If the title of this post has you befuddled, you are not alone, but please bear with me.

My hometown newspaper this morning carried a story by Eunice Moscoso, on whether Senator John McCain is a natural born U.S. citizen, and whether he is eligible to be U.S. president.

This is not the first time that this issue has been raised and, I am sure, it will not be the last time.

At the heart of this “controversy” lies the fact that McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone–not within the 50 United States–and that the Constitution restricts the presidency to “natural born” citizens.

Among other factors, pro and con, playing a role are, according to Moscoso:

1. Whether the Panama Canal Zone was part of the United States at the time (1936) when McCain was born there. Some scholars, such as law professor Jonathan Turley claim that “military installations, such as the one in Panama, were sitting on leased land and were never part of U.S. Soil.” Others, such as Harvard’s Laurence Tribe and former Solicitor General Theodore Olson claim that there is “substantial legal support”–including a 1986 Supreme Court opinion–that the United States “exercised sovereignty” over the Panama Canal Zone.

2. The fact that both of McCain’s parents were American citizens and that, according to Tribe and Olson, the framers never intended to exclude children of military officers serving outside the continental United States from the presidency.

3. The fact that “Federal law defines a natural born citizen in various ways, including one that clearly includes children of military officers overseas.”

Overarching all this, the fact that the framers of the Constitution never defined the term “natural born.”

Personally, I don’t think this needs to be such a big issue. Especially when there are so many other issues–such as qualifications, character, ability, judgment, etc.–that are much more important when assessing candidates for the presidency.

Also, I am somewhat biased on this issue. You see, my daughter was born on an American military installation in Germany. Both her mother and I are, and were, U.S. citizens. And–I know this is a loving father talking and hoping–should she ever want to run for the highest office, I would not want to see her disqualified just because her father was, as we say, serving his country overseas at the time of her birth.

Now, back to the title of this story, “Can Egyptian Born McCain Be President?“

Actually, that is the title eventually given to a translated article that appeared in March of this year at “Watching America.” The article was translated from Russian and from the on-line Pravda, Pravda.ru.

The literal translation, according to Watching America translators is: “The McCain Incident–An Egyptian May Be the President of the U.S.”

Now, I don’t speak Russian, but I know the “Watching America” Russian translators are very good at what they do, so I don’t doubt the accuracy of their translation. Furthermore, when one “googles” the Russian article and requests “translate this article,” one gets this translation for the title, “Kazus McCain: President of the United States could become ‘Egyptian‘” While some of the Google foreign language translations are fair, they are by no means perfect. But one can readily tell that there is something “funny” about the title–and perhaps the story.

And lo and behold, once we get into the translated text (the article discusses the presidential primaries battles between McCain, Clinton and Obama), we read the following:

A new issue has arisen. The issue is that John McCain was born in Egypt. To run for the presidency of the US, one must be born in the United States, but both the father and mother of the senator were citizens of the United States. Therefore it is unlikely that the circumstances mentioned above will hinder McCain in any way.

And, in a question and answer session between Pravda and “the president of the Institute of Strategic Rankings and Analysis, professor of the Department of the Applied Political Sciences of the Higher School of Economics, professor MGIMO Alexander Konovalov.”:

Q: There is some news coming from the press that McCain, as a candidate, may be hurt by the fact that he was not born in the US, but in Egypt. Is it true that this fact could be a hindrance to his campaign or is it simply gossip that is a part of all campaigns?

A: In principle Obama may have a bigger problem because he is a son of a Kenyan student and a white American woman. Then the Kenyan student left for Kenya and abandoned his girlfriend (sic) with little Obama. After that she married an Indonesian and they left for Indonesia for a prolonged period of time.

I don’t remember how the Constitution stipulates this, but I do know that a child born into a military family becomes an American citizen. McCain has a “winning” biography. He spent five years as a POW in Vietnam; he was tortured; he spent five years in a hole. Actually, as he was tortured by the Vietnamese, he heard Russian speech in the next room. And in his words, these people periodically recommended to the Vietnamese how best to torture McCain.

He’s twice married; his second wife is Miss Arizona. He has seven children; three of which are adopted. Therefore, I find it unlikely that with such an excellent resume, the fact that McCain was born in Egypt will play any role in the election.

I have no reason to think that the Russian article is a hoax. I have suggested to both my hometown newspaper and to the New York Times that they may want to look into how prestigious Pravda could make such a monumental mistake (and some other smaller ones), but they have not.

I have come up with my own explanation for the mystery surrounding McCain’s birth place, Egypt or Panama.

As many remember, the British controlled zone of the Suez Canal was also known as the “Canal Zone,” just like the Panama “Canal Zone.“ Perhaps the writers of the “McCain an Egyptian” article, and others, had read that McCain was born in the “Canal Zone” and automatically assumed that it was the Suez “Canal Zone.” Coincidentally, the year that McCain was born (1936) is the same year that Britain, after having “protected” the “neutral canal zone” since 1888, signed a treaty with Egypt retaining control over the canal.

As a footnote, had McCain been born in the Suez Canal Zone, it might have been an even stickier case to prove that he is a “natural born” U.S. citizen. Furthermore, the present “anti-anything remotely resembling/associated with Muslims” climate might not have helped him either–as is sadly the case with the other presidential candidate.