Saturday, December 06, 2008

[mc cain] where does he stand on eligibility



A quote:

""United States Code
""Title 8 Aliens and Nationality
""CHAPTER 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
""SUBCHAPTER III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
""Article PART I - NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION
""Section 1403 - Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904

(a) 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.

(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama 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 employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.


A further comment:

I was born in Christobar Canal Zone, hospital. But, My Birth Certificate says I was born in Colon, Republic of Panama. Coco Solo Naval Base Hospital in the Canal Zone was not built when McCain was born in 1936, it was built during WWII. He was most likely born in the same Hospital that I was. If his parents did not go the the America Consult in Panama and register his birth using Form No.240a when he was born he is not US Citizen. There are a lot of "rules" covering US Citizen whos chrildren were born over seas. Which I will not cover here. Mark my words that if he win the election in 2008 then Democrates will take it to Court.

Using the same law source as the one which disqualified Obama, here is what it says about McCain's situation:

May 25, 1934 to January 12, 1941 If you were born between May 25, 1934 and January 12, 1941, you acquired U.S. citizenship at birth if both your parents were U.S. citizens and at least one lived in the United States before you were born. You didn't have to do anything special to keep your U.S. citizenship.
You could also get U.S. citizenship if only one of your parents was a U.S. citizen, as long as that parent lived in the United States at some time. If your U.S. citizenship came from only one parent, you would have been required to reside in the United States for at least two years between the ages of 14 and 28 in order to retain your citizenship. If the one U.S. citizen parent was your father and you were born outside of marriage, the same rules applied if your father legally legitimated you.

McCain was born in 1936. Now click on the fragment below for a clearer view of the law at the time:

and this section [click again]:


From that, it seems that McCain's parents did not have a pro-active obligation to register him in the Canal Zone, at that time, in order for him to be "natural born". The grounds were that both parents were U.S. citizens at the time. Let's look at if they were.

John S. McCain Jr
Roberta McCain

The only question mark here is whether a Mexican wedding constitutes marriage under U.S. law and whether John McCain, their son, was therefore legitimate:

In Mexico, only civil marriage is recognized as legal. Persons wishing to do so may also have a religious ceremony, but this is without legal effect and in no way replaces the obligatory civil marriage. A civil wedding in Mexico is fully valid for legal purposes in the U.S., but a religious ceremony without the civil ceremony is not, as U.S. law only recognizes marriages which are valid in the country in which they take place. This point is an especially important one for couples planning on applying for an immigrant visa for one of them who is not a U.S. citizen. Without the civil ceremony, an application for a visa on the basis of the religious marriage will not be accepted.

That seems to be that.

What next?

As Obama, by any definition, is ineligible, my feeling is that they will bludgeon him through to January, as they did with Nixon and he will, in fact, become the President. The parallels with 1972-4 are striking and I'll go into those further down the page.

When he is finally forced to stand down, an unprecedented situation on this count, then the question is whether the election itself is also invalidated. As this will come down to opinion, it will be the Reps and Senate who would surely decide that, under advice from the judiciary.

As they are overwhelmingly Democrat, even given a number of moral Dems who might cross the floor, it would probably be voted in that Biden be the President for the remainder of that term. I can't see it going to the situation where the GOP and Dems each put up candidates [along with some independents] who are voted for in the house.

The question then becomes whether Obama would be eligible for Vice-President. Even the Dems couldn't do that, surely, and would approve a third candidate.

Hillary?

The GOP would argue, of course, that as McCain is legit and Obama not, that the election go to McCain by default. That would take some fighting.

Nixon

I was young at the time and remember the Watergate break-in coming on the radio. For two days it dominated the airwaves and then seemed to fade from the MSM. Even at that point it seemed to me that that must disqualify Nixon from re-election.

Not a bit of it.

Just like the Blair/Brown hoodwinking of the British people later, the Americans were enthralled by Nixon and he had a landslide win, ably assisted by the dirty tricks of Segretti and others but more in the choice of the Democrat opponent.

I was stunned at the American people at that time, wondering how they could be so blind. The issue eventually became: "How much did Nixon know and when did he know it?"

Here's the smoking gun transcript. Note the date.

So, Woodstein made their moves and as the only things you heard and read were what the MSM let you hear and read in those days, it seemed that they were the great unveilers.

Actually, the shovel work had been done by the FBI and though Deep Throat was one factor, for sure, the FBI itself had the goods on Nixon. The only question, with Obama, is whether the FBI coughs up and breaks the people from their deep slumber or whether they don't.

In 1997 when Smith died of a "heart attack" and Blairown took power in a tidal wave of blandishments, it was clear that corruption was about to grip the British people. Same when Nixon was re=elected. Same now if the Dark Lord gets bludgeoned through, regardless.

13 comments:

  1. LOL@'That seems to be that.'
    So,John McCain well and truly is a bastard?

    ReplyDelete
  2. US law seems to recognize Mexican weddings as legit as long as they were civil weddings there.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, but did they meet the document requirement to have a civil ceremony?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Seems so. No one seems to have raised that one, even from the Obama camp.

    ReplyDelete
  5. My mom was born in Mexico, right outside of Juarez, in 1933, both her parents were natural-born US citizens, and she was considered a citizen from birth with no difficulties.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "As Obama, by any definition, is ineligible,"

    You missed the one good cylinder... born in Hawaii (even if you won't show the original) means you are a US citizen at least until they change the law again.

    Not sure about McCain being a bastard, but I do know a bitch.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Quick point James- John Smith died in 1994 not 1997.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There seems to be a lot of rumblings that Obama's Kenyan connection is a distraction from his Indonesian one.
    As Barry Soetoro he was studying more indepth fundamentalist Islamic scriptures than his 'I went to a Muslem school' would indicate.
    His nationality on his birth certificate,re-issued when he was adopted by his step-father was listed as Indonesian with his religion being Muslem.

    When he returned to U.S to live with grandparents he was legally required to go through immigration procedures to become 'naturalized',yet we know that at 20 he travelled to Indonesia at a time when it was closed off to American citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Lord Nazh - as you just saw in the previous post - Obama was not born in Hawaii. All cylinders are in fact firing.

    Tiberius - yes we all know that but it wasn't expressed clearly enough. I assumed people would know that this referred to the accession of Blairown, which of course preceded the election by some time.

    The Indonesian one is more problematic for him but in the end, the immigration law of the time trumps all of it. He wasn't eligible through his mother.

    People might go back and read that bit again.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I saw lots of conjecture in the previous post James, not a whit of actual fact to show though :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. If he was born in Hawaii, and is a natural born American citizen,he would not risk the usual sanctions that come with being in non-compliance of a court order nevermind allowing the matter being kept alive, giving people reason to investigate even further ino his past.
    NOT an American citizen!

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Maybe, not even Barrack Obama." What? Is there a spare supply of highly capable half-East African-half White men available to use as ringers?

    Proposition - there is something terribly embarrassing on his birth certificate. It may be that it shows him to be ineligible, or perhaps it's embarrassing in some other way. The latter is harder to believe now that his grandmother can no longer be embarrassed.

    ReplyDelete