Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned Wikipedia, the online "free encyclopedia" mega-site written and edited entirely by its users, has been deleting within minutes any mention of eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama's presidency, with administrators kicking off anyone who writes about the subject, WND has learned. A perusal through Obama's current Wikipedia entry finds a heavily guarded, mostly glowing biography about the U.S. president. Some of Obama's most controversial past affiliations, including with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former Weathermen terrorist Bill Ayers, are not once mentioned, even though those associations received much news media attention and served as dominant themes during the presidential elections last year. Also completely lacking is any mention of the well-publicized concerns surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief. Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 300,000 others and sign up now! Indeed, multiple times, Wikipedia users who wrote about the eligibility issues had their entries deleted almost immediately and were banned from re-posting any material on the website for three days. In one example, Wikipedia user "Jerusalem21" added the following to Obama's page: "There have been some doubts about whether Obama was born in the U.S. after the politician refused to release to the public a carbon copy of his birth certificate and amid claims from his relatives he may have been born in Kenya. Numerous lawsuits have been filed petitioning Obama to release his birth certificate, but most suits have been thrown out by the courts." As is required on the online encyclopedia, that entry was backed up by third-party media articles, citing the Chicago Tribune and WorldNetDaily.com The entry was posted on Feb. 24, at 6:16 p.m. EST. Just three minutes later, the entry was removed by a Wikipedia administrator, claiming the posting violated the websites rules against "fringe" material. According to Wikipedia rules, however, a "fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." The Obama eligibility issue has indeed been reported extensively by multiple news media outlets. WorldNetDaily has led the coverage. Other news outlets, such as Britain's Daily Mail and the Chicago Tribune have released articles critical of claims Obama may not be eligible. The Los Angeles Times quoted statements by former presidential candidate Alan Keys doubting Obama is eligible to serve as president. Just last week, the Internet giant America Online featured a top news article about the eligibility subject, referencing WND's coverage. When the user "Jerusalem21" tried to repost the entry about Obama's eligibility a second time, another administrator removed the material within two minutes and then banned the Wikipedia user from posting anything on the website for three days. Wikipedia administrators have the ability to kick off users if the administrator believes the user violated the website's rules. Over the last month, WND has monitored several other attempts to add eligibility issues to Obama's Wikipedia page. In every attempt monitored, the information was deleted within minutes and the user who posted the material was barred from the website for three days. Angela Beesley Starling, a spokeswoman for Wikipedia, explained to WND that all the website's encyclopedia content is monitored by users. She said the administrators who deleted the entries are volunteers. "Administrators," Starling said, "are simply people who are trusted by the other community members to have access to some extra tools that allow them to delete pages and perform other tasks that help the encyclopedia." According to Alexa.com, Wikipedia is the seventh most trafficked website on the Internet. A Google search for the words "Barack Obama" brings up the president's Wikipedia page in the top four choices, following two links to Obama's official websites. Ayers, Wright also missing in Obama's bio The entire Wikipedia entry on Obama seems to be heavily promotional toward the U.S. president. It contains nearly no criticism or controversy, including appropriate mention of important issues where relevant. For example, the current paragraph on Obama's religion contains no mention of Wright, even though Obama's association with the controversial pastor was one of the most talked about issues during the presidential campaign. That paragraph states: "Obama explained how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand 'the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change.' He was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988 and was an active member there for two decades." Ayers is also not mentioned, even where relevant. WND monitored as a Wikipedia user attempted to add Ayers' name to an appropriate paragraph. One of those additions, backed up with news articles, read as follows: "He served alongside former Weathermen leader William Ayers from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and also from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation. Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1991. Ayers was the founder and director of the Challenge." Within two minutes that Wikipedia entry was deleted and the user banned from posting on the website for three days, purportedly for adding "Point of View junk edits," even though the addition was well-established fact. The Wikipedia entry about former President George W. Bush, by contrast, is highly critical. One typical entry reads, "Prior to his marriage, Bush had multiple accounts of alcohol abuse. ... After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism. In 2005, the Bush administration dealt with widespread criticism over its handling of Hurricane Katrina. In December 2007, the United States entered the second-longest post-World War II recession." The entry on Bush also cites claims that he was "favorably treated due to his father's political standing" during his National Guard service." It says Bush served on the board of directors for Harken and that questions of possible insider trading involving Harken arose even though a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation concluded the information Bush had at the time of his stock sale was not sufficient to constitute insider trading.
Does this surprise anyone... honestly? Well, anyone of sound mind, at least? Maybe I'm just being a condescending asshole, but I can't help but stress to those fucking morons out there that missed the small print in the Democratic campaign OBAMA = *SHIT* CHANGE. Giving this dipshit the keys to the city - fuck, the whole goddamn country, is the most stunning example of human stupidity and sheep-like herding mentality I've ever witnessed. A Blue Heeler could've rounded up these overly-dependent, needy, INCAPABLE, untalented, UNEDUCATED, shitstain, fucking dipshit morons just as easily as that pitiful "CHANGE" campaign. Suck that government nipple, bitches. Suck it nice and good. Get used to it, and don't act so damn shocked when the flow slows to a trickle. I hope it happens in your lifetimes, before you've bred, so you have time to reflect on your stupidity and do the entire human race a favor by ending your pitiful dependent existence by swallowing a corner store 'big glug' cup full of rusty nails, shards of glass, and concentrated magnesium citrate.
Tell us how you really feel Lomo. I need to do a blog on FactCheck, Snopes, and Wikipedia. They all three are obviously in the tank for Socialism. All three have turned into clearing houses for Communist propaganda.
Jeff you would have a leg to stand on if I were not talking about tangible valid facts. You need to try to question the validity of something if you want to be taken seriously. I tell you what try it yourself Wikipedia is right there waiting go modify Obama's page and use irrefutable facts to do so. If it is derogatory it will be scrubbed regardless of the truth behind the statement.
Ok, give us some examples of irrefutable, derogatory facts. Just like you would post them to Wikipedia. This is a good experiment.
I don't have any. You seem to think that you have tons, so let's hear one. Remember, irrefutable and derogatory, all at the same time. Go!
Ok Jeff obviously you think your on to something that you can refute anything said. Well if your read the article and I can find it and quote it for you Wikipedia will post information weather proven or not if it was a national media issue because it is irrefutably part of true history. Something to that extent and then it goes on to show various specific examples for example information never proven about Bush that is posted in Wikipedia. A good example right off the top of my head is Bush's Air National Guard supposed controversy. Along the same token you have Obama's much known citizenship eligibility question. Ok for Bush but scrubbed for Obama. I can tell you Obama has kinky hair and you can refute it hell Jeff you can refute anything. But if you want to force me to invest resources into the ridicules argument I can, Go dig up Wikipedia policy. And Dig up examples where they post information as being commonly held opinion or belief among some regarding a person albeit unproven just like Bush's national guard service. And then illustrate the double standard they have regarding Obama. But I'll do it on my time.
Come up with an addition to Obama's Wikipedia entry that contains irrefutable and derogatory facts. We'll all review it and decide if it's worthy of an addition to his entry and then we'll add it and see if it gets deleted. Come one. What's the problem?
The problem is that you're citing the words "Irrefutable" and "Derogatory" - with both attributive adjectives pointing to the noun "Fact" - and implying that both of these reasons are cited for the deletion of the additions to his Wikipedia entry. This simply is not Joe's point. All of the examples pointed out thus far, except the kinky hair mention, are potentially irrefutable, and derogatory, including the citation of published portions of the Bush Wikipedia article. The only ones being deleted, however, are the ones that cast our new president in a bad light.
Proving my point that that Obama is the anti-christ and these are the end times as written in the book of revelations in the bible. I could be wrong though.............. :biggrin:
Not mine either. Don't tell me what I'm saying. Let's come up with one to add to the Wikipedia page. Forget derogatory. Keep irrefutable and just make sure it reveals some negative facts about him. I say we go with his admission of drug use. No one disputes that. How can we word it so it should, unless there is some bias, stay on the page?
I say stick with the example in the title of the thread. Post about the valid questions surrounding Obama's citizenship. There you go.
WND Exclusive BORN IN THE USA? Chief justice accepts 'eligibility' petition Roberts agrees to read Obama docs, consider WND's 330,000 signers Posted: March 14, 2009 4:45 pm Eastern By Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily A California attorney lobbying the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president confronted the chief justice yesterday with legal briefs and a WND petition bearing names of over 325,000 people asking the court to rule on whether or not the sitting president fulfills the Constitution's "natural-born citizen" clause. According to Orly Taitz, the attorney who confronted Chief Justice John Roberts at a lecture at the University of Idaho, the judge promised before the gathered crowd that he would, indeed, read and review the briefs and petition. "I addressed him in front of 800 people in the audience," Taitz told WND, "including university officials, the president of the Idaho State Bar and the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Idaho, and in front of all them, [Roberts] promised to read my papers." Roberts was lecturing on Abraham Lincoln to approximately 1,200 attendees of the annual Bellwood Memorial Lecture Series at the Moscow, Idaho, university. Roberts has been chief justice of the Supreme Court since his nomination by President George W. Bush and subsequent confirmation in 2005. Earlier in the week, Taitz confronted Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who told her the issue of Obama's eligibility, which has been raised before the Supreme Court at least four times but has yet to be given a single hearing, still lacked the votes of the required four justices in conference before it would be officially heard. Taitz said, "I told Scalia that I was an attorney that filed Lightfoot v. Bowen that Chief Justice Roberts distributed for conference on Jan. 23 and now I represent nine state reps and 120 military officers, many of them high ranked, and I want to know if they will hear Quo Warranto and if they would hear it on original jurisdiction, if I bring Hawaii as an additional defendant to unseal the records and ascertain Obama's legitimacy for presidency." The legal phrase Quo Warranto essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents." Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 325,000 others and sign up now! "Tell me what to do, what can I do?" Taitz reports asking Scalia. "Those soldiers [her plaintiffs] can be court-martialed for asking a legitimate question, who is the president, is he legitimate?" She says Scalia responded, "Bring the case, I'll hear it, I don't know about others." In Idaho, Taitz obtained the promise of one of the others, the chief justice, that he would read through the eligibility challenge, including the petition brought by WND readers. WND Exclusive BORN IN THE USA? Chief justice accepts 'eligibility' petition Roberts agrees to read Obama docs, consider WND's 330,000 signers Posted: March 14, 2009 4:45 pm Eastern By Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts A California attorney lobbying the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president confronted the chief justice yesterday with legal briefs and a WND petition bearing names of over 325,000 people asking the court to rule on whether or not the sitting president fulfills the Constitution's "natural-born citizen" clause. According to Orly Taitz, the attorney who confronted Chief Justice John Roberts at a lecture at the University of Idaho, the judge promised before the gathered crowd that he would, indeed, read and review the briefs and petition. "I addressed him in front of 800 people in the audience," Taitz told WND, "including university officials, the president of the Idaho State Bar and the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Idaho, and in front of all them, [Roberts] promised to read my papers." Roberts was lecturing on Abraham Lincoln to approximately 1,200 attendees of the annual Bellwood Memorial Lecture Series at the Moscow, Idaho, university. Roberts has been chief justice of the Supreme Court since his nomination by President George W. Bush and subsequent confirmation in 2005. Earlier in the week, Taitz confronted Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who told her the issue of Obama's eligibility, which has been raised before the Supreme Court at least four times but has yet to be given a single hearing, still lacked the votes of the required four justices in conference before it would be officially heard. Taitz said, "I told Scalia that I was an attorney that filed Lightfoot v. Bowen that Chief Justice Roberts distributed for conference on Jan. 23 and now I represent nine state reps and 120 military officers, many of them high ranked, and I want to know if they will hear Quo Warranto and if they would hear it on original jurisdiction, if I bring Hawaii as an additional defendant to unseal the records and ascertain Obama's legitimacy for presidency." The legal phrase Quo Warranto essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents." Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 325,000 others and sign up now! "Tell me what to do, what can I do?" Taitz reports asking Scalia. "Those soldiers [her plaintiffs] can be court-martialed for asking a legitimate question, who is the president, is he legitimate?" She says Scalia responded, "Bring the case, I'll hear it, I don't know about others." In Idaho, Taitz obtained the promise of one of the others, the chief justice, that he would read through the eligibility challenge, including the petition brought by WND readers. As WND reported, Taitz is submitting a motion to the Supreme Court for re-hearing of Lightfoot v. Bowen, a case she is working on through her foundation Defend Our Freedoms, alleging some of her documentation may have been withheld from the justices by a court clerk. She asserts docketing information about her case "was erased from the docket of the Supreme Court on January 21st, one day after the inauguration and two days before [the case was to be heard]." At the lecture in Idaho, Taitz grabbed the attention of Justice Roberts by boldly addressing her allegation that a clerk had buried the case. Taitz told WND that the forum rules required that those questioning Roberts announce their relationship to the University of Idaho and refrain from talking about cases currently before or likely to appear before the court. "I said, 'Justice Roberts, my name is Orly Taitz. I'm an attorney from California, and I got up at 3 o'clock in the middle of the night, flew and drove thousands of miles just to ask you a question. So please give me some leeway,'" Taitz told WND. "My question is, do you know there is illegal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States?" According to Taitz, the room was stunned silent as she continued, "I have presented my case to you, and you personally agreed to hear this case in conference. But your clerk refused to forward a supplemental brief to you. He has hidden this brief from you. He refused to put it on the docket. Additionally, my case was erased from the docket one day after the Inauguration, two days before my case was to be heard. "Outraged citizens and members of the media and state representatives are calling the Supreme Court, demanding to have the case reentered on the docket," Taitz told Roberts. Then she held up the WND petition and continued, "Moreover, here are the names of U.S. citizens who signed this petition and who sent individual letters to individual justices, including you, Justice Roberts, all of them demanding the same thing – that you hear my case in regards to Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility for presidency." According to Taitz, Roberts approached the microphone and said, "I see you have papers. I promise you I will read all your papers, I will review them. Please give them to my Secret Service and I will review all of them." Shortly thereafter, Taitz told WND, a Secret Service agent identified by his badge as Gilbert Shaw accepted two suitcases of documents and pledged to deliver them to Roberts. Taitz reports the documents included four major sections: * A motion for reconsideration of Lightfoot v. Bowen with all its supplemental briefs. * The Quo Warranto Easterling et al v. Obama et al case. * The WND petition, consisting of 3,300 pages of names – over 325,000 in all – of people demanding the Supreme Court hear the Obama eligibility case. * A copy of a 164-page dossier sent to Attorney General Eric Holder detailing suspected criminal activity surrounding Obama and his supporters, also available on the Defend Our Freedoms website. WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "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." Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, some suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time. Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born. Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are "garbage," here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility: * New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president. * Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama. * Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing. * Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing. * Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case was dismissed by Judge Michael P. Kenny. * * Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe. * Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied. * In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied. * Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff. * In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied. * In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter. * California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters. In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include: * In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed. * In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed. * In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade. * In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama. * In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.
Chuck Norris knows Obama is a fake Is this Wikipedia worthy? POSTED 3/13/2009 1:57:50 PM It doesn't get much heavier than this. The call by some right wing leaders for rebellion and for the military to refuse the commander in chief’s orders is joined by Chuck Norris who claims that thousands of right wing cell groups have organized and are ready for a second American Revolution. During an appearance on the Glen Beck radio show he promised that if things get any worse from his point of view he may “run for president of Texas.†The martial artist/actor/activist claims that Texas was never formally a part of the United States in the first place and that if rebellion is to come through secession Texas would lead the way. He continues; "calling on a second American Revolution “ Norris said that; “Thousands of cell groups will be united around the country in solidarity over the concerns for our nation.†The right wing cells will meet during a live telecast, "We Surround Them," on Friday March 13 at 5 p.m. He's scheduled to be on the Alex Jones show again today, before the telecast. He closes with the words of Sam Houston followed by a plug for his next martial arts event. “We view ourselves on the eve of battle."
Here is a reply on a blog that sums it up really well. Ron, Having read your superficial article "Is the Republican Party fomenting rebellion among the armed forces as a political tactic?", I must question your own bias and professionalism, asserting rebellion based on partisan politics when you do not even inquire as to the fundamental veracity of the various cases and interests. As the professional state of what's referenced as "journalism" is in serious disrepute these days, and your own partisanship only serves to cover your union bias, I'm willing to assist you with these considerations. 1) The birth document offered by Barack Obama on FightTheSmears and FactCheck.org is insufficient to establish "natural born citizen" status required of the office of President under Article II, Section 1 Clause 5, which even on superficial examination of the phrasing alone exceeds "born citizen" or citizenship at birth. "Natural born citizen" is what is required for eligibility under the Constitution. 2) Statements by the Hawaiian Health Department officials only indicated that the original birth documentation was in Hawaii and did not affirm, as expected by law, any details of these birth conditions. Again, mere citizenship is insufficient for "natural born citizen" status required by the Constitution. 3) The Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" as offered by Obama is a lesser document (legally) than a "Certificate of Live Birth", the legal short-form birth document sufficient to affirm birth conditions. This is particularly true in the case of Hawaii, given existing practices and conditions so shortly after achieving statehood. Obama's offered document stipulates that it is only sufficient for "evidence of the fact of birth", which falls short of legal testament to the details of that birth. 4) The failure of the Supreme Court to hear the various cases brought before it does not constitute a finding of eligibility nor do these indicate a lack of substance to the allegations, given a wide array of legal rationales. 5) No qualified source has ever publicly considered Obama's qualification as President, much less concluded that he met these qualifications detailed in Article II, Section1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution. The clause "natural born citizen" has not ever been interpreted to be mere birth on U.S. soil, as this would provide no assurance as to allegiance upon birth nor protection against foreign influence in the office of President, which was the consideration of the Constitutional Congress as demonstrated by their copious notes on the matter. "Natural born citizen" was never addressed by the 14th Amendment, which deals solely and exclusively with citizen rights by the two means of attaining citizenship, "born or naturalized". In point of fact, two separate and distinct U.S. Supreme Courts have cited in majority opinion the terms that constitute "natural born citizen" and these are the Gray and Waite Courts in US v Wong Kim Ark and Minor v Happersett, respectively. That definition is as follows: At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Nowhere in these two decisions is this definition of natural born citizen ever undermined, dismissed, or contradicted. Nowhere in any other Supreme Court cases is there any other definition. In fact this definition is a paraphrase of the definition exhibited in § 212 "Citizens and natives" of de Vattel's "The Law of Nations", a reference with which the founders were intimately familiar and consulted regularly during the authoring of the Constitution. This is not about my personal politics, partisanship, nor about sour grapes; this is about the Law of the Land. President Obama personally admits on his web site to being born with British citizenship through his father's Kenyan nationality under the The British Nationality Act of 1948. Given these unequivocal terms and the law lain out by the United States Constitution, Barack Obama is forever unqualified to be President of the United States and can only be a usurper to the office. Further, S.Res 511, a non-binding resolution addressing John McCain, represents further defrauding of the American voter by the United States Senate. Evidence indicates that John McCain was not born on U.S territory, was not born on Coco Solo Naval Hospital and was actually born in the Colon Hospital in the city of Colon, Panama. Even if McCain were born in the Panama Canal Zone this is not now, nor has it ever been, United States territory. The United States Department of State's Foreign Affairs Manual at 7FAM1116.1-4(c) states: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic 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 U.S. jurisdiction and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth." John McCain did not achieve citizenship by virtue of being born on U.S. territory, but by virtue of statute. Sadly, despite his honored military service, John Sidney McCain, III is forever unqualified to be President of the United States under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution. In fact, Senate Resolution 511 appears to be deliberately structured so as to misrepresent the facts and defraud the American voter. The eighth clause of S.Res 511 states: 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 Here the phrase "on an American military base" refers to "American citizens", referencing McCain's parents and where they were stationed, and not to his actual birth (born) on that base. I am sure that this esteemed Senate body, with all its education and expertise, could have found the correct sentence structure to accurately state what they clearly intend to imply. Most curiously this same Senate Resolution S Res 511 does also address the two factors which define "natural born citizen", 1) birth on American soil and 2) to two United States citizens. This quite clearly appears to be the deliberate misrepresentation by the Senate of John McCain's qualification to the American voter in the popular election: deliberate fraud. Imagine the coincidence of having two unqualified major party candidates running in the same election. I am not a believer in coincidence, particularly when it supported by such levels of willful incompetence. Ron, quite clearly you and I do not share the same strong belief in upholding the United States Constitution, and your superficial impulse is to run to partisan politics supported by your own prurient, self-interest. However given constitutional crisis this country now faces wherein no Congressional legislation can become legitimate law and no Presidential act is constitutional, perhaps it's time you "dig a little deeper". The U.S. Constitution is not a "political tactic" and is, in fact, the law of the land. Sincerely, TJM
