Haha can't wait to see that!!

Sorry, Military bases are considered American soverign soil regardless of the longitude and latitude.

Are you saying being born on a military base as a child of our military personnel is akin to a forfeit birth certificate?

Let's just chuck the children of our military personnel into the streets where they are serving.

Try again:stickpoke There is a difference between a citizen and a "natural born citizen" as a prerequisite to the presidency.

Section 1, Article II of the U.S. Constitution reads: "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." (Emphasis added).

All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of foreign diplomats) are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. Persons born in the United States, and persons born on foreign soil to two U.S. parents, are born American citizens and are classified as citizens at birth under 8 USC 1401.

There is some debate over whether persons who were born US citizens and are classified as citizens at birth under U.S. law should also be considered citizens "by birth," whether they should all be considered to be "naturalized," or whether they should be considered "statutory citizens." There is also some debate over whether there is a meaningful legal distinction between citizens "at birth", citizens "by birth" and "statutory citizens" since U.S. law makes no such distinction, nor does the Fourteenth Amendment use the term "at birth." Current U.S. statutes define certain individuals born overseas as "citizens at birth." One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. According to this view, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States or in an incorporated territory, such as the US Virgin Islands; otherwise, he is a citizen "by law" and is therefore a "statutory citizen," because naturalization implies a pre-requisite of foreign citizenship.

Current State Department policy reads: "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."

I'd say that is fundamentally WRONG and I don't believe it is that clear in the Constitution as interpreted by experts. I'd like to see the Obama camp argue that during the election. Now if Obama indeed has a fake birth certificate he is SUNK.

You forget that particular notation was added as a safeguard for foreign born potential citizens before the US had foreign military bases. The wording is unclear and open to interpretation as is almost any law enacted by lawmakers. That is why we have Supreme Court Justices. Do you realize how many times the verbiage in the constitution has been interpreted and re-interpreted?

John McCain's situation does not fall under the true intent of the verbiage of that passage. I look forward to Obama and his campaign bringing up this issue in response to his perceived forged documents.

Mystery solved*: Barack Obama was American-born

Barack Obama's birth certificate revealed here - ..............."McCain was, in fact, born in a U.S. military hospital in the Panama Canal Zone, where his father was serving in the Navy. That was, in fact, American-controlled territory at the time."

The wording is clear. "NO PERSON, EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN... SHALL BE ELIGIBLE TO THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT"

You cannot be more explicit... unless you don't know what natural-born means?

Look, I am not saying that McCain is not eligible to the office. I am only telling you that, according to current State Department Policy, birth on foreign U.S. military bases does not automatically impart U.S. citizenship to a person.

OK....I really want to enjoy this evening but I can't resist.

So Obama's birth certificate is real because the Los Angeles Times said so? The LA Times is on par with the Huffington Post.

:rolleyes: Let it die, already. They are both eligible for the office.

Interesting links you have there.

The first that says that Barack Oboma was American-born has the following info at the bottom:

So that should settle it ... unless ... wait ... the people at FactCheck.org use computers, with keypads, that have the letters r-e-z-k-o on them, which just happened to spell the name of one of Obama's disgraced former backers ... and they were in Chicago to see the birth certificate at ... Obama headquarters ... CONNECT THE DOTS, PEOPLE!

So FactCheck.org, which is owned by The Annenberg Foundation, has ties to the disgraced fundraiser (Tony Rezko) that was one of Obama's first major financial contributors??? I don't think this saga is over yet...

Note this "birth certificate" that's appearing in the links is NOT the original birth certificate (i.e. the hospital birth certificate), it's just a birth certificate printed considerably later than 1961. Probably even after 2001 given that it has 'Rev. 11/01" in bottom left corner.

And what about the question as to whether his mother was U.S. citizen at the time of his birth? :)