Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Land doesn't impress me as a judge who exercises professional conduct. It seems apparent from his statements.

TexasBorn, it was even more apparent in his courtroom on July 16 for Maj. Stephan Cook v. Col. Good et al.

Judge Land was contemptuous to Orly Taitz in his tone of voice, facial expression, and demeanor. I don't recall him agreeing to any point of fact in her presentation. He was in continuous full attack mode against Maj. Cook and Orly Taitz. The Army attorneys seemed embarrassed to be defending the Army while Judge "Hostile" Land was seemingly prosecuting Orly Taitz and Maj. Cook, who was actually the plaintiff.

Judge Land called a recess before delivering his verdict. After 15 minutes, he returned with his opinion, which was lengthy and obviously prepared beforehand, and his verdict, "dismissed for lack of standing, the deployment orders having been revoked." In her closing arguments, Dr. Taitz had already shredded the "lack of standing" verdict before he rendered it - she knew the drill and she saw it coming.

Judge Land's written words will not show it upon review, but he was spiteful to Maj. Cook and especially to Orly Taitz. On the other hand, Dr. Taitz could be more respectful and not provoke judges to anger. Just her tone of voice openly incites to retaliation. A lawyer must win over a judge by convincingly presenting evidence, precedents, logic, and arguments, and then "closing the deal" - not by picking a fight with the one who will rule on the case!

[quote=MinutemanCDC_SC]Maj. Gen. Childers, Lt. Col. Graef, Maj. Cook v. Col. Good, Col. Wingate, Col. MacDonald, Dr. Robert M. Gates, USSecDef, Barack Hussein Obama, de facto President of the United States

Courtroom proceedings are unfamiliar to me, but Major Stefan Cook v. Col. Good et al was a disheartening eye-opener about how unjust "justice" can be. This morning at 9:30 AM, July 16, 2009, I saw either a preview of the Tribulation or a look back at the Inquisition, in U.S. Distruct Judge Clay Land's second-floor courtroom in the U.S. Post Office and Federal Courthouse, Columbus, Georgia - eight miles north of Ft. Benning.

Everything in this courtroom seemed backwards and turned upside down.



Judge Land acted like an aggressive prosecutor, Dr. Taitz, the prosecuting attorney, acted like a defender of her wrongly attacked client, and the Army defense attorneys acted like bystanders who refused to get involved. Perhaps this travesty would be best understood if presented in reverse order, so you could see how events were addressed before they happened.
_________________________________________________

1) Dr. Taitz asked that this case serve as representative of the other 170 or so military personnel. She told Judge Land that if he did not accept a representative case on behalf of the others, she would potentially have to bring each one before his court. He declined her request without comment, apparently not taking it seriously.

The blonde female Army defense attorney mentioned Navy Capt. Schiver, Maj. Cook's civilian job supervisor at defense subcontractor Simtech in Pensacola. Capt. Harris had named a July 15, 2009 (yesterday), date of deployment to Afghanistan for Maj. Cook because Maj. Cook had asked for a July 15th date. He had volunteered before Mr. Obama took office, and reaffirmed that on May 15, 2009. She claimed that he should not be allowed to change the request he had so recently made. She said the proper procedure was a ???????-43 review process as to whether orders should be revoked.

She stated that the 11th Circuit has addressed this military [deployment?] procedure as early as 2003; yet, Maj. Cook did not use those channels.
__________________________________________

2) Dr. Taitz only made a ten or fifteen minute presentation, in which she presciently disassembled and defused the "no standing" ruling which Judge Land would make a half hour thereafter. This was hardly a shot in the dark, there having been 48 previous "no standing" rulings by self-shielding judges, none of whom has been willing to step out of line and get involved in actually judging between the fraud and the victim.

An almost as blonde female Army Major followed Dr. Taitz with a ten or fifteen minute recitation of how the military expected issues to be addressed through channels [in an ideal, untainted world]. The Army defense attorney stated that Maj. Cook had not taken an Article 138 complaint through channels, which is the prescribed procedure.

Dr, Taitz objected to that statement as not true, because she had taken the presentment to Adm. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asking what was the proper route for determining the legitimacy of the chain of command for orders. Adm. Mullen's legal counsel told her that because the [de facto] Commander-in-Chief is a civilian, he is not subject to the military determination of legitimacy of chain of command. Therefore, an Article 138 complaint could not require verification of legitimacy of a civilian CinC. [Therefore, Article 138 through channels would be pointless in this particular case.]

Then the Army defense attorney simply restated the necessity of submitting an Article 138 complaint through channels. Otherwise, the Army defense attorney comported herself satisfactorily and without offense.

Judge Land asked Dr. Taitz if she had evidence of her statement. "Evidence... Evidence!" She said she could present a written affidavit, but she had not brought the original determination, not expecting that the Army attorney would make such a false statement. Judge Land then denied Dr. Taitz' testimony in lieu of written evidence, leaving the argument in the Army's favor, that an Article 138 complaint had not been submitted through channels, and Maj. Cook had gone outside of channels and filed in a civilian court.

The Army defense attorney claimed that filing in a civilian court was improper for determination of legitimacy of chain of command, and the judge appeared to agree. N.B. the Catch-22: the JCS had already determined that a military complaint process cannot validate a civilian Commander-in-Chief, yet Maj. Cook cannot validate a military chain of command in a civilian court;. Did anyone mention that this eventuality had never happened before, and that it would cause a Constitutional crisis?

Although this contradiction was apparent to all, Judge Land accepted it into the record. More than once, I feared I would be reprimanded for my involuntary gasps of disbelief. I should have been able to restrain one moan, though. By contrast, Maj. Stefan Cook sat ramrod straight and, although I could not see his face, he did not make any untoward motions throughout.
__________________________________________

3) After a 15 minute recess, Judge Clay Land closed the case by rebuking Dr. Taitz for four or five minutes in a statement apparently prepared BEFORE the trial, the gist (NOT A QUOTE) of which was the following:

• This court is ruled by the same Constitution your client uses to prompt his refusal of military orders. You came here intending to uncover Pres. Obama's birth certificate. The Constitution defines the separation of powers, and this court will not overstep those bounds to rule on the Executive Branch.
  
  Maj. Cook, your orders to Afghanistan have been revoked; you will not be getting any more orders. Retired Maj. Gen. Childers and Lt. Col. Graef attached their names to this case based on possible orders; this court will not rule on hypotheticals. Your employment in Pensacola is beyond the jurisdiction of this court. Your complaint fails to meet the three requirements for standing. Therefore, this case is dismissed for lack of standing.
  
  You have your orders revoked; that is what your restraining order demanded.

Of course, that was not at all the intent of Maj. Cook's request for a temporary restraining order. As a volunteering officer, he could have revoked his own orders at any time up to deployment. Maj. Cook's plaint was for clarification of the chain of command, so that he could lawfully go to Afghanistan, as he had volunteered to do and wanted to do. But the judge specifically said he would not order discovery of Mr. Obama's birth certificate, that being interference by the judicial branch with the executive branch according to the separation of powers . . .

Actually, that is what is necessary, and what was intended by the checks and balances of a tripartite government. Separation of powers and checks and balances are opposing weights on the scales of justice. They must balance, or there is no justice.
__________________________________________

4) "Federal court only has authority of actual cases and controversies," Judge Land said. "The entire action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."

This bland statement does not communicate the contemptuous glare and hostile tone of voice which Judge Land showed the plaintiff, and especially Orly Taitz, when he read aloud the requirements for standing. Such "justices" hate her for challenging their unjust tyranny from the bench, their throwing the law under the bus and ruling according to agenda and worldview.

Originally Posted by "U.S. District Judge Clay Land read, not":26x7teq5

There are three requirements for standing:

I) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is
(a) concrete and particularized, and
(b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical;

II) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and

III) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative.

Thus, he spotlighted the irony:

I) Maj. Cook suffered injury in that his reserve status is probably revoked along with the orders for Afghanistan. The judge told him he would not be receiving further orders from the Army. The injury is concrete and particularized to him alone, actual and imminent, like day before yesterday.

II) Maj. Cook suffered injury in that the DOD had leaned on his boss to fire him from his job at defense subcontractor Simtech. Maj. Cook was fired from his civilian job less than 24 hours after his orders were revoked. Of course, DOD will claim there was no causal connection.

III) Injury would not only be addressed by a favorable decision, but a mere court order for discovery of the usurper's birth documents would end the reign of terror for everyone before it gets really, really dire.

Dr. Orly Taitz replied to Judge Land, "This is a mockery of justice."

And so it was. It merely covered the judge upon judicial review.

We all rose to show respect for the judge upon his two entrances. I had to force myself to rise to show him respect when he finally left. But, after the trial, I did render respect where respect was due - to Maj. Stefan Cook. I saluted him and told him he was the bravest man I had ever met. He said, "It's moral courage." I continued to stare at him, wanting to weep. He turned away, saying, "You make me want to cry." He could feel the emotion. Pray for this just man, unjustly persecuted to hide the wickedness of another [snip].

Someone said afterward that this was just the wrong judge. We all expressed our hopes for U.S. District Judge David O. Carter in California for Keyes v. Obama.

But today, this was truly a kangaroo court; the judge had even prepared his final opinion before the case began.
__________________________________________________ ____

5) On the sidewalk in front of the U.S. Post Office and Federal Courthouse, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., and much-decorated Middle East combat veteran Major Stefan F. Cook patiently explained to hostile and provoking reporters about:

his uniform sprinkled with medals and ribbons and combat buttons;
his four combat tours in the Middle East vs. the "coward objector" slander thrown at him;
his volunteering for another Afghanistan tour under Pres. Bush, but since March, having second thoughts (Geneva Convention) about serving in combat under a de facto Commander-in-Chief who had not demonstrated his natural born citizenship so as to be a legitimate head of state;

the intricacies of citizenship vs. natural born citizenship;
non-binding Sen. Res. 511 approving Sen. John McCain's purported natural born citizenship vs. the absence of examination of Sen. Obama's bona fides (Dr. Taitz misspoke that John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, although his Panama birth certificate states he was born in Colon Hospital, Colon, Republic of Panama);
that natural born citizenship required two citizen parents, not just one, plus birth on soil under U.S. jurisdiction;
Emmerich de Vattel's The Law of Nations, and how its principles of international law were incorporated into the U.S. Constitution;
the 14th Amendment definition of citizenship and why that was irrelevant to natural born citizenship; yet its primary author, Rep. John Bingham, incidentally described natural born citizenship as birth on U.S. soil to parents who are citizens;
and so much more, in her inimitable meticulous detail.

That contrasted with the lack of opportunity given in court to present the same character witness and the history of natural born citizenship. It just didn't come up in the courtroom. Neither did Mr. Obama's proof of qualification or the lack thereof.

- MinutemanCDC_SC .... 7/16/09
I learned today that if you're lost in the backwoods of west Georgia at midday, with no shadows,
no road signs, the gas gauge on "E", and no bars on the cellphone, you're REALLY LOST![/quote:26x7teq5]

I would like to know if anyone has seen this Associated Press story on Barack Obama back in 2004 ?
I suggest you read it, and ACT on it. Eventually the entire Truth will come out, for now THIS article seems to answer our questions.

http://patdollard.com/wp-content/upload ... enyaap.png

Originally Posted by PatriotofPast

I would like to know if anyone has seen this Associated Press story on Barack Obama back in 2004 ?
I suggest you read it, and ACT on it. Eventually the entire Truth will come out, for now THIS article seems to answer our questions.

http://patdollard.com/wp-content/upload ... enyaap.png

Patriot, yes I've read this and I bet it will be scrubbed from the internet soon.
I believe the evidence is overwhelming already but our corrupt judges and politicians will do everything they can to ignore. Their attitude is "So? What do you expect us to do...overturn the election of a popularly elected President?" It's beyond mind boggling.

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Originally Posted by PatriotofPast

I would like to know if anyone has seen this Associated Press story on Barack Obama back in 2004 ?
I suggest you read it, and ACT on it. Eventually the entire Truth will come out, for now THIS article seems to answer our questions.

http://patdollard.com/wp-content/upload ... enyaap.png

Patriot, yes I've read this and I bet it will be scrubbed from the internet soon.
I believe the evidence is overwhelming already but our corrupt judges and politicians will do everything they can to ignore. Their attitude is "So? What do you expect us to do...overturn the election of a popularly elected President?" It's beyond mind boggling.

It looks like you have been reading my mind again TB

I've figured out that I am very prejudiced against progressives. Is that bad?

==========================

BORN IN THE USA?

Plan killed to make 'naturalized' citizens eligible

Failed 2004 proposal would have given immigrants entry to Oval Office

________________________________________

Posted: October 17, 2009
12:45 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113183

A congressional committee deliberated only five years ago a plan that would have opened the door to allowing immigrants and others who do not qualify as "natural born" citizens in the United States entry into the Oval office – but ended up killing the plan.

One of the advocates for the plan was Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., whose comments still are available in an audio file posted at Talk Radio News: http://media.talkradionews.com/audio/2158.mp3

"I believe in the right of the people to choose as they wish. People say, 'Well you're amending the Constitution.' The fact is in 1789 the notion of direct democracy was not the one that governed," the congressman said.

"Clearly in terms of world history the people who came to the American continent… They went for the first time to self governance, but they didn't go all the way. We have evolved substantially since that time, I think in a good direction," he said.

"We do have now this major obstacle in the way of the voters, and we say to them, 'We don't trust you, you could get fooled, I mean, they might, some foreign country might sucker you by getting some slick person and mole him into the United States or her and get that person citizenship and then years later have that person get elected president and you'll be too dumb to notice.'

"I don't think that's accurate and I don't think that ought to be the governing principal. I really believe that the people of the United States ought to have the right to elect as president of the United States someone they wish," he said.

The hearing was held Oct. 5, 2004, by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on the subject of "Maximizing voter choice: Opening the president to naturalized Americans."

The proposal was before the questions over Barack Obama's birth place – and therefore eligibility to be president under the Constitution's demand for a "natural born" citizen in the Oval Office – became an issue.

Among those providing testimony on the proposal were Chairman Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and several experts.

"What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen. But a child who is adopted from a foreign country to American parents in the United States is not eligible for the presidency. Now, that does not seem fair or right to me," Hatch said, according to a transcript of the proceedings.

"Similarly, it is unclear whether a child born to a U.S. serviceman overseas would be eligible."

He cited both a constitutional amendment as well as proposed legislative resolutions that were written to change that.

"This restriction has become an anachronism that is decidedly un-American. Consistent with our democratic form of government, our citizens should have every opportunity to choose their leaders free of unreasonable limitations. Indeed, no similar restriction bars any other critical members of the government from holding office, including the Senate, the House of Representatives, the United States Supreme Court, or the president's most trusted cabinet officials," he said.

Instead of seeing a need to limit the chief executive of the United States to someone with a "natural born" loyalty, he said, "The history of the United States is replete with scores of great and patriotic Americans whose dedication to this country is beyond reproach, but who happen to have been born outside of our borders."

Then-Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., submitted testimony that he thought a statutory change could facilitate plans to allow "naturalized" citizens to be eligible to be president.

"Many Americans would probably be surprised to learn that a constitutional question remains as to whether a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen serving in the military or serving at a government post are not clearly, indisputably eligible to seek the highest office in our land.
Nor is it clear whether a child born overseas to a citizen traveling or working abroad is eligible to run for president. There are strong legal arguments that say these children are eligible, but it certainly is not an inarguable point," he said.

He continued, "Some citizens are ineligible to transmit citizenship to a biological child born abroad because of a failure to meet certain statutory criteria such as having lived in the United States for 5 years, 2 of which had to be after the age of 14," he noted.

Testimony submitted by Matthew Spalding of the Heritage Foundation raised some concerns.

"The attachment of the president must be absolute, and absolute attachment comes most often from being born and raised in – and educated and formed by – this country, unalloyed by other native allegiances. The natural born citizen requirement for the presidency seeks to guarantee, as much as possible, this outcome where it matters most," he said.

"The question is whether you can expand the eligibility to non-native-born citizens without undermining the wisdom and caution inherent in the framers' design. One proxy would be a significant citizenship requirement, along with a significantly increased residency requirement. How much? The question is enough to approximate the attachment that comes with having lived in America for almost all of one's life, thus fundamentally shaped by this regime, its history, institutions, and way of life. The average of 20th century presidents is 54.

A 35-year citizenship requirement, combined with a residency requirement increase, would assure that most would-be presidents are citizens before they are 18 years old and residents for much of the time thereafter," he submitted.

But he said opening the presidency to naturalized citizens raises the question of dual citizenship that must be addressed, there must be a deliberate effort to teach American traditions and any such move should be implemented years out to take out politics.

The issue of Obama's eligibility is significant, since there are a number of lawsuits alleging that if he was not born in the U.S., he does not meet the requirement in the Constitution that the president be a "natural born" citizen.

Those lawsuits continue in several parts of the country, and in fact a California federal judge has scheduled a trial on the dispute to begin in January.

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, the 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.

Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums exceeding $1 million to avoid releasing an original long-form state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106138

WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100613

Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"

The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 475,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.

///

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Originally Posted by PatriotofPast

I would like to know if anyone has seen this Associated Press story on Barack Obama back in 2004 ?
I suggest you read it, and ACT on it. Eventually the entire Truth will come out, for now THIS article seems to answer our questions.

http://patdollard.com/wp-content/upload ... enyaap.png

Patriot, yes I've read this and I bet it will be scrubbed from the internet soon.
I believe the evidence is overwhelming already but our corrupt judges and politicians will do everything they can to ignore. Their attitude is "So? What do you expect us to do...overturn the election of a popularly elected President?" It's beyond mind boggling.

Texas, I've stored a copy up on Scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21141411/Stan ... te-6-27-04

The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the Constitution!

Chief Justice John Marshall’s voice from the past cries out for taking jurisdiction in today’s Obama Article II eligibility cases.

Per the great U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, the federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama.

It is worth keeping in mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):

[i]“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.â€

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

I've figured out that I am very prejudiced against progressives. Is that bad?

==========================

BORN IN THE USA?

Plan killed to make 'naturalized' citizens eligible

Failed 2004 proposal would have given immigrants entry to Oval Office

________________________________________

Posted: October 17, 2009
12:45 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113183

A congressional committee deliberated only five years ago a plan that would have opened the door to allowing immigrants and others who do not qualify as "natural born" citizens in the United States entry into the Oval office – but ended up killing the plan.

One of the advocates for the plan was Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., whose comments still are available in an audio file posted at Talk Radio News: http://media.talkradionews.com/audio/2158.mp3

"I believe in the right of the people to choose as they wish. People say, 'Well you're amending the Constitution.' The fact is in 1789 the notion of direct democracy was not the one that governed," the congressman said.

"Clearly in terms of world history the people who came to the American continent… They went for the first time to self governance, but they didn't go all the way. We have evolved substantially since that time, I think in a good direction," he said.

"We do have now this major obstacle in the way of the voters, and we say to them, 'We don't trust you, you could get fooled, I mean, they might, some foreign country might sucker you by getting some slick person and mole him into the United States or her and get that person citizenship and then years later have that person get elected president and you'll be too dumb to notice.'

"I don't think that's accurate and I don't think that ought to be the governing principal. I really believe that the people of the United States ought to have the right to elect as president of the United States someone they wish," he said.

The hearing was held Oct. 5, 2004, by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on the subject of "Maximizing voter choice: Opening the president to naturalized Americans."

The proposal was before the questions over Barack Obama's birth place – and therefore eligibility to be president under the Constitution's demand for a "natural born" citizen in the Oval Office – became an issue.

Among those providing testimony on the proposal were Chairman Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and several experts.

"What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen. But a child who is adopted from a foreign country to American parents in the United States is not eligible for the presidency. Now, that does not seem fair or right to me," Hatch said, according to a transcript of the proceedings.

"Similarly, it is unclear whether a child born to a U.S. serviceman overseas would be eligible."

He cited both a constitutional amendment as well as proposed legislative resolutions that were written to change that.

"This restriction has become an anachronism that is decidedly un-American. Consistent with our democratic form of government, our citizens should have every opportunity to choose their leaders free of unreasonable limitations. Indeed, no similar restriction bars any other critical members of the government from holding office, including the Senate, the House of Representatives, the United States Supreme Court, or the president's most trusted cabinet officials," he said.

Instead of seeing a need to limit the chief executive of the United States to someone with a "natural born" loyalty, he said, "The history of the United States is replete with scores of great and patriotic Americans whose dedication to this country is beyond reproach, but who happen to have been born outside of our borders."

Then-Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., submitted testimony that he thought a statutory change could facilitate plans to allow "naturalized" citizens to be eligible to be president.

"Many Americans would probably be surprised to learn that a constitutional question remains as to whether a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen serving in the military or serving at a government post are not clearly, indisputably eligible to seek the highest office in our land.
Nor is it clear whether a child born overseas to a citizen traveling or working abroad is eligible to run for president. There are strong legal arguments that say these children are eligible, but it certainly is not an inarguable point," he said.

He continued, "Some citizens are ineligible to transmit citizenship to a biological child born abroad because of a failure to meet certain statutory criteria such as having lived in the United States for 5 years, 2 of which had to be after the age of 14," he noted.

Testimony submitted by Matthew Spalding of the Heritage Foundation raised some concerns.

"The attachment of the president must be absolute, and absolute attachment comes most often from being born and raised in – and educated and formed by – this country, unalloyed by other native allegiances. The natural born citizen requirement for the presidency seeks to guarantee, as much as possible, this outcome where it matters most," he said.

"The question is whether you can expand the eligibility to non-native-born citizens without undermining the wisdom and caution inherent in the framers' design. One proxy would be a significant citizenship requirement, along with a significantly increased residency requirement. How much? The question is enough to approximate the attachment that comes with having lived in America for almost all of one's life, thus fundamentally shaped by this regime, its history, institutions, and way of life. The average of 20th century presidents is 54.

A 35-year citizenship requirement, combined with a residency requirement increase, would assure that most would-be presidents are citizens before they are 18 years old and residents for much of the time thereafter," he submitted.

But he said opening the presidency to naturalized citizens raises the question of dual citizenship that must be addressed, there must be a deliberate effort to teach American traditions and any such move should be implemented years out to take out politics.

The issue of Obama's eligibility is significant, since there are a number of lawsuits alleging that if he was not born in the U.S., he does not meet the requirement in the Constitution that the president be a "natural born" citizen.

Those lawsuits continue in several parts of the country, and in fact a California federal judge has scheduled a trial on the dispute to begin in January.

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, the 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.

Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums exceeding $1 million to avoid releasing an original long-form state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106138

WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100613

Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"

The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 475,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.

///

"We do have now this major obstacle in the way of the voters, and we say to them, 'We don't trust you, you could get fooled, I mean, they might, some foreign country might sucker you by getting some slick person and mole him into the United States or her and get that person citizenship and then years later have that person get elected president and you'll be too dumb to notice.'

Isn't this exactly what just happened to us? Barney Frank, you are a truly a first class crystal ball reader. I mean, gosh, it's almost like you had PLANNED just this very thing to happen!

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Originally Posted by PatriotofPast

I would like to know if anyone has seen this Associated Press story on Barack Obama back in 2004 ?
I suggest you read it, and ACT on it. Eventually the entire Truth will come out, for now THIS article seems to answer our questions.

http://patdollard.com/wp-content/upload ... enyaap.png

Patriot, yes I've read this and I bet it will be scrubbed from the internet soon.
I believe the evidence is overwhelming already but our corrupt judges and politicians will do everything they can to ignore. Their attitude is "So? What do you expect us to do...overturn the election of a popularly elected President?" It's beyond mind boggling.

Texas, I've stored a copy up on Scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21141411/Stan ... te-6-27-04

Thanks to patriots like you Highlander the truth cannot stay hidden. One question though. Why couldn't Scribd be scrubbed just like all the other websites?

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/ ... yan_am.php

November 26, 2008
Video: Kenyan Ambassador admits Obama born in Kenya
Topics: Political News and commentaries
Via the Mike In The Morning show on WRIF radio, in Detroit, Michigan that called the Kenyan Embassy, and spoke to the Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, Peter Ogego, who admitted that it is a well known fact that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and plans are underway to build a memorial at the site of his birth.

The entire phone call can be heard here:

Have you already seen this one?