So, deny everything Leo Donofrio has advanced….to your heart’s content. Grab everything he ever wrote, and strip away it’s context and make your weak case.

The truth of the matter, is Leo–using his incredible talent and creativity–noticed a significant fact that EVERYONE else had discarded and he stuck to his guns to advance it. I admire what he accomplished regardless of the political sides that were involved.

I salute Leo Donofrio. I believe I would have learne about his cause earlier had the media not made the concept of what a “birther” is heavily dependent on the unprovable concept of a missing birth certificate. B was here.

RESPONSE: “Poker Loser” is an accurate nickname. Birthers are retarded, and one of the reasons is that they started out by listening to a nutjob who had his ridiculous theories blasted out of the air within days of their origination. That the movement still exists is more a testament to ignorance and racism than any search for “truth”.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Jamesburg, NJ 08831

Finding that Barack Obama is not natural born would not eliminate the citizenship of millions of Americans. It would simply identify them as not being in the pool of people qualified to be President.

You can’t demonstrate someone’s belief to be irrational simply by likening it to a false belief. Nor can you demonstrate an argument to be irrational by likening a belief that is its result to a false belief.

Donofrio did not express a hope that Obama would be assassinated.
He was prophesying (in a purposely ridiculous sounding conspiracy theory) that one of Obama twins would be assassinated, leaving the surviving Obama as the Antichrist. He is not even in this conspiracy theory hoping for the assassination of “this one”, unless you suppose Donofrio wants to see the Antichrist (“that one”) as President.

While we don’t know *exactly* why the SCOTUS didn’t hear the case, my contention is that is because this issue is well decided, unambiguous, and changing it now would put the citizenship rights of MILLIONS of people at risk.

That’s the kind of thing a good court shies away from.

The case law is CRYSTAL CLEAR on this issue, as I quoted in this thread here.

http://gto7.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/explanation-as-to-why-obama-is-an-illegal/

To wit…
—
it’s right here, so I can save you some time looking it up.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html

it evens covers Obama going to indonesia.

–
First. On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866,

Second. It has long been a recognized principle in this country that, if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents’ origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that, on attaining majority he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties.
—

AND

—
Quote the law. like this part of Perkin v Elg

–
This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler’s Case, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: one Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later, Steinkauler returned to Germany, taking this child, and became domiciled at Weisbaden, where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years, the German Government called upon him to report for military duty, and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion:

“Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages.

=—-

What Donofrio believes could hardly be considered to be called “rational.”

It is not particularly rational to think the drummer for the Stone Roses is the Messiah.

——
Is Donofrio’s argument correct that to be natural born you must be born to two citizen parents? I believe so, but not being a Constitutional scholar, I’d be happy to leave that decision to the Supreme Court.
——

It’s not correct. The SCOTUS has ALREADY made that decision, and did so over a hundred years ago.

——
Leo did not express a hope that Obama would be assassinated.
——

I would beg to differ. His hiding behind the word “satire” is weak sauce.

Leo’s whining notwithstanding….

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/19/scotus-in-wong-kim-ark-and-minor-v-happersett-rightfully-punted-on-natural-born-citizen-current-court-purposely-fumbled/

You is still wrong, and no amount of stamping of the feet is going to overturn well established and precise case law.

Case law does not preempt the original meaning of the Constitution. It can only clarify
where the original meaning is unclear.

Is Donofrio’s argument rational? Certainly. He says what he believes and gives reasons why based on historical indications of what the phrase “natural born citizen” means.

Is Donofrio’s argument correct that to be natural born you must be born to two citizen parents? I believe so, but not being a Constitutional scholar, I’d be happy to leave that decision to the Supreme Court. Let’s hope that at some point they’ll accept one of the future lawsuits to be filed and either pronounce Obama eligible or ineligible. That’s the right way to do things in a Constitutional Republic.

The Supreme Court should not shy away from a decision because some decision loosely related was unpopular with the left.

Leo did not express a hope that Obama would be assassinated.

That would be the “media” that is full of lies and liars, right? The one where it’s recommended not to trust a word they say? At least that’s how he describes it.

—
If the guy is so crazy, why did MSNBC have Constituional law genius Turley on to combat Leo’s case.
—

Because that’s the guy in their rolodex they call to talk about stuff like this. It wasn’t hard to see his case was bullshit. I’m just a humble Robot Pirate Ninja and I saw right through it.

—–
If you take anything the guy writes leiterally, you must be crazier than he is.
—–

Indeed, this is what I’ve been trying to tell people, if you believe that Leo Donofrio has any sort of rational argument regarding the definition of “natural born citizen” you must be crazier than he is.

And he’s a whole load of crazy.

—-
I know friedns who have schizo fun addict records… that band definitely has cult following
—–

I know friends that dress up like animals and have sex with each other, but I’m not sure of the relevance here.

One of the comments Leo deleted from his post was where I congratulated him for trolling so many people in order to hype his band. It looks like it worked very well for him.

Sadly, he got a whole bunch of people convinced of a lie in the process. Not very paraclete of him, was that?

The guy is a star. He may be crazy, but he is a star and his band got some sick cool reviews in those magazines you mentioned. If you take anything the guy writes leiterally, you must be crazier than he is.

I know friedns who have schizo fun addict records… that band definitely has cult following. My friedns listen to some weird shit, but Iaint ever heard anything like schizo fun addict before.

olive oil

I do not understand why you want to take the People’s focus off of what Leo Donofrio clearly said about whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” You are being disingenuous by trying to bring focus to Donofrio’s reaction to the Supreme Court “ruling” rather than to his arguments before that Court. Why did you not broadcast his arguments as much as you now broadcast his reaction to the Supreme Court decision which you know is only a joke anyway? His reaction does not take anything away from the legal reasoning that he presented to the Court. Also, we do not know why the Court refused to hear his case. You are just trying to stir people up by taking Donofrio “out of context.” (That seems to be a popular defense these days.) You also continue with your immature ad homenum attacks of Donofrio. Why don’t you address the factual and legal elements of his arguments?

You love to tell the world about how the Supreme Court thinks, all the conspiracies in the world, and how you know best. But you have to argue history, political philosophy, facts, law, and more when you want to delve into a matter such as the Constitutional law issue of “natural born Citizen.” You cannot just attack a person’s motive or character for arguing such an issue and self-proclaim yourself the winner. I hope that you can find peace and look at things a little more objectively. Having just started blogging after becoming interested in the “natural born Citizen” issue, I am no authority on the subject. But you might even attract more readers to your blog by being more objective. I am only giving you my sincere opinion.

I also suspect that we have not heard the end of the “natural born Citizen” issue. There are many Americans who still expect Obama to do a simple thing like show them (the voters) through credible and sufficient evidence where he was born. Credible and sufficient evidence is much more than a digital image containing limited information posted by Obama on the internet. I cannot imagine how anybody could reasonably think that this is asking Obama for too much. He is the one who wants to be President. He has the burden of proof to show us that he is Constitutionally eligible for the job. How can Obama expect well-informed and rational Americans to believe in him if he has sealed all his important papers that could shed some light on who he is and spent so much money in legal fees in keeping his past secret? What ever happened to his proclaimed transparency and openness in government? And I do not accept all the maneuvering ( evasive movement or shift of tactics; adroit and clever management of affairs often using trickery and deception) that goes on in various quarters (e.g., the people already voted, you are asking that because you are a racist, the parties should have investigated that before the people voted, he could not have gotten this far if he was not born in America, the FBI and the CIA must know whether where he was born, all the big Whigs would have know if he was not qualified to be President, why did McCain and the Republicans let him get away with such a simple thing, I cannot believe that someone running for President would try to pull off such a scam, Obama is a Harvard Law School graduate and Constitutional law scholar and he cannot be that dumb to lie about where he was born, you do not have standing to request that he show his original birth certificate, Obama has privacy rights, etc.) to avoid the issue. I try to keep my life simple as in, if you want the job then just produce the documents. If he wanted to keep his life private, then he should not have run for President. By Obama producing acceptable evidence of where he was born, he can easily put the birth place issue to rest and prevent himself and the rest of the world from spending so much time and money arguing about it (like me right now thinking and writing about it on this blog).

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

As far as the link to Donofrio’s blog goes: that’s called satire. The Secret Service has better things to do.