Archive for December, 2011

THE PUBLIUS ENIGMA: Newly Revealed Evidence Establishes That President James Madison’s Administration Required Citizen Parentage To Qualify Native-Born Persons For U.S. Citizenship.

Posted in Uncategorized on December 28, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

I was recently forwarded an incredibly amazing article from the October 10, 1811 edition of The Alexandria Herald newspaper.  RXSID of Free Republic sent it with a brief note, stating, “Check out this case.”  The Herald article is entitled, Case of James McClure.  The author is…PUBLIUS.

Publius was the pseudonym used by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, for their anonymous authorship of The Federalist Papers.  By 1811, Hamilton was dead and Jay retired.  My research leads me to believe that the article was written by James Madison, but this has not been conclusively established yet.  Regardless of authorship, Madison was President at the time the article was written, and it discusses the official position of his administration denying U.S. citizenship based upon simple birth in the country.

The official position of the Madison administration was that persons born in the U.S. to alien parents were not U.S. citizens.  This was the ruling concerning James McClure, despite the fact that his parents had been settled in the country for many years prior to his birth.  The article makes clear that the United States Minister to France, General Armstrong, refused diplomatic protection for McClure by denying he was a citizen of the United States.

This was the official decision despite McClure having been born in South Carolina in 1785 to a father who was naturalized months later in 1786.  Armstrong informed the French authorities that the man was not a U.S. citizen, and McClure was left in French custody.  The article by PUBLIUS indicates that Armstrong might have mis-applied the 1802 Naturalization Act, but PUBLIUS also makes clear that McClure was not a citizen by virtue of his native birth in South Carolina:

There was no statute in South Carolina in 1785 which granted citizenship to persons born there similar to Virginia’s statute mentioned in the article by PUBLIUS.  Simply being a “son of the soil” was not enough, and this evidence repudiates the contention that the British common law had been adapted in all of the states after the revolution.  Since there was no statute in place making those born in South Carolina citizens, McClure was not held to be a native-born citizen.  That argument was utterly rejected throughout the affair.

The article goes on to question whether the 1802 act is defective in that PUBLIUS seems to believe citizenship ought to be revoked for naturalized persons who return to their original country and establish domicile there again.  But the article makes clear that Madison’s administration steadfastly denied that simple birth in the United States was enough to establish citizenship.  This, of course, discredits the conclusions of Justice Horace Gray in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, as well as the infamous New York Chancery opinion of Lynch v. Clark.  Both cases contain erroneous assumptions that the British common law rule of jus soli governed citizenship from the very genesis of the United States.

I tracked down the original article published in the Richmond Enquirer on October 1, 1811, which was then republished in The Alexandria Herald on October 10, 1811.  Both of these newspapers were published in Virginia, Madison’s home state.  Furthermore, the PUBLIUS penned article was the grand finale of nearly a year-long argument which went viral in various newspapers of the day starting in January 1811.

I have been up and down the East Coast tracking down the remaining newspaper articles on this as well as other supporting historical information.  I have also consulted with professionals and am preparing an extensive section for my forthcoming book which details everything that has been unearthed.

The whole story cannot be understood by way of online searches.  The internet is barren on this case.  Some of the necessary information isn’t even available in the Library of Congress or National Archives.

Here are the images from the Alexandria Herald and Richmond Enquirer.  The Herald scan is much easier to read than the Enquirer scan.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

[See commenting rules here.]

The Agnew Funeral.

Posted in Uncategorized on December 24, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

Today we can finally bury, and lay to rest, the slander that Spiro Agnew, Vice President under Richard Nixon, did not meet the two citizen parent standard defined in Minor v. Happersett.

I was at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. yesterday and today double checking the information I found at Princeton’s amazing Firestone library earlier this week.  Before that, I was in Baltimore where I received a couple of important clues.

A few weeks ago, I was researching this issue at the Maryland Historical Society in Baltimore, only blocks from where Spiro Agnew grew up.  I asked the head reference librarian to help me track down the 1910 census.  I was hoping it would provide more information than the 1920 and 1930 census info, which contain a serious discrepancy.   The 1920 census indicates Spiro’s father was not naturalized by 1920, two years after Spiro was born, which, if true, would mean Agnew was born to an alien.  This has been alleged as precedent for Obama, who was born of an alien father.

The 1930 census indicates that Spiro’s father Theodore had been naturalized by then.  It was also common knowledge that the 1920 census info contradicts a World War I draft registration card on file for Theodore Agnew dating back to September 12, 1918, which indicates he was naturalized just prior to Spiro’s birth on November 9, 1918.

In Baltimore, the librarian told me that Agnew’s father lived in Schenectady, N.Y. in 1910 and that I should check the census for that city.  He also warned me that the name might be spelled wrong so I should try various spellings.  This turned out to be quite prophetic.

At Princeton, I found catalogue records for many biographies on Spiro Agnew, but most of them were not available on the shelves.  I had to order them from a special annex and it took 24 hours for them to arrive.  Meanwhile, I began Googling these biographies and was able to unearth a very relevant fact from the snippet view at Google for, “What Makes Spiro Run: The Life And Times Of Spiro Agnew“, by Joseph Albright (published by Dodd, Mead & Company New York, 1972).  The snippet told me something I did not know, that Spiro’s father first shortened his full Greek name to Theodore Anagnost, not Agnew.

I then plugged the name “Theodore Anagnost” into the database at Ancestry.com and searched the Schenectady N.Y. area.  Direct hit.  And the Md. Historical Society librarian was spot on, the name was listed on the 1910 census, and Ancestry.com had it catalogued as both Theodore Anagnost as well as Amagnost.  It clearly shows that Theodore entered the U.S. in 1902 and that he was naturalized by the time this census was taken in 1910.  It also contains the correct year of birth, 1878, and it includes the other members of his family.

Here is a hi res scan of the 1910 census record.  (See lines 5-8.)  The birth year is identical to the year listed on the draft card as well.

The next day I returned to Princeton and the biographies were waiting for me.  Two of them confirmed all of the above and more.  The Albright book states that Spiro Agnew’s father was born on September 12, 1878, named Theofraste Spiro Anagnostopoulos.  He entered the United States on September 19, 1902 through the port of Hoboken, N.J.  But before we discuss more from that book, separate relevant details stated in, “Spiro Agnew’s America” by Theo Lippman, Jr. (W. W. Norton & Co. Inc., New York, 1972), must come first.

Lippman’s book states that Theodore Anagnost declared his intention to naturalize in 1906, and that he submitted his petition for naturalization in 1907.  The declaration and the petition are two different documents.

Back to the Albright book now, and he indicates that Theodore had become a United States citizen in 1909 and then changed his name again in 1911 to Theodore Agnew.  Albright’s book gives a lot of detail on the genealogy of Spiro’s parents.

Here is a PDF of the relevant pages from both books.

Albright’s book also includes important details which corroborate the accuracy of the 1910 census regarding other household members who were included in that census and who were also included in the book.  Albright mentions Theodore’s brother George, his girl cousin Angeliki, and a male cousin who had anglicized his Greek last name to Lambert.  All of these people are listed in the 1910 census right under Theodore Anagnost, and all of these people are mentioned on the same page in Albright’s book as having lived together in Schenectady.

I also tracked down a high res image of the World War I draft card which is right next to brother George’s on the microfilm at the National Archives.  They both registered for the draft on the same day, Theo’s birthday, September 12, 1918.  Furthermore, both of them were listed as having been naturalized.

I also took a hi-res scan at Nara of the 1920 census.  If you look a few spots down from Theodore Agnew’s family entry, you will see the entry for George Agnew’s family.  It’s obvious now that many mistakes were made.  Both men are listed as having entered the U.S. in 1887.  That is absolutely wrong.  Furthermore, it lists both men as aliens, and it lists their wives as aliens.  This is also not accurate according to the 1910 census, the 1918 draft cards, and two thoroughly researched biographies from Spiro Agnew’s heyday.

Spiro Agnew was born in the U.S. of two parents who were citizens.  Therefore, he was a “natural born Citizen”.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

[See commenting rules here.]

New JustiaGate Article at American Thinker.

Posted in Uncategorized on December 14, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

The fearless American Thinker blog has just published a new article on JustiaGate by Dianna Cotter and myself:  JustiaGate: ‘Natural Born’ Supreme Court Citations Disappear.

You may comment at AT.

 

 

 

 

Permit Me A Diatribe.

Posted in Uncategorized on December 14, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

Let’s talk about the Constitution.  This is a Document that provided the means by which justice could prevail.  Before it was created, there was slavery.  At first, the document allowed it to continue.  But the men who drafted it were humbled by the faith citizens had put in them and the blood of brothers who died for each other.  Their triumph over the tyranny of monarchs humbled them.  The creation of the nation changed them, changed the way they thought.

In order to end slavery, they needed to create jurisdiction over the South.  Thomas Jefferson and George Washington owned slaves.  After the revolution, Washington provided for their freedom and gave his entire estate to them to keep them free and safe.  The Revolution humbled him and changed him.

Some original provisions of the Constitution may seem counter-intuitive now, but in the end the Document was amended and slavery died.  Had they pushed too hard for it at first, there would never have been jurisdiction over the South.

The framers needed to create jurisdiction over the South thereby growing forces and using taxes available from the South.  Would Jefferson have commanded the respect of the South had he not owned slaves?  Food for thought.  It took longer than they hoped, but the Constitution got the job done and those who were previously slaves became equal citizens.

This week I’ve been listening to the Lincoln/Douglas debates.  Stephen Douglas makes me want to puke.  And some of the things Lincoln said do too.  But I am convinced Lincoln was playing chess the whole time.  He won that chess game, ended slavery and paid for that victory with a bullet to his skull.  Rest in peace, Abe.

Would slavery ever have ended had the Constitution not been written?  We don’t know.  But the world would be a very different place without the Document.  My point in all of this is to highlight just what a miracle of liberty the Constitution is.  It involved a process of thinking ahead and creative intuition.  It has kept this nation free, strong and proud.  Men willingly die for it.

So what it is to come of it?

We have told the world – rightfully – that our system of government is the best known to man.  We proclaim the public holiness of civil liberties in the Bill of Rights to all nations.  And hearing our call, the downtrodden flocked to us and made us great.

But as to those very liberties, the current federal occupants now say…”not so much”.  Suddenly, they tell us our jury system must no longer be available to us if one man – the President – decides we are to be taken in the middle of the night and locked in a small black box indefinitely and without due process of law.  (I don’t refer to the current President specifically, I refer to the office in general, and for decades to come.)

This is Constitutional depravity defined.

Why is this necessary? It’s certainly not.  Our system works brilliantly.  That’s why men die for it.

Our dear leaders now tells us in Senate Bill 1867 that we must forfeit our Constitutional safeguards.  Isn’t this a victory and concession to terrorists?  Because of their belligerent acts, our liberties are now required to be suspended?  How is that not a victory for terrorism?

True enemies hate our Constitution.  They know it stands as a wall of protection from foreign ideologies which we deplore.  And now our leaders are doing their dirty work for them.  I say that those who are taking our liberties away are in league with terrorists.  Treason can be indirect.  SB 1867 is treason.

But it’s not the first.  When Congress rendered the 5th Amendment power of presentment “obsolete”, that was treason.

And then we have the natural-born citizen clause.  They tell us that the children of Osama Bin Laden and Kim Jong Il can be Commander In Chief of our armed forces.  Would that not be treason?

The 1st Amendment protects against the establishment of religion.  But it still says “In God We Trust” on federal reserve notes.  The God mentioned on the dollar bill is not my God.  The symbols of the pyramid and the eye do not represent my faith.  So why are they there?  The 1st Amendment does not allow for them, but they remain.  If we sanction even one exception for religion, we are paving the way to a funeral for the 1st Amendment.  What if  the majority wants Sharia law?  What if the minority wants Satanism?  My Father in heaven has no need for money.  And he doesn’t require worship in Congress or any municipal place.

He only requires the pure silence of your hearts… but our Constitution requires your loudest proclamations of faith.  Raise up your voices as one.  Surround the Document.  Shield it for your posterity.  It is bleeding and its blood now stains the very lips of usurpation.  The time is nigh, America.  Make a stand.  Stop Senate Bill 1867.

 

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

[See commenting rules here.]

 

 

 

 

The Dred Scott Decision Is Evil, Racist, And Off Limits.

Posted in Uncategorized on December 12, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

I am preparing a comprehensive treatise on the natural-born citizen clause.  And I want everyone to know my position as to the Dred Scott decision well before I publish.

Scott v. Sandford is the most horrific piece of racist garbage our federal judicial system has ever doled out.  My arguments will not rely upon that case or its holding.  I will only discuss the case in relation to Justice Horace Gray’s reference to it, since he discussed it in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.  And I will not refer to Scott v. Sandford outside of examining Justice Gray’s own opinion of that case, since I cannot properly analyze Wong Kim Ark without discussing the precedents cited therein.

The Dred Scott decision is a damned blight upon this nation.  The reasoning of the majority (if a majority can even be said to have existed) is in direct contradiction to the Declaration of Independence and to any true notion of liberty.

My treatise will discuss in great detail why Obama, John McCain, and even Marco Rubio are not eligible to be POTUS.  But the arguments will stand alone as if the Dred Scott case did not exist.  That it does exist remains the most significant stigma upon the virtue of our nation’s highest court.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

[See commenting rules here.]

JustiaGate: Tim Stanley Adds Disclaimer Regarding The Accuracy Of US Supreme Court Cases Published By Justia.

Posted in Uncategorized on December 8, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

 

In a prior report, I suggested that Justia operatives were potentially facing prison sentences for multiple violations of the False Writings Statute, 18 U.S.C. 1018, since Justia’s versions of US Supreme Court cases contain a direct affirmation that one is viewing the “Full Text of Case”.  Therefore, if Justia intentionally scrubbed information from these cases, the affirmation would be intentionally fraudulent.

Today, I was informed by Dan Goodman that Justia recently added a disclaimer to their versions of US Supreme Court cases.  For example, go to Justia’s version of Minor v. Happersett and scroll to the bottom of the page, where it now states:

“Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.”

Justia continues to block all access to the Wayback Machine so that a full analysis of changes made to US Supreme Court cases previously published by Justia is impossible.  Furthermore, Justia’s allegation that the scrubbing was due to an unintentional coding error has been scientifically debunked.

 

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

[See commenting rules here.]

Martial Law: The Fix Is In

Posted in Uncategorized on December 5, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

UPDATED: Dec. 6, 2012 3:27 PM  – Judge Napolitano on Fox covers sb 1867.

The new Martial Law Bill which affirms the detention of American citizens indefinitely without due process of law passed the Senate 93-7.

Habeas corpus just got knifed in full daylight, left to bleed in the cracks of the Capitol commingling with the blood of patriots who died for this country.  The blood drawn like butter by Senate vampires drooling and gurgling with delight, appetites satiated… for now.  Their ecstasy whisps through depraved neurons as their spit foams upon the very name of freedom.

And while there are hints Obama may veto it, my opinion is that the bill has been set up with the sole purpose of having him do just that. 

This bill is a gift to Obama in that it will allow him to look like a true man of the people after he does veto it.  But the bill is simply reflective of alleged powers already granted.  So the veto won’t change anything.  It will only make him look more Presidential for when he finally does use the already existing draconian measures to detain or kill anyone he wants.

Please see Empire Burlesque’s article on this, and all of the links:

“We’ve been mourning the death of the American Republic here (and at other venues) for many years now, since Congress surrendered its Constitutional responsibilities  with the “Enabling Act” it passed on September 14, 2001, giving Bush a blank check for “all necessary and appropriate force” against any organization or individual that he alone declared was somehow connected to the Sept. 11 attacks. Three days later, Bush then declared that he had the right to kill anyone on earth anytime he felt like it and there wasn’t a damn thing anyone could do about it.”

I see a lot of bitching and whining now, but how many of you were doing the same routine when Bush was President?

MARCO RUBIO’S SLANTED POSITION ON SB 1867.

Rubio erroneously claims that the bill does not deny habeas corpus to US citizens:

“In particular, some folks are concerned about the language in Section 1031 that says that this includes “any person committing a belligerent act or directly supported such hostilities of such enemy forces.”  This language clearly and unequivocally refers back to Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or its affiliates.  Thus, not only would any person in question need to be involved with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or its surrogates, but that person must also engage in a deliberate and substantial act that directly supports their efforts against us in the war on terror in order to be detained under this provision.  There is nothing in this bill that could be construed in any way that would allow any branch of the military to detain a law-abiding American citizen if you go to the local gun store or grocery store.”

Bunk!  Notice Rubio’s qualifier “to detain a law-abiding American citizen”.  What about citizens who break the laws protesting?  What about peaceful demonstrations of civil disobedience?  What if citizens dispute that the conduct even breaks the law?  This guy should never get near the White House (and he’s not eligible).  His statement above is so blatantly misleading, I can only wonder if he anticipates being drunk with power should the country continue its ignorance of the natural-born citizen clause and one day elect him.

Acts of Congress are interpreted by the courts directly pertaining to the words used in the act itself, and not by the speeches of big brother doublespeak cheerleaders such as Rubio.  Mr. Rubio is an attorney who knows better.  His statements above are not naive, nor are they stupid.  They are carefully crafted doublespeak from a rising star in the political scene who knows how to skillfully crap from both sides of his mouth.

Let us examine the relevant provisions:

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

    (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

First note the title, “Affirmation of Authority”.  This bill is simply elucidating the powers already held by the President.  It “affirms” his authority, but such an affirmation is not necessary if he already has the authority.  So whether this bill passes or not, the President still has the authority to carry out the things mentioned in this bill.  Therefore, this is simply a dog and pony show, and if Obama does veto it, he still has the power to do anything the bill states.

If Obama were truly a man of the people, besides vetoing this bill, he would push through a bill which renounces all of the power that this ugly bill “affirms”.  Until such a law is enacted, his veto, like this bill, changes no law already in effect.

You can see this more clearly in Sec. 1301(e):

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Now let’s turn to Sec. 1032(b)(1):

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

That sounds re-assuring, doesn’t it?  Except for one thing, folks.  It only applies to “this section”.  The protection against military detention pertains only to section 1032.  It does not apply to Section 1031 which lists various forms of restraint.  If the military detention prohibition for US citizens from Section 1032 applied also to Section 1031, there would be no need for both sections to contain separate provisions for “covered persons”.  But 1031 and 1032 are independent sections and the prohibition against detention of US citizens does NOT apply to those citizens detained under 1031, which provides:

    (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”

While “military detention” is the specific form mentioned in 1032Section 1031 affirms the authority of detention generallyThis includes non-military detention.  Such detention could be potentially in a FEMA or DOD concentration camp.  Those are civilian divisions and detention therein is not military detention.  However, Section 1031(c)(1) provides for indefinite detention of anyone including US citizens, and this section does not include the prohibition against military detention in 1032.  Therefore, 1031 provides for both military and non-military detention of US citizens.

Rubio knows this and his comments are parsed carefully in this regard.  It’s so very creepy how these bastards cast their legislative spells.  Rubio didn’t lie.  He simply used a language most citizens don’t understand or even know exists – federal doublespeak, or fedspeak.  This is how they stand there with a straight face.  It’s not a lie, but it acts just like one.  When Bill Clinton said, “It depends on what the meaning of is is…”, he was talkin’ fedspeak.

As you will see from his insidious delicate parsing, Rubio knows all too well that the two sections work independently.  First he referred specifically to 1031(b)(2):

“(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”

Covered persons under this act include a “person who… supported al-Queda, the Taliban, or associated forces…including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities…”  If the statute used the word “and” here, instead of “or“, then Rubio might have a point on this issue.  But the word “or” clearly indicates that a person is guilty of violating the act even if that person has not “directly supported” the hostilities of al-Qaeda, the Taliban etc.  The statute only requires a belligerent act, it does not require the person to be a part of al-Qaeda or to directly support al-Qaeda.  Indirect support is enough according to the statute.

Words matter.  The definition of  “belligerent” includes:  “a warlike or aggressively hostile nature, condition, or attitude.”

Therefore, if you are a person who has publicly expressed a spirited dis-belief in the official 911 story, it can be argued that you have exhibited a hostile attitude about the official story.  If you don’t believe al-Qaeda was ultimately responsible for the towers falling, and that the government has covered up truth – ie, that the towers fell as a result of a controlled demolition – the government might assert that you have supported al-Qaeda.

If you doubt al-Qaeda’s ability to have pulled this atrocity off, then the government might argue that you are defending al-Qaeda.  Your statement/blog may qualify as a belligerent act even though you have never expressed any direct support of al-Qaeda.  Under this construction, you could truly hate al-Qaeda, but if the belligerent act appears to support al-Qaeda in any way, that may be enough to trigger the statute.

But this statue isn’t limited to al-Qaeda or the Taliban.  It also covers anyone who substantially supported “associated forces” engaged in “hostilities” against the US or its coalition partners.

The normal definition of “hostilities” includes, “opposition or resistance to an idea, plan, project“.  Therefore, speech is a form of hostility under this statute.  But so is thought.  As the statute is written, even singular mental opposition to an idea, plan, or project qualifies as hostilities.  Nebulous terms are chosen by these legislative vampires to be purposely evasive and universally inclusive.

I don’t really give a crap what the statute was meant to cover, Mr. Rubio.  I care what it does, in fact, cover.  One thing we have learned as a nation is that judges are more than capable of fitting meaning into statutes which lay persons could never imagine in their wildest dreams.  Moreover, the rule of statutory construction in our courts looks first to the meaning of the words used in the statute, and there is a presumption that the words mean what they say.  I have given you a clear example of how the words in this statue could be used against those expressing doubt in the official 911 story.  But that’s only one example.  We don’t know who “associated forces” covers as well.  And the bill includes no statutory definition of “hostilities” either.

And finally, this statute is so poorly written that one possible construction of it could include any belligerent act not tied to al-Qaeda or the Taliban at all.  The words, “including any person who has committed a belligerent act”… may refer back to subsection (b), and not to the first part of subsection (2).  By this I mean that covered persons referred to in (b) are listed in (2), and these include those involved with al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but perhaps also any person who committed a belligerent act.  It’s not hard to imagine some court crafting just that meaning if they wanted a person bad enough and this was the only way to ensnare him.

The wording of this statute sucks.  And Marco Rubio’s cheerleading for it also sucks.  I do not trust this guy at all because of his statements on this issue.  He’s learned the DC doublespeak well, has this one.  The forked tongue force be strong with him.  Watch him parse without abandon as he carefully works his magic concerning Section 1032:

“Section 1032 of this bill concerns a smaller group of people who Congress feels are required to be detained by the US military because people who fit within this criteria are a more serious threat to our national security.  Any person detained under Section 1032 must be a member of, or part of, Al-Qaeda or its associates AND they must have participated in the planning or execution of an attack against the US or our coalition partners.  Simply put, the application of this detention requirement is limited to Al-Qaeda members that have tried to attack the US or its allies.  However, this detention requirement is clearly limited by a clause that states that the requirement to detain does not extend to US citizens or lawful permanent residents.”

He’s very careful here to limit his discussion in this paragraph to Sec. 1032, while 1031 is avoided.  This is because 1031 is the section which truly guts habeas corpus, not 1032.  These gargoyles in DC speak a language designed to accomplish mis-direction with the eloquence of Houdini.

Habeas corpus is at the heart of the nation.  It literally means, “You may have the body”.   And it’s got 93 daggers stuck in it today.

This Martial Law affirmation comes on the heels of the Congressional Research propaganda I wrote about in my last report.  Two alarms have gone off.  Be warned, America… martial law is coming.

Obama will probably veto the bill, but like I said above, the bill is only an affirmation of existing powers.  His veto will not change those pre-existing laws.  The veto will make him look like a good guy, so that when Obama does reach for these horrific powers, those who support him will point back to this veto to show that he was always against suspension of habeas corpus, etc.  But the excuse will then surface that, “an emergency we simply did not foresee has come to pass and the President must now use all of his powers to defeat the enemy”.

This is a dog and pony show.  Nothing happens without these federal freaks knowing about it first.  Martial law is coming and they are setting up the script now.

I do pray that reams of tin foil are my inheritance for posting this alarming missive.  Please, oh Lord, let me wear the blessed tin foil hat of shame and take this burden from our nation.  Let me live in ridiculous splendor accepting with glee the blogosphere’s tomatoes launched at my head forevermore.

Unfortunately, my read on this hand of poker… is that my prayer is not going to be answered.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

[See commenting rules here.]