Wednesday, September 16, 2009


John McCain: Citizen of Panama At Birth

Posted in Uncategorized on September 16, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

I’m sick of the partisan hijacking of the eligibility issue. I want people to know that my blog is not partisan. From the start, when I brought my law suit against the NJ Secretary of State, I attempted to have her remove the names of both Obama and McCain from the ballots. Neither is a natural born citizen and neither should be President.

Recently, I was on the air with a certain right wing blogger who alleged that persons born abroad could be POTUS. Unfortunately, I wasn’t connected to the program until after this bogus comment was made and it wasn’t brought to my attention until yesterday. It was obviously an attempt to sanitize McCain’s fraudulent eligibility. I will address it now.

According to the birth certificate and COLB of John McCain, McCain was born in Colon Hospital, city of Colon, Panama. While the BC states at the top that it is from the “Canal Zone”, the document also states that McCain was born in Colon Hospital, city of Colon. The city of Colon and the hospital were not in the Canal Zone.

The common story you hear is that McCain was born in the Canal Zone, but these documents posted online do not testify to that. Furthermore, there is no official document that has ever surfaced which states that McCain was born in the Canal Zone. Additionally, I am not aware of any complaints by John McCain claiming that the documents online – his BC and COLB – are fraudulent.

Regardless, even if we analyze the issue by assuming McCain was born in the Canal Zone, Panama law states that McCain was a citizen of Panama at birth.

Articles 8 and 9 of the Constitution of Panama state that all persons born in the “national territory” of Panama are citizens of Panama. Panama has always recognized the canal zone as Panama territory and has always considered those born in the Canal zone or at the Coco Solo base to be citizens of Panama. So McCain was definitely a citizen of Panama at birth.

According to Article 13 of the Panama Constitution, a person born in Panama does not lose his citizenship unless he explicitly or tacitly renounces it. McCain has never, as far as I know, acknowledged his Panama citizenship so I doubt that he has ever explicitly renounced the same.

Tacit renunciation is allowed and that means an implied renunciation will be recognized by Panama and citizenship is generally lost when a person enters the service of another nation or becomes a citizen of another nation. But tacit renunciation could only be accomplished by a person who was aware of the issue. As a child, McCain could not have made an implied renunciation of his Panamanian citizenship – certainly not as a new born infant.

The Panama Constitution unequivocally made John McCain a citizen of Panama at birth. If one is going to argue that Obama is not eligible to be President because he was British at birth – even if born in Hawaii – then we certainly must also argue that McCain, who was Panamanian at birth and who was born in national territory of Panama – is not eligible to be President either.

Anti Obama eligibility bloggers who refuse to accept the true legal analysis of McCain’s failure to qualify as a natural born citizen are setting themselves and the entire eligibility movement up for failure. By not acknowledging McCain’s ineligibility, you provide ammunition for the left to paint all efforts to remove Obama as partisan politics.

I am not interested in partisan politics. I am interested in the preservation of the Constitution. Despite being a war hero, John McCain should have been interested in the preservation of the Constitution as well. But he was more interested in his own career and now he’s directly responsible for the Constitutional hell we find ourselves in because – as the Republican candidate for POTUS, – he alone would have undeniable standing to challenge Obama’s eligibility in a quo warranto action.

But due to McCain having been born abroad, he is certainly not going to come forward and attempt to have Obama removed from office. In fact, McCain has supported Obama’s eligibility. How very convenient.

Beware of bloggers who are not lawyers giving you bogus partisan interpretations of what the law is and analyzing it for you as if they had a law license and had taken a bar exam to prove their skills. They are charlatans trying to spin you. And they are everywhere, on the left and the right.


Leo Donofrio



He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.


“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

- Leo Rugiens

No comments:

Post a Comment