Horse Drinking Water Corollary (Leo Donofrio is Off His Rocker and Blognitive Dissonance)

It has often been said that one of the frustrating things about human interaction is that, said simple, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink.”

I would like to add the following corollary, “A horse drinking rancid water will continue to do so, if thirsty, no matter how often you point to the shit floating in it.”

In this case the shit floating in the water is Leo Donofrio, who has glamoured a whole bunch of horses that have convinced themselves they are dying of thirst and he has their water.

This metaphor is made real by the blog “Natural Born Citizen” (a play on the Oliver Stone movie “Natural Born Killer”, which is a curious thing to note in and of itself.)

I recently took a few moments out of my day to read his latest diatribe about how he doesn’t understand the Constitution in order to try and help out a little.  As with many right-wing nutters, Donofrio doesn’t have the strength of conviction to deal with simple arguments that invalidate his thesis.  As with many right-wing nutters (particularly of the blogging world), he attempts to make it look like this is not the case by simply refusing to publish counter-arguments [UPDATE: he finally posted my comment after editorializing in them, my response to that is below].

For example, if you were to read the thread entitled …

“NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”: DEFINED BY 14TH AMENDMENT FRAMERS AND IN TREATISE RELIED ON BY SCALIA

…as of this morning you would not see the following comment, by yours truly.  This is despite the fact that later comments have both been posted and commented on in length.

Click for full size to read comment and note how its not posted

As one could clearly see that the argument posted (Leo’s) is easily and quickly invalidated by the comment posted (Mine) it would behoove Mr. Donofrio to avoid such situtations.  Hence the point of the “comment awaiting moderation” tag on my comment that none of y’all can see on the thread itself (which is why I took the timestamped screen shot).  It sits in the queue, and the horses keep drinking, and get sicker and sicker in their stomachs.

As mentioned in another place, the base of his argument is that British citizenship laws trumps U.S. citizenship laws.  He seems to forget we fought, and won, a war with the British over precisely this issue (i.e. who is subject to British law).  Our Constitution is very clear about what to do for U.S. citizens when there is an apparent conflict of law with another nation and which takes precedence for citizens in the U.S.

The *really* funny part about this is that he’s trying to use *Scalia* to make a point that some other country’s law trump the U.S.’s, which is something that Scalia would find almost as objectionable as gay marriage (Scalia is not such a big fan of the gays getting hitched and he ABSOLUTELY HATES the idea that “international law” would ever trump U.S. law…the crux of Donofrio’s argument).

Funny stuff, and a very precise and exact example of “blognitive dissonance” (that is, removing comments that invalidate one’s argument in order to maintain a seemingly coherent, unanimous, thread).

——-

Oh, and Leo, the reason why everyone is calling you and your supporters racist is, well…you do know what the fourteenth amendment fixed, right?  And you do know how many people, up to at least the 1950’s, and in Congress, had no problems talking about the inadequacies of the “nigger race” (video evidence).

When the point of the argument is to try and keep one of “those people” from assuming the top office in the land (after a free and fair election), I hope you can see how people think they see right through your hand waving, and understand your real purpose here.

——-

UPDATE: He responded and agreed that his argument was absurd and frivolous.  Woot!  I’ll post my response here as well, since it is going to to take too long for him to try and think up a response to the following (which is what he does before posting alternative opinions by editing those comments).

[Leo Donofrio: The law doesn’t recognize the absurd or frivolous. In the case above, there would be no basis in Jus Soli or Jus Sanguinis for the Chinese citizenship. Obama was a citizen – by blood descent – of Great Britain not by an absurd hyopothetical.]

No he wasn’t.  You clearly state that..

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children. (Emphasis added.)

You even added emphasis that it is BRITISH LAW that you are using to make your argument.   In the hypothetical Chinese case, all they would have to do is have a “one drop of blood” rule and it is the exact same thing.

BTW, my point is exactly what you said.  The concept that British or Chinese law would trump U.S. law is so absurd it keeps getting tossed out of court.  Thank for you confirming my point.


[LD. The Treatise was written in 1758 and was the way of the world. The Constitution was ratified in 1788 and the original intent of the phrase is explained in The Laws of Nations. The treatise as cited would appeal to an originalist like Justice Scalia, who referred Cort’s case to the full Court. Scalia just recently used The Laws of Nations in the Heller case where he wrote the opinion of the Court. Obviously, somebody like Justice Ginsberg probably wouldn’t be influenced by the Laws of Nations as to this issue. ]

Yes, I know the world was very sexist in 1758.  It was also very racist.  That was the point of the Fourteenth Amendment, if you’ll recall, to try and address the direct issue of how people treated former slaves.

Your lack of clarification or real argumentation seems to mean that you agree that a gender-neutral test is fine, and so Obama wins again.

Scalia, BTW, hates using other country’s laws to interpret the Constitution.  I don’t see him agreeing with your contention that British Law somehow trumps U.S. law in the context of citizenship.

UPDATE2: Like I said, blognitive dissonance. The above comment has been excised from the conversation.  I’ll try again.

UPDATE3: He’s got no answer for the above argument.  Which is why he’s not going to understand (again) why nobody will let him argue this crap in court.

UPDATE4: I want to make it clear that I do not believe ALL right-wing sites suffer from blognitive dissonance.  Many do.  I’ve been banned from Little Green Footballs and Free Republic, both of which go with a mob attack mentality that precludes anyone from attempting to interrupt their constant circle-jerking.  One example of a site that doesn’t, and thus led to what I considered to be good conversations, is Lone Star Times.  Those conversations can be accessed here (regarding Catholic Schools in the UK and Muslim “appeasement”), and here (a continuation of my deconstruction of Ziegler’s “Obama voters are stupid” movie, [quick note on that one…check the sarcastic title of the post and the author’s later denial he meant to belittle Obama voters]).

25 thoughts on “Horse Drinking Water Corollary (Leo Donofrio is Off His Rocker and Blognitive Dissonance)

  1. “Blognitive dissonance” should really be the name of most blogs with their childish posts/rants/screams of “Not Fair!”, “This person is an idiot!”, “Social Injustice!”, and “Conspiracy!”.

    It’s articles like this one that give the Internet a bad reaction to people when they hear it used as a reference.

    *walks off shaking his head at it all*

  2. Sadly there are situations where pointing out “Not Fair!”, “This person is an idiot!” and “Social Injustice” are completely valid.

    There is certainly a stylistic difference in their presentation, but it would behoove one to look at the actual argument as to why something is not fair, why someone would call another an idiot, and what constitutes social injustice.

    The conspiracy stuff requires a much higher burden of proof, which most blogs are unable to attain.

    If anyone, ever, says “I read it on the Internet” and leaves it at that, dismiss their argument immediately. Dang near every scientific journal puts stuff on the web, as to does another else with a computers. A simple follow-up of “where on the internet did you read it?” can usually resolve the ambiguity.

    That being said, I kinda like the term “blognitive dissonance” and I usually hate “blog-based words” (for those that don’t know, the definition I used above maps directly to the psychology term “cognitive dissonance”). My general dislike in this case might be because I’ve had a site like this since before the term became popularized against my will (I preferred the term “nanomedia”), but it’s stuck now.

    Have a nice day wandering!

  3. Queens Hospital and Kapi’olani Hospital both say neither he nor his mother were ever a patient there. He has not presented a certificate of birth which would verify location of birth. He has instead presented a certification of live birth which is a type of document provided to persons born in various countries around the world. He has had his certificate of birth sealed.

  4. Just in case, I wanted to point out this document here…

    http://wikileaks.org/leak/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser.pdf

    Left hand column, fourth from the bottom.

    In order to continue to hold your dissonant assumption, you will have to ignore that document. As you are already ignoring the State of Hawaii and their unequivocal statements that Obama was born there, and you are ignoring the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, I’m wondering if it’s going to be easy, or hard for you to ignore yet another piece of hard evidence you are wrong.

    I would also advise that all you “Obama isn’t *really* American” people get together and get your stories straight. Decide if you are going to base your argument on the very flawed idea that English law trumps U.S. law for people born in the United States, or stick hard to the already disproven idea that he wasn’t born in Hawaii.

    I pulled my birth certificate that was issued by the State of Texas to verify this, and it turns that it has almost EXACTLY the same information fields that Obama’s does. His includes the City name, mine only has the county.

    Oh and…

    Queens Hospital and Kapi’olani Hospital both say neither he nor his mother were ever a patient there. [citation needed]

    “No comment” is not the same as “Oh my god, you’re right, he’s an AFRICAN!!”

    Please start your reply by addressing how it was possible, given physics as we know it, for Obama to time travel back to 1961 and make that birth announcement, which was compiled from Hawaii’s Health Bureau.

  5. I read your attack on Leo Donofrio, Esq. and must advise that I respectfully disagree. The analysis does not start with the question of whether a foreign law like that of Great Britain’s trumps American law on the issue of American citizenship. Rather, the analysis starts with the question of what was the citizenship of Obama’s father when Obama was born in 1961? We know that his father was a Kenyan and that Kenya in that year was still a British colony which under British law made Obama’s father a British citizen. British nationality laws at the time also said that if a British citizen had a son, the son was also a British citizen. But even if we do not allow the British nationality law to have any validity in the U.S (as you suggest), we still cannot change the fact that Obama’s father was British. There is no U.S. law that would control what Obama’s father’s citizenship was when Obama was born. The U.S. simply had no jurisdiction to control the citizenship of Obama’s Kenyan father who happened to be a Kenyan national studying in Hawaii. Hence, no matter how one wants to characterize the issue, we cannot change the fact that Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born. Now, if “natural born Citizen” means that a child has to be born on U.S. soil to parents who are both U.S. citizens (born on U.S. soil+to two U.S. citizen parents=natural born Citizen), then Obama does not qualify as a natural born citizen and cannot be President of the United States.

    The real issue then becomes what did the Framers mean when they wrote “natural born Citizen” in Article II of the Constitution? Even though it has yet to be adequately proven, Leo Donofrio, Esq. assumes that Obama was born in Hawaii. But he maintains that being born on U.S. soil is necessary but not sufficient to be a “natural born Citizen.” He argues that Obama is missing the second part of the equation, i.e., born to two U.S. citizen parents. This argument has nothing to do with whether we would allow British nationality laws to trump U.S. citizenship laws. If Obama is not born on U.S. soil, then it becomes much easier to prove that he in not a “natural born Citizen.” If he is born on U.S. soil, then the case becomes more difficult because we would have to show that the Founding Fathers considered his eligibility to be President to also be dependent upon the citizenship of both of his parents. This is why Mr. Donofrio is asking the Supreme Court to decide whether just being born on U.S. soil is sufficient or whether the child also has to be born to two U.S. citizen parents. If the latter is true, then Obama cannot be President under Article II of the Constitution because his father was not a U.S. citizen when he was born.

    I submit that both elements (soil and blood [paternal citizenship]) are needed to be a “natural born Citizen.” We have to remember that during the American Revolution, the colonies were inhabited by people loyal to the Revolution and those loyal to England. Indeed, the Founding Fathers had a firsthand experience with a population with divided allegiances. They must have known that just being born in a place did not necessarily make you loyal to that place alone. They must have concluded that if you combine being born in a certain place with the influence that your mother and father’s citizenship have on you, then you have a better chance of being loyal to just one place. After all, they had to decide what the qualifications to be President of the new nation were going to be. The Framers wanted to do everything they possibly could to make sure the President would be loyal only to the new nation. One safeguard was having the child’s parents both be U.S. citizens. This requirement makes sense when we consider that a child inherits so much of who he or she becomes from his mother and father. But they did not leave it just to the citizenship of the parents. Their decision was a wise one, for parents can manipulate this factor through American naturalization laws. Hence, they also factored in an immutable element-where the child is born. The combination of these elements provided the most stringent test to be President and Commander in Chief. Such a requirement is not about being discriminatory, xenophobic, racist, un-democratic, archaic, or bigoted, but rather about providing for the security of the United States of America in an uncertain and very dangerous world.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    Jamesburg, New Jersey

  6. Correction Needed:

    In reading my post on 12-13-08, I noticed that in the beginning of my last paragraph I wrote “(soil and blood [paternal citizenship]) . . .” I meant to write “(soil and blood [parental citizenship]) . . .” Please note the correction. Thanks so much.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  7. Mario,

    Thank you for your long and thoughtful post. I will attempt to address what I think are the salient points (and contradictions) of your argument. I will attempt to avoid the snark, as you have thoughtfully done. Thanks, I appreciate it, seriously. Well except that I’d ask you to say hi to Luigi for me. Sorry…just a gamer joke.

    To begin.

    The first contradiction begins thusly…

    You state…
    ——-
    The analysis does not start with the question of whether a foreign law like that of Great Britain’s trumps American law on the issue of American citizenship.
    ——-

    I agree, I think that’s the conclusion, not the start. It’s a faulty conclusion.

    You then contradict yourself by stating that it is *indeed* Brith Law where the argument starts.

    ——-
    Rather, the analysis starts with the question of what was the citizenship of Obama’s father when Obama was born in 1961? We know that his father was a Kenyan and that Kenya in that year was still a British colony which under British law made Obama’s father a British citizen. British nationality laws at the time also said that if a British citizen had a son, the son was also a British citizen.
    ——-

    I’m sorry, but all you are talking about is British Law. As I’ve mentioned, for those born in the U.S. to an American parent are not subjects of British law as that law runs directly against American law, which trumps other countries law by way of the Constitution.

    ——-
    There is no U.S. law that would control what Obama’s father’s citizenship was when Obama was born.[only English Law]
    ——-

    True, and completely immaterial. Obama’s father’s citizenship has absolutely nothing to do with Obama jrs precisely because of that whole Constitution thing (and the Declaration of Independence of the Laws of the British Empire).

    ——-
    Hence, no matter how one wants to characterize the issue, we cannot change the fact that Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born.
    ——-

    And no one is arguing this immaterial fact.

    ——-
    Now, if “natural born Citizen” means that a child has to be born on U.S. soil to parents who are both U.S. citizens (born on U.S. soil+to two U.S. citizen parents=natural born Citizen),
    ——-

    Sadly, it doesn’t “mean that” in any written law of the land. Any. Anywhere. The actual test is being born of two active (have spent a portion of their life here) Americans in a foreign land, like John McCain, or being born on U.S. soil, like Obama. Obama has the further factor of being born to a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil. The citizenship test *you* are offering has not, nor has it *ever* been used.

    You are raising the bar for one man, *after* he was elected President of the United States. I hope you can see how this leads a great many to wonder about your motives. Why wasn’t this raised before? I’ll get to that later, as you deny any motive here outside of a search for truth and justice and a new American way.

    ——
    The real issue then becomes what did the Framers mean when they wrote “natural born Citizen” in Article II of the Constitution?
    ——-

    One born naturally in the United states or born naturally to two U.S. citizens. That’s the simple and obvious answer you can’t accept. This is a nation of immigrants, as the Founding Fathers knew so well, so to think *they* wanted what amounts to a xenophobic and exclusive test is absurd. They wanted to get as many Americans as possible. Remember that whole “Give us your tired, your poor, your humble teeming masses yearning to breathe free,” thing? We didn’t want them to come here only to find out their kids would have different citizenship rights, all depending on how quickly their parents became naturalized.

    The test is simple. Born or blood. It’s not, nor has it ever been, Born AND blood.

    ——
    Even though it has yet to be adequately proven, Leo Donofrio, Esq. assumes that Obama was born in Hawaii.
    ——

    Dude, seriously? Are you one of those, “Obama is the messiah and used his powers to time travel to insert a birth announcement in a newspaper,” folks? O.k. that was snarky, but no where in your long post did you adress the link directly above yours, which includes that birth announcement, in Hawaii, as compiled from Health Bureau statistics. Please read it again, and start your reply by addressing it.

    I’m tired of people ingoring obvious evidence and then stating loudly *THERE’S NO EVIDENCE!!*. Stop it, it makes you look foolish.

    ——-
    This is why Mr. Donofrio is asking the Supreme Court to decide whether just being born on U.S. soil is sufficient or whether the child also has to be born to two U.S. citizen parents.
    ——-

    And the evidence above is why all these cases keep getting tossed in the trash, like the sour grapes they are. The SCOTUS made a curious ruling to put Bush in the oval office. They have seen what that hath wrought, and should be sufficiently wary to play God again. Scalia probably isn’t, since he feels he is a direct agent of God on Earth (see his defense of the death penalty for proof), but that’s another story.

    ——
    I submit that both elements (soil and blood [paternal {ed: Parental} citizenship]) are needed to be a “natural born Citizen.”
    ——

    Good for you. Now if you want that to be the law of the land, get it passed in Congress and then sent to the states and when three fourths of them ratify it we can *CHANGE* the Constitution to your liking. Good luck with that. As a nation of immigrants, it’s going to be hard to convince many of them that risked life and limb to get here that they should agree their children should be shackled by Donofrio’s Amendment.

    ——
    They must have concluded that if you combine being born in a certain place with the influence that your mother {AND} father’s citizenship have on you, then you have a better chance of being loyal to just one place.
    ——-

    You are close, but as a nation being largely built by immigrants, they realized that replacing your “AND” with an “OR” they could make the country a whole lot more appealing, and attract a better class of citizen. People who felt they had a real and strong sense of belonging to their new country and their new culture. Keeping immigrants as second-class citizens is not a model this country was built on, and I see no reason to start doing it now.

    ——-
    Such a requirement is not about being discriminatory, xenophobic, racist, un-democratic, archaic, or bigoted, but rather about providing for the security of the United States of America in an uncertain and very dangerous world.
    ——

    To which I’m going to say, “bullshit.” If Obama wasn’t black, and his middle name wasn’t Hussein, all this fear about his *true* allegiance wouldn’t exist. Heck, I’ll bet if he went by Barry Washington, that little change would be enough to put your, and Leo’s, suspicions to rest.

    Frankly I’m happy to have a black President named after an Islamic legend. I think it says great things about our country, and our ability to make a rational choice in the face of terror.

    Leo has been clear that this is the point, he doesn’t trust Obama, and doesn’t think his *true* loyalties lie within the borders of this country. I disagree, but then again I’m not a xenophobic racist. I’m not saying you and Leo are, but I think you should look at the type of people your argument is attracting. I think you should take a long hard look at them and ask them a few pointed questions. I’m not sure you’ll like the company you keep, but then again, maybe you will.

    The fact that you can’t even concede that Obama was born in Hawaii, despite all the evidence that says so and the complete lack of evidence that says otherwise, speaks to this point.

    “It’s not what you know, it’s what you can prove.” And you have no proof.

    —–

    Finally, your paternal/parental Freudian typo is telling. I made the exact point that even the ‘Law of Nations’ only had the requirement of ONE parental unit being a native. They, in their gender-biased way, picked the father. I pointed out, and Leo seemed to agree, that in our day and age, father and mother would be of equal stature and interchangeable in citizen and “loyalty” tests. Otherwise you are condemning all bastards and children to un-wed mothers to the dustbin of history. You did realize that is a natural result of your argument, right?

    Go read that passage again. No where in that passage, or in any U.S. law, will you find the ALL BLOOD (note: blood lineage, particularly in the Judeo-Christian tradition, can flow through the mother) AND ALL LAND requirement.

    You are raising the bar for Obama and Obama alone. Stop it. You look foolish.

    Have a nice day.

    Roy Taylor, Rpn.

  8. The consequences of the Supreme Court declining to address the US Constitution’s “natural born citizen” clause on the morning of Monday 12/15/08 — thereafter enabling the College of Electors to transform the crisis from “law” to “political and Congressional”, leading to the ‘inauguration’ of Mr. Obama, are nothing less than catastrophic. Lawsuits by members of the military challenging his ‘commander in chief’ status are INEVITABLE. And a military takeover to oust the “usurper” may be inevitable as well. Where is the media? This is no “tin foil hat” joke.

  9. [meta-comment]. The above referenced Mario submitted a response to this post that reiterated, at length, the same arguments stated above. I wrote an email to Mario illustrating why I didn’t think it would worthwhile to add to this discussion a poorly formatted 6,000+ word comment (!!!!) that quoted at length, Donofrio and other references I’ve already read. I advised him that in order to respond, he needed to use links, not full quotes, and directly address the issues at hand (namely that birth announcement linked above, or provide *ANY* hard evidence that Obama was born in Kenya, one of his main allegations). I am not going to post the same stuff that I’ve already decided is crap. Saying the same thing louder doesn’t make your argument stronger.

    If it had been a regular comment, my spam filters wouldn’t have notified me, and this explanation wouldn’t have been necessary.

    If anyone else would like join this discussion and be treated seriously, you know how high the bar is now. Ignoring the evidence already presented does not a good argument make.

    Please, feel free to make an attempt.

  10. You have to be the dumbest blogger I’ve ever visited. The make the stupidest comments I’ve ever read and then you have the audacity to try drum up visitors by planting links to this piece of crap on other blogs, hoping beyond hope, someone will pay attention to you.

    Get a life, you pathetic piece of crap!

  11. The Supreme Court just denied review of the other natural born case this mornning, As of 12:30 PM, Leo had not got around to posting the bad news. Cort Wrotnowski v. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State.

    The official notice is at :

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/121508zor.pdf

    Back on Dec. 8th, I posted the following comment on Turley’s site: “Expect the Court to deny the Application by next Monday, Dec. 15th. Scalia is not necessarily doing the applicant a favor. Instead of a denial of review by a single Justice in chambers, the applicant will now be handed a denial by the entire Court, just like Donofrio.”

    SIGNED, NOSTRADAMUS

  12. Actually, Leo posted the bad news yesterday in this rather stunning admission that he is totally off his rocker, as I suggested in the title of this post….

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/the-mother-of-all-conspiracy-theories-obama-has-a-twin/

    After he posted that, I was able to find out a couple of his other online aliases and a bit more about him, and read some of his other “work”.

    Like his stringent defense of the golf skills of Michelle Wie….

    http://www.wieblogging.com/2006/09/15/its-time-to-stop-making-excuses-michelle-wie-2/

    He goes by the name “Jet Wintzer” sometimes according to the blurb about his band, Schizo Fun Addict

    https://www.bluffmagazine.com/players/leo-donofrio/42071/player-profile.asp

    http://onlinerock.com/musicians/suddenbliss/bioquotesgigs.shtml

    He also considers himself to be an embodiment of the “Holy Spirit” in his post under the pseudonym “the Paraclete.” [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraclete ]

    For example…and this is long….and incredibly revealing….note the “failed lawyer” part…

    ——————————
    The following are liner notes to the film I’m submitting to Trigger Street in the next cycle. I think you’ll be into it
    *********************

    I am the author of internet cult phenomenon “ONELOVESTORY”, written under the alias BURNWEED. In 1994 I was at a low point in my life, a failed law career led to me being a singer in a failed rock band inspired by the 89/90 Manchester Rock/Rave explosion.

    In 1994 my band broke up and I was in a bad way. Angels intervened.
    I was led by dream to the music, art and lyrics of my fav band, Manchester icons, The Stone Roses.

    I began to recognize a hidden concept within their work leading me to believe they were angels of the apocalypse and I was called to break the story, something like “Paul is Dead” by The Beatles or the Publius Enigma (Pink Floyd).

    I spent 1995-1999 trying to break the story to the UK music press by using art terrorist tactis. In 1998 I realized I was The Paraclete and that my purpose was to prophecy the return of the Messiah. The angels led me to one ALLAN(Reni)WREN, reclusive drummer of The Stone Roses. Needless to say I never had a chance of getting ONELOVESTORY or my music any press as they all thought I was insane and trying to ride on the shoulders of another band’s dream as a charlatan.

    So I changed my name and reincarnated myself as Jet Wintzer, leader of a fledgling New York City art noise lofi psychedelic group, SCHIZO FUN ADDICT.

    Our music, not obviously tied to ONELOVESTORY because of our going under cover, finally captured media attention breaking through with rave reviews in major magazines such as UNCUT, Q, NME, and NEW YORK PRESS. Only after we released two critically accalimed CDs did I let the media know I was BURNWEED/PARACLETE, author of ONELOVESTORY. EVERET TRUE, Legendary journalist from England’s now defunct MELODY MAKER, having already sung our praises with a blistering rave of our second album “Diamond” in New York Press, finally broke ONELOVESTORY in print in the October 2001 issue of MOJO Mag, the UKs biggest rock publication.

    Bizarre as this may sound, it’s all true and has been documented in Usenet newsgroup alt.music.stone-roses since 1996.

    In the next Trigger Street I will present a 10 minute film we’ve made about my life and the metamorphosis I’ve gone through as a result of following the angels and trusting them. The film is called BIPOLAR PHOENIX. There are two ten second trailers for it at our site

    http://www.onlinerock.com/musicians/suddenbliss

    Love on you all day

    THE PARACLETE
    ——-

    Yes…the internet never forgets. Something that will most likely come back to bite *me* some day as well, but there ya go.

    He’s a nut. A well-meaning nut, I think, but one who has got this weird idea that Obama is the Anti-Christ stuck very, very deep in his mind. He has been on a holy mission, which is why he’s put so much effort into his windmill tilting and why he totally frickin’ lost it when he lost that battle.

  13. Roy, it’s me again, Mario. I must respectfully advise that your latest response to my reply to your post was very disappointing in content. I will not condemn you for it because I am sure you are very busy keeping up with the world of blogdom and you could not spend the time needed to give me any meaningful answer.

    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.

  14. To: Mario Apuzzo

    I presume you are the attorney in Kirchner v. Obama. Anybody who would file false statements in a legal brief is not someone I would trust to tell the truth on anything.

    What false statement? For example: Kirchner v. Obama says there was a travel ban to Pakistan in 1981 for US Citizens, when in fact according to a State Department Travel advisory American tourists could get a 30-day visa at the border. http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf (also see travel articles in NY Times from the same year).

    Your lawsuit is not even “blog quality”, and neither are your crank views on natural born citizenship. Do some background reading at http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html or maybe you’d better start here: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/natural-born-citizenship-for-dummies/

  15. It seems to work better on maps.google.com than maps.google.co.uk but the …. Operating system: Windows XP SP3 xx.xx.xx. Internet connection …. etc., etc. …… points: “o}tzHmg{k@xAxNt@jObAfFzD|L\\nFmAzC_EdBcFtHyEtEkBlEcEr@ …… So please, don’t revert it back until you find ways to really make the JS load …

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s