to be such," I believe he said.
Also, I should warn you, since he is convinced you are in your first or second year of law, you are definitely going to get short words. I take no responsibility for what he says to you. Because, while he practices law, he despises lawyers. He *really* despises Harvard, especially, which is his alma mater Don't ask me exactly how that works, because I don't quite get it either.
You have been warned. If I can even get him back here. He also hates blogs.
Ok, here's some short words:
I'm not an "argument slave", just a simple man, with simple questions :)
Your guess that I am in my 1st or 2nd year of law is incorrect.
I raised a series of logical points and questions, and here's what Mr. Lawyer replied:
#1. I am Mr. Lawyer dude, so bow before me and hear my knowledge.
#2. This is an open-and-shut case.
#3. You may be sane, but only insane people bring this up.
#4. Here's an question based on the presumption of something you did not say.
#5 Here's something stupid someone once told me.
Thanks for the lesson.
I have no interest in discussing the Dred Scott case.
Since you didn't answer any of my previous questions, how about just one question:
If McCain's citizenship status and eligibility for President were brought up before Federal court (God forbid): upon which law do you think will the judges will base more of their opinion?
1. A 1790 statute which is foggy, obsolete, and over 200 years old.
2. A 1952 Immigration Act which defines the citizenship of Canal Zone born Americans during the period which John McCain was born there.
Thanks again for your time,
Mike
I'm just wondering how far away we are from you debating what the definiton of "is" is.
I really have no interest in this at all anymore, I know I'm correct. You want to split legal hairs with another lawyer, that's fine, but I don't think you're going to win any points by insulting him.
I also think you're proving yourself to be a TREMENDOUS ass to anyone else following this thread.
I hope to hell I never have to meet something as tediously boring as you, I sincerely do.
I'll try to get G.W. back here, again, but it's not working at the moment.
By the way, as for your insults, you're the one spinning a case out of something which you know is not an issue, because if it was, McCain would be being tarred and feathered by the media. You think he's a "darling" to the media? Do you think that's why they broke the rather sourceless, toothless story about possibly dilly-dalliances with an attractive female lobbyist?
You may have a grasp of the law, but beyond that, you have no grasp of common sense or politics. Again, if there were any validity to your argument, McCain detractors would be shouting this to the heavens. Not posting on a small, insignificant blog.
And, I myself, have never claimed to have any legal training. I'm just pointing out the obvious. And you really are making an ass out of yourself, I'd quit while I was head, if I were you.
Why don't you take this to a blog run by a lawyer and ask him? Why ask me? The only thing I can think of is that you want to prove you're smarter than me by proving you can split legal hairs.
Nobody's impressed, buddy.
Alright, "Mike", I've tried to get G.W. back. I will try again. The response I got this morning was a big angry one directed at *me*.
"I have already told you fifty times over that, unlike the two of you, I have constraints on my time and I am not going to sink into a debate of such limitless idiocy. He's also not going to have any success trying to bait me to post for you by calling me stupid or arrogant or whatever the fuck he wants to call me. We both know this is an open and shut case. Why are you bothering to respond to him anymore? Can't you just stop? Again, he's not going to drag me back in by trying to act like he thinks he's smarter than me and I'm some sort of fraud. Tell him to take this up in moot court if he really wants. I have no interest in replying any further. I've worked in politics, I've worked in law, I know people like this guy, and I have zero interest in debating him because he's starting to call me names. You're the one with the insecurity complex, Kip. Stop responding to this asshole. If it's such a valid legal argument, tell him to take it to the DNC, who have somehow missed this about McCain. Don't you understand, I have no interest in proving I'm right? This is a prima facia case, and he can insult me all he wants, he can do whatever the fuck he wants, and I honestly don't care. He obviously has too much free time on his hands and so do you."
I'll try again, but that's what I'm getting. So we're both getting insulted.
I'm not a lawyer, man, and I can't debate the fine points of law you keep trying to bring up. All I know is if this had any legitimacy, the Democratic party would be trying to take McCain down on it. It's not like Obama has managed to escape the Rezco stuff, nor like the Clintons have been able to escape their legal problems in the past -- without resorting to mind-numbingly boring legal semantic debates.
This is all I can tell you, man. I got him here once. He might have come back, but once you start insulting him, he *really* starts not giving a shit.
If I can't get a response out of him, I am killing this thread. You can post as much legalese as you want and mock us poor legal plebians. But the bottom line is, if this were an issue, it would BE AN ISSUE.
Now im not a lawyer nor do I play one on tv but I do believe if this was in the court of Judy Judy she would of told all of you that no one really cares about this entire debate. If McCain was not a natural born US citizen his presidential campaign would be completely OVER. So in my mind very simple Open and Shut Check and Mate. You do realize this is a tiny blog that mainly posts video game reviews and rants if you want to throw your presidential input in call MSNBC they might care. So on that note I will part you with some sweet words:
Got a trap-steamer, my ship's called Hal Forty miles on the Panama Canal
Got a cargo of sodas, they are lo-cal Forty miles on the Panama Canal
Let it go life is too short
I've remained polite, and never called anyone a name... or, I'm sorry if the title "Mr. Lawyer Dude" offended you. I'll try not to be offended by "asshole" and "idiot".
Fine, I'll let it go. I win. It's obvious, since you can't answer my one simple question, or defend your position with any logical thought whatsoever. I'm glad the final Mr. Anonymous chimed in with the Judge Judy reference, and ever so popular "in my mind" stance (nevermind what the law says).
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm now more than convinced that you are all blind, clueless retards when it comes to this topic and Mr. Lawyer dude is nothing but a cum receptacle . Ok, there's finally some names, to grace your potty-mouth blog. Have a nice day, and thanks for the waste of time. I'll remember the 5 pointers Mr. Lawyer gave me.
Mike
*stamp* *stamp* *pout* *pout* -- "I'm taking my toys and going to play somewhere else!"
Thank GOD. "Debate" over.
In parting, I suggest you take this to a "serious" news outlet, because it is so obvious, apparently, that McCain is not a natural-born U.S. Citizen.
I don't even think he's over 35, either!
By the way, man, you got a 26-post thread going. I take no responsibility for what people on here post in terms of comments. However, I pity any person who has to be in a room with you for over an hour. I think your tedious wranglings over an obvious issue deserve to be called stupid. Well, naive is a better choice, because as many have pointed out, were there ANY legitimacy to this issue, McCain would be getting hammered on it. Perhaps you know the law better than me, but you seem to be clueless on politics. You think anti-McCain folk would let this "obvious" issue just lie around?
And, as somebody else said, this blog is for rants, videogame reviews, and trivial matters. It's your own fault if you got upset over the quality of posts here. I do not lay any claims to being a reporter or a lawyer. I *got* a lawyer for you in here, and his response simply didn't satisfy you. You wanted to debate on and on in tedious fashion fine points of law, taking us inevitably towards things like the "definition of is".
If I had to choose between waterboarding and listening to *you* go on for five minutes about this topic, I would take the waterboarding. Gladly.
Post a Comment
<< Home