1. John Sidney McCain III was born out of wedlock
on 29 August 1936 at 6:25 pm at the Colon Hospital,
City of Colon, Republic of Panama. Jack McCain never married Robert McCain n’ee Wright on 21 January 1933 or at any other date in Baja California. Read Instrument # 20080001666, dated
28 October 2008, recorded at the office of the Hidalgo County Clerk, Lordsburg, New Mexico.

2. Roberta Wright listed on John McCain birth certificate that her employment was a housewife.
Therefore at the time of John Sidney McCain III
birth she was not an employee of the United States
Government nor that of the Panama Railroad Company or its successor in title. John Sidney McCain III can not get any citizenship right because John Sidney McCain II did not marry Roberta Wright prior to his birth at the Colon Hospital.

3. 8 USC 5e sets the requirements to be a citizen
if born to Americans in the Republic of Panama. Since, his Parants were not married at the time of
birth, no right to citizenship went to John McCain.

Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party.

It is obvious that Barack Hussein Obama is stonewalling over the charges that he is not a natural born American citizen, with lawsuit after lawsuit being filed, demanding that the President–elect produce the original copy of his birth certificate. Liberal judges, determined to see Obama inaugurated as President at any cost, are blithely and arrogantly dismissing the lawsuits, some of which have been appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States as of this writing.

Defenders of Obama have stated past Presidents have never been required to produce their birth certificates as proof of citizenship. That assertion is a straw man argument, which clumsily avoids the central issue – the natural born citizenships of our past Presidents were never in doubt, whereas Mr. Obama’s is.

Therein lies the rub – if Mr. Obama is truly a natural born American citizen, which is a requirement for those seeking the Presidency, why won’t he simply produce the original birth certificate and be done with it? That action would forever put to rest all doubt of his status.

Ergo, what does he have to hide? Will his original birth certificate prove the glaring fact that he is not a natural born American citizen? Another question – is Obama so arrogant that he believes he is above the supreme law of our land – the Constitution, the very laws of which he would be sworn as President to uphold and protect? Or – is he simply a delusional megalomaniac who truly believes that the fates or a god have ordained him and he alone to be the savior of the United States, to be remade in his image?

Those are questions any rational mind asks when it comes to Barack Hussein Obama and his obstinate refusal to accede to the most simple of requests – incontrovertible proof of his natural born citizenship.

Related Lawsuits

This is a summary of what has happened legally regarding Obama’s eligibility:

Electoral College Grass-roots Movement
Pennyslvania Case now in the Supreme Court ALIVE
New Jersey Case now in the Supreme Court ALIVE
Ohio Case DEAD
Hawaii Case DEAD
Washington Case DEAD
Virigina Case DEAD, alot of people believe this one was a fraud
Connecticut Case DEAD
California Case Joan Corbett ALIVE as far as I know
California Case Alan Keyes and AIP Electors ALIVE
California Case David Archbold did not transpire
Georgia Case ALIVE
North Carolina Case ALIVE
New York Case No case ever transpired
New York Case Christopher Strunk ALIVE
Texas Case ALIVE
Unconfirmed Cases
Patriot Brigade Case No case ever transpired

naturalized U.S.A. citizens >>> children are natural born citizens

everybody else (i.e. foreign folks legally or illegally in the U.S.A.) >>> children are NOT natural born or naturalized U.S.A. citizens — since the parents have NO allegiance to the U.S.A. — especially children of foreign diplomats born in the U.S.A.

Sorry – If wartime enemies, pirates, stateless terrorists, etc. dump their sex slave pregnant women into the U.S.A., then any resulting children physically born in the U.S.A. are NOT U.S.A. citizens.

Sorry – NOT an infinite number of possibilities.

Citizen/subject at birth status stuff is connected to primitive tribal NATION-State allegiance stuff.

There is the rather obvious language connection between *natural born* and *naturalization*.

This stuff AIN’T atomic science.

Much too difficult for the armies of constitutional law and English language MORONS to understand — especially some of the super-MORONS on this list ???

The Supremes are in session waiting for more cases every day on all subjects A to Z.

July 11, 2008
A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue
By ADAM LIPTAK
In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”

The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.

“It’s preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy,” Professor Chin said. “But this is the constitutional text that we have.”

Several legal experts said that Professor Chin’s analysis was careful and plausible. But they added that nothing was very likely to follow from it.

“No court will get close to it, and everyone else is on board, so there’s a constitutional consensus, the merits of arguments such as this one aside,” said Peter J. Spiro, an authority on the law of citizenship at Temple University.

Mr. McCain has dismissed any suggestion that he does not meet the citizenship test.

In April, the Senate approved a nonbinding resolution declaring that Mr. McCain is eligible to be president. Its sponsors said the nation’s founders would have never intended to deny the presidency to the offspring of military personnel stationed out of the country.

A lawsuit challenging Mr. McCain’s qualifications is pending in the Federal District Court in Concord, N.H.

There are, Professor Chin argued in his analysis, only two ways to become a natural-born citizen. One, specified in the Constitution, is to be born in the United States. The other way is to be covered by a law enacted by Congress at the time of one’s birth.

Professor Chin wrote that simply being born in the Canal Zone did not satisfy the 14th Amendment, which says that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

A series of early-20th-century decisions known as the Insular Cases, he wrote, ruled that unincorporated territories acquired by the United States were not part of the nation for constitutional purposes. The Insular Cases did not directly address the Canal Zone. But the zone was generally considered an unincorporated territory before it was returned to Panama in 1999, and some people born in the Canal Zone when it was under American jurisdiction have been deported from the United States or convicted of being here illegally.

The second way Mr. McCain could have, and ultimately did, become a citizen was by statute, Professor Chin wrote. In Rogers v. Bellei in 1971, the Supreme Court said Congress had broad authority to decide whether and when children born to American citizens abroad are citizens.

At the time of Mr. McCain’s birth, the relevant law granted citizenship to any child born to an American parent “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States.” Professor Chin said the term “limits and jurisdiction” left a crucial gap. The Canal Zone was beyond the limits of the United States but not beyond its jurisdiction, and thus the law did not apply to Mr. McCain.

In 1937, Congress addressed the problem, enacting a law that granted citizenship to people born in the Canal Zone after 1904. That made Mr. McCain a citizen, but not one who was naturally born, Professor Chin said, because the citizenship was conferred after his birth.

In his paper and in an interview, Professor Chin, a registered Democrat, said he had no political motive in raising the question.

In March, Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard and an adviser to Senator Barack Obama, prepared a memorandum on these questions with Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general in the Bush administration. The memorandum concluded that Mr. McCain is a natural-born citizen based on the place of his birth, the citizenship of his parents and their service to the country.

In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Olson, whose firm represents Mr. McCain in the New Hampshire lawsuit, said Congress could not have intended to leave the gap described by Professor Chin. The 1937 law, Mr. Olson said, was not a fix but a way to clarify what Congress had meant all along.

Professor Tribe agreed. Reading the “limits and jurisdiction” clause as Professor Chin does, Professor Tribe said, “is to attribute a crazy design to Congress” that “would create an irrational gap.”

Brian Rogers, a McCain spokesman, said the campaign concurred and was confident Mr. McCain is eligible to serve.

In the motion to dismiss the New Hampshire suit, Mr. McCain’s lawyers said an individual citizen like the plaintiff, a Nashua man named Fred Hollander, lacks proof of direct injury and cannot sue.

Daniel P. Tokaji, an election law expert at Ohio State University, agreed. “It is awfully unlikely that a federal court would say that an individual voter has standing,” he said. “It is questionable whether anyone would have standing to raise that claim. You’d have to think a federal court would look for every possible way to avoid deciding the issue.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html

Carl Hulse contributed reporting.

AS I recall it was Hillary Clinton that questions Mr. obama’s qualifications to run in FEB 2008.

The Law Suit Berg v Obama was filed in August of this Year and Stone walled by Justice Souter so as to not stay the election. (an important part of Berg’s case is still on the Docket)
As far as “U.S., to a biological mother” making her son Barrack, or Berry a Natural Born Citizen, Wrong on that issue also: Mother was required to be 19 years of age if the child was born out of the US.
Lastly, Minor children Don’t renounce their citizenship, their parents do and Barrack Step Father Lolo Soetoro did by adopting him.

If people were serious about this, then why not bring it up during the primary or the general election? Someone in the GOP would have run with it, if not the McCain-Palin Camapign itself.

Could it be that their really is not secret story behind the leading questions? Could it be that Obama was born in the U.S., to a biological mother who was a U.S. citizen? Could it be that Obama never renounced the citizenship that he was born with?

Nah, we are told, Obama must be trying to hide something — [enter racial/ethnic slur of your choice].