Category Archives: Leo Donofrio

Obama Occidental full scholarship facts and conclusions, Obama scholarship not merit or athletics, Obama was Kenyan in 1979, International student scholarship?

Obama Occidental full scholarship facts and conclusions, Obama scholarship not merit or athletics, Obama was Kenyan in 1979, International student scholarship?

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“I spent the last two years of high school in a daze, locking away the questions that life seemed insistent on imposing. I kept playing basketball, attended classed sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically.”…Barack Obama

“Our Aug. 29, 2008, Ask FactCheck item asking whether Obama has Kenyan citizenship correctly stated that Obama did have dual citizenship as a child but that it expired as an adult. But Leo Donofrio, a lawyer, argues that we got the year wrong. He’s right about that, and we have corrected the item.

Initially, we said that Obama’s citizenship expired in 1982, on Obama’s 21st birthday. In fact, however, the Kenyan Constitution provides a two-year window during which one can decide which citizenship to keep. So, President Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired on Aug. 4, 1984, not 1982, as we had initially reported.”…FactCheck.org

We still do not know where Barack Obama was born. Obama has not presented a copy of an original certified birth certificate. Obama will never be a natural
born citizen, a US citizen with 2 US citizen parents. Obama at some point became a US citizen. We do not yet know when that occurred.

Here is what we do know. The following is not conjecture or my opinion. The following are facts.

Fact: Obama was a citizen of Kenya at birth due to his father’s Kenyan Citizenship.

Question: Was Obama also a citizen of the US at birth? We still do not have an answer.

Fact: Barack Obama is a Kenyan name.

Fact: Obama was a citizen of Kenya his entire tenure at Occidental.

Attorney Leo Donofrio provides clarity and corrrects FactCheck.org.
“FACTCHECK.ORG CAPITULATES – Admits Error In Obama Kenyan Citizenship Analysis.

[ED – UPDATED 4:20 PM – Factcheck.org endorsed analyst caught scrubbing false data after original publication of this report. See update below with
screenshots. We have retained a copy of the original cached web page.]

Yesterday, Factcheck.org admitted they reported a false fact concerning the alleged expiration of President Obama’s Kenyan citizenship. They gave credit to
this blog for correcting them:

Our Aug. 29, 2008, Ask FactCheck item asking whether Obama has Kenyan citizenship… stated that Obama did have dual citizenship as a child but that it expired as an adult. But Leo Donofrio, a former lawyer, argues that we got the year wrong. He’s right about that, and we have corrected the item.

Initially, we said that Obama’s citizenship expired in 1982, on Obama’s 21st birthday. In fact, however, the Kenyan Constitution provides a two-year window
during which one can decide which citizenship to keep. So, President Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired on Aug. 4, 1984, not 1982, as we had initially
reported.”

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/factcheck-org-capitulates-admits-error-in-obama-kenyan-citizenship-analysis/

Fact: Occidental listed him as Barack Obama. Some students called him Barry.

From Snopes.

“Barack Obama attended Occidental College in California for two years as an undergraduate from 1979-81 under the name Obama, not Soetoro (the latter is the surname of his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro):

Jim Tranquada, Occidental’s Director of Communications, said: “Contemporary public documents, such as the freshman ‘Lookbook’ [a guide distributed to
incoming freshman] published at the beginning of President Obama’s first year at Occidental, list him as Barack Obama. All of the Occidental alumni I have
spoken to from that era (1979-81) who knew him, knew him as Barry Obama.””

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp

Fact: Obama attended Occidental on a full scholarship.

From the LA Times January 29, 2007.

“U.S. Sen. Barack Obama is usually described as an alumnus of Columbia University, where he earned his bachelor’s degree, and of Harvard Law School.

But the Illinois Democrat began his undergraduate education at Occidental, and the 1,825-student liberal arts college in the Eagle Rock neighborhood of Los
Angeles isn’t shy about claiming him as an alumnus for his two years there (1979-81) on full scholarship.”

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/29/local/me-oxy29

Fact: The Scholarship was not based on academics.

In Obama’s own words.

“I spent the last two years of high school in a daze, locking away the questions that life seemed insistent on imposing. I kept playing basketball, attended
classed sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically. I discovered that it didn’t make any difference if you smoked reefer in the white
class mates sparkling new van, or in the dorm room with some brother you’d met down at the gym, or on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids who had
dropped out of school and now spent most of their time looking for an excuse to brawl.”…Barack Obama, Dreams from my father

Fact: The Scholarship was not based on athletics.

From the LA Times November 10, 2008.

“What his fellow ballers don’t seem to recall, however, is whether Obama played for the Tigers in a more formal capacity, as a former coach insists and the
media have reported, and no tangible proof seems to exist that he did.

No photos showing the skinny teenager in short shorts.

No roster.

No box score.

No score book.

No mention in the school paper.

Nothing has been found, school spokesman Jim Tranquada says.”

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/10/sports/sp-crowe10

Fact: This leaves a scholarship based on need, one from an outside source or an International Student Scholarship. It seems unlikely that Obama would receive
a full scholarship based on need with his high school performance and subsequent Occidental performance.

From the Occidental site.

“Need-Based Scholarships

Need-based scholarships differ from merit scholarships, as they are not linked to academic promise, but rather to the family’s financial situation. Your
need-based scholarship is re-determined each year by the information you provide on your annual financial aid application. These awards are not guaranteed year-to-year.

Occidental College need-based scholarships require you to:

demonstrate financial need be enrolled at least half-time (6+ units)
make satisfactory academic progress
Need-based scholarships are provided through the generosity of individual donors, private corporations and agencies, alumni gifts, and other resources from the College.”

http://www.oxy.edu/financial-aid/financial-aid-awards/scholarships

Fact: Occidental currently provides full scholarships to International Students.

“Financial Aid for International Students

Financial aid and scholarships are available for a limited number of international students. Needbased aid amounts vary according to each student’s
financial situation, but may cover up to the full cost of an Occidental education. Scholarships are awarded according to both merit and financial need, and
are given to those students who have demonstrated a balance of outstanding academic achievement and extra-curricular engagement throughout high school.”

http://issuu.com/occidentalcollege/docs/oxy_international_brochure

Fact: Obama’s father, Barack Obama, Sr. received several scholarships to study in the US. However, Barack Sr. was considered a serious student.

Conclusion: Obama was able to obtain a full scholarship despite a lackluster performance in high school and Occidental. Perhaps the standards for
International Students were lower then. Perhaps Obama had a benefactor.

Obama has kept his records hidden. There is a reason.

But remember, Obama was a citizen of Kenya then.

Regardless of whether or not Obama was also technically a US citizen then, did he acknowledge it?

That is a good question.

Does Bill Ayers mom’s remark provide the answer?

Judge Michael Malihi ruling, Indiana Appeals court lies, US Constitution Vs English common law, Supreme court opinions, More Indiana corruption?

Judge Michael Malihi ruling, Indiana Appeals court lies, US Constitution Vs English common law, Supreme court opinions, More Indiana corruption?

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

Indiana has been in the news recently for political corruption.

From Fox News October 18, 2011.

“Shocking election fraud allegations have stained a state’s 2008
presidential primary – and it took a college student to uncover them.

“This fraud was obvious, far-reaching and appeared to be systemic,”
22-year-old Ryan Nees told Fox News, referring to evidence he
uncovered while researching electoral petitions from the 2008
Democratic Party primary in Indiana.

Nees’ investigation centered on the petitions that put then-senators
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the ballot. As many as 150 of the
names and signatures, it is alleged, were faked. So many, in fact,
that the numbers raise questions about whether Obama’s campaign had
enough legitimate signatures to qualify for a spot on the ballot.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/18/college-student-credited-with-uncovering-possible-election-fraud-in-indianas
Who wrote the Indiana Appeals Court decision that Judge Michael Malihi of Georgia quoted? The Obama camp? Mainstream media?

Did a judge actually write this?
STEVE ANKENY AND BILL KRUSE, Appellants-Plaintiffs,

vs.

GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Respondent.

November 12, 2009
OPINION – FOR PUBLICATION
BROWN, Judge

CRONE, J., and MAY, J., concur.
“B. Natural Born Citizen

Second, the Plaintiffs argue that both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain are not “natural born Citizens” as required for qualification to be
President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 49 of the U.S. Constitution”

“As to President Obama‟s status, the most common argument has been waged by members of the so-called “birther” movement who suggest that the President was not born in the United States”

Did a judge actually write the above? If so it is at best unprofessional and inaccurate and at worst biased.

“Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs‟ argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there‟s a very clear distinction
between a „citizen of the United States‟ and a „natural born Citizen,‟ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign
allegiance. Appellants‟ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom,
President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.”

Once again, did a judge write the above? First, there is a clear distinction between citizen and natural born citizen. Secondly, the judge cannot possibly know what most people think. Thirdly, the law is not based on what a group of people think.

“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the
present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the
protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was
born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States
afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

The following

“and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

is a damn lie!

Anyone who has studied law and or history, anyone who has followed the natural born citizen debate, knows that although American Law was influenced by British Common Law, once we broke from the British Empire, we developed our own set of laws that are not identical to those of our ancestral lands.

For example:

US Constitution

Article I Section 2

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Third Congress,  1795 .

“…children of citizens  of the United States…shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…”

Further evidence can be found here:

Citizen Wells January 6, 2011.

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/112th-congress-ron-paul-et-al-do-your-damn-job-us-constitution-natural-born-citizen-obama-eligibility/

From Sam Sewell of The Steady Drip.

“The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

The first was decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated with the American Revolution.”

Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.

The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus, belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer.  But what the case said about citizenship, is what matters here.

WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP

In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…”

From attorneys and legal scholars:

From Attorney Mario Apuzzo February 3, 2012.

“Georgia State Administrative Law Judge, Michael M. Malihi, issued his decision on Friday, February 3, 2012, finding that putative President, Barack Obama, is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. Sec. 21-2-5(b). The decision can be read here, http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/judge-malihi-rules-against-plaintiffs.html

I must enter my objection to this decision which is not supported by either fact or law.

The Court held: “For purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny [sic meant Ankeny], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.”

But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States. The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record. The judge tells us that he decided the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. But he does not tell us in his decision what evidence he relied upon to “consider[]” that Obama was born in the United States. The judge “considered” that Obama was born in the United States. What does “considered” mean? Clearly, it is not enough for a court to consider evidence or law. It must make a finding after having considered facts and law. The judge simply does not commit to any finding as to where Obama was born. Using the word “considered” is a cop out from actually addressing the issue. Additionally, we know from his decision that neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing let alone introduced any evidence of Obama’s place of birth. We also know from the decision that the judge ruled that plaintiffs’ documents introduced into evidence were “of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiff’s allegations.” Surely, the court did not use those “insufficient” documents as evidence of Obama’s place of birth. Nor does the judge tell us that he used those documents for any such purpose. The judge also does not tell us that the court took any judicial notice of any evidence (not to imply that it could). The judge did find that Obama has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party. But with the rules of evidence of superior court applying, this finding does not establish anyone’s place of birth. Hence, what evidence did the judge have to rule that Obama is born in the United States? The answer is none.

The court did not engage in its own thoughtful and reasoned analysis of the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” but rather relied only upon Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct.App. 2009), transfer denied, 929 N.E.2d 789 (2010), a state-court decision which erred in how it defined a “natural born Citizen.””

Read more:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/02/all-that-is-wrong-with-georgia-state.html

From Attorney Leo Donofrio February 4, 2012.

“There is no “clearly expressed intention” to deem 14th Amendment citizens “natural born”. Those words were intentionally left out of the 14th Amendment. And Judge Malihi has simply overruled the U.S. Supreme Court by suggesting that the general citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment governs the specific requirement to be President in Article 2, Section 1.

Both clauses are not given separate effect by Malihi. His opinion holds that the 14th has the exact same effect as the natural-born citizen clause, while the 14th Amendment does not include the words “natural born Citizen”. Persons claiming citizenship under the 14th Amendment are deemed to be “citizens”. Malihi has added the words “natural born” into the Amendment. This is absolutely forbidden, according to Malihi’s own opinion in the Motion to dismiss, wherein he held:

“In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.’ ””

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/a-rat-called-tandem/

I recommend to the Georgia Secretary of State to have the Attorney General of GA read the Malihi ruling and that Judge Malihi be drug tested.

Obama GA ballot challenge, Donofrio Amicus brief, Natural Born Citizen defined, Judge Michael Malihi, Georgia POTUS eligibility cases

Obama GA ballot challenge, Donofrio Amicus brief, Natural Born Citizen defined, Judge Michael Malihi, Georgia POTUS eligibility cases

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

From Leo Donofrio January 23, 2012.

“AMICUS BRIEF – Georgia POTUS Eligibility Cases.”

“This morning, I filed an AMICUS BRIEF in the Georgia POTUS eligibilitycases. The brief complies with all Rules and procedures of the Administrative Court. The brief is 54 pages, and the appendix is 155 pages. The Rules of Court require attachment to the brief of all legal authorities, other than those issued by the federal government, or the State of Georgia. There’s some very esoteric law attached thereto.

I seriously urge everyone to familiarize themselves with Lord Coke’s Report from Calvin’s Case, as well as Chancellor Ellesmere’s argument, also in Calvin’s Case, for this is the true common law genesis of jus soli subjection, which happens to be a uniquely Christian tenet of law that has been completely misunderstood in this country for too long now. Calvin’s Case is universally recognized as the common law precedent relating to jus soli, but it is so much more fascinating than you can imagine. And it will forever revolutionize understanding of the words “natural-born”.

This book contains all of the relevant arguments and reports. But the original text of Lord Coke’s Report is the proper starting point. (This document is also in the appendix to my brief.) And here’s another source with slightly modernized English and extras.”

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/amicus-brief-georgia-potus-eligibility-cases/

Amicus brief.

http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/georgia-brief-merged-final-redacted.pdf

 

Spiro Agnew qualified for president, Obama not eligible, 2 US citizen parents mandatory for natural born citizen status, John McCain eligible

Spiro Agnew qualified for president, Obama not eligible, 2 US citizen parents mandatory for natural born citizen status, John McCain eligible

“Why in 2008 did the American press challenge the eligibility of John McCain and not Barack Obama?”…Citizen Wells

From Leo Donofrio, Esq.

“The Agnew Funeral.

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.”

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

Read more:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/the-agnew-funeral/

Senate Resolution 511 from April 2008 states:
“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

Barack Obama signed the Resolution.

Thanks to several commenters for the info.

Natural Born Citizen lies and misrepresentations, Congressional Research Service Propaganda, Founding fathers intent, Obama eligibility, Leo Donofrio response

Natural Born Citizen lies and misrepresentations, Congressional Research Service Propaganda, Founding fathers intent, Obama eligibility, Leo Donofrio response

Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States, and is criminally occupying the White House and should immediately be arrested. Irrespective of any deficiencies in his birth certificate, Obama did not have 2 US citizen parents and is not a Natural Born Citizen.
Presidential eligibility from the US Constitution

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Notice that being a citizen was not enough, unless you were so at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution. One must be a Natural Born Citizen. That requires 2 US citizen parents. The founding fathers understood that definition. One of the best examples I can think of this contextual knowledge is from the movie “A few good men.”

In 2008, John McCain was challenged on his eligibility. He immediately presented a legitimate certified copy of his original birth certificate. But since he was born abroad, the US Senate provided a resolution to clarify his status as a Natural Born Citizen.

“110th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. RES. 511

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
April 10, 2008
Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary
April 24, 2008
Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment
April 30, 2008
Considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the
United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in
the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States,
as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country
outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

 Notice that emphasis was placed on the fact that McCain had 2 US citizen parents. Also note that Obama signed the resolution.

In 2008, numerous congressmen were contacted regarding Obama’s eligibility issues. It appeared at the time that they were all reading from the same scripted agenda. In 2010 we learned why members of congress responded with the same language.

From Citizen Wells November 8, 2010.

“Mario Apuzzo, attorney in Kerchner v Obama, first broke this story on November 5, 2010.

“Members of Congress Internal Memorandum — What to Tell Your Constituents in Answer to Obama Eligibility Questions – Their Talking Points Internal Memo Revealed. This was the spin that the Members of Congress were given to keep the American electorate at bay and confused in the debate about Obama’s eligibility issues all the while the Congress did nothing to investigate the matter in a congressional hearing like they did for similar concerns about John McCain.

We have obtained a copy of the talking points memorandum put out by a lawyer for the Congressional Research Service to the Members of Congress back in April 2009 as to what to tell their constituents when they write to the Members of Congress and ask questions about Obama’s eligibility. Now we know why all the answers coming back to constituents sounded like they were written by the same person and were full of the same obfuscations, omitted facts from history, and half truths & non-truths. This copy was obtained via the diligent and persistent efforts of a patriot going by the pen name of “Tom Deacon” who obtained it from a Senator’s office. Now we know the talking points the DC insiders and politicians have been groomed with to feed to their constituents who have been asking questions about the eligibility issues. Thank you Tom.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/congress-internal-memo-obama-eligibility-what-to-tell-your-constituents-jack-maskell-memo-citizen-wells-open-thread-november-8-2010/

Chris Strunk gave us a heads up yesterday that Jack Maskell of the Congressional Research Service is at it again.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/

Leo Donofrio has responded to this latest attempt at obfuscation of the meaning of Natural Born Citizen.
“Debunking The New Natural Born Citizen Congressional Research Propaganda.
 
Yesterday, attorney Jack Maskell issued yet another version of his ever changing Congressional Research Memo on POTUS eligibility and the natural-born citizen clause.  The CRS memo is actually a blessing for me in that I’ve been putting a comprehensive report together on this issue for about a month now.  But not having an official source standing behind the entire body of propaganda made my job more difficult.
The complete refutation will be available soon, but for now I will highlight one particularly deceptive example which illustrates blatant intellectual dishonesty.  On pg. 48, Maskell states:

In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”221
221 Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920). The Supreme Court also noted there: “It is better that many Chinese immigrants should be improperly admitted than that one natural born citizen of the United States should be permanently excluded from his country.” 253 U.S. at 464.
Reading this yesterday, I had a fleeting moment of self-doubt.  Could I have missed this case?  Did the Supreme Court really state that the son of two aliens was a natural-born citizen?  The Twilight Zone theme suddenly chimed in.  I then clicked over to the actual case, and of course, the Supreme Court said no such thing.

The petitioner was born in California to parents who were both US citizens.  His father was born in the United States and was a citizen by virtue of the holding in US v. Wong Kim Ark.  His mother’ place of birth was not mentioned.  Regardless, she was covered by the derivative citizenship statute, and was, therefore, a US citizen when the child was born.

It was alleged that the petitioner had obtained a false identity and that the citizen parents were not his real parents.  But the Supreme Court rejected the State’s secret evidence on this point and conducted their citizenship analysis based upon an assumption these were petitioner’s real parents.
Having been born in the US of parents who were citizens, petitioner was indeed a natural-born citizen.  But Maskell’s frightening quotation surgery makes it appear as if the petitioner was born of alien parents.  The Supreme Court rejected that contention.  And Maskell’s ruse highlights the depravity of lies being shoved down the nation’s throat on this issue.  I can imagine Mini-Me sitting on his lap while this was being prepared.
When you look carefully at Maskell’s creative use of quotation marks, you’ll see that the statement is NOT a quote from the case, but rather a Frankenstein inspired patchwork.  He starts the reversed vivisection off with the following:
“[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son…”

These are the first few words of a genuine quote from the Court’s opinion.  Then Maskell goes way out of context for the next two body parts.  The first is not in quotation marks:

of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is

And finally, an unrelated quote from elsewhere in the Court’s opinion:
“a natural born American citizen ….”
Put it all together and you get the following monstrosity:
…the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”
But the Supreme Court never said that.  Here’s what they actually said:
“It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 Sup. Ct. 456.”  Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920).

This real quote – when liberated from Maskell’s embalming fluid – does not resemble the propaganda at all.”

Read more:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/debunking-the-new-natural-born-citizen-congressional-research-propaganda/

Bill O’Reilly, Orly Taitz, Fox, Obama, Judge Land, Case Frivolous, Taitz fined $ 20,000, Lis Wiel, Kimberly Guilfoil, O’Reilly Factor, NO spin?, O’Reilly shooting messenger, O’Reilly coward, Obama not natural born citizen, Citizen Wells challenge

“Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.”…Proverbs 16:18

 “There is an epidemic of shooting the messenger in this country.”…Citizen Wells

Bill O’Reilly, who has a sinecure, maligned Orly Taitz and anyone questioning the eligibility of Barack Obama last night, October 27, 2009, on his Fox TV show.

O’Reilly is well known for being a pompous ass.

Last night, Bill O’Reilly was a coward.

Neither O’Reilly or his female fawners, who agreed the case was frivolous and that Orly Taitz deserved what she got, have done sufficient research to make an intelligent, informed comment on the subject.
I criticize Bill O’Reilly for pontificating on a subject that he knows little about.

I also criticize O’Reilly for shooting the messenger.

Orly Taitz, Philip Berg, Leo Donofrio, Mario Apuzzo, concerned active and retired military, myself, commenters on this blog and millions of concerned Americans are not the guilty party in this matter. Barack Obama is guilty.

Barack Obama

  • His father was Kenyan and a British Citizen.
  • Obama has not provided a long form birth certificate.
  • Obama has spent hundreds of thousands of someone’s money to fight proving eligibility.
  • Obama has consistently lied to the American people.
  • Obama is entangled in Chicago and IL corruption and should be indicted.
  • Obama’s further control of federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald should alarm everyone.

So, Bill O’Reilly, quit shooting the messenger and do your damn job. After all, the Obama administration continues to shoot Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

 
O’Reilly, you coward, try picking on me. I am a natural born citizen of the US, close to your age, male, with a strong business background. I have thoroughly researched Obama’s background and eligibility issues and written about it. I am not receiving a large salary for doing this. I simply care about this country.

I hereby challenge Bill O’Reilly to a battle of facts.

I will, of course, be attacking an unarmed opponent.

Bill O’Reilly, please explain why concerned Americans should not boycott your show.

 

And now for the response from Captain Pamela Barnett, a lead plaintiff in one of Taitz’ cases:


“(Oct. 28, 2009) —  She was a captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to Military Intelligence; but now retired she’s fighting a war on two fronts.

Captain Pamela Barnett is lead plaintiff in a case that could lead to the removal and life-time imprisonment of Barack Hussein Obama on charges of high-crimes, election fraud, campaign fraud, and a laundry list of campaign financing violations.

But Captain Barnett is not shirking her duty to defend her fellow Plaintiffs in the case: no, she is rebutting the lies and falsehoods promoted by the widely followed, but often errant and politically correct, Bill O’Reilly of Fox News.”

“From Captain Pamela Barnett to Bill O’Reilly – October 28, 2009

I challenge you Mr. O’Reilly to interview me..

I am Captain Pamela Barnett U.S. Army Retired of Barnett v. Barack Obama.

I am sick and tired of you defaming our lawsuit and our attorney against the Resident in the Whitehouse Obama. 48 plaintiffs mostly military retired have brought this lawsuit to force the production of Obama’s vital records to determine if he is in fact a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN which is one of the requirements to be a legal POTUS and NOT an illegal USURPER. There is also a huge amount of information regarding fraud that Obama committed before being illegally sworn in as POTUS.

IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH AT ALL.. YOU WILL CALL ME…

FROM WHAT I CAN SEE OF YOUR SHOW, THE TRUTH DOES NOT SEEM TO MATTER TO YOU OR THE REST OF THE SHILLS AT FOX. I KNOW THAT YOU ARE ONLY A COMMENTATOR, BUT AT LEAST GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE HURTING OUR CASE AND PROPAGATING LIES TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Sincerely,

CPT Pamela Barnett, U.S.Army Retired”

Read more:

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/captain-pamela-barnett-issues-challenge-to-bill-oreilly/

Some of the initial comments on the Citizen Wells blog after O’Reilly’s remarks:
“How are these people like Lis, Bill, and Kimberly, on Fox, going to explain themselves to the public after Kerchner gets Obama thrown to the curb.
After hearing those idiots say Obama is legitimate I hope Obama is removed from office just so I can see the expressions on their faces, it will be priceless.”

bob strauss

“OWrongly just made me throw up a little in my mouth. How ignorant can he be? And that blond dimwit. It’s been repeatedly proved Obotomy was born in Hawaii? Looked into by Congress? WHAT???? And then they don’t even know what Natural Born even means? I don’t know why anyone watches that show.”

Paulajal

“O’Reilly sucks!”

zachjonesishome

“O’reilly sucks and double sucks!!
I stopped watching long time ago when he talked down to his audience and being an ex-teacher, as my daddy would say, ‘that don’t set right with me’.”

JJ

“O’Reilly has gotten way to big for his britches. That “nose up in the air” arrogance sickens me and reminds me of someone else we all know.”

Teedee

“Observer, Bill Oreally, Lis Wiel, and Kimberly Guilfoil, all agreed the case was frivolous, she brought the same case to the same court twice, and she got what she deserved. That is about what it boiled down to.”

bob strauss

“Yepppers,…. I have been losing my respect for o’reilly,……. this really nailed it shut. I have sent him emails telling him to find out the truth,…. but, it seems that he wants to remain ignorant on the facts of obamas birth. I will email him again and tell him he needs to change the name of his show. NO – SPIN…… what a joke.”

joyceaz

“Watched O’Reilly’s comments on Orly, I have been studying on this ever since. The comments were not fair or balanced. NOW Orly or one of her reps. should contact the No Spine Zone and have the opportunity to defend herself with the truth! The Big Leprachan is a know it all”

carmen

“joyceaz, Bill needs to change the name of his show to “The Spin Zone”.”

bob strauss

“After the 3 against 1 on O’Reilly I believe she should be on this week!”

carmen

“OK – O’Reilly was the show that started my turn from uninformed democrat to a strong conservative and for about the last year – I can hardly stand him. Now – he is dead to me. YKWIM

Thanks Venice and SueK for the welcome.”

DenisetheMenace

“Did anyone really expect anything different from O’Reilly?”

SueK

“Observer, Bill Oreally, Lis Wiel, and Kimberly Guilfoil, all agreed the case was frivolous, she brought the same case to the same court twice, and she got what she deserved. That is about what it boiled down to.

Thanks Bob. So it came down to an “O’Bloviate” segment only. Figures. He loves macho soundbites – but he’s definitely been looking old lately plus losing the hair more and more. They should give Beck his slot and put Lou Dobbs in Beck’s. None of them want to commit to the eligibility question though because they just don’t know Constitutional law or care and want to wait ’til the patriots get all bloodied up – then report it later and take the credit.”

Observer

“They have something on O’Reilly. There are too many reaasons why Obama’s COLB is suspect for him not to elaborate at all. They have something on him.”

Paxson

Additional comments from American citizens who are far more informed than O’Reilly:

“Obama law tab up to $1.7 million

‘Grassroots army’ contributions used to crush eligibility lawsuits?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114202
Danny

“He’s full of it because those records were sealed shortly after Barky went to visit the dying Gramma Dunham. Does he really want us to believe that the State of Hawaii gave HIM the birth certificate?

He thinks we’re stupid; he has another thing coming.

Ratings or blackmail…take your pick. I’ll bet you a donut that he won’t consent to having Orly on to rebut his garbage.

Smug bastid.”
SueK

“His eyes go cross eyed when he even has the balls to bring this up. He says that he vetted it, but won’t publicly go into how he vetted it. He said that the state of Hawaii gave him a copy of the birth certificate (not certification). He said that he could find out the name of the hospital that President Obama was born in “tomorrow” (if he so chose). He’s a frigging liar. You can see it all over his face and he is being “black mailed” or his hands are tied to elaborate. Any normal person looking at this issue can see that something is up. Camille Paglia, noted LIBERAL, even accepts this fact. They can only keep their thumb in the whole of the dam for so much longer. They think we are stupid, and in the long run (whether during Obama’s term, or afterwards) the truth will be known. All of their careers will be over at that point.”
Paxson

“I am suspect about O’really picking Orly for a segment. At the very least I thought it would have simply been a gratuitous move.

No doubt it was meant to discredit her and the “movement.”

This on the heels of Judge Carter’s recent new hire. I can’t help but question if it’s not part of a bigger plan being implemented incrementally.”
JustMe
“I think O’Reilly is a jerk and I don’t like to watch him. He obviously is uninformed of what a NBC is and he thinks he knows it all. They like to discredit those who are trying to find out the truth because he thinks he knows the truth and says BO was born in HI so that makes him NBC. I don’t like O’Reilly. He is a fake conservative. He does not care about the country or the constitution, but he discredits those who do. He is lousy. I also think that Lou Dobbs should switch places with him.”

speedy

“BOYCOTT O’REILLY and let people know”
carmen

“O YOUR A PINHEAD!!!NEVER WILL WATCH HIM AGAIN!!!!”
GBAmerica

Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett, Leo C Donofrio, Update, October 19, 2009, Stonewaled In Hawaii, Where’s World Net Daily On This Issue?, Stonewalled, Attorney client privilege, Public statement

***  Update below ***

From Leo C Donofrio, October 19, 2009:

“Last week I published a report which established that Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett was invoking “attorney client privilege” as to the opinion issued to Department of Health Director Fukino wherein the AG reviewed and approved the July 27, 2009 press release which stated to the world that President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a “natural-born American citzen”.
 
Is there no story here?  Attorney client privilege was applied to a public statement?  How is that possible?  The statement was issued in a press release.  No privilege applies.
 
In part 3 of my UIPA report, I detailed the legal statutes and case law in Hawaii that demand the Attorney General opinion be made public.
Parts 1 and 2 of that same report explained how the Hawaii Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) gives “any person” standing to challenge in court the failure of a Hawaii state agency to release records which the public are entitled to.
 
Furthermore, I also detailed – here and here – how DoH Communications Director Janice Okubo has been running interference by failing to answer proper UIPA requests as is required by OIP administrative rules.
 
I am preparing a follow up on all of this which illustrates Okubo’s continued failure to answer UIPA requests under OIP administrative rules which has the effect of stopping all research.  Additonally, my appeals to the OIP have gone unanswered.
 
WHERE IS WND?
They are allegedly in possession of a petition with half a million names on it in support of political leaders investigating Obama’s POTUS eligibility.  My question to WND is – why don’t you investigate his eligibility by using the very simple devices listed in the UIPA?
 
All WND must do is write up a copy of the same questions we have asked… email it to Janice Okubo and then follow up with an OIP appeal and a judicial branch appeal (to be expedited to the front of the litigation calendar by statute).
 
I have always found the WND reporting on eligibility to be very convenient to the Obama administration.  They have chosen to focus on the sensational conspiracy theory aspects of the issue rather than the genuine legal problem he faces in that he was a British citizen at birth.  But if WND want to genuinely establish themselves as true  investigative reporters on the issue of Obama’s eligibility, all they have to do is make an effort to use the public disclosure laws available to “any person”.
 
I would be happy to write model UIPA requests, model appeals to the OIP and model judicial complaints to be filed in Hawaii Circuit courts for World Net Daily to act upon and to gather information.  Not only is Obama’s COLB available for discovery right now via these laws, but so is the Attorney General opinion which guided Fukino’s infamous July 27th press release as well as the original vital records she viewed which allowed her to state that Obama was born in Hawaii.
There’s no reason to be groping around in the dark looking for these documents in federal court rooms by people who have no chance of garnering standing.  Standing is granted to “any person” in Hawaii.  WND and all the other attorneys involved in POTUS eligibility should be using the UIPA laws in Hawaii, along with the OIP administrative rules and judicial precedent to get the information necessary for the country to have closure on Obama’s place of birth.
 
If Okubo tries to stonewall WND the way she stonewalls the rest of the public, then she can see her face and her replies spread over the front pages of WND.  And WND certainly has the resources to take this fight to the judicial branch in Hawaii.
 
Hawaii officials appear unwilling to work with me under their laws.  I will be filing law suits.  But I don’t see why WND and other interested attorneys continue to ignore the UIPA, OIP and judicial branch in Hawaii where standing is not an obstacle.  If your fight is to see the Obama birth records, then these laws make that possible.
 
I see a pattern emerging where the UIPA is ignored and the federal Quo Warranto statute is not followed properly.  It feels like a big attempt to keep public eyes away from true legal solutions while impossible exotic suits are brought in federal courts which have no subject matter jurisdiction for plaintiffs with undeniable standing issues.”

Read more:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/stonewaled-in-hawaii-wheres-world-net-daily-on-this-issue/

*** Leo C Donofrio update at October 19, 2009, 2:45 PM **

Point Made…

I’ve deleted my prior post so that the journal mentioned might reverse course now that I’ve made my point: that information is available from Hawaii for those who will call Hawaii to follow their own public disclosure laws.

No news journal can talk about this issue and deserve any respect if they aren’t willing to use the law available to them for research.  Research is to the media just as a hammer is to a carpenter – a necessary tool.  We shall now see if they are interested in doing their job or if they will continue to dodge that chore.”