Replies

“What is the distinguishing difference in the presumed governmental definitions of native- and natural born citizenship?”

El Sordo, the adoption of the term “native-born” for a 14th Amendment citizen, inviting confusion with the word “native” used long before, including by Dr David Ramsay and Vattel’s translators, and by the entire Waite court which included many justices who decided Wong Kim Ark , continues to confuse. The definition of natural born citizen, or natural-born citizen has never, that this novice has seen, been other than “born on the soil of citizen parents,” (with which I conflate the John Bingham wording “...every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.”, though it adds the terms jurisdiction and sovereignty which then need clarification).

What Donofrio has done to expose the importance of rigor, and the quality and integrity of many of our Supreme Court justices in interpreting the foundation of our Republic of laws and not men, could prevent the revolution many of the most extreme on the left are working for. Clearly, most Democrats do not understand or desire the result to which they are being led by their clever Alinsky-trained revolutionaries. As Donofrio has shown us, Justice Marshall established "uniqueness" - decisions based upon the Constitution must be mutually exclusive, and can't modify one another - of the "principles" upon which our nation was based. The principle is as an 'axiom' is to mathematical systems. Applying rigor to human behaviour is much harder than applying it in the clear and closed realm of mathematics, but both Marshall and Waite are examples of the intellectual integrity so at odds with enemies of the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution. Donofrio has provided the analysis using Marshall's brilliant theorem - "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it." Id. 174. Compare the clarity of Marshall and Donofrio's application of Marshall's theorem to those of Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of our House of Representatives, who exhorted citizens to "Vote for the bill so that you can find out what's in it." This is a clear contrast between governance guided by a Constitutional Republic and a dictatorship.

Barack Obama was never eligible to be president. Republicans clearly want to run the ineligible Marco Rubio because of the increase in Latin American votes he will attract. Many of those votes will be filed by illegal aliens who must believe that voting for Obama will guarantee their residence in the US. Republicans must feel that having the son of immigrants in the government will make the Republican party more attractive to socially conservative Latin voters. For political advantage, both parties deem our Constitution to be a living document. So, sadly, do our political pundits, while identifying with the founders and framers and their philosophical sources, just as long as they don't conflict with the current political hot issues.

While Leo Donofrio deserves a Pulitzer or Nobel Peace prize for journalism and for his dogged pursuit of truth, and for the brilliant analysis wherein he trusted only original sources, resulting in the exposure of the clear intent of the Center for American Progress to suppress legal precedent deploying justia.com and Google), as they did by scrubbing and corrupting claimed digital reproductions of archived Supreme Court cases. We know that the Pulitzer and non-scientific Nobel committees have long been co-opted by mandarins committed to preserving their membership in the group of the politically correct (conferring Peace Prizes upon Obama, Al Gore, The Int. Climate Change Committee, Mohhammed Elbardei, Jimmy Carter, and the Nazi nephew of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem an architect of The Final Solution, Yassar Arafat).

In this hall of mirrors where both parties intentionally stomped on our Constitution for political and financial advantage, Free Republic and a few blogs are what remain of free press exercising the 1st Amendment. The plots to silence what remains of Internet freedom abound. When we are silenced this former republic may need to follow the path of the USSR, since centrally controlled governments always create misery, and then fail.

That more and more are understanding the truth is clear in our little world. We at FR know the Obots, almost personally, though their real identities would probably surprise us (after the exposure of one as a former Fannie May executive). But we won't prevail if noone else learns the truth. Leo Donofrio has provided case law, and an ally has connected that with statute. This is very complicated to explain to those not steeped in the history of citizenship. They have the media and many pundits proclaiming "I have no doubt that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii," or "I believe Marco Rubio is a citizen, and thus eligible to be president."We need more allies, and more of the knowledgeable to absorb what Donofrio has clarified and calmly inform our families, friends, blog sites, radio talk shows, and book reviews by pundits who are afraid to touch the issue.

The Georgia hearings are up against legal resources funded by what remain of our tax dollars. Georgia's governor was the only Congressman to challenge Obama's eligibility directly, writing an open letter to the White House. Nathan Deal's answer didn't come from the White House, it came from the House Ethics Committee, which had scoured his tax returns for some issue with which to bankrupt him if he didn't desist. He resigned and became Governor of Georgia, but he knows the truth. His name has not arisen in these hearings, but it is reasonable to assume that bringing these cases in Georgia was fortuitous.