.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Thursday, February 28, 2008

NYT Set To Smear McCain Again

This is going to print on Wednesday night, around 8:45PM even though it will be time-stamped for Thursday, February 28.

I noticed what - at the time (actual time, not posting time) that on The Drudge Report there was a developing headline - sans links - about the New York Times readying a story questioning if John McCain is allowed under law to run for president since he was born on a military base in Panama.

Did anyone - especially the NYT - bring this "issue" up in 2000 when McCain was running for president back then? I sure don't recall anything of the sort, so why would they bring it up now? Well, it's the NYT, their job is to smear merchant.

So I did some searching, and I found this fine and well-written piece at Associated Content:

    This issue about McCain has already been hashed out before. He did run for president in 2000, unsuccessfully, so the potential controversy was settled years ago, otherwise why would've John McCain run back in 2000 had be been ineligible? An article written on July 9, 1998, by Ken Rudin, and appearing at WashingtonPost.com, states simply why the Republican contender can run for President. You see, the First Congress, on March 26, 1790, approved an act which states, "The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States". The above article also states that his parents were both natural-born citizens of America.

    It's then easy to conclude that it doesn't matter where McCain was born outside of the United States (or under what relationship the birthplace was to America at the time, as the Panama Canal Zone was being leased to America in 1936). The Republican candidate could've been born in Panama, on the moon, Mars, or the Andromeda Galaxy - it's irrelevant since his parents being born in America makes him "natural-born".

    John McCain, according to his Wikipedia biography, was born at the United States-controlled Coco Solo Air Base in Panama. His parents are Admiral John "Jack" S. McCain, Jr. (who died in 1981), and Roberta McCain, who's still alive. To be more specific, John McCain's father was born in Iowa according to a February 2, 2008 article at OpEdNews.com called "John McCain - Is He An American Citizen Eligible For Office Of President?" McCain's mother was born in Oklahoma, according to her Wikipedia biography. Because of that 1790 Congressional Act, the case is closed. McCain can be President of the United States; and thus, he can legally run for the Presidency.

    To reiterate, despite the fact that the America's Constitution states in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: "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...", the Arizona Senator can thank his lucky stars the Congress had the foresight to get an act passed that realizes that kids of American citizens shouldn't be penalized as being non-natural-born because, as in the case of John McCain, he happened to be delivered on foreign soil as his father was serving our nation via military service.

The NYT is really getting desperate.

david drake,

Well done. You gave us a good article with plenty of facts and crisp, clean conclusions that seem to satisfy any concerns I may have had if the story had broken before I read your entry.

Thanks for the quick head-up on this story.

BTW, I have an answer for you at the blog entry comment section you left your comments at. I hope that it helps you with the little problem you mentioned.


Go McCain-Romney 2008!
Hey Denny. Thank you for your response. I did read the post you linked to. I am slowly coming around, mostly in part due to your post and your take on this. The post where I left a comment at you site also had good info in a comment comparing what we can expect from McCain as president and how vastly different those issues would be handled by Obama or Clinton. All great stuff. I'm getting "there" Denny...I'm getting closer to being able to support McCain, thanks to logic like yours. Thank you!!
It is an idiotic argument on the part of the NY Times to make. All U.S. warships, embassies, AND land-based military bases are considered U.S. sovereign territory. That is why when the Japanese attacked our fleet in Hawaii (not a U.S. State at the time) it was considered justification to declare war by President Roosevelt.

Unlike that moron Jimmy Carter, Reagan understood that the Iranians occupying our embassy and holding our diplomatic staff and Marine guards as prisoners was an overt act of war, and would have justified a declaration of war on his first day as President. That is why the chicken-shit goat f***ers let our people go the day he was sworn in.
For years of Obama will be the same as four years of carter. we should hope for Obama because we know if Hillary gets four years it translates into eight. no way will be be a one-termer.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker

Web Site Traffic Counters
Alabama Internet

Listed on BlogShares

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

This site uses photographs and material from other sources in strict
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.

Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.