Funny how a man who claims to - sm

Where are you hearing this garbage? - ?

What is "garbage" about it? It's really a moot point anyway since he still is not el - Rand

Note:  The red areas are links.  If you click to the link provided, you can follow them.

It looks like Nbc-Gate is hitting top volume.  I’ve witnessed some very desperate blogging propaganda trying to stop the bleeding as the nation finally wakes up to the fact that President Obama was a British citizen at the time of his birth.   Having been born with dual nationality, he was born with a recognized allegiance to a foreign nation.  I have explained previously in great detail why this disqualifies him from being President.

That report was closely followed by a historical discovery of Sharon Rondeau at the Post & Email which highlighted the legal opinion of lifelong Democrat  Breckenridge Long - an attorney and graduate of Washington University Law School who later served as Secretary of State as well as U.S. ambassador to Italy under FDR – who, in an article written for the Chicago Legal News, argued that a “native born citizen” of the US who is also born to a British father is not a “natural born citizen” by  stating – in 1916 – about Presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes:

“It is not disputed that Mr. Hughes is not a citizen of the United States, but if he had the right to elect, he must have had something to choose between. He was native born because he was born in this country, and he is now a native born citizen because he is now a citizen of this country; but, had he been a “natural born” citizen, he would not have had the right to choose between this country and England; he would have had nothing to choose between; he would have owed his sole allegiance to the government of the United States, and there would have been no possible question, whether he found himself in the United States or in any other country in the world, that he would be called upon to show allegiance to any Government but that of the United States.”

There you have a lifelong Democrat politician – who served at a high level of Government service – making the argument that President Obama would not be eligible to the office of President despite his place of birth.  Is the former Democrat Secretary of State now to be retroactively attacked as a wing nut birther?

The historical dam is breaking as more and more evidence surfaces proving Obama is not eligible.  A reader of this blog who has asked to remain anonymous recently provided further historical proof that Obama is not eligible to be president. The New Englander And Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845) states:

The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President.  In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.

That is serious on point historical research.  At the time of his birth, Obama owed allegiance to Great Britain.  That is not disputed, it is admitted by the President himself.  And this admission is the true problem Obama faces should this issue ever make its way to the Supreme Court.  Obama owed allegiance to great Britain when he was born.

In a previous article, I highlighted the opinion of Alexander Porter Morse, taken from the Albany Law Review article entitled, “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT”:

“If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are  essential  to intelligent discussion.”

It’s a rather clear testimony to the fact that simply being “native born” does not mean that one is “natural born” but “accuracy and intelligent discussion” are not the goals of propaganda.  A fraudulent blogger who shall remain nameless attempted to justify Obama’s eligibility with the following lie:

“Some people have confused Alexander Morse’s paper on child born (abroad) to two US citizens being natural born citizens as a necessary requirement. Of course, anyone familiar with Alexander Morse realizes that he never held such a position…”

It appears the liar has selectively failed to read the quote above as well as Mr. Morse’s letter to the Albany Law Journal of December 18th, 1884, which states:

It seems to the undersigned, aside from judicial sanction, that the children of aliens born in the United States are, to use the language of Judge Cooley in another connection, ” subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only in a much qualified sense; ” until they take some steps submitting themselves to the jurisdiction…

This letter was written in 1884 – before Wong Kim Ark was decided.  His article quoted above, was written in 1904 – after Wong Kim Ark.   The historical evidence proves that Morse held the same point of view before and after Wong Kim Ark.  The article and the letter both indicate clearly that Morse would not have agreed Obama was eligible.

History, what a concept.

Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.

Pidgeon & Donofrio GP

Pure garbage - (nm)

Typical. Can't argue with facts, so resort to inflammatory speech. - Rand

Nah, just more baloney. This is old news - anyway. You folks really

Hawaii just implemented this law. You make - yourself look ignorant.

That wasn't very nice, and what are you talking about - anyway?

If you could follow the links, you'd see that - I responded to the

Did you read the post that the garbage reply was to? - It was about

If I had wanted to reply to that post - I would have

OMG. Don't you understand that you replied to a post that said the post - about Obama spending