Leo Donofrio lawsuit, Natural Born Citizen, Judah Benjamin article, Texas Darlin blog, December 1, 2008, Obama not natural born citizen, thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com, Donofrio new site on WordPress, naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

Leo Donofrio has moved his website from Google’s blogger account to WordPress. Donofrio has a new
article that explains natural born citizen in response to the Judah Benjamin article on the Texas Darlin

“On November 28, 2008, Judah Benjamin published an article at the Texas Darlin blog which discussed my case and the natural born citizen issue.  While I enjoyed reading this article, and I agree with the conclusion – that Obama is not eligible – I disagree with the basis upon which that conclusion was made.

Specifically, I disagree that the common law is controlling on the issue of “natural born citizen”.  It is “national law” which is controlling.  I don’t know if Mr. Benjamin is a lawyer, but his reading, explanation and understanding of the natural born citizen issue is not exactly on point.

I do agree with Benjamin’s conclusion, that Obama is not a natural born citizen, but for the wrong reasons.

And I did enjoy Judah’s article above.  He has obviously done much research.  But there is a glaring mistake in his logic where he fails to point out the necessary concept in common law definition of “natural born subject.”

There are two mistakes in his article which need to be addressed.

FIRST MISTAKE: Failure to state cited law was repealed.

Judah mentions the 1790 naturalization act as follows:

“In the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) it says:

‘the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens’.”

Unfortunately, Benjamin fails to mention, as do many others, that this act was specifically repealed in 1795 and replaced with the same exact clause as written above EXCEPT the words “natural born” have been deleted leaving only the word “citizens”.

See Section 3 Naturalization Act of 1795

This leads to the second point of error.

SECOND MISTAKE:  Failure to properly analyze common law.”

Read more here:


8 responses to “Leo Donofrio lawsuit, Natural Born Citizen, Judah Benjamin article, Texas Darlin blog, December 1, 2008, Obama not natural born citizen, thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com, Donofrio new site on WordPress, naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

  1. Unfortunately for Donofrio, The Supreme Court has precedent when they dismiss his suit. Our 21st President, Chester A. Arthur, was the son of Melvina Stone, from Vermont and William Arthur, born in Ireland. William Arthur emigrated to Quebec after graduating from Belfast College in 1817. He then met and married Melvina Stone in 1821. Chester A. Arthur was born in 1829. Under the Naturalization Law of 1795, amended in 1798, a person needed to be a resident in the US for 14 years, and must give 5 years intent on becoming a US citizen. Since William Arthur emigrated to the US in 1821, he had not been a resident long enough to become a US citizen and was still an Irish citizen.
    This makes Donofrio’s point moot and makes for an easy out for the Supreme Court.

  2. looks to me like you are picking needles in hay stack you obama bot

  3. man you obama trolls lurk all over the place.

  4. I hope that the supreme court rules the right way it would be like pouring salt on all you Obama slugs

  5. ITs just unbelievable how much skeletons are hidden from the one just hope some light is brought forth on big O

  6. Interesting reply, Rich, but:
    (1) did Mr. Arthur ever becomea American citizen?
    (2) is it not true that the U.S. allows citizens to hold dual citizenships between U.S. and Ireland whereas they do not allow dual citizenships between Indonesia or Kenya and the U.S.?

  7. Mark, I’m disappointed in your response to Rich. You sound just like the Obots in reverse.

    We cannot have it both ways. IF, and I have no proof that his post is based in truth – but IF it is true and Tom’s post does not create a caveat for Rich’s point – then we have to give pause and reflection upon that decision of SCOTUS.

    I’m not an Obot – I didn’t drink his kool-aid, but I want to win this issue fair and square and NOT just because I think he is detrimental to our country – but BECAUSE by law (including previous precedence) that he is ineligible.

    I find Rich’s response to be at least an intelligent form of debate instead of the usual dribble that the Obots bring. It gives me a point to start some investigating on my own, just as Tom did.

  8. To say that American main stream media has failed to report what is “the story of the century” is an UNDERSTATEMENT. Their cover-up is treasonous. In the event the Supreme Court ultimately determines that Obama cannot be President — not qualifying as an Article II “natural born citizen” — the msm will be the blame for any civil unrest by failing to prepare the American public.

    Watch this — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQnL2IwyUAs

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s