At the top of Thursday’s CBS "Early Show," co-host Harry Smith teased a story on John McCain being born in the Panama Canal zone rather than inside the United States and if it would disqualify him from the presidency: "Born in the USA. John McCain wasn't. Can he still be president?"
The story, which was regurgitated from The New York Times, was presented as a news brief by co-host Russ Mitchell a few minutes later:
Does John McCain's birthplace disqualify him from serving as president? The New York Times raises the issue in a report this morning. McCain is a citizen, but he was born on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal where his father was posted. The Constitution says only a natural-born citizen can serve as president. So far no one born outside the U.S. has served as president.
In the New York Times article, Associate Law Professor Sarah H. Duggin, from Catholic University, was quoted as saying "It is not a slam-dunk situation" in reference to the constitutionality of McCain’s candidacy. This is the same New York Times that published a weakly sourced hit piece on McCain just last week.
First, U.S. military bases are considered to be American soil. Second, given the media’s sensitivity to a photo of Barack Obama in Somalian dress, it is interesting that John McCain’s birthplace would be considered an important story to cover.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
slow news day MSMer's?
February 28, 2008 - 13:43 ET by TruthMongerslow news day MSMer's?
If the Canal Zone was NOT US soil
February 28, 2008 - 13:45 ET by sarcasmoHow is it that there was ever a "back to the Panamanians" for Carter to give it to, anyway? There are many reasons to be against a McCain Presidency, but for me this isn't among them.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Are they idiots, or are they
February 28, 2008 - 13:46 ET by mattmAre they idiots, or are they just stupid?
for the first time in my
February 28, 2008 - 14:04 ET by TruthMongerfor the first time in my life i wish the NYT was correct
Both!
February 28, 2008 - 14:07 ET by kgBoth! Stupid because they choose to be. Idiots because they cannot help themselves.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
Add this to the BACKFIRE list of the NYTimes
February 28, 2008 - 13:48 ET by JayTeeThis one will bacfire also.....
Is Barrack going to have to pull a McCain, and APOLOGIZE for the N Y Times and what they say ?
the smears continue
February 28, 2008 - 13:51 ET by candanceMeanwhile John McCain apologizes to anyone who might have been offended by Bill Cunningham.
The MSM is gonna stomp all over him.
George W. Bush Media Redux
February 28, 2008 - 14:36 ET by Gothampc"The MSM is gonna stomp all over him. "
I agree. One of GWB's problems is that he let the media run with things that should have been stopped. I'd have a better rate of return on my Social Security if Bush hadn't kept quiet when the MSM started the Democrat talking point that people would lose their Social Security if it was privatized.
Wow these guys are really
February 28, 2008 - 13:54 ET by fonzie2178running out of things to report on. He's a citizen because his parents are/were citizens. His father was serving OUR country on a US base. If we're going to go this route then I could say judging by Hillary's agenda she was born on an entirely different PLANET, thereby disqualifying her as well.
Case closed
February 28, 2008 - 13:55 ET by celatorMcCain was born on a US Military base. His parents are US Citizens. He was born a US citizen. Case closed.
Liberal's Basic Rule For Discourse: I don't care if you agree with my premises, but I demand that you agree with my conclusions.
Are not U.S. military bases
February 28, 2008 - 14:12 ET by ForeverOnTheRightAre not U.S. military bases legaly considered U.S. soil? I think they are, as much as a U.S. Embassy is considered U.S. soil. These MSMr's are just plain grassping at straws. And what you say, celator, this alone makes him a U.S. Citizen. Put the fact that he was born to citizens and on U.S. soil and case is closed. The MSM needs to think about the facts before they open their mouths and make a fool of themselves.
I know that U.S. Embassies
February 28, 2008 - 14:19 ET by Hero SquadI know that U.S. Embassies are considered as such. Not sure if same rule applies to military bases... but it should.
Even if he was born in a hospital outside the base, it shouldn't matter.
I think this "rule" needs to be clarified. Simple enough. If you've only ever been a U.S. citizen, then you are eligible to run for president.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
Yes..
February 28, 2008 - 14:56 ET by celatorYes, kids are born to US military couples all over the world, wherever they might be stationed. These kids are US citizens as much as if they had been born in St. Louis or Boston or East Dumptruck, Vermont.
Liberal's Basic Rule For Discourse: I don't care if you agree with my premises, but I demand that you agree with my conclusions.
McCain's Panamanian Birth
February 28, 2008 - 15:41 ET by j. frank wilsonFor the past several years the Bush Administration has claimed Gitmo is not US soil - and that US laws (such as our Constitution) don't apply there. Are some military bases part of the US and others not?
Some are some aren't
February 28, 2008 - 18:38 ET by celatorIt depends on the treaty arrangements, more or less. It's safe to say we are leasing most of the property we use overseas (and paying mighty big $$$).
Liberal's Basic Rule For Discourse: I don't care if you agree with my premises, but I demand that you agree with my conclusions.
hypocritical interpretation of the Constitution
February 28, 2008 - 14:12 ET by needleTo give this point credence would require an extremely restrictive interpretation of the Constitution, say something akin to the biblical interpretation rendered by New Earth Fundamentalist.
On the other hand, the New York Times see the constitution mandating abortion on demand, and cannot tolerate other peoples’ less broad interpretation even though, of course, the Constitution does not mention anything vaguely related to abortion. I wonder if the super-hypocritical “old gray lady” can see any inconsistency or irony here.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
Wasn't this an issue with another president?
February 28, 2008 - 14:17 ET by greenfairieThere was another president or presidential candidate who was born overseas on a military base or something. Natural born citizen means a citizen at birth.
There have been candidates
February 28, 2008 - 14:21 ET by Hero SquadThere have been candidates where this was a potential issue. None ever attained the office, however. I believe I read in the NYT story that George Romney was born in Mexico.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
hero -- I believe the
February 28, 2008 - 14:31 ET by Jack Bauerhero -- I believe there was a minor kerfuffle over George Romney, being born in Mexico after his father took the family there.
Mitt was born in the USA -- Detroit, Michigan.
I'm voting for Scocks the
February 28, 2008 - 15:27 ET by HermanoI'm voting for Scocks the Cat. Great ad, Jack. Can I get you on my marketing team?
Canal Zone
February 28, 2008 - 14:20 ET by allanfThe Canal Zone was considered sovereign US territory until President Jimmy Carter returned it to Panama.
This is one time I wish the NYT was right.
February 28, 2008 - 14:29 ET by R D HelmBarack Obama has no middle name. Just ask the Republican Party.
you're right RD Helm
February 28, 2008 - 15:04 ET by candanceThe national GOP has released a statement that no Republican shall refer to Obama as Barack Hussein ever again. After a Republican in Tennessee mentioned the H word, McCain made a point to call Obama and apologize yet again.
Looks like McCain-Feingold was only the beginning.
But hey, at least he's not a Democrat!
candance,
February 28, 2008 - 15:08 ET by R D HelmMcCain is going to apologize his way right out of the running. What is worse is he now has the party walking upon eggshells as well.
But hey, at least he's not a Democrat!
LOL-If you say so.
Barack Obama has no middle name. Just ask the Republican Party.
come on RD
February 28, 2008 - 15:11 ET by candanceThat was sarcasm! Must I spell out everything on the internet? Arg!
candance,
February 28, 2008 - 15:16 ET by R D HelmLOL-I know you were being sarcastic.
So was I. I just forgot to add the :-^)
Barack Obama has no middle name. Just ask the Republican Party.
candance... Well, here
February 28, 2008 - 15:18 ET by Clear thinkercandance...
Well, here we have more proof of the GOP turning into the party of spineless modern day wimps.
How much longer until we are told by the GOP to cast our vote for a Democrat?
"Abstain from McCain"
clear
February 28, 2008 - 15:33 ET by candanceForget that. If McCain were to win the White House, how long before he censors Limbaugh, Cunningham, Coulter, and even NB for attacking his friends on the left?
How long before all Republicans are forced to propagate global warming? Forced to denounce the religious right?
This is un-conservative and un-Republican. If it doesn't bother the party faithful then nothing will.
candance... Amen! "Abs
February 28, 2008 - 15:35 ET by Clear thinkercandance...
Amen!
"Abstain from McCain"
Yeah, I'm bothered
February 28, 2008 - 20:08 ET by ArcherBYeah, I'm bothered. Not nearly as bothered as I will see when the genocide starts in Iraq after Obama pulls our troops out like the end of Vietnam. Not as bothered as I will be when the feds start to turn my AC off remotely. Not as bothered as I'll be when my little girl is shown how to give a Lewinski in health class.
Look, I don't like McCain either, but he is the lesser of three evils by far. Yeah, he's not a conservative, but he is the MOST conservative of the choices we have.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara
In the future, to avoid any
February 28, 2008 - 15:08 ET by Chris NormanIn the future, to avoid any negative connotations of using his full name or any part thereof, we should refer to the leading Democratic candidate as Senator B.O.
No, military and naval
February 28, 2008 - 14:30 ET by Col SmokeNo, military and naval bases are not necessarily American soil. That is reserved, by international law, to diplomatic missions.
But, regardless, the Constitution requires a "natural-born" American, not a "native-born" citizen. At all times in the Republic, the children of American citizens are automatically American citizens at birth. Natural-born refers to being normally born an American citizen, which happens by one of two ways: blood or soil. He did not have to naturalize (no one born abroad to American citizens has to), therefore by nature, he is a citizen.
I read this on
February 28, 2008 - 14:47 ET by RebelSlate a couple of weeks ago it was on Ballot Box the Liberal Democrats were runing thier mouths about this.
GO WVU
Never vote for Byrd
Does "natural-born" mean no
February 28, 2008 - 15:48 ET by j. frank wilsonDoes "natural-born" mean no Cesarean? Was McCain from his mother's womb untimely ripped?
Yes
February 28, 2008 - 18:42 ET by celatorYes it does. Also, the docs are allowed to use only bottled water during the medical procedure.
Liberal's Basic Rule For Discourse: I don't care if you agree with my premises, but I demand that you agree with my conclusions.
Okay, let me get this
February 28, 2008 - 14:41 ET by KillgraveOkay, let me get this straight... the MSM would fall all over itself claiming that a baby born from illegal immigrants would/should be a 100%, natural-born American citizen... but now, purely for a cheap-shot, they want to suggest that McCain isn't?
Ever heard the expression "Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds?"
Quite the MSM Dilemma
February 28, 2008 - 14:43 ET by YahooWatcherThe MSM and it's left wing base love immigrants, but now there might be one running for POTUS. What to do?
CNN did it too
February 28, 2008 - 14:53 ET by KrisAmerican Morning on CNN made hay of this as well. They put up a poll question related to this, asking if those who are born outside of the US should be able to become President. Yes, this must be a slow news day indeed.
It's a rather silly
February 28, 2008 - 15:07 ET by Hero SquadIt's a rather silly question worded that way. If I vote yes, does that mean I think that, say, Vladimir Putin could run for U.S. president?
If I vote no, does that mean I think mcCain doesn't qualify?
What do I answer if I think that anyone who is born to U.S. citizens should be eligible to become president, regardless of where they were born?
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
It does illustrate..
February 28, 2008 - 18:45 ET by celatorThat the issue has legs which have carried it even this far illustrates beyond doubt the invincible ignorance of the MSM.
Liberal's Basic Rule For Discourse: I don't care if you agree with my premises, but I demand that you agree with my conclusions.
Okay, so the MSM wants to
February 28, 2008 - 14:54 ET by KillgraveOkay, so the MSM wants to open the box of birth legitimacy.. let's bring it on.
Let's see... they elected a guy both in 1992 and 1996 whose father basically pumped and jumped. Now they're trying to elect another guy whose daddy did the same thing (but he was considerate enough to impart skin pigmentation to his offspring, thus making him the most "hip" and exciting candidate this country has ever seen since Alan Cranston).
Great, MSM, bring it...
It's a no brainer, perfect for the NYT
February 28, 2008 - 15:07 ET by 10thAmendmentHe was born a citizen of the United States of America. He was never made a citizen. He was born a citizen. Therefore he is a natrual born citizen. The constiution never specifies that you must be born within the borders.
A similar argument was made, and shot down, in 1964 because Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before it became a state. But he was born a citizen of the USA.
Really it's just the NYT dumping on the military again. After all, who but a leftist would say that you can't be president because your parents were serving in defense of their nation at the time of your birth. Sounds like a slap to me.
If this is the best they can come up with - we're in.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Is it too much to ask of the NYT...to know the Constitution
February 28, 2008 - 15:55 ET by JayTeeIs it too much to ask, that the NTY read the Constituttion before trying to Interpret it ?
I guess they probably Read the little Red book by Mao....but they really need to expand their horizons, or they're gonna lose some more readers.
JayTee... You got to be
February 28, 2008 - 16:03 ET by Clear thinkerJayTee...
You got to be kidding, the NYT's read the Constitution? That would be blasphemy to those pinko idiots.
"Abstain from McCain"
sORrY ClEAr I was HOPING for CHANGE
February 28, 2008 - 16:08 ET by JayTeeI was caught up in the Hope for Change in the NYTimes's way of thinking.
My brother and sister were
February 28, 2008 - 15:21 ET by dabalMy brother and sister were both born in France on a US Air Force base. They are dual-citizens of both the USA and France. For years, my brother couldn't visit France, or he'd have ended up in their military. :-)
“The requirements for
February 28, 2008 - 15:29 ET by chessplayer“The requirements for citizenship and the very definition thereof have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first extended citizenship to children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: “And 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.”[1][2] This was addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case as a form of naturalization.[3] The Dred Scott case, however, was overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. The Fourteenth Amendment mentions two types of citizenship: citizenship by birth and citizenship by law (naturalized citizens): “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.”
“Current State Department policy reads: “Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”[6]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen
"The Canal Zone was
February 28, 2008 - 15:33 ET by chessplayer"The Canal Zone was considered sovereign US territory until President Jimmy Carter returned it to Panama."
We leased the Canal Zone. A 99 year lease, I believe. It was never our territory. I have a lease on my apartment, but I don`t own it.
The NYT's must have only
February 28, 2008 - 15:52 ET by bassndudeThe NYT's must have only idiots on their staff. Constitutional illiterates. The fact that they havent an idea of the difference between a natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen is pure stupidity, on their part. And ABC to, to even give this any air time. They are the NYT dupes.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
McCain and the border
February 29, 2008 - 00:05 ET by Conservative VoiceSo he was born outside of the border, he was able to sneak in...maybe that is why he likes the border to be so open :) /sarc
The Zonian Candidate
February 29, 2008 - 01:00 ET by BritcomWe have been debating this subject all week here >> at NB and then the story got picked up by the MSM and quickly spread world wide.
I think we started the ball rolling.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
Correction: Military Installations Not Part of the US
February 29, 2008 - 11:51 ET by BritcomAccording to the US State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual:
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
A Tragedy
April 26, 2008 - 23:08 ET by scottwwwA Tragedy
What happens if legal action is brought against John McCain that reaches the Supreme Court?
Whether or not the court would decide in favor or against McCain's "natural born Citizen" status, it is a no-win situation. It would be very ugly for the nation either way.
The U.S. Constitution has been redefined too often, by the U.S. Congress, by the President of the United States, and by the Supreme Court of the United States! What part of government will stand up to the revisionists?
Even worse (only for the short term as measured in years) would be John McCain's removal from office after being elected. What if he were sworn into the office of the president by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, then later the case were heard in the court? It would be difficult for that court to rule against what they already endorsed by giving him the oath of office. And his first act in taking the oath is to break.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
We already know that many in the U.S. Congress would rather blot out much of the U.S. Constitution in favor of their own words. It will likely come from the citizenry if this undermining of the U.S. Constitution is to be put down.
The discussion continues at http://PanamaJohn.do... with opinion, historical documents, and more.
PanamaJohn
Sane judges would toss a challenge to McCain's citizenship
April 26, 2008 - 23:20 ET by nkviking75Since there are thousands, if not millions, of Americans who were born abroad to a member of the U.S. military, I expect most courts would toss this in a heartbeat. Of course, there are some radical lefty judges who'd rule according to their agenda, not the law. If the suit somehow stayed alive, look for the appeal process to be fastracked. Perhaps the Supreme Court would take the rare step of skipping over most of the appeal process and taking this case for quick disposition. If it comes to that, I hope the Supreme Court could slap a significant penalty on the plaintiffs for bringing a frivolous lawsuit creating such a major disruption.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Natural Born Panamanian John McCain
April 27, 2008 - 00:59 ET by BritcomThe Constitution says no one can become president who wasn't born within the incorporated borders of the United States. McCain doesn't meet that test. Period.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has a duty to balk at swearing in a Panamanian born Citizen. The US Constitution demands it. (That is, if that document means anything anymore; it does to me, if it doesn't to you, then don't count yourself among the conservatives.)
---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"
(sigh)
April 27, 2008 - 03:20 ET by UnsaneThe Constitution says no one can become president who wasn't born within the incorporated borders of the United States. Then you will have no problem whatsoever showing me where that is written in the said document. And I am sure then that you will have no problem, as a taxpayer, with flying home thousands, if not millions, of pregnant American women who are near-term every single year (the wives of, say, diplomats and military personnel) to give birth in this country, IF what you say is true.
`The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has a duty to balk at swearing in a Panamanian born Citizen. Except that John McCain, like millions of military brats for whom apparently you hold the deepest contempt for, is an American citizen. You seem to have extreme difficulty understanding this concept. Just grab hold of your nearest brat. They will explain it to you no problem. Oh, and by the way, please show me where it is written that the Chief Justice is the sole individual who is responsible for swearing in the President.
That is, if that document means anything anymore; it does to me, except that in your case, it doesn't. You haven't the first clue about the Constitution and all of your temper-tantrum throwing shows me this in spades. Besides, who are YOU to determine who is conservative and who isn't? Based on your past posts, you are much more of an anarchist than an conservative.
Besides, all of this ranting and screaming on your part is nothiung more and nothing less than your inability to accept that your Populist Hero LOST the primaries. (Huckabee, by the way, isn't a conservative: conservatives don't raise taxes. He did.) Maybe you should face that reality squarely instead of wishing to punish countless American families across the world who are out serving their country in various capacities, all because your Populist Hero LOST.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
McCain lover Unsane comes out of the woodwork
April 27, 2008 - 03:53 ET by BritcomThe Constitution says no one can become president who wasn't born within the incorporated borders of the United States. Then
you will have no problem whatsoever showing me where that is written in
the said document. And I am sure then that you will have no problem,
as a taxpayer, with flying home thousands, if not millions, of pregnant
American women who are near-term every single year (the wives of, say,
diplomats and military personnel) to give birth in this country, IF
what you say is true.
`The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has a duty to balk at swearing in a Panamanian born Citizen. Except
that John McCain, like millions of military brats for whom apparently
you hold the deepest contempt for, is an American citizen. You seem to
have extreme difficulty understanding this concept. Just grab hold of
your nearest brat. They will explain it to you no problem. Oh, and by
the way, please show me where it is written that the Chief Justice is
the sole individual who is responsible for swearing in the President.
That is, if that document means anything anymore; it does to me, except
that in your case, it doesn't. You haven't the first clue about the
Constitution and all of your temper-tantrum throwing shows me this in
spades. Besides, who are YOU to determine who is conservative and who
isn't? Based on your past posts, you are much more of an anarchist
than an conservative.
Besides, all of this ranting and screaming on your part is nothiung
more and nothing less than your inability to accept that your Populist
Hero LOST the primaries.
(Huckabee, by the way, isn't a conservative:
conservatives don't raise taxes. He did.) Maybe you should face that
reality squarely instead of wishing to punish countless American
families across the world who are out serving their country in various
capacities, all because your Populist Hero LOST.
---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"
Britcom the Temper Tantrum throwing crybaby
April 28, 2008 - 07:10 ET by UnsaneI have tried to show you several times, but your answer is you don't trust me or even the government sites I link to that show you what the law and the Constitution say on the subject. You haven't even begun to make the effort. Show me in your own words. One day, I will force you to think critically. So I have come to the conclusion that you are in denial well, whining that "You're (Unsane) in denial" only shows me you are a mental midget with absolutely no capability of facing my arguments squarely on your own. All you REALLY need to do, instead of resorting to websites of potentially dubious scholarship that I cannot properly evaluate in ANY case, is to quote for me from the Constitution itself, for starters.
Hell, I am STILL waiting on you to show me where in the Constitution it says that the county Sheriff is the highest law enforcement official anywhere in the land. Not a peep from you about that. Wonder why?
. Anyone else interested in what the law says can click on the link at the bottom of my post. "Because, I, Britcom, can't think for myself."
Sure McCain is a US citizen, (for the tenth time I've said this) that is NOT in dispute. You just contradicted yourself. Earlier in the thread you call him a Panamanian. Excuse me while I asphxyiate myself with oxygen, consumed with innocent guilt. Not every US citizen can meet the US Constitution's Natural Born test to qualify for President. Millions of military brats, among them people like John McCain, DO. As I have stated above, you must have some serious contempt and hatred for the children of military families and those who work in other government capacities overseas (like diplomats.) All because you are throwing a hissy fit because your Populist Hero LOST.
Allow me to address another of your idiotic accusations for a moment. If I "love" McCain, please explain why I voted for Romney. I'm going to vote for McCain because I sure as all hell will not back Socialists. And just who the hell else am I going to vote for anyway?
HA! If I sound like an anarchist, then you must be a loon. I am NOT a C$1 coin. Anyways, you DO sound like an anarchist. You are positively ENRAGED that we have law enforcement officials that act to enforce the laws. Did I not see a post by you some days ago where you exploded, via ConspiroNetDaily (remember: you simply cannot think for yourself), about the polygamists winding up in legal trouble in TX? Yeah, heaven help us! Society has STANDARDS!!! Oh no!!! (And that's just ONE example.)
I think you have Huckabee confused with Populist Hero Al (the sky is falling!) Gore. Nope. Gore is a Left leaning populist. Huckabee is a Right leaning populist. And Huckabee HAS to be a populist, because he certainly is not a conservative.
He's more conservative than you are HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh, Britcom, thanks for the laugh of the day! Huckabee lets criminals out of the Slam early, whereas I find that abhorrent. Huckabee has raised taxes; conservatives don't (on paper anyways) raise taxes. Oh, and his foreign policy, which he personally articulated in Foreign Affairs, is painfully naive. Really...apply The Golden Rule to our enemies? What kind of nonsense is THAT? Now, your homework assignment is to show me how Huckabee is more conservative than I am. This ought to be great for a laugh!
; and what makes you think the definition of conservative has something to do with tax policy? See, as if you never tire of showing me what a political idiot you are, you give me that gem. Tax policy is a part of conservatism. That is part of what made Reagan great (the fact that he cut taxes).
Anyone who wants to get rid of the IRS and the Income Tax is a friend of the Taxpayer. Not me. You may be HAPPY paying 30-31% of taxes on everything you buy, but rest assured I am not. My wallet, and millions of others, will slam shut and stay shut. Congratulations, you have just slit the throat of the economy by attacking "C". This is what you Unfair Tax types don't get and never will get. And perhaps you can show me a single nation on earth that ONLY gets its money from screwing the poor - er, I mean, sales taxes?
Anyone who wants to keep the IRS Gestapo is a Nazi. When All Else Fails, Argue Like A Leftist ("WAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!! NAZI! NAZI!! NAZI! NAZI! NAZI! NAZI!"). Pathetic, even for you.
Of course, you won't and can't call me a Nazi to my face because you and I both know what will happen to you, especially considering the fact that I am supporting and defending the right for you to throw complete online temper tantrums.
One, as much as this will break your heart, there will ALWAYS be an IRS. The one I want, after we change the tax code to read that ONLY 15-17% of incomes will be taxed with NO loopholes or exemptions or penalties, will feature an IRS of MAYBE 100 people in DC.
And it is so great seeing you call every law enforcement agency under the sun "Gestapo". What, crybaby? Is every law enforcement agency in the land just supposed to issue Valentine's Day cards to get their point across? Is the government just supposed to say "PRETTY PLEASE WITH LOTS OF SUGAR ON TOP, PAY YOUR TAXES?"
I can't wait to see how you behave when state or local cops pull you over for any offense.
The problem I have with the IRS is that the tax code is so wretchedly complicated that the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing there. Hence I prefer tax simplification.
So, little boy, do try to have a nice day, and please think of me and my fellow personnel on the 17th, and on 11 November, and think of the fallen on Memorial Day. And just accept your Populist Hero LOST, and deservedly so (he was a crappy candidate), and that you will just have to try again in 4/8 years.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Scott... I was wondering
April 26, 2008 - 23:29 ET by bigtimerScott...
I was wondering it you knew if the Senator for Missouri... McCaskill (?) and Obama hurried that bill or amendment through the Senate on making sure McCain qualified as a citizen...it was semi big news in the msm quite awhile back...and Obama couldn't wait at the time, let alone the other leftists of all stations of importance in life.
Thanks.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Doesn't seem like a hit piece to me
April 27, 2008 - 14:28 ET by Matthew VadumThe Constitution lays out in Article II that "No person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President."
No one argues that John McCain is not a U.S. citizen.
The discussion here is about this special extra hurdle –the “natural born” requirement— that the U.S. Constitution requires someone to jump if he is running for U.S. president.
People don’t seem to know what exactly “natural born” means.
I’m sure the NYT and the “Early Show” have plenty of experience preparing hit pieces against Republicans, but I’m not so sure that this is an example of one – and even if it is, the subject is a legitimate topic worthy of exploration.
—Matthew Vadum is Editor of Organization Trends and Foundation Watch, two monthly newsletters published by Capital Research Center