Could be the reason he doesn’t produce the records is that he doesn’t have a birth certificate. Being born in a country that requires a British certificate doesn’t mean you have a birth certificate.

Maybe he was born at home in a foreign country and maybe that country does not give birth certificates to people born at home. Maybe that foreign country only gives birth certificates to people born in hospitals. OR……… MAYBE that foreign country only gives birth certificates to PEOPLE, not things like BO.

Reply

We should set the media aside for the moment and hold another source accountable…

Why doesn’t the McCain campaign camp demand this information and bring it out in the open?

Reply

I truly believe this man was born in Kenya. If not, the media would be happy to crow about this lawsuit being racist. This is frightening; how this man is held accountable for nothing.

What is going on with our country?

Reply

You Go … Mr. Berg!

Let’s get to the truth. I think you’re on it … and I’m thankful.

Reply

Its sad that if this is true and it most likely is, the integrity of the United States of America is decaying from the inside out. In this world of political correctness, nothing can be said about Obama because of his race, though people will deny this.

Obama will run around the courts and hold this up till the elections have passed. Maybe then the Democratic Senate will use their puppet in the White House (name soon to change, you know why) to pass legislation changing the US Constitution and inserting a grandfather clause that would make Obama legit to have run for office.

People really don’t understand that Obama will just be a puppet of Congress if he is elected.

Reply

I am so distressed. I keep sending information to Hannity because he is the only one who will take Obama on. Hannity’s email is: hannity@foxnews.com If you have anything you want him to bring up send it to him, if you really feel it is true.
Or just email him and thank him for what he is doing and tell him to keep on reporting on Obama.
If you google: Obama Gamaliel Wright Ayers you will find out some more information that explains more about Obama.
It is all a conspiracy to get him elected, and the only thing he will know how to do, is take every right from us and make us helpless, and that will be the beginning of the end of our nation as we know it. I am so damn mad that people are so stupid to fall for him ,that I cannot see straight. I am 71 years old, supported Hillary, and spend a lot of time trying to find something that will nail Obama, because I worry about my children and grandchildren. I found out that Axelrod and Plouffe(O’s campaign managers) have another company called ASK, with a very large influential client list, thus Obama’s cash and connections. Then I found that Axelrod is on Fr. Pfleger’s fundraising board at St. Sabina Catholic Church, which gives more connections to raise money. Mayor Daley is Chairman of the committee, if I am reading this correctly. It just goes on and on and on, he is so corrupt.

Obama is supposed to go to Hawaii because his grandmother broke her hip last week. My father died from a blood clot caused by a broken hip. If he really cared, I believe he would have dropped everything and made a beeline for Hawaii.
I’ll be watching the Dept. of VITAL STATISTICS.

Reply

This lawsuit is hilarious, at least in basis. I don’t know what, if anything, Obama is hiding, but this guy is a moron or he’s using this for his own gain or personal agenda, like being a huge Mccain supporter.

Legally, you’re a naturally born citizen (defined as citizen by birth by law) if both parents an American citizen at the time of your birth, regardless of where you are born. Look it up just about anywhere, it’s not hard to find information. If this Berg wants to dispute his status, he’d need to go after Obama’s parents’ citizenship status as well. As most people should realize, your parents’ citizenship is not on your birth certificate!

This guy’s getting a ton of attention–high profiles cases are lifeblood for attorneys, no matter how they turn out–and god knows how much money (he’s got a donation thing on his site).

For those who need proof, it’s article C under our own code of laws here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

Reply

As we read up on this topic of Obama’s birth certificate, I’ve seen one forensics expert’s technical analysis that seems to create a strong doubt (but not necessarily proof, I’m not an expert on that legal difference) or suspicion that the “Certification of Live Birth” presented by Obama’s campaign is not legitimate. If anyone cares to see that, I found it at (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html). [NOTE - most of the analysis is on page 1, with some occasional new bits on pages 2 & 3, and more on page 4, but be warned that pages 2-4-1/2 are a lot of "he said" "she said" back and forth, too]

My question is this – we’re 2 weeks away from the presidential vote. If we play out some of the what-if’s, and Obama does not release his authenticate original birth certificate before the election, there is a real possibility of a Constitutional crisis.

1) McCain (or others) contest authenticity in court at 11th hour (since stonewalled to date) – it is possible that the election may need to be delayed. So who is President until new elections held?
2) Same as #1, and court finds Obama not eligible – again, elections delayed, but will the the conventions need to be rerun? And who is President in the meantime?
3) In any scenario, assume stonewalling continues, and election continues forward. If Obama wins, what happens if he is found ineligible before Inauguration? Who is President until new elections held – Biden? Pelosi? Bush?
4) Same as #3, but Obama continues to stonewall until after Inauguration. If found ineligible, I am certain Biden becomes President (same as if President removed from office for any other reason). BUT, it is possible, albeit remotely, that entire election process for the year could be invalidated by the courts. IF that happens, then I belief Pelosi is President until new elections held – correct?

My guess is US Supreme Court will need to get involved here at some point in this process – I hope sooner rather than later!

Here’s another kicker – with our country so divided on this election, and from what I’ve been reading on some of the more liberal forums and boards, there are threats and plans to riot if Obama either doesn’t win outright or loses in a court decision! The assumption on those boards is that “if Obama loses, then its only because the election was stolen – AGAIN! We can’t let that happen!” (yes, that’s a direct quote).

I would like to know from any Constitutional followers what they think would happen in my #1 – 4 scenarios about about who would be President and what would happen according to the Constitution and any existing legal precedences.

Thanks!

Independent in Chicago

Reply

Well to answer your 4 scenarios, I think it would be kind of like forfeiting a game because you don’t have enough players. The other team wins. And if #1 or 2 occurs, President Bush would still be President until at least late January. So that gives enough time for another election if the forfeiture idea doesn’t fly with the Supreme Court. I am afraid that #4 would just put Biden in as POTUS. Which reminds me, Why should we be ok with Biden as VP when even the Dems have rejected him twice to be POTUS. That doesn’t make any sense to me. He barely go 9,000 votes in the Democratic Primaries this time around.

Reply

Hey folks

I was concerned (a little bit, anyway) as i dont trust the media and that barak is just too different to be legit.

But then I went to the site that originally published the birth cert (yes it’s out!), and found that it all seems on the up and up.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

check it out and….c’mon already. get over it. a non-white guy could well be president and no amount of cyber-blabber makes unfounded claims true: he ain’t a muslim (as if that would disqualify him. Muslims are are good people anyway! I have known many and I say most are kind-hearted and more serious about their religous teachings than the average person in the U.S.). Yes, even though we don’t know every detail about him can he really be worse than Bush and the neo-conservatives (who really aren’t conservative at all–having turned us from the largest creditor nation to the biggest debtor nation).

if Sean Hanity isn’t jumping on it you know it’s far out right wing whacko bs.

Reply

Well, I am fed up with these Obama lovers. I have been trying to preach a more collective attitude no matter who wins. Like lets stand together and work this out, but I have been hit with this negative and sometimes violent vibe from the Obama lovers, they tell me that they will burn this country to the ground if Obama loses. I am not afraid of these people in the physical sense and actually dream of the day this may happen. I live in Santa Cruz, CA where the libs don’t eat meat or potatos so I don’t think they will fair well in an honest fight. Most of the Libs out here are looking for a handout and will probably need to get somone else to do the actual fighting. I guess this pent up anger comes from living in the middle of a melting pot.

Reply

OKAY G MAN….if the birth certificate is real and not forged why won’t they produce it??!! That makes no sense whatsoever and you know it. However, I won’t attack your right to vote for him if you like…because my son, a United States Marine, is fighting for those rights for you. Unfortunately, he is also fighting for people that should be in jail like Bill Ayers to remain free. Obama did have connections with Bill Ayers and Bill Ayers did have a campaign fundraiser for Obama. Obama’s connection with Bill Ayers would disqualify him from being in any type of law enforcement has anyone thought of that? It is absolutely amazing to me that people will us their vote to vote against a republican no matter who the candidate it. It saddens me greatly…for all of us especailly for my son who’s life could depend on your vote. Vote for the man who actually know what a war hero is and what no man left behind really means.

Reply

I bet Obama is not going to Hawaii to see his grandmother but going there to have a birth document forged and figure out how he could lie about the hospital he was born in…

Reply

I can’t believe how much he has gotten away with, compared to McCain/Palin. And that ridiculous Biden gets a pass for every stupid thing that comes out of his mouth. It’s sickening. I really hope there’s evidence to this.

Reply

this is just amazing that people voting for obama do not see this. he was born a child of Islam. he cannot produce a birth certificate because there is none. if you were born in the US, you can always obtain one if lost.

the reason you aren’t hearing about this is because the media which is super liberal are sliding it under the table – trying to keep it hush. something like this which is on it’s way to federal court has some pretty powerful entities doing the coverup. i’m sure the mccain/palin party is all over this… or on their way to be

come on Americans. wake up! this man is in relations with radical/religious people, he’s hiding his true identity and the thing that makes hairs stand up on the back of my neck are… the hijackers of 911 were very patient when schooling and planning out the attacks – taking years. and remember the threat that we (America) would be surprised and what we would encounter next – we’ve had spies betray entire families without revealing their true identity and infiltrating the CIA, etc. what makes anyone think this couldn’t be done to bring America down? scary thought

Reply

My guess is he’s going to see granny and, on her death bed, reveals the secret that he was born in Kenya. He will then announce that he had no idea and will withdraw from the race.

Reply

His going to Hawaii is a way for him to gracefully get himself out of this mess without being prosecuted for being a fruad. My guess is he’s going to see granny and, on her death bed, she reveals the “secret” to him that he was born in Kenya. He will then announce that he had no idea that was the case, that his lying mother, father, and granny fooled him his whole life and he will withdraw from the race for the sake of the party and the nation.

Reply

so with no birth certificate, how did he get a social security card to work? surely he needed one for other things… are was it fake all along and someone was breeding him for where he is now?

and yes, if he has to pull out or say he is elected and there are concerns he might be assassinated (pray that does not happen) there would be mass rioting because blacks would say it was a racist thing… i fear the worst is ahead and it’s goona tear our country apart even more. i really wish we could all find our way to a middle ground. i am a republican but i’m not so far right that i don’t see the left.

Reply

His going to Hawaii is a way for him to gracefully get himself out of this mess without being prosecuted for being a fraud. My guess is he’s going to see granny and, on her death bed, she reveals the “secret” to him that he was born in Kenya

That’s a very good theory Stu.

Reply

one quuestion me need to look at is .. if the birth certicate is genuine, why did he confess that he was not a citizen of the united states, that he was born in kenya and to this date still is??

Reply

good question carol and thank you admin for your response.

being that he is a nominee for president, these shouldn’t even be a question. i am not so much looking at the validity of the birth certificate as shown on utube and such. i am more interested in the timeline he was out of this country and to when he was born? if his dad was not a U.S. citizen and Osama was born out of this country, he is not a legit citizen.

Reply

and why isn’t this even being talked about on FOX? i am confused ????? and worried

Reply

In 2005, this attorney, Philip Berg, was fined $10,000 for unethical conduct and ordered to take ethics classes by a U.S. Federal judge.
In January 2007, he issued a letter to ‘all nations’, calling on them to arrest Bush and Cheney and charge them with 2,800 counts of murder..one for each person who died at the World Trade Center. Read the entire letter at

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0701/S00076.htm
.
I’d love for the Obama rumor to be true. But, in the past, Berg’s also sued Condaleeza Rice, Homeland Security and the Republican National Committee. He’s merely an attention-seeking lunatic and we’re wasting our time and hopes to believe anything

Reply

If his body was dropped on a visit, as appears may be true, and registered in Honolulu upon his mom’s return to her home there, it is the same scenario as McCain’s birth in Panama. the details of his dual citizenship, via his dad, expiring in ‘82 at his 21st bday….combined with the Kenya release from UK, defaults him back. this is convoluted, like his whole life, which may be one of the GREAT reasons he will successfully be an Ambassador of Hope to the world on behalf of restoring the USA to some kind of dignity and world favor after such total demolition as we have experienced in the last 8 years. We need to be grateful for what destiny has provided and get over this red herring stew McCain is so desparate to serve, having truly lost the election. The upset would NOT be racial, it would be a literal uprising against was has been an utter usurption of the people’s voice for too long. If everyone WANTED to work this out, they surely could. Many presidents in the early years UNDER the contstitution btw—–we NOT born in the USA. Schwartzeneger should arguably NOT be in office, and potentially mentioned in the past the desire for presidency. That is a pointless segway, but consider the center of the Heart of the Matter. The people are speaking!

Reply

The Panmanchurian Candidate: McCain INELIGIBLE
THE PANAMANCHURIAN CANDIDATE:

Why John McCain is INELIGIBLE to be President of the United States

Introduction

The question has been raised of the citizenship on John McCain in terms of his eligibility to be President. Please follow this VERY closely, as it is lengthy, but it shows that he is NOT eligible to be President; therefore he should be disqualified, decertified, and removed from all present and future Presidential ballots. His past results should be disallowed as well and all of his committed delegates unbound. The usual disclaimer of “I am not lawyer; this is not legal advice and should not be taken as such, etc.” applies. Don’t just take this document’s word for it: verify these facts. Resource citations are at the end.

Please note that all references to “citizen” and “citizenship” refer to United States citizens and United States citizenship, respectively.

To properly answer this eligibility question, several areas need to be examined: what the Constitution says on the issue, what the federal law says on the issue, what the federal regulatory policy is on the issue, and the legal status of John McCain’s place of birth. All of this, taken together, will determine what makes him eligible to be President, or not.

The Constitution

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:

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.

Amendment 14, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution:

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.

From Article II, it is clear that to be President, one must be a “natural born” citizen.

From the 14th Amendment, a citizen is a person either born or naturalized in the United States—not both, as they are mutually exclusive, and there is no third type of citizenship.

To be complete, the first question to answer must be whether or not John McCain is, in fact, a citizen. The answer and its references also help answer the natural born question as well.

In legal circles, the Latin terms of reference are jus soli (“right of the soil”) for born in the United States, and jus sanguinis (“right of blood”) for born to citizen parents. Naturalization is referred to by lex soli (“law of the soil”). John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 to citizen parents, so jus sanguinis definitely applies to him, and is not in dispute here. But jus sanguinis has no basis in U.S. law (only jus soli and lex soli do under the 14th Amendment), except through applicable legislation such as the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (see the next section), so jus sanguinis falls under lex soli. To restate that, citizenship by bloodline is only done by legislation, which places citizenship by bloodline directly under naturalization. And therein lays the question: Is a citizen born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 a citizen under jus soli or lex soli (natural born or naturalized)?

The Untied States Code

A quick look at 8 USC 1400 appears to answers that question. That section of the United States Code comes directly from the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) of 1952, which was passed when McCain was 16 years of age. First, the citizenship question must be answered.

A look at 8 USC 1401(a) and (c) finds this:

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;

8 USC 1401(c) addresses births outside the United States, meaning clearly that the “born in the United States” clause of the 14th Amendment cannot apply to this form of citizenship. Therefore a person that falls under 8 USC 1401(c) has to be a naturalized citizen

A key point to note here is that the term “at birth” encompasses birth both inside the United States and outside it. That means that “at birth” has a larger scope of meaning than “natural born” or jus soli alone, and therefore must include at least some forms of naturalization (lex soli). These sections here are included to refute the common arguments made in favor of McCain’s eligibility (that “at birth” only means “natural born”, which is not necessarily true), but these sections do not apply to him at all in the first place. Instead, 8 USC 1403(a) does apply.

A look at 8 USC 1403(a) finds it addresses McCain’s situation rather clearly:

(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.

So it’s pretty clear that John McCain is a citizen. But is he a “natural born” (jus soli) citizen or a naturalized (lex soli) citizen?

Because 8 USC 1403(a) uses the phrase “is declared to be a citizen” (emphasis added), that leans heavily towards a lex soli position (naturalization). Actually, the fact that this section even exists implies naturalization since it was part of INA. Persons born to citizens between November 1903 (when Panama became independent from Colombia with United States intervention) and February 1904 are not declared citizens under this section, which indicates that the declaration of citizenship is simply naturalization and not citizenship by birth, since it is dependent upon the law and a calendar date.

Furthermore, “naturalization” is defined in 8 USC 1101(a)(23):

(a) As used in this chapter—
(23) The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.

In other words, naturalization means a person is made, conferred, or “declared” a citizen after birth, by legislation, leaving “natural born” to only mean becoming a citizen by birth, sans legislation. This is consistent with 8 USC 1403(a), which was enacted when John McCain was 16 years of age. So at age 16, John McCain was naturalized as a U.S. citizen by legislation, with that legislation being the INA.

This evidence of naturalization by itself is enough to disqualify John McCain from the Presidency. Yet, some will still claim he is “natural born” because he was born to citizen parents, so it becomes necessary to prove that he is not a “natural born” citizen, despite the fact that citizenship is an either-or (but not both) proposition in terms of “natural born” and “naturalized”.

“Natural Born”

The Supreme Court has never addressed the specifics of what is a “natural born” citizen, except once in passing, in the dissent of the infamous Dred Scott case, of all places, so it really has no bearing, since dissents are not binding law anyway. Other Supreme Court cases have looked at citizenship, but not specifically the “natural born” part of it.

Historically, the term “natural born” was put into Article II at the request of John Jay, in a letter dated 25 July 1787 to George Washington. (Jay later helped write the Federalist Papers, became the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and also pointed out in 1796 in Brailsford v. Georgia that jury nullification is a right and duty of the People.) The term is never defined anywhere in the United States code, either (nor should it be, for constitutional reasons!).

McCain has claimed that the Naturalization Act of 1790 (26 March 1790) covers his status as a “natural born” citizen. That is entirely not true. A close look at that Act indicates that it only covered “admission as a citizen”—meaning naturalization—and in any case, that Act was repealed in part on 29 January 1795, and the rest was repealed on 14 April 1802. So that argument does not work, because it was repealed long before McCain was born, and because it created naturalization instead of natural born citizenship were it still in effect.

Federal Policy

It turns out that the policy put forth by the State Department on citizenship—specifically, their Foreign Affairs Manual, in 7 FAM 1100—addresses the situation quite clearly:

7 FAM 1111.2 Citizenship

(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)

a. U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization.

b. U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles:

(1) Jus soli (the law of the soil), a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes.

(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline), a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed. (emphasis added)

7 FAM 1116.1-4 Not Included in the Meaning of “In the United States”

(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)

c. 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. (emphasis added)

So citizenship is either by birth, or by naturalization, according to 7 FAM 1111.2(a). Furthermore, the principle of jus sanguinis is NOT part of the law, except by statute (lex soli) according to 7 FAM 1111.2(b)(2).

McCain may put forth the argument that 7 FAM 1111.2(b)(2) indicates that one can be a natural born citizen through bloodline. However, that claim misses the point of that section, which is that citizenship by bloodline at birth is only recognizable IF the laws recognize it. As stated above, jus sanguinis is only recognized under lex soli. Congress never has had any power under the Constitution to define what “natural born” means—Congress’ power is restricted to naturalization (reference Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, and the 10th Amendment). Therefore, 7 FAM 1111.2(b)(2) refers to naturalization.

The regulation at 7 FAM 1116.1-4(c) puts forth the policy that a military installation abroad, or diplomatic or consular facilities aboard, are not part of the United States under the 14th Amendment; therefore, children born in those places must be naturalized in order to be considered citizens.

For 7 FAM 1116.1-4(c) to apply to John McCain, who claims to be born in a United States Military facility in the Panama Canal Zone, it must be shown that the Canal Zone was not “in the United States”.

That terminology is defined in 8 USC 1101(a)(38):

(38) The term “United States”, except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.

Note the Canal Zone is not listed. However, since the Canal Zone is no longer under United States control as of January 1, 2000, this is only an indicator, and it is not conclusive.

To get a better understanding of the status of the Canal Zone, the place to look is the relevant treaties. The first one is the Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty of 1903, which established the Canal Zone for the actual building of the Panama Canal. The second one is Torrijos-Carter Treaty of 1977, which transitioned control of the Canal Zone back to Panama by December 31, 1999.

Who Owned The Canal Zone?

Was the Canal Zone actually a territory under United States law, or was it just a leased area? To answer that question, refer to the original Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty of 1903, negotiated by Theodore Roosevelt and his Secretary of State, John Hay. Of note are both Article II and Article III:

Article II

The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity, the use, occupation and control of a zone of land and land under water for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of said Canal of the width of ten miles extending to the distance of five miles on each side of the center line of the route of the Canal to be constructed; the said zone beginning in the Caribbean Sea three marine miles from mean low water mark and extending to and across the Isthmus of Panama into the Pacific Ocean to a distance of three marine miles from mean low water mark with the proviso that the cities of Panama and Colon and the harbors adjacent to said cities, which are included within the boundaries of the zone above described, shall not be included within this grant. The Republic of Panama further grants to the United States in perpetuity, the use, occupation and control of any other lands and waters outside of the zone above described which may be necessary and convenient for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of the said Canal or of any auxiliary canals or other works necessary and convenient for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of the said enterprise.

The Republic of Panama further grants in like manner to the United States in perpetuity, all islands within the limits of the zone above described and in addition thereto, the group of small islands in the Bay of Panama, named Perico, Naos, Culebra and Flamenco.

Article III

The Republic of Panama grants to the United States all the rights, power and authority within the zone mentioned and described in Article II of this agreement, and within the limits of all auxiliary lands and waters mentioned and described in said Article II which the United States would possess and exercise, if it were the sovereign of the territory within which said lands and waters are located to the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power or authority.

In Article II, Panama grants the United States “the use, occupation and control of a zone of land and land under water” for the Canal. It does NOT say it cedes that land to the United States, nor does it say that Panama grants ownership of the land to the United States; only the use and control of it are granted. This is a lease, not a transfer of real estate; Panama still owned the land. Article III is exactly the same in nature, but it applies to auxiliary areas if Panama owns them. Read the sovereign clause carefully, as the “it” in there refers to Panama, not the United States.

Also of note is the resource use grant in Article IV:

Article IV

As rights subsidiary to the above grants the Republic of Panama grants in perpetuity, to the United States the right to use the rivers, streams, lakes and other bodies of water within its limits for navigation, the supply of water or waterpower or other purposes, so far as the use of said rivers, streams, lakes and bodies of water and the waters thereof may be necessary and convenient for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of the said Canal.

In other words, the landowner or lessor (Panama) granted water rights to the renter or lessee (United States).

Further, note the payment schedule in Article XIV:

Article XIV

As the price or compensation for the rights, powers and privileges granted in this convention by the Republic of Panama to the United States, the Government of the United States agrees to pay to the Republic of Panama the sum of ten million dollars ($10,000,000) in gold coin of the United States on the exchange of the ratification of this convention and also an annual payment during the life of this convention of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) in like gold coin, beginning nine years after the date aforesaid.

Article XIV never says these payments are compensation for the land, just the “rights, powers, and privileges” to use it. This is RENT.

One last part adds to the lease argument, Article XXV:

Article XXV

For the better performance of the engagements of this convention and to the end of the efficient protection of the Canal and the preservation of its neutrality, the Government of the Republic of Panama will sell or lease to the United States lands adequate and necessary for the naval or coaling stations on the Pacific coast and on the western Caribbean coast of the Republic at certain points to be agreed upon with the President of the United States.

If the United States owned the Canal Zone land, thereby making it a United States territory or possession, then this clause would not have been necessary, as they already could have built such stations within the Canal Zone.

It is clear from the original treaty that the Canal Zone was actually Panamanian land leased to the United States. The Torrijos-Carter Treaty of 1977 further backs this up:

Article I

2. In accordance with the terms of this Treaty and related agreements, the Republic of Panama, as territorial sovereign, grants to the United States of America, for the duration of this Treaty, the rights necessary to regulate the transit of ships through the Panama Canal, and to manage, operate, maintain, improve, protect and defend the Canal. The Republic of Panama guarantees to the United States of America the peaceful use of the land and water areas which it has been granted the rights to use for such purposes pursuant to this Treaty and related agreements.

Article 1, Section 2 of this treaty declares Panama to be the territorial sovereign, meaning they own the land and water, and they grant to the United States use of the land and water.

It is conclusive that the Panama Canal Zone was Panamanian sovereign land administered and operated under treaty by the United States, and that popular belief that the Canal Zone was a United States territory or possession is completely mistaken. This also is consistent with the State Department policy in 7 FAM 1100 and the law at 8 USC 1403(a), both cited above.

Since the Canal Zone was not “in the United States” with respect to the 14th Amendment, it must follow that the only place it could have been was outside the United States! John McCain was born outside the United States in the Canal Zone, and as we have already seen, was covered in terms of his citizenship status under 8 USC 1403(a).

INA Revisited

A second look at 8 USC 1403(a) shows its consistency with the 14th Amendment. 8 USC 1403(a) “declares” citizenship by naturalization. This is consistent with the treaties as well IF the Canal Zone was not part of the United States. The only logical conclusion is that the Canal Zone was considered to be outside the United States, else 8 USC 1403(a) was never needed to be codified into law in the first place, and 8 USC 1401(a) would apply instead (see above). That conclusion is also consistent with the term “at birth” meaning more than only “natural born” (as is popularly and mistakenly believed and explained above.

Conclusion

All of that leads back to the Constitutional requirements. The citizenship definitions of both Article II and Amendment 14 apply in terms of McCain running for President.

So, to tie it all together:
1. The 14th Amendment and matching policy limit citizenship to either natural born or naturalized, but not both.
2. John McCain was born in 1936 in the Canal Zone to citizen parents.
3. 8 USC 1403(a) declares naturalized citizenship in 1952 on persons born in the Canal Zone to citizen parents.
4. Therefore, 8 USC 1403(a) applies to John McCain at age 16.
5. Therefore, John McCain is a naturalized citizen.
6. By treaty, the Canal Zone was not part of the United States.
7. Therefore, John McCain was not born in the United States.
8. Therefore, John McCain is a citizen not born in the United States.
9. Therefore, John McCain is not a natural born citizen.
10. Article II of the Constitution states to be President a person must be a natural born citizen.
11. THEREFORE, John McCain is not eligible to be President of the United States under Article II of the Constitution; he should be decertified and removed from all present and future Presidential ballots; and his past results should be disallowed, including unbinding all of his committed delegates.

Sources:

Latin terms from Black’s Law Dictionary.
State Department Foreign Affairs Manual from http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf
United States Code from Findlaw. http://www.findlaw.com
Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty of 1903 from http://www.bartleby.com/43/47.html
Torrijos-Carter Treaty of 1977 from http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rlnks/11936.htm

Original: February 14, 2008

UPDATE: 9/20/08: A judge in CA has ruled that a AIP candidate lacks standing to sue on this issue, which is bullshit. He also claimed that even if there was standing, there was no doubt that McCain was natural-born, which is even more bullshit.

AIP Attorney Mark Seidenberg claims that McCain is not even a US citizen, but his claim neglects INA 1952.

from http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/09/16/judge-rules-that-mccain-is-natural-born/#comments

In your posting you stated that John S. McCain was born on a military base. John McCain was not born on a military base nor even in the Canal Zone. John Sidney McCain III was born at the Colon Hospital, located at Avenida Melendez and 2nd Street, Manzanillo Island, City of Colon, Republic of Panama. The time of birth on the birth certificate issued by Panama Railroad Company (which owned the Colon Hospital) was 5:25 PM and the day and date of birth was Saturday, August 29, 1936.

At the time of John Sidney McCain III’s birth he was born an alien. That was because at the time of his birth, viz., August 29, 1936, the terms of Revised Statute # 1933 did not apply to that location in the Republic of Panama, because the island of Manzanillo was under the jurisdiction of the United States, but external to the territory of the Canal Zone.

By the collective naturalization act of August 4, 1937, viz., United States Code title 8, sections 5d and 5e governed the naturalizations of certain classes of persons born in either the Canal Zone or the Republic of Panama. Section 5d covered the Canal Zone and 5e covered the Republic of Panama. The Act of August 4, 1937 was S2416 and Public Law 242. It was repealed by Congress in early 1941. Therefore, if John McCain III’s parents had him included under the terms United States Code title 8, section 5e they would have to [had] completed the process before the Act was repealed in January of 1941. That is why a look at John McCain first passport application is very important. It would show if he is a citizen or not. Under the terms of section 5e, John McCain III’s parents would have to provided many documents to the INS during a window between about the ages of one and the age of four years of age. This would only make him a naturalized citizen and not a natural-born citizen.

It is my current understanding John McCain was not “entered” in the United States in late 1936 on Roberta McCain return to the United States with her two children, viz., John Sidney III and Jean Alexandra (who is now about 74 years of age and lives in or near Houston, TX now with her husband an heir to JP Morgan estate.) Roberta McCain lives in Washington, DC.

It should be noted here that Revised Stat. 1993 did not apply to either the Canal Zone or the Republic of Panama after February 25, 1904. And that was based on the Act of February 10, 1855, chap. 71, sec. 1. Remember John Sidney McCain III was born on August 29, 1936 in the Republic of Panama. I have found no documentation yet that show John McCain is not a citizen of Panama, because he was born in the Republic of Panama.

Under section 5e, John McCain III can not base his rights to naturaization based on his mother Roberta being a United States Citizen at birth, because she was not employed at the time of by either the United States Government or the Panama Railroad Company or it successors.
That is why a trip to Mexico is so important to see if the January 21, 1933 marriage between Jack and Roberta McCain was valid. I was informed several mouths ago by the biographer of Admiral John “Slew” McCain, that the witnessing of the January 21, 1933 marriage certificate may have made it void. The marriage on January 21, 1933 took place if valid at Ceasar’s Bar in TJ, Baja California, Mexico.

Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party

then:

In the above I stated that the Act of August 4, 1937 was repealed in early 1941. I could not remember that date when I wrote it. I know the date now, viz., The Act of August 4, 1937 was repealed January 13, 1941.

I have found out that there is no known record of Senator John Sidney McCain III ever visiting as an adult the “Ministreio de Gobierno Y Justicia” of Panama, which is the agency governing citizenship in Panama.

Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party

P.S. Under Panama law the way to lose citizen status is to make a personal appearance to the Ministreio de Gobierno y Justicia to give up citizenship. It can not be done by mail. There is no other way to volentary loss citizenship in Panama. Therefore, John Sidney McCain III is a “natural born citizen” of Republic of Panama only.

Reply

The last input equals checkmate, and why this election was either rigged to failure and to usher in chaos, or must be allowed to run its course with dignity to both candidates!

Reply

Shorter summary in case the entry I remark on as checkmate doesn’t get past the moderation point:

Conclusion

All of that leads back to the Constitutional requirements. The citizenship definitions of both Article II and Amendment 14 apply in terms of McCain running for President.

So, to tie it all together:
1. The 14th Amendment and matching policy limit citizenship to either natural born or naturalized, but not both.
2. John McCain was born in 1936 in the Canal Zone to citizen parents.
3. 8 USC 1403(a) declares naturalized citizenship in 1952 on persons born in the Canal Zone to citizen parents.
4. Therefore, 8 USC 1403(a) applies to John McCain at age 16.
5. Therefore, John McCain is a naturalized citizen.
6. By treaty, the Canal Zone was not part of the United States.
7. Therefore, John McCain was not born in the United States.
8. Therefore, John McCain is a citizen not born in the United States.
9. Therefore, John McCain is not a natural born citizen.
10. Article II of the Constitution states to be President a person must be a natural born citizen.
11. THEREFORE, John McCain is not eligible to be President of the United States under Article II of the Constitution; he should be decertified and removed from all present and future Presidential ballots; and his past results should be disallowed, including unbinding all of his committed delegates.

Sources:

Latin terms from Black’s Law Dictionary.
State Department Foreign Affairs Manual from http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf
United States Code from Findlaw. http://www.findlaw.com
Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty of 1903 from http://www.bartleby.com/43/47.html
Torrijos-Carter Treaty of 1977 from http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rlnks/11936.htm

Original: February 14, 2008

UPDATE: 9/20/08: A judge in CA has ruled that a AIP candidate lacks standing to sue on this issue, which is bullshit. He also claimed that even if there was standing, there was no doubt that McCain was natural-born, which is even more bullshit.

AIP Attorney Mark Seidenberg claims that McCain is not even a US citizen, but his claim neglects INA 1952.

from http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/09/16/judge-rules-that-mccain-is-natural-born/#comments

In your posting you stated that John S. McCain was born on a military base. John McCain was not born on a military base nor even in the Canal Zone. John Sidney McCain III was born at the Colon Hospital, located at Avenida Melendez and 2nd Street, Manzanillo Island, City of Colon, Republic of Panama. The time of birth on the birth certificate issued by Panama Railroad Company (which owned the Colon Hospital) was 5:25 PM and the day and date of birth was Saturday, August 29, 1936.

At the time of John Sidney McCain III’s birth he was born an alien. That was because at the time of his birth, viz., August 29, 1936, the terms of Revised Statute # 1933 did not apply to that location in the Republic of Panama, because the island of Manzanillo was under the jurisdiction of the United States, but external to the territory of the Canal Zone.

By the collective naturalization act of August 4, 1937, viz., United States Code title 8, sections 5d and 5e governed the naturalizations of certain classes of persons born in either the Canal Zone or the Republic of Panama. Section 5d covered the Canal Zone and 5e covered the Republic of Panama. The Act of August 4, 1937 was S2416 and Public Law 242. It was repealed by Congress in early 1941. Therefore, if John McCain III’s parents had him included under the terms United States Code title 8, section 5e they would have to [had] completed the process before the Act was repealed in January of 1941. That is why a look at John McCain first passport application is very important. It would show if he is a citizen or not. Under the terms of section 5e, John McCain III’s parents would have to provided many documents to the INS during a window between about the ages of one and the age of four years of age. This would only make him a naturalized citizen and not a natural-born citizen.

It is my current understanding John McCain was not “entered” in the United States in late 1936 on Roberta McCain return to the United States with her two children, viz., John Sidney III and Jean Alexandra (who is now about 74 years of age and lives in or near Houston, TX now with her husband an heir to JP Morgan estate.) Roberta McCain lives in Washington, DC.

It should be noted here that Revised Stat. 1993 did not apply to either the Canal Zone or the Republic of Panama after February 25, 1904. And that was based on the Act of February 10, 1855, chap. 71, sec. 1. Remember John Sidney McCain III was born on August 29, 1936 in the Republic of Panama. I have found no documentation yet that show John McCain is not a citizen of Panama, because he was born in the Republic of Panama.

Under section 5e, John McCain III can not base his rights to naturaization based on his mother Roberta being a United States Citizen at birth, because she was not employed at the time of by either the United States Government or the Panama Railroad Company or it successors.
That is why a trip to Mexico is so important to see if the January 21, 1933 marriage between Jack and Roberta McCain was valid. I was informed several mouths ago by the biographer of Admiral John “Slew” McCain, that the witnessing of the January 21, 1933 marriage certificate may have made it void. The marriage on January 21, 1933 took place if valid at Ceasar’s Bar in TJ, Baja California, Mexico.

Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party

then:

In the above I stated that the Act of August 4, 1937 was repealed in early 1941. I could not remember that date when I wrote it. I know the date now, viz., The Act of August 4, 1937 was repealed January 13, 1941.

I have found out that there is no known record of Senator John Sidney McCain III ever visiting as an adult the “Ministreio de Gobierno Y Justicia” of Panama, which is the agency governing citizenship in Panama.

Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party

P.S. Under Panama law the way to lose citizen status is to make a personal appearance to the Ministreio de Gobierno y Justicia to give up citizenship. It can not be done by mail. There is no other way to volentary loss citizenship in Panama. Therefore, John Sidney McCain III is a “natural born citizen” of Republic of Panama only.

Reply

This is just BS. Don’t buy a bit. Do you think the authority is dumb like you guys?

Reply

Hey themissinglink, good luck proving McCain is ineligible. His life is an open book and all documentation is available for debate. He has a long history of friends and associations throughout his life who continue to have the greatest respect for him.

But whatever you do, don’t question Obama’s secret past! That is not open to debate…unless you want to praise him for standing up in front of a bunch of anti-war protestors and having the good judgment to tell them what they wanted to hear! Let’s just hope none of the rumors are true! Don’t question why he has no life-long friends. Sometimes its hard to notice those minor flaws in your friends when you spend your life surrounded by felons, terrorists, communists, and racists. Let’s just assume he will continue to disavow all the evil of his past and any controversial cabinet members and be just a super President! If the Senate and House elections go well, he’ll be the most powerful President in the history of the world! Maybe then he’ll have actual accomplishments! He’ll get rid of those companies making all that money! I suspect he’ll want to bring in his ACORN friends to regulate those elections so there’s none of this voter fraud hype!

Reply

Margo says: There was a news item on TV about a law passed by Congress in 1914. It stated that any person born overseas to U.S. military personnel was automatically considered a natural born citizen. This was passed by Congress in anticipation of forces entering WWI. Am I wrong about this? I’d love to know if FOX was wrong. They have researchers, but I don’t have their staff.

Reply

Admin, nice job. It is refreshing to see someone who has their head on straight as well as their focus on the facts. My opinion is this issue is of the utmost importance to ALL Americans who value freedom and democracy. If Obama is elected and allowed to serve as President, and he has NOT proved his citizenship, this country is in BIG TROUBLE! The Constitution becomes irrelevant, and Dictatorship could be the rule of law.

Reply

You gotta hear this 90 minute blogradio on why the media has a blackout of the looming Obama Birth Certificate Constitutional Crisis:

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-is-obamas-birth-certificate-still.html

Reply

Want to check on the information concerning the location and truth of Pesidents Obamas birth certificate? Check it out by going through Ancestry.com. There is information for all states although there are some restrictions about access to recent documents. Another method would be to do a little research at the research center for ancestry at the temple for Later Day Saints (Mormans). I hope that this helps clear this little matter up because honestly I believe that this man is citizen who is elgible to be our president and I am planning on it since I believe that he can and will pull this nation together and get us out of the fix in which we currently are resulting from the policies of the current administration.

Reply

This web page is a joke. McCain didn’t win because he is an idiot. Obama did because he is smart and people are sick of stupid, greedy Republicans lying and only out to help themselves and the rich people!

Reply

SMA that is an Idiotic statement, you sound like a jealous person, one who wishes they were rich and popular. This is something you will have to work on, good luck loser.

Reply

I agree with you Blanco

Reply