WORLD NET DAILY LETTER CAMPAIGN MIS-STATES CORE ISSUE IN DONOFRIO SCOTUS CASE
World Net Daily has organized a letter writing campaign to Fed Ex the SCOTUS utilizing the following headline at its web site:
“FED EX THE SUPREMES ABOUT OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY”
I must draw attention to the fact that the article which solicits these letters has not educated the public to my case. The actual text of the letter they are sending is fine, but the article which solicits participation is incorrect. Here is what it says:
“…there is only one way to make your voice heard in time for Friday’s preliminary hearing – overnight delivery of your letter.
That language is just awful. No birth certificate can “verify beyond a shadow of a doubt his constitutional eligibility for office.” Please. WND is basically saying that if Obama shows an original BC, then his is eligible beyond a shadow of doubt. That is is false.
I have REPEATEDLY stated that Obama can release a golden birth certificate signed by 100 gazzillion witnesses embossed in gold leaf that he was born on the mall in Washington DC and it still wouldn’t make him a “Natural Born Citizen” under the Constitution because he was, regardless of where he was born, a BRITISH citizen “at birth.” Since he was “born” as a British citizen/subject, his United States citizenship was not “natural”. World Net Daily has done a prior article where they did get it right, but at this crucial moment, two days before the SCOTUS meets, they are getting it wrong.
The article goes on to say:
“Farah launched a petition drive on WND two weeks ago that calls on all controlling legal authorities to ensure the Constitution is followed on the question of eligibility and for full public disclosure of the facts of Obama’s birthplace and parentage…”
There is no dispute about Obama’s parentage. His father was a British Citizen, and his mother was a United States citizen. Therefore, Obama was both a subject/citizen of the British monarchy as well as a United States citizen “at birth”. His place of birth won’t change that no matter where he was born. The WND letter solicitation fails to point that out and as such is doing harm to public awarenesss.
Here’s why: if Obama produces a genuine vault kept birth certificate from Hawaii that satisfies every possible requirement, many people will be under the mistaken impression that he is a natural born citizen. World Net Daily needs to correct that solicitation and let its readers know that Obama is not eligible regardless of where he was born.
I must ask readers of this blog not to participate in that letter writing campaign. I don’t believe this was an intentional error, but I must remain consistent.
December 3, 2008 at 1:58 PM
I’m stumped at the lack of response to the “natural born citizen” issue. Seems to me the Texas Darlin site and the Right Side of Life site are pretty much the only other blogs that regularly follow it/debate it. Why doesn’t Jerome Corsi look into the natural born clause a little closer? I don’t get it.
December 3, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Leo,
I have read your posting and respect it. I believe I do understand your case, but as you admit, the actual text of the letter drafted to SCOTUS is “fine.”
I signed the letter days ago in a specific effort to make SCOTUS very, very aware that THOUSANDS of citizens are concerned; and that they are the last chance to ‘Right the Wrong’ that has ben perpetrated on the American people.
There is strength in sheer numbers!!
December 3, 2008 at 2:22 PM
[...] has posted a response to the WorldNetDaily letter sending, [...]
December 3, 2008 at 2:23 PM
THIS trend has alarmed me from the beginning of your case gaining traction.
People, we have GOT to STOP making ANY connections about the birth certificate hoo-hah to the actions brought by Leo and Cort.
Why? Because to do so is to fall into the trap that has been laid for this.
Stop posting it. Stop promoting it. Move on to the REAL ISSUE.
Obama was born a British Citlzen. That he was also born an American Citizen does not mitigate.
Someone who British Citizen at birth cannot lawfully be POTUS, unless they were an American Citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted.
THIS IS THE ISSUE.
To continue on about the COLB is SABOTAGE and MEANINGLESS.
The matter is now simple. Don’t make it complicated. Don’t obfuscate.
READ THIS AGAIN and avoid the trap that has been laid for you.
Obama was born a British Citlzen. That he was also born an American Citizen does not mitigate.
Someone who British Citizen at birth cannot lawfully be POTUS, unless they were an American Citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted.
It’s that simple.
December 3, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Leo,
I believe in your case and you’ve done an outstanding job. However,
your assuming Obama Sr. is his dad. What if it turns out Frank Marshall
is his real father? Then your lawsuit is dead in the water. That’s why the
birth certificate needs to be opened.
Kenya will be really upset if Obama Sr. isn’t Obama’s real father. To America and everyone else if Frank Marshall is his real dad…Obama looks
like a liar and a fraud.
I hope and pray the Supreme Court takes your case!!
December 3, 2008 at 2:27 PM
If he produces a genuine vault copy with an authentic Hawai’ian birth with either ‘Unknown’ or someone besides Barack O. Sr. on it as father, then you are checkmated. He can claim that he didn’t know such information when he wrote his books, and half the public and all the press is perfectly willing to forgive his deceptions of the last six months.
========================================
December 3, 2008 at 2:28 PM
People need to understand, this is not about Obama for me. It’s not about McCain or Calero. It’s about the Constitution. No birth certificate can change the Constitution.
If he was not born in Hawaii, the result will be the same. My law suit did request the court order the Secretary of State in NJ to demand to see his BC, but it’s an “in the alternative” argument before SCOTUS.
I believe that the BC issue, while relevant, is not CONTROLLING, and all of these law suits and web sites who sink their teeth into that issue and that issue alone, are heading for a big surprise. No harm mentioning the BC and wanting to see it, but the WND article, as written, makes it sound like the BC has the power to determine Obama’s eligibility. It doesn’t.
If he wasn’t born in Hawaii, the SCOTUS could stop there and not visit the natural born issue, but if he does have what Hawaii health department officials have said is there, then he’s still not eligible to be President. The reporting on this distinction has been terrible.
WND has previously written correctly about my case, but this solicitation for fed ex letters is very misleading with its unfortunate choice of words.
I can’t let that go by just because they support my case. It’s not right. And people may get confused.
December 3, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Leo,
I keep trying to hammer the fact that Obama could’ve been born in a manger on the steps of the White House and it wouldn’t matter because his father wasn’t a US citizen.
Some people are willing to listen but most plug their ears and say, ‘la la la la la…I’m not listening…la la la la la”.
December 3, 2008 at 2:38 PM
I find it to be in the realm if fantasy that Barack Obama Sr. is not Barack Obama’s Jr.’s father. That is so ridiculous that people who make that argument are truly treading on weird and fringe ground. I find that to be absolutely uneccessary and insulting to Obama. To think that his entire life has been a fantasy and he might just find out now that this wasn’t his father. The premise is absurd.
But let me say this and put it to bed… it won’t matter if he ends up being born to another Father rom the USA, unkown or from Mars… “at birth” he was a British citizen, whether rightly or wrongly by some action of his parents. The key moment for the Constitution’s Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, is “at birth”…”born”. He was “born” as a British Citizen and nothing can retroactively change that now. Nothing.
December 3, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Well, Leo,
I read the post by WND and acted/sent the letters referenced on it already, more to show numbers as the person above stated. I felt that IF I had not taken any action on this issue, then I don’t have the right to voice any opinion on things when he remains in office as President and is not a “Natural Born Citizen” in the eyes of the Constitution. This action was presented to me and others, with a reasonable price that I could afford and in a manner that allowed me to show my interest and support with my injection of those letters, that I want the Justices to act upon their sworn duty and Oath of Office.
I follow your meanings completely and have argued this very thing to several people, mostly to astonished “well, it really doesn’t make any difference, does it?” types of replies. When I get to them saying that to me, I sort of go ballistic on them, because they are showing their stupidity so strongly, and “they vote”…. sort of blows your mind.
Anyway, I wiish that I had known that you didn’t like that letter as printed by WND, but don’t knowo hwow to get hold of them to have it changed or altered. Unfortunately. By the way, I am totally behind you and all of the others uits, and want at least one of you’all to win, mostly so that the Constitution stands and that we can then have time to make the wording clear to all future comers.
To the person above who wanted to know why Corsi has not commented lately on anything, well, he has been in the hospital recovering from severe back surgery that he had to have right after he got back from Kenya, maybe someone roughed him up a bit too much, don’t know what caused it, but he is still under the weather and not doing anything on the political front right now. Hopefully he will be returning shortly to the active front. I wish him Godspeed.
December 3, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Ironic comments from Obama about Justice John Roberts:
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Let me also say that I remain distressed that the White House during
this confirmation process, which overall went smoothly, failed to
provide critical documents as part of the record that could have
provided us with a better basis to make our judgment with respect to
the nomination.
This White House continues to stymie efforts on the part of the Senate to do its job. I hope with the next nominee who comes up for the Supreme Court that the White House recognizes that in fact it is its duty not just to the Senate but to the American people to make sure we can thoroughly and adequately evaluate the record of every single nominee who comes before us.
obama.senate.gov/press/050922-remarks_of_sena/
December 3, 2008 at 2:48 PM
I agree that producing a genuine Hawaiian vault Birth Certificate showing Obama’s birth in Hawaii may confuse some, however, that certificate should further confirm the nationality of his Father (British) which validates your case that his citizenship is derived from that of his Father and that he was a dual citizen at birth. A fact Obama has not denied.
My personal suspicion is that the reason no vault certificate has been produced is because his paternal Grandmother is correct in allegedly asserting she witnessed his birth in Kenya. That is why there has been no Hawaiian vault certificate produced — it doesn’t exist. Obama’s deliberate and continued failure to produce a vault certificate — which should be so easy to do — raises further suspicions surrounding his eligibility for whatever reason.
In my non-legal opinion, proof of or continued suspicion of a birth in Kenya would further validate your assertions of his dual citizenship at birth and will mollify some of the most die-hard believers that he should be inauguarted no matter what.
December 3, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Leo,
I sent an email to Joseph Farah on 12-1 asking him to correct a column he wrote titled, Last Chance for Constitution, because he mistakenly described your case as hinging on the birth certificate. Who knows if he will read it, but I hope he gets the message somehow that your case is much stronger. Too many media outlets are lumping all the cases together as just dealing with the birth certificate. It is amazing how little research is done prior to printing some of these stories.
December 3, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Claudia,
I’m not worried about the actual text of the letter they are sending. There’s nothing wrong with it. But the article at their web site which is soliciting the letters is misleading. I hope they change it. If you read it carefully, you’ll see that it could be interpreted as giving ppower to the BC to establish “beyond a shaodw of doubt” that he is eligible. The BC can only establish that he is NOT eligible. It cannot, under any circumstance, establish that he is eligible. That’s the distinction many just can’t or won’t understand.
December 3, 2008 at 2:58 PM
“If he produces a genuine vault copy with an authentic Hawai’ian birth with either ‘Unknown’ or someone besides Barack O. Sr. on it as father, then you are checkmated.”
This does not change the fact SCOTUS must define Natural Born Citizen.
This is still a win if Obama’s father is American because now Obama will have to answer a forgery charge regarding his Certificate of Birth that states his father was Obama Sr.
So either his father was Obama from Kenya and he’s disqualified or his father was an American which means he’s going to jail.
December 3, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Leo, I put up a big (little) explanation about this. I hope this helps. I don’t want to, however, discourage others from pursuing their angle of attack. The more the merrier! I’m concerned about one angle getting mad at the other angle. When that happens, newcomers and skeptics are seriously turned off, and it hurts everything. And I’m sure that brings the media and those who hate the constitution great joy! Trouble in the ranks is all they see. And I’m getting thousands of newcomers a day. You’re doing a great job.
December 3, 2008 at 3:01 PM
I signed the letter too for the same reasons as Claudia stated. There are a lot of cases out there now, but I think Leo’s and Cort’s are the strongest ones. If Leo could talk to Farah and explain, I’m sure he would listen. I’m thankful that WND has pushed so hard on this. I wrote back a couple of weeks ago to see if Farah would do a writeup about Leo’s case, but I don’t guess that he got my e-mail. I’m sure they get tons. But if Farah really knew Leo’s case, he probably do a writeup on it too. There’s just so many cases now, and this gives them a lot to write on.
Kitty
December 3, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Also, for what it’s worth, i don’t think that WND is trying to hurt your case. I believe they’re actually trying to help you out. Don’t lose too much sleep over it. Just keep plugging away. People will catch on. I’m catching on!!!!
December 3, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Please don’t get me wrong. I also requested the NJ SOS request to see Obama’s BC. I made that argument every step of the way. But I also made the natural born citizen argument. My problem is with those who continue to focus on just the BC when no BC can make him eligible. They aren’t pointing that out. Hell, both Berg’s case and the Keys case don’t even make a natural born citizen argument, other than to rely exclusively on the BC issue and whether or not he was an Indonesian citizen at some point, or even still is. The issue is what was his status “at birth”, not at the time of the election.
This is the main issue.
December 3, 2008 at 3:15 PM
I have not stated that WND is trying to harm my case. That’s simply not been said and I know it isn’t true. What I’m saying is that their choice of works for this current letter campaign is misleading. Furthermore, it makes no reference to this blog or to my case at all. This is the blog where you will find out the truth about my case. I’m here to educate people as to what my case says and means. WND is holding this letter campaign but there’s no link to this blog, no link to the legal ideas which this case represents.
And that’s not right. Especially in light of just how wrong the statements above are.
December 3, 2008 at 3:16 PM
In all honesty, Leo, I read the webpage entry, more as skimming, but I did read the actual letter that I put my name to and didn’t find anything wrong/objectionable with the actual letter, so I sent it on. It gave me the voice to the SCOTUS that I really felt might help show them that there are many who are behind these suits and you in particular, but all of them and that we are not all “tin foil hat” types at all. We just want them to use the actual words of the Constitution and do the duty that they swore to uphold, and not to change it on their whims, like they might try to do, because a LOT of us are watching these actions.
Thank you for the reply, I will treasure it, especially from you. I really hope your suit proves to all of the world that people just can’t get away with whatever they want, whenever and for any reasons, no matter what.
I heard the interview you did on Plains radio on Dec 1, and am amazed that you are so young and yet so very intense, much like I was at your age and still am. You have the same kind of personality that I do when I get on a subject that is tearing me up inside. And I appareciate your honesty, a thousanfold. Son’t let anyone sway you in your quests, no matter what they may be now or in the future. Thanks again for the reply.
December 3, 2008 at 3:16 PM
More to bolster the argument that being born a foreigner excludes Obama from natural born citizenship:
http://www.therant.us/guest/gioia/09222007.htm
While this is a discussion of the 14th amendment, it includes some specifics as to “natural born citizen.”
Here are some extracts:
“Well the first major hurdle Senator Howard presented to the court majority in this case is that he specifically declared the clause to be “virtue of natural law and national law” which only recognized citizenship by birth to those who were not subject to some other foreign power. The Senator also stated when he introduced the amendment: “The clause [the citizenship clause section 1] specifically excludes all persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, and persons who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” (Emphasis added). It seems clear that the amendment only applies to American citizens (natural law), regardless of their race – which is exactly what was intended.”
And right on point about what a natural born citizen is:
“The writer, John A. Bingham, of the 14th amendment’s first section, considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” ”
And,
“Ironically, the Supreme Court had already decided the meaning of the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause before the Wong Kim Ark case, and unlike the majority in the Wong Kim Ark court, did consider the intent and meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction”. In the Slaughterhouse cases [Slaughterhouse Cases Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Livestock Landing and Slaughterhouse Co. (1873)] the court noted that “[t]he phrase, ’subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” Even the dissenting minority in the Slaughterhouse cases affirmed that the citizenship clause was designed to ensure that all persons born within the United States were both citizens of the United States and the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.”
It seems clear that Obama did not get citizenship under the 14th amendment because of his foreign citizenship, and non US father, even if he was born in the US.
December 3, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Leo, you are so correct. It steams me to see that WND, one of the more powerful Internet media, is obfuscating the real issue. We need to contact them in mass so they will correct this. As you can see, the media is brain-dead on this issue and it will be difficult to breathe life into something that is dead. Even FOX is out to lunch on this, as you have pointed out.
Scott, “The Political Pastor”
December 3, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Leo, call Joseph Farah or someone there and explain your case. Do this, please. I’m sure that he will write about it. I think it should be written about and linked so people can become educated it. Some of us have written e-mails, but that doesn’t mean that they receive them because there may be too many of them. I’m pretty sure WND is hopping right now with e-mails. But if you call and speak to him personally, then it will be better. Now is a good time because of Friday.
Kitty
December 3, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Leo,
It really is an excellent point that you are making about his natural born citizenship being unrelated to his birth certificate.
I think it is an important distinction to make.
If he were to show up with an authentic Hawaiian birth certificate proving he was born in the United States many people would assume (wrongly) that the natural born issue has been remedied because it would prove he was born in the US.
Slowly but surely people are starting to realize that your case and Cort’s case are not relying on speculation about birth location. They are relying on very strong evidence that our Founding Fathers didn’t want anyone with divided loyalties, particularly divided loyalty to the British, serving as President.
December 3, 2008 at 3:30 PM
We both signed up, individually for the WND letter to the SCOTUS on Monday. I realized at the time they did not address your suit stating Obama as a British Citizen. I will email them about this.
What I came here to post is:
IS ANYONE HAVING TROUBLE with their letters (USPS) reaching the SCOTUS? I MAILED 9 letters to SCOTUS on Saturday, Nov 29, 2008, 2:26 PM from the main post office in San Antonio, TX. I sent them Certified & was told they would be there in 2-3 days. Last night I sent USPS an email asking “where are my letters?” I received an email back with 17 questions on it. So, I’ve answered their questions & now waiting for a response. tic-toc!
December 3, 2008 at 3:34 PM
I know. I feel your pain. It’s just that when people come over here and read your style of writing, I believe (I may be wrong) they think, “Man, these people can’t get their act together!” Whether you like it or not, people have grouped everybody involved in this as one big conglomeration. One of the problems I’ve seen is that people don’t (can’t, won’t) read. They need 1 or 2 line bullet type explanations or they are not going to read it and understand. It’s advertising. Legal jargon, people don’t understand. When you start talking ‘interpretation’ and ‘original intent’ and things of that nature, forget it! People are to dumb to understand that. You can thank your public schools for that. There’s too much logic (thinking) involved. All I’m saying is we got to be careful not to get so mad as to let that come out in our writing. It’s going to hurt us. We got to be cool! Honestly, I don’t even know what Cort’s case is about. I don’t have time to read all this junk.
It’s lac, of advertising. When money is invested in advertising, experts are employed. Experts know how to disiminate information quickly and effectively. Nobody has put money into this. So it’s going to have a mind of it’s own. There’s no hierarchy or organization to this. This is the sad down side to ‘grassroots’ It get’s dirty. An ant standing by a grass root cannot see who’s standing 1 inch away from him, much less 1 ft or 1000 miles away from him.
Interestly, the only people that have to ‘get it’ are sitting in the Supreme Court. All they really have to do is be able to read to side with you. This is not like bible interpretation where there’s greek and hebrew and all kinds of historical and context going on. It think it’s pretty plain what the Constitution is saying.
I’ll see what I can do about bringing that out better on my end.
December 3, 2008 at 3:35 PM
I DID NOT SIGN THE FED EX LETTER BECAUSE UPON FIRST READ IT WAS OBVIOUS THEY HAD GOTTEN THE INFORMATION WRONG.
HOW ANYONE COULD NOT HAVE SEEN IT, ESPECIALLY ANYONE INVOLVED IN CONCOCTING IT, IS UTTER DISREGARD FOR LEO AND HIS INTENTIONS.
WHAT A FARCE OTHERS ARE MAKING THIS!
AMERICA (A-CRIME-A) HAS BECOME A STINKING ROTTING CORPSE (YES IT HAS) AND THE THOUGHTS OF PEOPLE HAVE BECOME THE INFESTING MAGGOTS! AND THE EULOGY IS NOT OF WORDS, BUT SPITS OF VOMIT!
I do not care if they meant to get it wrong or not. Shame on them. It was dumb of them. Leo Donofrio has made his case clear enough for a young child to comprehend, and that’s no disrespect to young children.
Yes. Again. As I’ve made quite clear in a few posts on this site: Dumbness is the answer. Have I proven that to you yet? If not, I will prove to you that the thoughts swirling around in many peoples’ heads are as easy to erase and manipulate as picking out a real goldfish from a fishbowl and dropping a plastic one in its place. You better start questioning whose thoughts you’re thinking, because if you can’t identify them as your own, then how can you suggest that they are your own?
I SUGGEST EVERYONE GO OUT TO THEIR BACKYARD WITH A SHOVEL AND START DIGGING. SEE WHAT YOU FIND: AMERICA? YOUR THOUGHTS? DONOFRIO’S INTENTIONS?
December 3, 2008 at 3:37 PM
RE: WND — It looks like they’ve changed the wording:
Dear Associate Justice ______:
If the Constitution doesn’t mean precisely what it says, then America is no longer a nation under the rule of law.
A nation no longer under the rule of law is, by definition, under the rule of men.
Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution clearly stipulates “No person except a natural born Citizen” shall be eligible to serve as president of the United States. That statement has clear meaning, and the Supreme Court
of the United States is one of the controlling legal authorities in ensuring that the Constitution is enforced – even if doing so may prove awkward.
With the Electoral College set to make its determination Dec. 15 that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. be the next president of the United States, the Supreme Court is holding a conference Friday to review a case challenging his eligibility for the office based on Article 2, Section 1.
I urge you to take this matter most seriously – and judge it only on the clear, unambiguous words of the Constitution: A president must, at the very least, be a “natural born citizen” of the United States.
If you agree that this clear constitutional requirement still matters, the Supreme Court must use its authority to establish, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. qualifies for the office under that standard.
There is grave, widespread and rapidly growing concern throughout the American public that this constitutional requirement is being overlooked and enforcement neglected by state and federal election authorities. It’s up to the Supreme Court to dispel all doubt that America’s next president is truly a natural born citizen of the United States.
I urge you to honor the Constitution in this matter and uphold the public trust.
December 3, 2008 at 3:38 PM
There IS much confusion.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/562
December 3, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Leo,
It would be very sad if Barack Obama Sr. isn’t Barack Obama Jr. father, I may be out of line for thinking Frank Marshall could be his real father. But until someone see’s the original birth certificate everything is speculation. Could it be he was born in Kenya and Barack Obama Sr. isn’t his father? To me that would explain why Obama has spent 1 million dollars hiding the truth behind lawyers when he could have spent $10.00 to show the world his birth certificate. Obama has already admitted to being a dual citizen at birth.
I believe Obama is not a natural born citizen at birth as you have stated. I believe our constitution matters and should be followed. I sent a letter to the Supreme Court Justices after reading WND’s article. I sent the letter in support of letting our Justices know that your case should be heard, as wells as the other cases regarding Obama’s citizenship
December 3, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Leo, I read where you said that it doesn’t matter if it turns out that Barack Sr. is NOT BO’s father; that BO would still be considered a British Citizen at birth because of his parents actions.
Could you clarify how you come to that decision? If a true American citizen were listed as a father on the BC then how could he be considered British? It would seem to me that, his parent’s actions or not, he would be a natural born citizen if his father turned out to be a citizen.
Thanks in advance.
December 3, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Leo,
Keep up th good work. We are with you!! We are trying to help in anyway we can that’s all! Hang in brother you are not alone.
December 3, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Leo, I’ve been clarifying your case on various comment sections at various blogs.
Actually all of the cases depending solely on the BC are depending on an assumption without a present factual basis and hoping that some court will be benevolent to them and permit them to see what they assume will present them with a lot of hidden information. And that is what gives a certain good hand to either the court or to those defending Obama … that just who has standing to request such info, which has to be decided. Are those requesting legally worthy??? While your case is based on a fact to which Obama himself has already “confessed” to – being a British Citizen AT TIME OF BIRTH!
For some reason people have become myopic about the BC. I think that point of not coming forth with it just makes them justifiably very angry, but …. if they are going to demand that information I don’t know why they just don’t ask for all of his records to be unsealed since then they would also have any info re: his history or not of other citizenships accepted along the way (I know that’s not a factor in your case), making it necessary for becoming a Naturalized Citizen at some point and/or determining whether or not he was even eligible to be a Senator! I think asking for all is based on the same underlying “assumption” that information about him is purposefully being withheld to prevent the public from seeing his ineligibility.
December 3, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Moot Cases once Obama became PE. Go to XX Amendment and follow the law.
December 3, 2008 at 4:00 PM
DC, I’ve seen that also about Frank Marshall Davis as well as (and you won’t believe this) Malcolm X…no joke! http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/how-could-stanl.html#more
She has a long writeup on this. Anyway, BO is a mystery man, it seems.
December 3, 2008 at 4:07 PM
[...] Leo Donofrio update 120308 on core issue. [...]
December 3, 2008 at 4:10 PM
Leo,
Have you seen the link below?
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/state-of-the-docket/
“Fifteen granted cases remain to be scheduled for argument. The Court has two conferences remaining — December 5 and 12 (click here for our list of petitions to watch) — for which the granted cases can be briefed in time for argument in the March sitting. Those conferences are likely to produce roughly five grants (bringing the total to 70). So, the Court is likely to have approximately twenty cases available for the twelve combined days of the February and March sittings. ”
I clicked inside the blog where is says “click here for our list of petitions to watch” but it didn’t go through to anything. I thought it may highlight your case. Maybe it will be updated. I think this is written by reporters for the Supreme Court. I am not sure.
No new news here but I thought I’d share this article with you.
December 3, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Letters to Military Associations – CALL TO ACTION – File in US Federal Court Regarding Obama’s Citizenship Status
TO: CAPT XXXX XXXX, USNR (Ret.)
XXXXX XXXXXXX Association, Washington Office
Washington, DC 20002
Sir, as a fellow vet, I know you fully understand the obligation we accept when we say the words, “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” As citizen soldiers, those words have special meaning to us. Our allegiance rises above party politics, a man or an institution. Our allegiance is to the US Constitution — that we “defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” To that end, I have a CALL TO ACTION for the XXXXX XXXXXXX Association, action that will not be easy, yet required to ensure the Rule of Law stays intact.
Former US Senator Barack Obama has openly acknowledged that his father was a Kenyan (British) citizen and his mother was an American citizen. At birth in 1961, Barack Obama (Jr) was a dual-citizen – he has confirmed this fact himself. When Barack Obama, Jr, was born in Hawaii, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama, Sr was a British Citizen, whose status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr‘s children.
(full letter at: http://art2sect1clause5.blogspot.com/
December 3, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Leo: “Furthermore, it makes no reference to this blog or to my case at all. This is the blog where you will find out the truth about my case. I’m here to educate people as to what my case says and means.”
Every time I read, say, some reaction to the full page ad in Chicago or the blurb mention on FOX news which also got info incorrect, I too wonder why, after all these weeks that the various media has known about this, no one simply has gotten in touch with you. The one article that seemed to get most of the background generally correct was PRAVDA. Now if they can do it simply by reviewing the various sources, why can’t our “…and unafraid” media do the same?
December 3, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Moot Cases once Obama became PE.
But he’s NOT PE as yet … not until the College votes. My, my Obama’s training in imagery effecting the masses seems to be working. Just get some sign maker to fake you up some seal of a non-existent office and bingo, you’re created yourself. Ever see the movie, “Being There”?
December 3, 2008 at 4:25 PM
[...] Leo Donofrio update 120308 on core issue of “natural born citizen.” [...]
December 3, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Obama doesn’t officially become “President-elect” until the time when the electoral college grants him 270 or more electoral votes. Until that time, and at this present time — since he has resigned his Senate seat — he is nothing more than a prvate citizen and no better than any one of us.
Just because he has annointed himself President-elect and, with the adulation of the liberal media, given himself the title and created an imaginary office of the president elect doesn’t make it so.
The Twentieth Amendment doesn’t apply — YET — hence the urgency to settle the question before the electoral college casts its ballots.
December 3, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Oh boy! What does it take?! I entitle this post: Royal Flush.
WHY I DIDN’T SIGN THE WND FORM… TWO REASONS…
1.) Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution DOES NOT clearly stipulate “No person except a natural born Citizen” shall be eligible to serve as president of the United States.”
IT STATES:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, OR A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, shall be eligible to the Office of President;…”
THAT statement has clear meaning. IT CLEARLY EXCLUDES BRITISH SUBJECTS NOW. BECAUSE THOSE THAT MIGRATED TO AMERICA BACK THEN, WHO WERE BRITISH SUBJECTS, HAD TO INCLUDE A CLAUSE THAT GRANDFATHERED THEMSELVES AS ELIGIBLE, BUT ANY BRITISH SUBJECTS AFTER THEM AS INELIGIBLE. Hence, if Barack’s father is Kenyan, which means he’s a British subject, then regardless where Barack was born, he can ever get farther than hoping to become President. How many times does Donofrio have to say this.
2.) “…even if doing so may prove awkward.”
WHAT!?! UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION IS AWKWARD NOW?!?
P.s. I dig the heart of the letter though. I’m not bashing its purpose whatsoever. Honestly, I don’t think popular opinion should ever sway a court ruling though, so I don’t think the letter should even be sent. If it did influence the judges, then you’d have to entertain the notion that it could bear a negative effect also, because some people, which judges are, would get annoyed by all the attention and might just throw the letters in the trash. Similarly, I think a public demonstration might have a negative effect too. How many people marched against the Attack on Terrorism around the world? How many hippies fought the Vietnam War? It’s hard to influence the dumb. I’m tellin’ ya! They’ll just keep holding onto their dumbness, because they think if they let go, we’ll realize they’re dumb.
December 3, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Competition is good, it sharpens the wits and narrows the field. With the whole nation turning into a national inquirer, the air at the finish will reek with dead red herrings.
This whole process is messy, messy, messy!
But, when have we seen such an enthusiastic outpouring of citizen research, rummaging through the dustbins of Supreme Court decisions.
I nominate Nicholas Cage to play Leo Donofrio, bad temper, green eye-shades and all. For real drama, Robert DeNiro to play Justice Breyer, dazzling the panel with savage barbed questions to smash the high-strung but poker-faced barrister’s delicate case to smithereens.
From what I’ve heard and read so far, I’m probably not too far off from what may actually happen!
December 3, 2008 at 5:36 PM
THANK YOU Leo, I couldn’t have said it better myself and this misrepresentation of the facts is the reason I have NOT given into pressure to sign it.
December 3, 2008 at 5:38 PM
“No person except a natural born Citizen, OR A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, shall be eligible to the Office of President;…”
I’m still a bit confused on the historical precedent for a “natural born” line of reasoning as a basis for this case. If at least 5 post-Constitutional presidents, Herbert Hoover, Woodrow Wilson, Chester Arthur, James Buchanan, Andrew Jackson, etc., have had foreign-born parents, is Leo’s argument specific to British citizenship ? Were these other cases of immigrants naturalized prior to the presidential birth or from countries that didn’t allow for dual citizenship ?
December 3, 2008 at 5:38 PM
I sent this blog article to WND and got this reply from Joseph Farah’s address.
**********
Nowhere and at no time, has WND EVER suggested the only issue of eligibility is a valid birth certificate.
It is deeply unfortunate that Donofrio has chosen to shoot at the one news organization in the world that has championed his cause!
It’s remarkable. It’s unbelievable. It also bodes ill for his case.
**********
Mr. Donofrio, perhaps you should contact Mr. Farah directly and straighten this out?
December 3, 2008 at 6:25 PM
Off topic… but look what happens when officials don’t verify and fulfill their sworn duties.
This is such a great comparative example.
If you can steal New York City’s Empire State Building in 90 minutes, you can certainly steal the Presidency of the United States.
http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2008/12/02/2008-12-02_it_took_90_minutes_for_daily_news_to_ste.html
December 3, 2008 at 6:25 PM
Leo,
What if he produces the vault copy of his bc, and no father is listed?
Then he will claim someone like Frank Marshall Davis was really his father. He may even claim that if Obama Sr. is listed on his bc.
What then? Thanks
December 3, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Leo, I understand the distinction you are trying to make — Obama was a British citizen at the time he was born and thus is not eligible to be POTUS period.
I will make sure I use this distinction when discussing your case with others.
The tricky thing is though that of course this is being taken by my other Liberal friends that this is solely a political motivation and a GOP conspiracy. Doesn’t matter that I’m a Liberal Democrat myself who is talking to them about this, and they actually use factcheck.org, urbanlegends and other websites to denounce YOUR case as well (as has my own Sen. Kohl who cited the Annenberg Public Policy Center as an authenticator of Obama’s birth certificate). They can barely understand that it is possible that Obama’s eligibility may have not been vetted by the Dems before the election; your assertion of Obama having actual British citizenship would fall absolutely on deaf ears.
I think that is what many of us here are trying to do by signing the letter, just get these issues publicly known, put in a historical record, and out of the tinfoil hat conspiracy realm.
And sadly enough there are many people I talk with who believe that even if Obama is a British citizen (or Kenyan or Indonesian) and was not born on US soil, IT DOESN’T MATTER because they want him as president.
Good luck on Friday!
December 3, 2008 at 7:01 PM
Rebecca, I went to that link, but leos case was NOT among those listed.
December 3, 2008 at 8:52 PM
Liz nothing wrong with foreign born parents as long as the parent became or was a citizen at the time of birth of the baby.
Leo is 100% correct on this issue. I am surprised people have trouble keeping it straight. It is so simple. so very simple.
At the moment of birth. In that very second of the clock.
1. Parents are both citizens
2. Child is born on USA soil.
This is NATURAL. What is natural for the animals that the parents are local and the baby animal is born local. voila.
Now I bring a giraffe in from Kenya and breed it to an American Giraffe in Hawaii. The new baby giraffe is NOT NATURAL. I did something not natural and brought a giraffe from Kenya to Hawaii so as to have this baby giraffe born in Hawaii.
Oh that makes sense. the birth was NOT NATURAL. It is NOT NATURAL for a Kenyan giraffe to have a baby giraffe in Hawaii.
Now if the Kenyan giraffe had come to Hawaii 10 years ago and became an American Hawaiian citizen with its own play area at the Hawaiian zoo and then one day the gate between the two pens is left open and the giraffe walks over to the giraffe in the adjoining area and they have a baby giraffe born at the Hawaiian zoo then that is kind of natural.
But come on guys, this DADDY had a baby in Hawaii and went back to Kenya pretty quick. He was more interested in having more babies in Kenya then in Hawaii. That was not natural either. more natural would be the Daddy to stay with the baby and help raise the baby.
December 3, 2008 at 11:14 PM
I have talked to many people about this case black and white. All the black Americans I have talked to say if he was born in America he is a natural born citizen even if only one parent was an American. I can see people are not wanting to face the truth no matter what. I talked to a white co worker and he admitted being born on ellis island. His parents later became citizens of the US and he told me he is a natural born citizen! He is a citizen but not a natural born citizen because at the time of my co workers birth his parents were not citizens which was about 55 years ago at least. Very few see the fact that to be a natural born citizen your parents must both be citizens of the US at your birth. I can see why people are confused. A citizen, a natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen. I tell them the natural born citizen phrase only pertains to the election of the president of the US. People seem to think if you were born in the US you are automatically a natural born citizen.
Before I started reading and understanding what the Constitution says and the ammendments are I would have thought the same thing.
I am convinced a large majority of people would not care if Obama was born on mars. They just believe what he says and say to me, how could he get this far and nobody find out he is not qualified to be president. They automatically believe just because he has been elected he must be a natural born citizen in spite of the fact he admits on his web site his father was a british citizen and he was a dual citizen at birth.
People don’t even believe what he says on his own web site. How can they ever understand or will they just ignore the facts if they continue to get a handout from the government?
December 4, 2008 at 4:04 AM
Leo you have a straight flush on the turn with a royal draw on the river.
ALL IN!
Good luck!
December 4, 2008 at 4:24 AM
With regard to the WND mispeak in the letter, I think bottom line here is demonstration of public support.
A mountain of letters show up in SCOTUS from the public rooting for YOUR case speaks volumes.
It is the court document wording they will comb through not the wording of the public. It’s too bad the wording was not correct in the letters. But the letters in no way reflect on your case.
Besides there are a lot of faithful people praying for you to succeed. That too is huge. You’re going to win this, I believe it.
The key here is public support of your cause. That is my opinion.
December 4, 2008 at 6:20 AM
I am a very strong supporter that Obama needs to be exposed, the truth must be revealed & most specially that we have to uphold the constitutions of this great nation.
What really bothers me the most are all the ‘criticism’ left & right……to Berg’s case, now with WND. All these lawsuits focuses on one simple thing…… to expose the truth about Obama that he is not qualified to be the president of this country & to make sure that his inauguration does not push through.
All of the lawsuits filed have their own point, some maybe better & stronger than others. Everybody is approaching the same issue from different angles, but driving to the same destination, which to me is good. What saddens me, as I read articles & specially comments like these is that instead of uniting for the good of one common goal & be supportive of one another you are becoming very ‘critical’ of others to show that it is your case that is right & everybody else is wrong, that yours is the best & strongest. I feel that criticism of one another has no place in this goal of ours to protect this country. At this point we should all work for one common goal & not show one is better than the other. The only thing that needs to be proven right now is that Obama is not qualified to be our president. We have enough problems & time is running short & to end up not being united is such a terrible thing to do.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I have not read anything from the others saying ‘negative’ things about you or your case. If you have any personal opinion about other peoples’ cases maybe it is best that you communicate with them directly & settle the issue among yourselves behind close doors, instead of putting it out in the open like this one.
Honestly, I was so disappointed to read the comments from this site from other supporters. We have enough problems convincing the supporters of Obama that he is not qualified to be our president now we have to convince our supporters that your case is better than others & end up dividing our forces.
We need to be united & work together & not be divided in order to have a stronger voice. Aren’t we all working for the same goal?
I will be praying for you this Friday.
December 4, 2008 at 8:02 AM
[...] – World Net Daily letter campaign mis-states core issue in Donofrio SCOTUS case 2 – Leo’s web site 3 – Berg v. Obama: The Day of Reckoning 4 – New [...]
December 4, 2008 at 10:30 AM
The letter that is being sent out is worded correctly. No Birth Certificate is mentioned.
December 4, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Here’s the thing: Not enough just Birth Certificate from Hawaii… his tippee is full of shit … to borrow a punchline from the Chief Bowel joke, where chief being fed ExLax, because the indian agent, sent to move Chief Bowel ’cause a road is being built thru his teepee. And the Chief finally gets enough so he says Bowel gotta move … his teepee full of ….
So if you FedEx Lax Letters to SCOTUS, they might be factually insufficient, but the lawsuits are not…. and the case should move forward anyway… as long as you get it in the right direction of gravity, or of sufficient Gravitas … because everyone knows which way it all flows… Having sent in my payment of $9.95 … I just wanted to get some more mileage out of it..
David Custis Kimball, aka Sir David Custis Kimball
December 4, 2008 at 10:34 PM
The perfect example of the meaning of “natural borne”
Being a hobbyist of genealogy…census as far back as 1820 asks each person:
name
age
where borne
where father was born
where mother was born
Check here if father was of foreign origin.
Ancestry.com has printable census forms from all years
So for those of you who doubt that Leo’s case has no bearing…why would the federal census include this question ? Even that far back? For what reason?….
The census question itself determines eligibility as ” natural born citizen”
December 5, 2008 at 1:10 PM
If the law is the law and it is written in stone can the SCOTUS just ignore the constitution? I am hearing people say that they wont hear this because it will cause riots or something. Can the SCOTUS redefine the law at their convenience?
December 5, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Leo: Please contact me at the e mail address given, A certain terrestrial radio host would like to interview you.
Good luck with your case and thank you for your hard work.
Pat
December 6, 2008 at 8:11 AM
I notice that you do not address US v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898) (on-line at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649 ). Justice Gray’s majority opinion specifically addresses your so-called argument, and shows it to be crap.
[Ed. Note - I made sure to have Cort adress US. v. Wong Kim Arc in his application brief because it helps his case. But it should have been in mine too. I agree. Cut me some slack, bro. My NJ Supreme Court order didn't come down until Oct. 31. I had two days to get my application ready for SCOTUS, and also get to Washington to file it on Nov. 3 before election day. I also had been going on no sleep. My application raised all of the pertinent issues and arguments necessary. There's no way I could address every case. And it's not my job to do that. I put the issue before the court. The relevant case law will be considered either way. But you are mistaken if you think Wong Kim Arc hurts my case. It helps it.
Wong Kim Arc actually supports my position. You must understand, in that case - the SCOTUS holding said he was a "citizen", but they refused to call Wong Kim Arc a "natural born citizen". Since the SCOTUS discussed both phrases extensively in the opinion, but refused to say that Wong Kim Arc was a "natural born citizen" - the holding supports my position.
Had the SCOTUS said that Wong Kim Arc was a "natural born citizen", then the case would be against our position, but Justice Gray and SCOTUS didn't say that. The official holding of the case says Wong Kim Arc was a "citizen". And it's important to note that Justice Gray extensively explored the issues and made various references to "natural born citizen".
But, like I said, the holding in that case refused to label Won Kim Arc as a "Natural Born Citizen". They said he was a "Cititzen"... not the same thing.
He couldn't have been President. He wasn't eligible.]
August 8, 2009 at 1:38 PM
I was doing some research to write an article regarding Obama’s eligibility on my website: http://victimsoflaw.net
Reading over your blog led me to SCOTUS cases which in turn led me to “Court Rulings on Dual Citizenship” at http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html#Kawakita
When reading the case of PERKINS v. ELG it states:
‘Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States”
Perhaps a lot more research is needed.
[Ed. In Elg she was native born, but she was also natural born since both her parents were citizens and she was native born. Native born is only one part of the natural born equation.]
August 9, 2009 at 8:47 AM
Her parents were Swedish. Her father became naturalized.
“Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922 and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden. ”
[Ed. I have to repeat myself all the time. Elg's mother became naturalized automatically when Mr. Elg was naturalized. This was called derivative citizenship which was enacted by Federal Statute in 1855 and lasted until 1922. Every woman married to an alien became a US citizen automatically when her husband became a naturalized US citizen. As such, both of Elg's parents were US citizens at the time she was born on US soil.
The big problem with this eligibility issue is that Obama is a lawyer and he knew damn well that non lawyers could be so easily twisted to believe untruths. The law is a difficult task master. Law school is hard. Bar exams are really really hard. But now everyone thinks they can read a few blogs, look at the Constitution and voila - they know as much as any lawyer. The brilliance of Obama's deception on this issue is awesome. The guy is really smart and daring. And you're not going to see him removed even though he is really not eligible. Change has come to America.]