Ah yes, you are correct, it was “Fact Checker”.
“Did they forge the 1936 Newspaper?” While it is irrelevant, it may be the usual sort of report generated by a hospital and sent to the local papers, as was the case for Obama, regardless of where he was born.
But as with many trolls, your comment about statutory citizenship “There's no question there are statutory citizenship parameters applying to Panama, but the same is true of whether McCain was born on or off base. McCain has nothing to gain by claiming to be born on the base, if he wasn't, as he still would be a statutory citizen at birth, which most people assume, is the same as natural born citizen.” reveals your intent. Most people don't know the meaning of either term, and most here would assume no such thing.
Yes he does have something to gain by claiming to have been born on the base. Few know the details of Panama's unique jurisdictional problems. Tribe, Olson, Leahy, and whomever else contributed to SenRes.511 repeatedly claimed “because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.” To those who don't understand citizenship requirements, which are quite complex, and frequently changing, it sounds convincing.
But even if there had been a functioning hospital in the middle of the base, McCain would not have been born on our soil. There might be a question if he had been born in an Embassy, but natural born citizenship would require a Constitutional amendment in either case.
Statutory citizens, citizens by law, are never natural born, and only those wishing it were the case would make the illogical claim - or those wishing to confuse others. Someone born a citizen by nature is exactly not a statutory citizen. I suspect you know that.
Also, Professor Chin seems pretty certain that McCain was not born a citizen, but was made one by a law passed when McCain was eleven months old.
The real question, and one which doesn't matter at this point, is whether McCain colluded with Obama to permit them both to run - “You say nothing about my having been made a citizen by statute when I was 11 months old and I'll not point out that having a British subject for a father, and being a British subject at birth makes you ineligible.” There is a high probability that some such understanding occurred.
Sarah Herlihy, associate at Kirkland and Ellis wrote a white paper on the stupidity of the natural born citizen requirement in 2005/2006, and published in the Chicago Kent Law Review. Herlihy worked for a senior partner at Kirkland who sat on McCain's defense and campaign committees. The same firm had another senior partner on Obama’s campaign committee. Just cronyism?
I linked to an image of the newspaper clipping. I didn't cite anything said by "Fact Checker." The newspaper listing is consistent with previous published reports.
While it is irrelevant, it may be the usual sort of report generated by a hospital and sent to the local papers, as was the case for Obama, regardless of where he was born.
Obama's newspaper listing didn't include a place of birth. There was a hospital on base where other people were reported to be born. McCain had one of his staffers show a birth certificate to a Washington Post reporter who confirmed that it said he was born in that hospital. The only thing that disputes this is a couple of COLBs dated years later that look even fishier than Obama's.
But as with many trolls, your comment about statutory citizenship “There's no question there are statutory citizenship parameters applying to Panama, but the same is true of whether McCain was born on or off base. McCain has nothing to gain by claiming to be born on the base, if he wasn't, as he still would be a statutory citizen at birth, which most people assume, is the same as natural born citizen.” reveals your intent. Most people don't know the meaning of either term, and most here would assume no such thing.
Sorry, but trying to characterize my comment as having something to do with trolls is plain nonsense. Just admit you were wrong and stop worrying about McCain. It is a distraction you claimed you didn't think was productive.
Statutory citizens, citizens by law, are never natural born, and only those wishing it were the case would make the illogical claim - or those wishing to confuse others.
This incorrect. Some statutory citizens are natural born citizens. Some of the current statutes include the same criteria unique to natural born citizens. As I showed with McCain's circumstances, by traditional definitions, he is a natural born citizen. Obama, not at all. Discussing McCain at all is silly and has nothing in particular to do with Obama, except for the Senate resolution which describes critieria that Obama doesn't qualify under.