0 votes

UPDATED: McCain Is NOT Eligible!--an analysis according to the law

UPDATED: This is the final cut, and I think it's put together a lot better and is more complete. Thanks for all of the feedback and encouragement on this. Please note I have the original dated and timestamped and saved off in a secure location so we won't lose it.


Also posted on my blog at http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2008/02/panmanchurian-cand....

Summary points at http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2008/03/panamanchrian-cand...


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


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.


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.


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
Revised: March 4, 2008

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


I say let's not vote for him...


Where is that filter MIKE ?

Where is that filter MIKE ? Why are we having this discussion at this time ? this is 1 year too late ..Worry about something pertainant.No wonder I'm frustrated.
Good people do Good deeds
and are no respecter of person

Awesome. I learned a lot from your research.

Thank you. It seems the nut of the question lies in:

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.

I find the punctuation confusing. Just when I think I understand the meaning I think of another interpretation. Is there any sort of definitive interpretation? Has the Supreme Court addressed this?


why do you think McCain isn't

all over this scene and a half with Obama's birth certificate? BECAUSE ITS A SMOKE SCREEN FOR HIM. For goodness sake if McCain was running against anyone else this certainly would be an issue.

My guess is that this election is designed to push the envelope for the American people into accepting that a non-American could / can rule our country.

Both Dems and Repubs have produced the same ticket:
One old timer cranky white guy
One charming newbe minority politician
both endorsed the bail out
both have no idea about the economy
both have the same foreign policy
neither are constitutionally fit to be president

They stage one heck of a fight like Pro Wrestlers. And like pro wrestlers the owner of the franchise is the one that makes all the money in the end anyway and the idea of following the Constitution to find our leaders is old fashioned. I think I smell a ConCon coming soon...and I don't like it.

Its a set up.

The Senate Acts to Sponsor McCain's citizenship

Clinton, Obama Sponsor McCain Citizenship Bill
By Mark Impomeni
May 1st 2008 10:30PM
Filed Under:eHillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain, Featured Stories, 2008 President

The question of whether Sen. John McCain is eligible for the presidency has popped up from time to time in the media and on the Internet. The controversy, such as it is, hinges on the circumstances of McCain's birth. The Constitution lays out three eligibility requirements for presidential candidates. A candidate must be at least 35 years old, a resident of the United States for at least 14 years, and must be a "natural-born citizen." McCain qualifies on all three; but some commentators have questioned whether he can be considered to have been natural-born because he was born on a U.S. Navy base in the Panama Canal Zone.

Now, however, the Senate has moved to put that minor controversy to rest. Yesterday, the Senate passed a resolution declaring that McCain is a natural-born citizen. The resolution was passed by unanimous consent. More surprising than the result, however, was the fact that the bill was written and submitted by Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), and co sponsored by both Democratic presidential candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Legal and Constitutional scholars have said that there is little chance that McCain would be declared anything other than a natural-born citizen. The Supreme Court has held that the children of military and Foreign Service personnel stationed abroad are considered natural-born. Congress has also legislated the issue. So Clinton and Obama risked little in signing on to the resolution. Still the questions about McCain persisted.

But Obama and Clinton did not have to put their names on the Senate Resolution removing any doubt from the issue. It was a gesture of respect, and maybe a bit of good sportsmanship with a touch of good politics thrown in, for McCain's rivals to acknowledge his legitimacy to run in opposition to them. More puzzling, though, is the fact that the measure only garnered one Republican co-sponsor, McCain supporter Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK).

The full text of the resolution is as follows.

S. Res. 511

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States;

Whereas the term "natural born Citizen", as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country's President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the "natural born Citizen" clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term "natural born Citizen";

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a "natural born Citizen" under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States



both parties knew

that there were questions of ineligibility for obama and mccain yet they pushed
these two as the nominees; by doing this they are attempting to diminish the importance and power of the constitution by trivializing the issue of eligibility.

with this being said

clearly the drafters of the constitution did not intend to leave out an american who was born in the air, or on a cruise, or temporary overseas???

Back then...

Air travel didn't exist, cruises were not leisurely and ship flag rules applied (still do in some cases), and temporary overseas was only ministers and not the herds we see today.

So that's really a bad question.

McLame & McObamba are not eligible to be POTUS under the US Cons

McLame & McObamba are not eligible to be POTUS under the US Constitution because they have no respect of the LAW, they are above the LAW

But guess what, they will push it down the throts of WE THE PEOPLE

Deal with it by supporting Ron Paul, the C4L and every RP Republican running for congress


bumping for equality

neither is qualified.

I am eating my words right now! I was sure McCain was "qualified", but I guess not.

!!!Truth is treason in the EMPIRE OF LIES!!!

" Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of they day; but a series of oppresssions...pursued unalterably, through every change of ministers, too plainly proove delibrate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery..."

So let me see if I get this straight:

Neither Obama nor McCain are "natural born citizens"?? No wonder neither camp is screaming about this! They are both frauds. Hmmph, imagine that.

Your "conscience" is the measure of the honesty of your selfishness. ~Author Unknown

~Your perception becomes your reality~

This thread has no comment on Obama

Only McCain.

I didn't research Obama, and back in February the focus was getting Dr. Paul the nomination and not the general election as it is now.

Remember this about McCain!

What with all the recent attention focusing on Obama's alleged ineligibility, I'm bumping this thread to bring back to the forefront the recognition that the answer of eligibility won't be found in McCain, either!

Hey, I hear this "Ron Paul" guy is eligible...

McCain's status was so

McCain's status was so incredibly questionable that the Senate held a vote on a resolution to specifically state that he was a natural born citizen. It actually required a vote from Senate!!! That's how unsure they were about McCain being qualified as a natural born citizen.

We are being lied to on two fronts.

Maybe the reason we ended up with these two bozos is because they actually want to cause a constitutional crisis.


And Dems went along with it? Gee, I can't imagine why!?

What a laugh to think that these two parties are in fact two parties at all.

- -
Get your own "Ron Paul for Treasury Secretary" or "Nothing Changes 1-20-09 / Vote Third Party" sticker, designed by AlaskaRon, today!


The Dems sponsored it!

Look at who sponsored the NON BINDING resolution.

Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB)


The magic of "official" declaration

Wow...so, never mind the actual truth; get enough legislators to declare something, and *poof* it is so.

If Pharaoh says the sun rises in the West, then the sun rises in the West. War is Peace. Lies are truth.

We reside in Alice's Wonderland, where everything is nonsense. But I say: wake up, Alice!!

and another bump...

go check my other post today....we may be able to force the presidential debate commission to not invite to the debates with obama.

Bump for Rhino

And for all else who may have missed this or have forgotten...

An oldie but goodie

And now bumping for ljrdxyh and for anyone else who may have missed this valuable post.

The real

question should be has McCain used his unnatural citizenship to his advantage, if so he would be TOAST!

At first glance, I thought

the title said mcain isn't edible! lol wut?

LOL Maybe you should go have a snack. :-)

Your "conscience" is the measure of the honesty of your selfishness. ~Author Unknown

~Your perception becomes your reality~

Natural Born Citizenship

A new and detailed presentation of the evidence regarding John McCain and natural born Citizen was just published here: http://JohnMcCain.dominates.us

I don't think the Panama birth issue will just go away.

The great significance to me is this:

* I don't think John McCain meets the criteria of natural born Citizen.
* We really don't need the next president to be weakened by such things that seem on the surface to be trivial.
* The integrity of the Constitution is more important than any one presidency.
* It is tragic that we can't do anything about it until it is too late.

This is a very big issue that much of the press has dismissed. It is not generally a popular issue today, but if John McCain gets elected, a year from now, this issue will be bigger than ever. Those who would protest McCain's presidency could use this. It is important to settle the matter before the election.

It would be an embarrassment for McCain to be sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and later for the court to need to objectively deal with the issue. It makes the 2000 election and the vote recount look like so much of nothing.

See more discussion at http://PanamaJohn.dominates.us/forum and take part.

The Obvious Reason Why They Hired Ted Olson ....

The reason that they hired Ted Olson is because they realize that there is a very good chance that the Supreme Court will probably need to rule on this, possibly before the election. But, they also know that only someone with legal standing can bring this case or they will just reject the case for lack of standing. I believe that the only person who would have legal standing in this case prior to the September Convention would be Doctor Paul. There is no "sour grapes" involved in taking such an action because it is a valid question that cries out for an answer, as well as it would be a great PR move.

McCain’s official birth status is clearly defined by the Constitution as you have pointed out but this is also an important point of Constitutional Law that needs to be resolved, once and for all. The key though to resolving such an important Constitutional issue by the highest court America is that such a case would first hinge on the fact that the person or persons bring the case to this Court must have strong “LEGAL STANDING” or it will just be disregarded. Doctor Ron Paul, I believe, may be the only person in the country, at the present moment in time, with such strong standing. He is both a lawfully elected senior member, in good standing of the United States Congress and he also, is in a lawfully and direct competition with John McCain for the Republican Nomination for President of the United States. The fact that he is a member of Congress gives him a special and historical right to petition the Supreme Court directly, coupled with the fact that both reasons rise to the Federal level, gives him, I believe, a very strong legal standing for the case to be hear immediately by the Court. I would think that because of Doctor Paul long recorded history as a defender of the Constitution that he would be seen as again defending this wonderful document, especially Republicans, Independents and Blue Dog Democrats. In addition, it would position this Countries and the World’s spotlight direct onto our American Constitution. People from around the World who had never even heard of this document or once read it would want to see what it is all about. We must remember that this is the only document of its kind in the World and it was written as a strong, squared and level foundation in which to build our Grand Experiment of Personal Freedom and Liberty. Think of the potential positive publicity such a law suit would bring to Dr. Paul's campaign and the Constitution, as well as help sow the seeds of peaceful change throughout the World. This rivals the efforts of our Founding Fathers in 1776, in that I believe that this too, rises to the level of a mystical opportunity in time and space for one man to step forward and help bring about what could be one of the greatest worldwide changes in human consciousness in recorded history.

Mr. Olsen was quoted as saying

I was an administrator for the Democratic party for over 6 years and i am well educated in the nomination process, I left the party to support Dr. Paul so i know what i am talking about.

Our founding fathers set the system up like this to assure that there would not have false or fruadulent support for a candidate thus forcing THE PEOPLE to become involved in the election process and to show actual support for thier candidate.

They wanted to make sure they would protect us from VOTE FRAUD and to make sure that a candidate did not win a beauty contest but instead win an election.

Any candidate and thier supporters can do exactly what we are doing if they chose to do so and i am sure from the reports we have received that Mccain does not have real support or he would have the delegates he needs registered as delegates to vote for him in the up coming convention.

Every state is different and you should be educated on exactly how your delegate process works and you can do this by obtaining a copy of you bylaws in your county and your state if you are told you do not have bylaws obtain a copy of the party rules for your county and state for this is the first step to victory AFTER YOU BECOME A DELEGATE.

If you doubt my post go and research it yourself PLEASE here : http://www.gop.com/images...


If you can be a delegate because it is too late to register you can still help us at the convention.

Use these 2 links and help us win.


link 2 : http://msp2008.com/volunt...

I know many of you are new to the election process but don't worry.

I am going to go into some depth of how this all works so read and then read again if you need to.

Did you know that the delegates can actually vote to unbind thier delegates that are bound by state rules? Did you know that delegates can actually overturn and previous vote? Did you know the delegates have control of the entire process?

The MSM is not reporting how to become the nominee in a situation like this so i will tell you to stop getting your info from the MSM.

I know many of you are bummed about Dr. Paul not getting more votes in the states popular vote BUT THAT IS BECAUSE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE ELECTION SYSTEM WORKS : Let me explain to you the reality of how to become the nominee.

First stop looking at who wins each states popular vote for most of these states the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and have no real bearing on who will become the nominee. The only way this matters is if 1 person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be commited to that candidate. So if a candiate like Mccain now has 906 delegates now but he doesn't reach 1191 WHICH HE WILL NOT most of the delegates the state awarded him mean nothing and keep in mind in most of the states most of the people that represent the 906 for Mccain are actually Ron Paul supporters. NOW there is no possible way that anyone in the race can achieve this goal now because of the major split in state wins by the candidates.

Normally Convention Delegates do not matter because the convention is not brokered and we have a clear winner because someone has 1191 delegates. BUT THIS YEAR IS DIFFERENT. This will be a brokered convention there is no way around it. Do you see how the ronpaul campaign strategy will work.

When a candidate wins delegates by winning a primary that does not mean there are actual people that won acting as delegates- these are virtual delegates.

What do I mean by virtual delegates: A virtual delegate is just a number - there are no actual people YET that will go and vote for the candidate who won the particular state at the national convention. We call these people convention delegates

The actual delegates are voted on (in most states) at a statewide delegate caucus after the Primary (which is just a giant preference poll) Who can be delegates? Anyone. In closed Primary states they must be registered Republicans, in Open Primary states they can be Republicans, Democrats, Independents.

View the hard count of actaul pledged delegates here : http://www.thegreenpapers...

And we have lots of delegates.

Out of the 2,380 delegates sent to Minneapolis St. Paul in September-
-463 delegates are bound all the way through the convention some of those 463 are Ron Pauls people.

- 565 delegates will be bound through one ballot. That is, they have to follow the results of the state election on the first ballot. After that, if no candidate has a majority of delegates, they are free to vote as they please and Mccain will not receive over 50% on the first ballot.

- 383 will be bound through two ballots then they are free to vote for whom they wish.

- 318 will be bound through three ballots then they are free to vote for whom they wish.

I am not going to list every state and what the break downs are, just do the math from these numbers or look for yourself here :


Bottom line is less than 1/2 of the delegates are bound by state party rules. Now do you see how we can win this thing?

So what happens now you ask? You look at the number of delegates that Dr. Paul has that are uncommited to the other candidates and will support him. these delegates are not decided by the popular vote ie: straw poll of the people. Since no one will have enough delegates to skate them through to the nomination we now must look at how many delegates NOT VOTES but delegates Dr. Paul has that are 100% uncommited to the other candidates and will be 100% for Dr. Paul and are free to vote for whom they wish.

This race will go all the way to the convention for there is no other way for someone to receive the nomintaion untill the convention.

The RNC will convene its annual Winter Meeting - and voters will continue to cast their ballots in the nation's primaries and caucuses. Candidates for delegate and alternate delegate to the convention will be elected - and thousands of convention participants and guests will begin planning their trips to Minneapolis-Saint Paul The first week in September 2008


This means that all of the people that registered to become a deligate for Dr. Paul can go to the convention and cast thier vote for Dr. Paul, now think about what i just said : Do you think for one second that all the people that voted for Dr. Paul and filed to become a deligate will not show up at the convention to vote for the good Doctor? Of course they will just like they battled the rain and the sleet and the 15 below zero winter weather to knock on doors and wave signs spreading our message.

Now i assure you that even though we didn't win the popular vote in many states WE DID PICK UP THE MAJORITY OF DELEGATES THAN ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES IN MOST EVERY STATE EXCEPT A FEW. So yes they won the straw poll and we won what counts which is delegates.

Doesn't Dr. Paul need to WIN 5 states to be on the ballot at the convention for the nomination?

NO THIS IS NOT TRUE for people were just confused on how it actually works.

We only need the majority of delegates from 5 states to be put on the ballot NOT THE POPULAR VOTE OF 5 STATES and i assure you we have picked up the majority of uncommitted delegates for Dr. Paul in more than 5 states.

Do any of you remember seeing posts by myself and many others that said BECOME A DELEGATE? There is still time in most states to become a delegate for the convention and we are picking up more of them every day.

So please STOP! you worry too much because you do not understand how the election system works and you thought we lost didn't you? I assure you we have not!

The fact is Dr. Paul is a genius in his strategy and we are further ahead in delegates than you think and we can win the nomination.

I hope this gives a better understanding of how we have been winning even though most of you thought we were not.


Info on how to become a delegate here :

Dr. Steve Parent

Remember: Debt is a form of slavery.

Remember: Debt is a form of slavery.


Gilgamesh keeps posting SGP's thread everywhere. While it is important and good info, in teh context of this thread it's SPAM!

I believe this was discussed below

If Dr. Paul were to sue on this, he'd be crucified for sour grapes. It would be political suicide. That's why he won't do it.

The utter hilarity of the whole thing is that the solution to the controversy is right there in the post, besides McCain releasing his birth certificate. I'm not going to say what it is so the McCain troll lurkers don't get it, but it should be pretty obvious based on the summary points.

The Aames suit has been filed and I'll be keeping an eye on it as it happens.

Why Don't We Leave That Decision Up To Dr Paul

It seems to me that Doctor Paul almost never makes a decision without really thinking it though and receiving good advise. Let's see, what at state here?? We are talking about possibly stopping a mad-man from becoming President of the United States. Would you really want the deaths of tens of thousands of people to be caused by in-action and a concern about being embarrased over someone calling it "sour grapes" or others a bad PR move, I don't think so. And, secondly it probably would be allowing an unconstitutional act to knowingly take place. I'll tell you that I personally would have a difficult time sleeping and looking at myself in the mrror if I didn't do everything in my power to prevent this from happening.

You need to read more closely what I posted


Go reread the post that you were replying to.