Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Donofrio Ups the Ante v. Comments Discrediting Scalia's Referral and Full Court's Distribution to Conference

There seems to be an effort to discredit the action that Scalia and the SCOTUS took on Friday, Dec. 5, upon the Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz petition to stay the Electoral College vote. As you may know, this case was referred by Justice Alito and accepted by the full court to committee, which will assess the case this Friday, Dec. 12, in order to decide upon any further action. It could grant a stay, deny the case, call for a brief from the opposition, call for oral arguments, etc.

Whether the debunking effort is merely ad hoc, or being orchestrated, I cannot say, though the Axelrod Astroturfers are infamous. But I can relate this blogospheric attack, then post Leo Donofrio's replies. While Donofrio's own suit of the New Jersey Secretary of State was denied, he is representing Cort Wrotnowski, in his petition of the SCOTUS, based upon a Connecticut filing against its own SoS.

In the comments below an illinoisreview.com piece, "Supreme Court refers Obama natural born citizen question and moves forward," on Monday 12/8, is found this bold attempt at the debunk:

The Supreme Court has a rule: a litigant may request a stay from the Justice for the circuit where their case arose. If it is denied, they can come back and ask another Justice of their choice. When that happens, the 2nd Justice always refers the matter to the court for conference, so they can get all 9 to agree on throwing it out and be done with it.

If they ever get something they want to grant, they ALWAYS issue an order to the other side requesting opposition. No court would ever issue a stay without having first have heard from both sides.

Obviously, publicity-seeking vexatious litigants have now figured out that they can get a lot of attention by this 2-step process -- its a sure way to get the trash they file listed on the docket. I suppose we can expect this to continue all the way up through January 20th.

Similarly, in Donofrio's own Natural Born Citizen blog article, today: "The Washington Times Coverage of Donofrio and Wrotnowski SCOTUS Cases," he cites this criticism, as reported by Times reporter, Tom Ramstack:
Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District’s nonvoting Democratic delegate to Congress, speculated that the Supreme Court is considering appeals that challenge Mr. Obama’s citizenship only long enough to reject them “and lay to rest manufactured doubts about the legitimacy of Obama’s election before the inauguration.”
To this denigration dealt by Rep. Norton, Donofrio responds in his piece:

That’s a rather absurd statement. Frivolous cases aren’t graced with any respect at all. If it deserves immediate denial, then they deny it. But on the same day the order came down rejecting my case, Justice Scalia referred Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz to the full Court and it was distributed for the Dec. 12 conference.

If the Court wanted to send a message as Norton suggests, they could have denied Cort’s case at the same time as mine. Now that would have sent the message she suggests.

For example, when a stay application is renewed to a second Justice, that Justice may deny it straight away rather than referring it to the full Court. Examine the following two SCOTUS dockets where stay applications were denied by the first Justice and then denied by the second Justice upon renewed application:

No. 07A638
Title:
Ate Kays Company, Applicant
v.
Pennsylvania Department of General Services, et al.
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District
Case Nos.: (175 EM 2007)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Feb 1 2008 Application (07A638) for a stay pending appeal, submitted to Justice Souter.
Feb 2 2008 Application (07A638) denied by Justice Souter.
Feb 6 2008 Application (07A638) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Feb 7 2008 Application (07A638) denied by Justice Scalia.

—————

No. 7A421

Michigan, Applicant
v.
Corey Ramone Frazier
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Michigan
Case Nos.: (131041)


Nov 20 2007 Application (07A421) for stay pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Stevens.
Nov 20 2007 Application (07A421) denied by Justice Stevens.
Nov 28 2007 Application (07A421) refiled and submitted to Justice Alito.
Nov 28 2007 Application (07A421) denied by Justice Alito.
The intrepid New Jerseyan draws two examples from the SCOTUS record and puts more chips on the table. But, this does not satisfy one comments poster, who sees the bet and raises, as follows:
JudgeDredd Says:
December 10, 2008 at 12:06 pm

The second time you submit to a second justice, if they deny without submitting to the full court for review, you can submit it a third time. By sending it to the full court for review they can get rid of your case FASTER because that is your last shot. Your case will be one of thousands that the clerks pick through and recommend.It is very very possible (likely?) that not one justice has even seen your brief much less read it.The justices never even see the vast majority of applications.The court takes up such cases at its discretion and you have no Constitutional right whatsoever to even have it considered.
Donofrio sees the bet of JudgeDredd and calls:
Doesn't matter. If you submit it the first time or the second time, the Justice you submit it to has the option of referring it to the full Court and once it's referred, the Court may then deny it together. Upon the referral, if the full Court denies it without distributing it for conference, THEN NO 3RD RENEWAL IS ALLOWED. So, if the Court wanted to send a stern message they could have denied Cort's case as a full court on Monday without scheduling it for conference. Your point is in error. Once the full Court denies the application, you can't resubmit it to a 3rd Justice.
Thus, Leo maintains a countenance of confidence in his case and certainty in his place at the SCOTUS conference table. That tends to boost I.O.'s confidence.


Are you a student of the SCOTUS who would like to state your case, here? If so, the "comments" link awaits you. Or, maybe something just "strikes you," somehow.

Or, if you wish to pass this question on to a litigious lifeline, please click the envelope.

<<<<<<<<<<<<> I.O. <>>>>>>>>>>>>

Addendum: Since much of this post comes across on the negative, I will mention another, rosier scenario, postulated by many. It "holds" that Scalia (and Thomas, perhaps others) may have wanted to dispose of the Donofrio suit in favor of a stronger Wrotnowski case and thus, he waited for the denial of Donofrio v. Wells and immediately referred Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz.

In the same set of comments, Donofrio's remarks:
December 10, 2008 at 11:36 am

Just because a Justice refers it to the full Court, the full Court is not obligated to distribute it for conference. Upon Scalia's referral, the Court could have sent a stern message of denial without ever having distributed it for conference. The Court could have acted on Cort's application on the same day they denied mine by simply denying his. But they didn't. I don't know what it means, but neither does anybody else who isn't a SCOTUS Justice.

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Fitzgerald Finally Makes a Move: Blagojevich - and what of Obama?

Law enforcement never sleeps -- and in Chicago the Feds can hardly catch a nap

Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich is under arrest. It's the Rezko investigation, which led to much more, into a "political corruption crime spree." This includes trying to sell Barack Obama's seat on the U.S. Senate. And this, along with fresh evidence of attempted manipulation of the Chicago Tribune by Blagojevich, apparently triggered the arrest, in an otherwise long, arduous effort of collecting information, the kind for which Fitzgerald is famous. What I.O. has noted throughout the day follows.

On Illinois Review - "Source: Feds take Gov. Blagojevich into custody" (The FBI took him from home shortly after 6am CT.) This is also subject matter that HillBuzz covers. And let's give John Kass a day or two and see what he says. And, the I.O. sidebar should be interesting to watch.

On CBS-2 News Chicago, via Drudge - "CROOK COUNTY: GOVERNOR, YOU'RE UNDER ARREST"

11:30am CT, on TV - Patrick Fitzgerald is giving a press conference (C-SPAN link). He credits the Chicago Tribune, which found key information (in its face) held it from the public for awhile at the request of federal investigators, then published it Friday. This apparently led to even further evidence via bug or "wire," and wiretap. Instances of pay to play in state contracts are also in the complaint.

On Obama - Fitzgerald said that the complaint makes no allegations about him, "and that's all I can say," an interesting way to put it. See the exact quote, below.

Fitzgerald also stressed, "I encourage people to talk to us... to let us get to the bottom of what has happened here," and later reiterated, "...we need people, in the public, to stand up and say 'enough.'"

Later - Talking Democrat heads are starting to play Blago as a nutty oddball, while Obama tried to stay away from it all, yada, yada, "aloof," yada.

2:21pm CT. on TV - Obama: "saddened and sobered" about Blago, but since there is an ongoing investigation, he does not want to comment. (Instead, he focuses on spreading Al Gore's ploy for man-made global socialism, now inconveniently relabeled "climate change," as if this is news to the Earth.) Reporters lunge. Obama: "...sad day... ...won't comment..." Oh, but he hasn't spoken with the Illinois Governor lately, not even about the Senate seat he has just vacated. Even though he by some reports, had Valerie Jarrett in mind for it.

4:46 CT - The Patriot Room is requesting information about which of the Obama advisers were communicating to Blagojevich.

5:19 CT - A video of the entire federal investigator interview is on C-SPAN.org. In the video, the first question and answer I find, specifically about Obama occurs at about 18:07. He is asked if he would address whether or not "Obama was aware that any of these things were taking place." Fitzgerald replied, "I'm not gonna speak for what the president-elect [sic] was aware of. We make no allegations that he is aware of anything and that's i-as simply as I can put it."

The second Obama Q&A occurs at 32:19. Fitzgerald was asked a question in an interesting way:
"You spoke before about if senator - you didn't know the awareness that senator - president-elect Barack Obama knew about this [I.O., he did not say this. The reporter seems to be grappling for words to put in Fitzgerald's mouth, prone to clear Obama.] so is it safe to say he has not been briefed and can you also tell us if any phone calls were made to president-elect Obama that you intercepted or to Rahm Emanuel?
Fitzgerald responded:
I'm not going to go down anything that's not in the complaint and what I simply said before is I'm not gonna -- I have enough trouble speaking for myself -- I'm never gonna try and speak in the voice of a president or a president-elect. So, I simply pointed out that if you look at the complaint, there is no allegation that the president-elect -- there's no reference in the complaint to any conversations involving the president-elect, or indicating that the president-elect was aware of it and that's all I can say.
What does this mean for Barack Obama, regarding any matters such as: the Rezko land deal, the Broadway Bank loan, and the odd favor of anointing Alexi Giannoulias, his man for IL Treasury Secretary? Did Obama or his staff know of Blago's senatorial shakedown and come clean to the Feds? Have Obama and Blago been in touch, lately, as David Axelrod has stated, but Obama and staff later denied?

There are many allegations in the federal complaint and it has taken a great deal of time for the FBI to collect all the evidence gained so far, in its ongoing work. One does wonder how much they have learned about Obama during this time and why Fitzgerald continues to plea to citizens in the know, to come clean.


PS, 12/11 - I think I've seen Brando give that hug... or was it Pacino?

Monday, December 8, 2008

Plains Radio Webcast, Listener's Notes: Wrotnowski, Donofrio, Pidgeon

Live updating through the evening -- my notes from tonight's Plains Radio Webcast. (Parenthetical comments are by I.O., AW.) After Jill Stanek, on the state of the pro-life movement in an American culture steeped in death are featured Natural Born Citizen Challengers, Cort Wrotnowski (CT), Steve Pidgeon (WA) and Leo Donofrio (NJ) and... Chester A. Arthur.

Interview of Cort Wrotnowski...
  • Donofrio's research on President Chester A. Arthur's covered-up U.K. citizenship brings new implications that will be included in the filing before the SCOTUS.
  • If a SCOTUS hearing is held, Wrotnowski plans for Donofrio to present his case.
  • Press is avoiding Wrotnowski, while it plays up the denial of Donofrio's hearing.
  • Adam Liptak of the New York Times is inqiring, also Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune (obdurate leftist propagandist I've had experience with - AW).
  • Joe Thunder reporting on the liveliness of the National Press Club press conference today, by others bringing suit (on the birth certificate). Thunder videotaped it. Pastor Manning was there (oh, oh) in addition to Orly Taitz. Thunder will post on his site, tomorrow afternoon, freedommarch.org. [I.O. Ed., audiotape, here]
  • At one point, one of our objective-as-Goebbels journalists told Ms. Taitz, "...just go home...."
During the break, I see on I.O's sidebar that Leo Donofrio has updated his blog about the Wrotnowski progress at the SCOTUS.
  • Adulterated allegiances are very dangerous for a nation's Commander in Chief to have.
  • After December 15, charge of the process of determining the presidency is passed from the Electoral College (provided they vote, that day) to Congress and the chances of effectiveness of law suits are diminished.
  • Ed Hale pass along from Leo Donofrio that he believes Wrotnowski's case is very strong, with advantages over Donofrio vs. Wells. "Layman" Ed says he thinks this is indicative of positive results.
  • A caller wonders if and when Obama's side will be called in and will weigh in.
  • Cort has to beg off -- claims he's busy. ;-`
  • The Political Pastor program is signing off; TPP announces his chat room at Plains Radio.
  • Ed Hale will have Steve Pidgeon on, who is bringing suit before the Washington Supreme Court.
Break -- if they need to keep beating the SCOTUS over the head with 2x4's so be it, until they gain constitutional sense.

Now, Karen and Ed Hale's Lions' Den program - it's a long, rich, historical evening at Plains Radio, interviewing Steve Pidgeon...
  • Pidgeon's case has standing.
  • Discussion of the 1790 statute, setting forth a "natural born citizen" (BTW, this phrase was specifically stricken from the stature in 1795.) requiring both parents to be citizens and the father, a resident of the USA. This disqualifies Obama.
  • The 14th Amendment calls anyone born in the USA a "citizen." (However, see the declaration of the framer of the 14th amendment, about being a "natural born citizen!"). And this requires Obama's mother to have been 19 (longer story made short) when Barack-II was born. She was 18.
  • Suit says Obama, a. not a natural born citizen, b. not a citizen, and c. arrrghhh!! the program winked out on me and it isn't coming back up!
If/when I can regain the broadcast, I'll be back to it. Coffee... want... coffee.... // OK, it's back for me.
  • I'm guessing that point "c." above is that his Indonesian citizenship revokes his American citizenship (or perhaps he point "c." has to do with the birth certificate).
  • Pidgeon's suit may bring the first case with standing having to do with the birth certificate before the SCOTUS.
  • Caller from New Zealand brings up the writing of John A. Bingham (framer of the 14th Amendment) regarding allegiance, to be a natural born citizen.
  • Obama became a Kenyan citizen officially in 1963, then an Indonesian citizen. He was apparently adopted, from the Lolo Soetoro / Ann divorce records, by an Indonesian citizen. If he is an American citizen after these facts, this means Obama is a naturalized citizen, and utterly not a natural born citizen by anyone's construct.
The one and only Leo Donofrio, Esq. is now on the program...
  • Talking about how lame and inexperienced the states are, at even considering how to verify the citizenship qualifications of candidates. (How can one certify without verifying?)
  • About the history of Chester A. Arthur's huge cover-up campaign to hide his U.K. citizenship. He appointed Justice Gray, who is the very one who wrote the opinion in the Wong Kim Ark case which liberalized American citizenship requirements! (That sounds eerily familiar, if you have read what friends of BHO are opining about citizenship.)
Break. I'm getting angrier, now. Blood pressure rising. "History repeats itself." -- history of corruption of the sacred trust we place in elected officials. God, if you are judging America, please spare the most innocent and punish most, those who most deserve it.
  • Donofrio's point seems to be that allowing a fictitious president allows a great deal of dishonesty -- it allows a corrupt U.S. President. Justice Gray may have been writing "that opinion to sanitize Arthur's citizenship." Quid pro quo dealing is implied.
  • All of Arthur's decisions and actions are tainted for history.
  • Per Arthur's example, "You can't have a precedent if it is a fraud."
  • Donofrio being Donofrio -- warns Pidgeon to investigate how Roger Calero was not allowed ballot access, for the sake of precedent. (Whatever one says about his NJ style, Donofrio is an excellent tactician and strategist.) Says that someone from the SoS had Calero removed and who did that should provide sworn testimony, to build the case. (Selective investigation and disqualification.) There could be a cover-up in WA.
  • Donofrio believes Wrotnowski's application is much better drafted.
  • Donofrio explains how the judge in NJ misapplied his suit: action in lieu of a prerogative writ became forced by the court into a writ of lesser application. Then, they refused his motion by a hoodwink excuse, based upon the procedural error the court itself created. (I'm not a lawyer and don't even play one on TV, so pardon my terminology.)
  • (BTW, I'm wondering, since Wrotnowski is not a lawyer and Donforio says he was/is pleased at how much better his case is drafted -- it would seem, before Donofrio got to it -- did they get help from another attorney, in cognito? I did take Latin and I played a lawyer in a couple 5th grade vignettes.)
  • The goofball idea that the SCOTUS should turn down the challenges, to avoid unrest and "overturning the will of the people." (David Horowitz is haranguing at conservatives challengers on this, for one.) Donofrio: "I'm sorry, it's not a real election if it's two fraudulent candidates."
  • Pidgeon tells Donofrio that if the SCOTUS weren't interested in the case, it would have been rejected without going to conference. (My point: depends on the Justice.)
  • Donofrio: even though he blogged about the idea that the SCOTUS might have preferred the strength of the Wrotnowski case, he was (stunned) when blog commentators told him Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz was referred to conference, a few minutes later!
  • A stay of the Electors before Dec. 15 would be in order, because otherwise there would be a conflict of laws.
  • Allowing not a strictly "natural born Citizen," could allow an orchestrated agent provocateur to become U.S. President. (What about someone of the kind who, during his campaign, would hold a rally in Germany, before hundreds of thousands, claiming himself a "Citizen of the World?")
  • Caller commends those bringing these cases, affirming that the United States Constitution is worth sacrifice.
  • Ed Hale asks someone for a pack of cigarettes and to his credit says "please."
  • Discussion shifts (degrades? I hope not) into some contention of the likely success of the quest for the original certificate of live birth (COLB) but rises back to the point that this is the responsibility of the states' Secretaries of State, to which Pidgeon and Donofrio agree.
  • Ed Hale requests that Donofrio and Pidgeon come back Friday night.
  • Leo has to work all night on the new Chester A. Arthur brief and Cort Wrotnowski will drop it off in SCOTUSville tomorrow.
End of broadcast.
Prayers are in order.
  • End note, 12/9, 2:10am: Despite the media gates, some do pay attention, but just who? Well, among others, I.O. just got a view from Hanoi -- via a Google search: "Wrotnowski obama."
Hey, here's an idea -- pick some of the media gatekeepers you most wish to bother and...
SEND it to the psy-ops jocks!! -- email envelope, below
(And they've called President Bush "incurious." -- Try, ostrich-headed.)


PS: my apologies, but not inclined to do much proof reading of the above.

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz "Natural Born Citizen" Case Referred to Full Court by Justice Scalia (about Obama's foreign father)


Justice Scalia, by referring Wrotnowski v.
Bysiewicz to committee on December 12 may allow the Supreme Court to decide upon Barack Obama's status as a presidential candidate before the currently scheduled Electoral College election day, December 15.

This case is essentially similar to the case of Leo Donofrio, who assisted Connecticut resident, Cort Wrotnoski, in drafting it. According to Donofrio, the basis is very much the same (not essentially about the birth certificate, but regarding a foreign father) and it includes additional corroborative research and/or reasoning. Also, the history of this case is less problematic for the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) than the Donofrio case, due to a suspicious misfiling of the latter case by a New Jersey judge which may have provoked a question of standing before the Supreme Court.

My best suggestion for getting good interpretation of this is to visit Leo Donofrio's blog, where he has opined about Justice Scalia's potential thinking. Also, FreeRepublic.com, keyword: obamatruthfile (which will also likely include interesting discussion of numerous kinds). Also,
Plains Radio Network, Inc. forum and The Obama File, Latest News.

Wrotnowski and Donofrio may be interviewed tonight on the Plains Radio Network, to discuss today's actions, possibly at 7pm CT (I do not know, but this has been their habit).

See The Donofrio "Natural Born Citizen" Challenge, for an analysis of this case, which would disqualify Obama, based upon the foreign citizenship of his father (and disqualify McCain, based upon his birth outside of American territory). It has very weighty constitutional merit, by documented contemporaneous meaning of "natural born Citizen."

The Donofrio case was denied, this morning. I will be updating this Weblog, to help you give you a snapshot of where the entire process is.


John Jay's request of the "natural born Citizen" requirement
click image to enlarge | h/t: FReeper: BP2

Friday, December 5, 2008

The Donofrio "Natural Born Citizen" Challenge

12/17 I.O. update:

1.
The essence of the Donofrio v. Wells case (NJ) is contained in the Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz case (CT). In both cases, injunctions were denied, but this may be due to a jurisdictional issue [edit: or an issue of standing]. In September, a federal court ruled against a somewhat similar challenge (to John McCain) based, oddly, upon both its particular merits and an overall, jurisdictional observation. Mysteriously, the Donofrio case has remained listed as "pending," somehow, which may or may not have to do with the jurisdictional matter.

2.
A research work in process, this article failed to address the most central document besides the Constitution itself, to the understanding of the
original intent and thereby meaning of the "natural born Citizen" criteria, the letter from John Jay to George Washington, July 25, 1787. In it, Jay cites the reason for the criteria being one of national security, that is to guard against a "Commander in Chief of the American army" having foreign allegiance in the way anyone might, who is not a natural born Citizen. This lends essential merit to the dual natural born Citizen criteria pointed out in this article, as a strategist in matters of defense and security would naturally know. Metaphorically, in a neighborhood where crime is high, one does not lock the front door (born in U.S. territory) and leave the back door wide open (commonly and "naturally" understood national allegiance by hereditary right). When security is the concern, one thoroughly guards all of one's vulnerabilities which are pertinent and feasible to be made secure.

12/5/2008

The Donofrio Case: "Natural Born Citizen" -- not about Obama's birth certificate, but the one that goes, "We the People...."

Today, before the United States Supreme Court lies Leo Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State. This suit was received by Justice Thomas and by the determination of the entire court, it is scheduled for conference on Friday December 5. This conference is held to decide what, if any, further steps should be taken. Only two of these steps would be to intervene in the process of selecting the president, or to hear oral arguments.

Essence of the case

By this case Barack Obama, John McCain, and Roger Calero (of the Socialist Workers Party, on the New Jersey ballot) do not qualify as “natural born Citizens” under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, which states the following:

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.
Standing

Other cases against Obama's candidacy have been rejected by various courts, due to a private citizen's apparent lack of standing to sue a candidate. However, this case is an action against the Secretary of State of New Jersey and as such, has precedent, as Donofrio relates. He originally sought to motivate the Secretary to qualify or disqualify these three candidates on the New Jersey ballot. Donofrio also cites 2000's famous Florida case, Bush v. Gore, as precedent for a state case regarding a presidential election to be brought to the Supreme Court for emergency action.

Merit: reasoning behind Donofrio v. Wells

To interpret the U.S. Constitution with intellectual honesty, one must maintain the integrity of the meaning of the Constitution. That means interpreting the letter of the law: its words and phrases, based upon the immediate context of the Constitution itself, any explanations of the framers, traditional meaning inherited by the framers, and the generally accepted, legal meanings of words and phrases in use at the time of its drafting. Further, attention is to be paid to the spirit of the law, by understanding the purposes of the framers and the results they sought or sought to avoid, as they drafted each element of the Constitution.

In view of these considerations, being a “natural born Citizen,” here requires meeting both of these two criteria: 1. citizenship must be passed on by the constitutionally pertinent principle of natural law, which assumes that citizenship is inherited from one’s father’s citizenship and, 2. citizenship must be granted by means of being born in the actual territory of the United States. Accordingly, to maintain the original intention of the Constitution's framers, a U.S. President is to be free of competing allegiances with other nations, from birth onward. To cite Donofrio's own words from his blog:

The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn't want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. [I.O. ed., letter by John Jay] The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.
According to this case, Barack H. Obama II is not qualified, because his father, Barack H. Obama I, was a citizen of the United Kingdom as a Kenyan. Kenya was a British colony at the time of Obama II’s birth in 1961. This citizenship was conferred to Obama II by U.K. law. Further to this case is the apparent fact that Obama II became a citizen of Indonesia, when he lived there as a child with his mother and adoptive father, Lolo Soetoro. This would mean Obama's U.S. Citizenship status was revoked, since Indonesia had no dual-citizenship provision with the U.S.A.

According to this case, John McCain is not qualified, because he was born in Panama or the Panama Canal Zone, which was a protectorate of the United States and has never been a territory of the Untied States, even though his parents were U.S. Citizens.

According to this case, Roger Calero is not qualified, because he was born a citizen of Nicaragua, to foreign parents, on foreign soil. The mere fact that Roger Calero was on the ballot in five states indicates to the Supreme Court and the nation, that the process of qualifying a presidential candidate is broken and intervention is necessary.

Merit: context, corroboration, and case law

Corroborative to this case, the Constitution's Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 states that a power of Congress is to "define and punish... offenses against the law of nations." The Law of Nations has been international law, which as documented by Emmerich de Vatel (1758) states, in Chapter XIX, paragraph 212, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

Vatel follows with paragraph 215, in which he asserts, "It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say 'of itself,' for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise."

The chief framer of the related 14th Amendment of the Constitution, John A. Bingham corroborated this dual criteria stating, "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." An extensive analysis citing this is "Defining Natural-Born Citizen," by P.A. Madison, The Federalist Blog.

Since then, the case of Perkins v. ELG, U.S. 325 (1939) provides precedent for requiring these two criteria, for one to be called a "native born citizen" (see, "The Law -- Perkins v. ELG," blog, The Betrayal).

St. George Tucker, Justice of the Supreme Court of Virgina, wrote a version of the authoritative Blackstone's Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution... which became a recognized resource for determining the framers' original intent. In his Volume 1 -- Appendix; Note D, he explained that the Article 2 "natural born Citizen" requirement was purposed to avoid competing allegiances:

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, whereever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country. Nor is it with levity that I remark, that the very title of our first magistrate, in some measure exempts us from the danger of those calamities by which European nations are almost perpetually visited. The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora's Box.

If anyone knows of an applicable contemporaneous definition of "hereditary right" which does not include patrilineal descent, he is welcome to inform this writer. Certainly, this applied to sons of subjects of the United Kingdom (and the fact that one subject would travel abroad to declare himself a "Citizen of the World" before hundreds of thousands might also have provided relevant warning).

Intended result of this case

The Donofrio suit calls for a stay of the Dec. 15 Electoral College vote, until a constitutionally acceptable means is attained, of presenting the Electors a set of qualified candidates.

During or after their Dec. 5 conference, the Supreme Court could decide upon a number of directions. Their next step may be revealed this very day, or on Monday, Dec. 8, or at some other time. A book could be written of the many potential outcomes -- and historians will write libraries about one set of results, in their hindsight.

"Post Script" in HTML

Leo Donofrio reports that numerous obstacles have been intentionally placed in the way of his petitioning the courts, in both New Jersey and at the Supreme Court. He also names public officials who have at times attempted to mislead him and by their treatment of his case, have obstructed his path to the Supreme Court. That is another story and not an undramatic one.

Donofrio has had three blogs -- and Internet harassment, as follows:

  1. http://blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen -- used through November 21, until its blog service was hit by a denial of service attack, bringing it down (servers have been repaired)
  2. http://thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com -- used through November 27, until it became clear that Google has not been at all swift to remove a "flag page," inappropriately citing that blog for "possible Blogger Terms of Service violations"
  3. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com -- hopefully, unmolested as of your reading

This report may be updated as progress is made. For information about the operations of the Supreme Court in such matters, see "A Reporter's Guide to Applications Pending Before the Supreme Court of the United States."


h/t: numerous bloggers and forum posters including FReepers: BP2, joygrace, andMamaTexan

Wish to spread the news of this case? Just click the envelope, below...

Friday, November 28, 2008

Making the World Safe for Marxism (with Barack Obama)
commentary by Randall Hoven

"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved -- such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."
- Barack Obama

"I am not a Marxist."
- Karl Marx

Those quotes are placed in an excellent commentary in American Thinker, in which Randall Hoven masterfully describes the neo-Marxist snares in which America has been dancing, to celebrate the apparent election of Barack Obama. I will show an excerpt and beg you to read it in its entirety.
Obama was essentially a "red diaper baby" who was raised and educated by Marxists to be Marxist. Communists really did spy on us. They had secret meetings. Communism is no longer "strange"; it is taught in our schools, sometimes by Marxists. Obama went to such schools, took such classes and personally sought out Marxists. Bill Ayers calls himself a communist. Barack Obama's run for elective office was kicked off at a meeting in Bill Ayer's house. His voting record was the most liberal in the Senate in 2007, or left of self-avowed socialist Bernie Sanders.

Are we not to infer the obvious?

Some more hints: "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax" is one of the ten planks in the Communist Manifesto. So is "centralization of credit in the hands of the State." So is "centralization of the means of communication" and "establishment of industrial armies."

I don't think it's my imagination that (a) we are already far down the road in establishing each of these planks (e.g., Federal Reserve System), and (b) Barack Obama and the Democrats are itching to take us even further down that road: more progressive income taxes; more government control of credit, banking and industry; the "fairness doctrine" and other regulations of speech and communications; a national service plan and mandatory "public service" for students; etc.

A reasonable person could infer that the present aim of the Democratic Party is full implementation of the planks of the Communist Manifesto. Just look at the ten planks and look at the Democratic Party's platform or its legislation waiting in the wings. You don't need rose-colored glasses to see the red in either.

In fact, the interesting question is no longer whether our politics in the US and Europe (not to mention Latin America) are leading to Marxism. The interesting question now is whether voters care.
What if this brief commentary should be placed in the in-box of every American Citizen?

Why not begin by sending it to at least 90% of those you know -- now?


And very glad you understand, Mr. Hoven, that we should not even use the word "capitalism" about the true American economy, that it is a term from Marx and not our founders. The term for the true American economy is "economic freedom," or as you cite the words of Adam Smith, "the system of perfect liberty." Sure beats the alternative -- I mean the alternative continuing to plague the world -- and now getting closer and closer to the Oval Office.

There is also a thread regarding "Making the World Safe for Marxism," in FreeRepublic.com.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Obama's Published Birth Certificate: "Forged, Phoney, Felony Fraud"

"Expert, Ron Polarik, PhD" has just concluded a study of the document presented by Barack Obama as his Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth. Conclusion: "Forged images, phony photos, and felony fraud."

Circumstances cause Americans to wonder who will become United States President on January 20 and what routes this person and Chief Justice Roberts will each take, to their intersection at the Oath of Office. Polarik's contribution presents itself an exquisitely researched, documented, and illustrative set of findings which may be seen at these locations on the Web:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2136816/posts
http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2008/11/22/obamas_born_conspiracy_forged_images,_phony_photos,_and_felony_fraud.thtml

Excerpt:

With my experience and specialization in document imaging, my findings are conclusive and irrefutable that the COLB images posted by Obama to his campaign website, fightthesmears.com, to the dailykos.com, a pro-Obama blog, to FactCheck.org, a pro-Obama political research group, and to Politifact.org, are, in fact, image forgeries with the intent to defraud the American People into believing that these images were digitally scanned from Obama’s genuine, “original” birth certificate.

With my experience and specialization in photography and digital imaging, my findings are conclusive and irrefutable that the COLB photographs posted by FactCheck.org, a pro-Obama political research group, and to Politifact.org, are, in fact, photographic forgeries with the intent to defraud the American People into believing that these digital photographs were taken of Obama’s genuine, “original” birth certificate.

[Edit 11/23: Is this the last word on the subject? Not necessarily. Works of science are always subject to further testing -- and Polarik seems to be an anonymous source.]

I encourage you to go and read it directly. You deserve the privilege to begin to discover whether the presumptive president-elect is headed to the White House and whether, to a much less auspicious federal house.

Also: in the next day or so, I hope to produce a one-page, hypertext-linked guide in the hydra-headed battle to discover the historical Barack Obama vs. the United States Constitution's requirement of only a "natural born citizen" allowed as America's president (Article II, 20th Amendment, COLB, derived/forged COLB, Donofrio, Keyes, Berg, Supreme Court, etc.). Keeping it updated in ensuing days presents another challenge. [Edit 11/23: Even if the document examined by "Polarik" is not a forgery per se, that does not mean it honestly reflects an original COLB. Even if the COLB is accurate, it does not address the essense of the Donofrio lawsuit.]

This is coming to a climax with due process momentum that has begun to appear unstoppable.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Marxists: now liberals see them, now they don't;
Rep. Paul Broun keeps both eyes open

To the liberal elitist, Marxists should be welcomed to influential roles in society
To the liberal elitist, it is slanderous to call anyone, influential in society, a Marxist

As the elite left now works on rehabbing the reputations of Barack Obama's old comrades, Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright (of the many, two whose names got past media filters) my prayers and empathy go out for Rep. Paul Broun, of Georgia -- and my congratulations to him. As you may know, Broun has publicly expressed his concerns over the apparent Marxist history and intentions of the apparent president-elect (11/7, 11/11).

From "Broun's back on Obama; Stands by remarks," by Blake Aued, 11/11, Athens Banner-Herald:
"Broun's neo-McCarthyism has no place in today's political environment," said Martin Matheny, a spokesman for the Democratic Party of Georgia.
Question: is it "neo-McCarthyism" to refer to the actual, documented facts of someone's close, lifetime relationships with neo-Marxists? Well, those, plus an old fashioned Communist, in Frank Marshall Davis, Obama's mentor as a teen. (Nice that Davis went by three names; that way I can link to three sets of documentation.) The Banner-Herald piece goes on:
Comparisons to Hitler are despicable because they trivialize the Holocaust, whether they come from the left about President Bush or from the right about Obama, said Athens-Clarke Mayor Heidi Davison, a Jewish Democrat. "I don't like people who flippantly use either 'Hitler' or 'Nazi' to describe the actions of other people, at all, ever," Davison said.
Comments such as this minimize the American holocaust of well over 42,000,000 human beings killed via abortion, since 1973. They also ignore Barack Obama's record of supporting rampant abortion-through-infanticide and his atrocious promise to anti-black, eugenicist Planned Parenthood, to nullify all state and federal restrictions upon abortion through the "Freedom of Choice Act" he has already sponsored.

This light but refreshing dose of post-election journalism goes on:
Broun said in the news release he hopes Obama will be a bipartisan executive and is "eager to work with our president-elect when he is constitutionally correct."

Broun's comments reflect the fears of many Republicans who believe Obama has a shadowy background that wasn't fully explored by the press, said Jim Box, chairman of the Clarke County GOP.

"The question is, where's this guy going?" Box said. "A lot of people are raising suspicions about him."

Broun made headlines nationwide Monday when - based on a Colorado speech when Obama called for a "civilian national security force" - he raised the possibility that Obama plans to establish a Nazi- or Soviet-style security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship.

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany, and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun told the Associated Press on Monday. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

Obama referred to the civilian national security force as part of a call for expanding the Peace Corps and other volunteer programs and encouraging young people to commit to public service overseas and in poor parts of the country, according to a July 2 Chicago Tribune article about the speech.

Media outlets sensationalized Broun's comments about the Obama speech, he said, but he reiterated his concerns about Obama's tax and gun policies.

"I never called Mr. Obama a communist, nor did I accuse him of being Hitler, but I do not apologize for stating the obvious: His socialist views are out of the mainstream of American political thought, and history shows that 'civilian national security forces' bode ill for citizens," Broun said.
May many others in government also maintain an informed and concerned perspective. May more and more of the People learn the facts, as well.

Friday, November 7, 2008

CHANGE.GOV: America Serves - Work Brings Freedom

Obama: CHANGE to a different liberty

What constitutes the "change" Barack Obama wants to bring? Did you ever hear a reporter ask him that, during his campaign? Did you ever see a clear picture of the change, from the mainstream media? Unanswered questions abound. Now that the popular (not electoral college) votes have been cast, Obama is already beginning to tell us -- and this spurs further, very serious questions.

Are you prepared for the change? See a new site, called
change.gov. There, after kicking butt just two days prior, Barack Obama has started taking names. How is Senator Obama, not president at this time, nor actually president-elect, empowered to use a ".gov" Web site, to press his semi-reported, semi-hidden agenda?

How does he want us to change? Here is one way he wants us to change, copied from his (our?) new site. The bold/red in the text is my highlight. Reading these lines carefully will not require much reading between them.

America Serves
"When you choose to serve -- whether it's your nation, your community or simply your neighborhood -- you are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not just for ourselves, but for all Americans. That's why it's called the American dream."
The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.

According to Obama, the American dream is called "the American dream" because, as he has determined, we want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans and if you want yours, somehow you are responsible for the fulfillment of the dreams of all others. You want what he says you want and that means many of you will serve through programs that government provides, so all Americans have life as you have life, liberties as you have liberties, and if you wish to pursue happiness, you will pursue the happiness of all others, as provided by state or state-partnered organizations.

"When you choose
to serve..." he is quoted above, but choose? Not so much, for those who would have an education. Evidently, conscription into serving the state seems to be the shining path, for these. Just what will the Obama required youth be required to do? And what training will the state dispense for them -- something "consciousness raising," akin to the radical indoctrination of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge? What becomes of the many American students and minors' parents, who will simply disagree and not wish to participate?

Obama answers: if one is to be allowed the freedom to gain an education, he must serve through the state, in ways proscribed by the state, those granted service by the state.


Liberty? For all?

Now, what is this about retirees and the elderly? Retirees will be "encouraged" to serve through state-proscribed ways. How will we be so induced? To do what? Will we be provided certain state services only if we have been serving the state, ourselves? And once central government begins so serving the elderly (and the elderly thus become dependent upon state services) for how long will the state choose to go on spending to serve us, as age raises the costs?

The coming answers to these questions could seem innocuous to some, as Obama's initial "community organizations" become state-directed venues of our work. But will the groundwork be thus laid for further changes in the services we must yield to the state, for the sake of our "liberties?"

As government is granted power to require services from an individual, or as government is permitted to generate a dependency of the person upon such services, the person's liberty is relinquished to the state's power over him. Any tyranny is all tyranny, wherever it appears and the results of that evil become mere matters of degree. Government being permitted to dispense "liberties" based upon our proscribed service is a tyranny which may begin smallish, but be easily "ratcheted up."

ARBEIT MACHT FREI -- "work brings freedom." -- those were words hung in places that Americans liberated much too late for far too many, two generations ago, after a new government changed the essentials of its civilization.

To Barack Obama, freedom depends upon our work for collective liberties. To America, freedom is the gracious gift of God to each person from the start and "inalienable" means unyielding and unchangeable. We seem to be in an essential conflict, beginning two days after the elections.

Photo of Dachau prison gate provided via Wikipedia
Update: 11/8/2008

The America Serves page on the CHANGE.GOV site has been changed. It now reads:
America Serves
"When you choose to serve -- whether it's your nation, your community or simply your neighborhood -- you are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not just for ourselves, but for all Americans. That's why it's called the American dream."

The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.

I learned this from the blog page:

November 7th, 2008, Posted: 3:20 pm by Nate

By no means are all questions answered. The middle and high school "goal" still appears to be "over the top" by half, at least. As to the bigger picture, as inferred in last night's article, where government, especially federal government, gets into the business of influencing what constitutes community service and its rewards and what by exclusion does not, the state intrudes upon the decision making liberties of a free people. (This is similar to taxing someone so much that he no longer has nearly as much money for carrying out his faith as one normally would in giving "tithes and offerings.")

Was this merely a matter of text too hastily and sketchily published? I am not at all confident at that. I recall the apparent test case of governmental intimidation of anti-Obama free speech in Missouri, during the campaign -- also the apparent test case of Obama calling upon Nevada volunteers (including numerous ACORN volunteers, presumably) to "get in their faces." If those were indeed experiments to discover what kind of push-back Obama would get, this could also fit that pattern.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Anarcho-syndicalism - just a word I want to post, now


anarcho-syndicalism

Sunday, November 2, 2008

Investigating Obama: Career Path Toward a Neo-Marxist Presidency

A narrative of facts many have not heard, documented with Web links

Barack Obama, by his own book, plus the testimony of relatives and friends, was raised in quite a family. While in high school, his mother developed an affinity with a teacher who led readings from Marx. She became an atheist or agnostic and met Barack Obama Sr. in a college Russian language class - a Russian language class, circa 1960.

With no father in his home in Hawaii, he was mentored throughout his teens by Frank Marshall Davis, a man famous in communist circles, with numerous FBI files. Davis also wrote an autobiography, Sex Rebel (explicit references) which demonstrates numerous of his perversions, including pedophilia. Nothing new there, "sexual revolution" was a part of the Russia's Marxist revolution: sex is divorced from reproduction, marriage, and child rearing; abortion becomes sublime. Sexual involvement is "liberated" into mutual use.

According to a former intelligence officer who had read the FBI files, Davis laid out a generic communist plan “to take over America from within, by installing educators at all levels of our educational system, gaining control of the media, getting Liberal judges appointed, recruiting, training and backing people to be elected to public office.”

From Hawaii, Barack was on to New York and Columbia University (Bill Ayers was a neighbor there, too) and then Chicago (where Ayers returned). Obama writes of attending socialist conferences and reading Marxist books around this time. He was trained in and taught the insurgent methods of "Rules for Radicals" drafted by cynical, "transformational Marxist," Saul Alinsky. Thesis: lie, cheat, steal, etc., while making those who uphold American principles live up to impossibly high standards of institutional altruism, so that we and our liberal government fail in ridicule. Preach "change" and gradually build an activist army of the proletariat, motivated by (short sighted) self interest, for a crescendoing revolt. All, to pave the way for the "egalitarian state." And funny thing, Alinsky's book tosses an acknowledgment to Lucifer, "the very first radical," a refreshing lapse into candor.

In Chicago, Obama met his wife Michelle at the Sidley & Austin law firm, where terrorist Ayers' terrorist wife, Bernardine Dohrn worked, too. And in Chicago, they joined Jeremiah Wright's church, investing two decades and significant indoctrination of their daughters there. That is, until Wright turned his criticism from merely "God damn America," toward the one, Obama. This congregation espouses Black Liberation Theology, an institutionalization of ethnocentric bitterness and a variant of Liberation Theology, which had been conceived in South America as an attempt to sell Marxism to Christians through the clergy, misapplying portions of the Bible. Concurrently, Obama has repeatedly exhorted, "our individual salvation depends on collective salvation." While that would have been less than Good News to Christ's Apostles, Marx may have found it catchy.

Obama also shared an office for apparently three years with Ayers and fellow SDS member Michael Klonsky (a self-described Maoist communist) while taking Annenberg millions and devoting much of it to ACORN and other insurgent-socialist "community organizations" fitting the terrorist Weathermen's model. The goal? "Raise political consciousness," chiefly among black school kids. (Historically, an SDS and Weathermen objective has been to piggyback upon any black revolt in America, for their Marxist ends.) What "political consciousness?" One attractive to Ayers, a self-proclaimed anarchistic Marxist. Ayers secured the purse, thus presumably played a responsible role in setting up young Mr. Obama as chairman. They apparently formed a small circle of Chicago's education radicals.

In an overlapping circle, Obama became a member of the Marxist “New Party” in the 1990’s while maintaining membership in the Democratic Party. Soviet apologist, Alice Palmer hand picked Obama to succeed her as Illinois State Senator. He also gained an odd circle of radical Islamist, anti-Israel friends, including Khalid al Mansour, Rasheid Khalidi, and Ali Abunimah. He has connected with the radical Muslim Brotherhood and Louis Farrakhan credits Obama with a key role in organizing his 1995 “Million Man March.”

And what has Obama been doing as Senator besides running for President? Well, in 2006 he campaigned in Kenya for Raila Odinga, a communist Kenyan out of prison for a coup attempt, who allied himself with radical Islamists and their establishment of brutally oppressive Sharia law in that nation. Odinga lost and led the kind of protest that killed 1,000 to 1,500 Kenyans, mostly Christians, mostly by Muslims. Rape, too. Churches were burned. The thuggery worked and Obama's man was named Prime Minister, a "change" for which Obama allegedly raised $1M.

Many Americans are hearing about Obama's redistributionist tax and welfare/workfare plans, but do not know he wants to build (draft?) a massive, undefined "civilian national security force" as powerful and funded as our military. And, he has pledged to plan his presidential agenda in meetings with ACORN. He is also committed to the "Freedom of Choice Act," which would nullify all laws against partial birth abortion and those for parental notification, and any other restriction of abortion. So much for "Life, Liberty, and Property."

This is one page's worth of the many elements in an apparently Marxist career development of the one poised to become, of all things, United States President.

email or print and copy this article by Arlen Williams as:
1-page .html document | 1-page Adobe .pdf file | 1-page Word .doc file

Original version posted 10/24/2008