Well, this tears it. It just occurred to me that I now despise Barack Hussein Obama with every fiber of my being. Until this moment, I have only opposed him because he is a Marxist, and perhaps for his arrogance and deceit; but those traits are not uncommon among politicians. No, his sins against our country are infinitely worse. We might have survived his Marxist proclivities and Newer New Deal programs; but his worse sin against our republic’s very fabric has already been committed, and I damn him and his enablers for perpetrating it.
As commenter “acsnyc” pointed out on my post yesterday, the SCOTUS is not done with the issue of Obama’s eligibility. This morning’s exploration leads me to conclude: not by a long shot, and they won’t be anytime soon, if ever. Obama and his associates have knowingly, with malice and aforethought, perpetrated a fraud on us all; and put the SCOTUS between a rock and a hard place. I would not wish to be in their shoes.
Monday next, Obama is set to be elected to the office of POTUS as a usurper who is Constitutionally ineligible to hold that office. The SCOTUS now knows this, and are the only ones who can prevent it. Yet, they must also know the literally riotous effect, all across the land, such a ruling would have. Put yourself in their shoes. It would be mighty tempting, regardless of personal politics, to assuage one’s guilt over failing to live up to one’s oath to protect and defend the Constitution; by rationalizing that the people have chosen, and the Natural Born clause is perhaps an antiquated requirement anyway.
Simply refusing, without comment, to hear the new Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz case, would be the pragmatic approach and I predict they will take it. The specter of the considerable carnage during the razing of the ghettos, which undoubtedly would ensue otherwise, is just unthinkable. Yet, it would be precisely the wrong thing to do; for, as I have been saying for some time, this issue is not going away.
If Obama takes office, he will be a usurper; way too many legal denizens know this, and there will be a flood of lawsuits filed over every supposed “official” act he executes under the color of law. Sooner or later, like it or not, they are going to have to rule on his eligibility for the office; and when they do, anything less than at least a 7-2 affirmation will probably not be dispositive.
PRESS RELEASE: 12.08.08 7:20 pm
Cort Wrotnowski’s emergency application for a stay and/or injunction as to the Electoral College meeting on Dec. 15 was today referred to the full Court by the Honorable Associate Justice Anotonin Scalia. It has been distributed for Conference of Friday December 12. The official case name is WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469.
The Wrotnowski Supreme Court application was prepared by Leo Donofrio, Esq. and is centered on the same issue from Donofrio’s case which was discussed by the Supreme Court in its conference of December 5 – whether Barack Obama is not eligible to the office of President due to the fact that he was a British citizen at the time of his birth.
Tomorrow, Dec. 9 – Cort Wrotnowski will submit a supplemental brief concerning the newly discovered ineligibility of twenty-first President Chester Arthur due to his having been born as a British subject. This is relevant to the case at hand in that Justice Gray – who wrote the seminal opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark – was appointed by Chester Arthur.
The Wong Kim Ark case involves an important historical opinion that SCOTUS Justices will certainly consider as to the Obama natural born citizen issue.
The recent discovery calls into question the motivations of both Arthur and Gray since Arthur’s father was a British subject not naturalized at the time of Chester’s birth. In fact, William Arthur was not naturalized until 1843, fourteen years after Chester was born. In the light of historical retrospection, Justice Gray’s decision in Wong Kim Ark seems tailor made to the circumstances of Arthur’s birth.
Chester Arthur was born in 1829. The 14th Amendment wasn’t ratified until 1868, and Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898. But under United States law in 1829 it’s not clear that Arthur would have even been considered a United States citizen at the time of his birth, let alone a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President. At best, he would have been a dual citizen of Great Britain and the United States.
It was proved earlier this week, by various articles in the Brooklyn Eagle printed circa 1880, and other authorities, that when Arthur was on the campaign trail as Garfield’s running mate he lied many times about his father’s emigration record, his parents’ life in Canada before coming to the United States, and his father’s age. Chester also burned his papers and falsified his birth year. It appears now that he was doing so to conceal the POTUS eligibility issue.
Every other President (who didn’t become eligible under the Article 2, Section 1 grandfather clause) was born to American citizen parents in the United States. The fact that he was a British subject at birth was first reported on Friday Dec. 5.
It must now be questioned whether the relationship between Chester Arthur and Justice Gray was influenced by Arthur’s eligibility problems and whether those issues effected Gray’s opinion and vote in Wong Kim Ark.
It must also be considered that the integrity of Justice Gray’s SCOTUS appointment might have been called into question if Chester Arthur’s POTUS ineligibility issues had become known.
All of the above is relevant to the issue of whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen in that the core Supreme Court opinion in Wong Kim Ark must now be re-evaluated in lieu of the fact that the Justice who wrote the opinion was appointed by Chester Arthur.
Leo Donofrio will accompany Cort Wrotnowski to Washington D.C. tomorrow and both will be available for comment at 11:00 AM on the steps of the Supreme Court. This is not a rally, protest or vigil. If the media would like to discuss this historical brief and the issues discussed above, Donofrio and Wrotnowski will be available to answer any questions thereto.
Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.
In an earlier post yesterday discussing the disposition of his NJ case, he also made the point:
[UPDATE 12:23 PM The main stream media should stop saying SCOTUS refused to hear the case. It was distributed for conference on Nov. 19. They had the issue before them for for sixteen days. Yes, they didn’t take it to the next level of full briefs and oral argument. But they certainly heard the case and read the issues. The media is failing to acknowledge that. The case and issues were considered. Getting the case to the full Court for such consideration was my goal. I trust the Supreme Court had good reason to deny the application. Despite many attempts to stop their full review, my case was placed on their desks and into their minds. Please remember that. It’s important for history to record that.]
For some fascinating reading, I also recommend his expose on President Chester Arthur’s exploits to conceal his own birth to a British citizen father.
Then,only last Friday he published an essay covering the eligibility of all of the Presidents who had parents born abroad. He was onto Arther’s lies, but did not yet have the documentary proof that his father was not an American citizen at the time of his birth, as he now does. One poignant passage:
CHESTER ARTHUR’S SECOND LIE
And this is where our villain Hinman returns. But was he a villain to Arthur? Hinman made a big stink in various New York publications alleging that Chester Arthur was born abroad as a British subject, much like those who are trying to say Obama is not a US citizen. It wasn’t true. Chester was born in Vermont. But this scandal had the effect of keeping public attention off of the issue of whether Chester Arthur’s father William was a British subject which would have made Chester a British subject “at birth” even though he was born in Vermont.
Does any of this sound familiar?
Does it ever! I now suspect Berg, et al, of deliberately obfuscating the real issue with his elaborate “Born in Kenya” lawsuit, since it doesn’t matter where he was born as a British citizen. Had any court asked for it, he probably would have readily complied, embarrassing everyone. This, and all the other such red herrings, had the effect of turning off the media and public at large to the whole subject; dismissing it as Right-wing nut-case tomfoolery (even though Berg was a Democrat) that everyone is fed up hearing about.
Since Obama freely admits to dual nationally at birth, the real issue is the definition of “Natural Born,” and Donofrio, Wrotnowski, Judah Benjamin et al have that question exactly right. Therefore, he is ineligible for the office and will be a usurper if he takes it. This is the conundrum Obama and crew has put the SCOTUS and all Americans who value both our Constitution and civil order into. Curse them; and the Obamusurper will never be my lawful President, no matter what. Screw the arrogant jerk; her deserves no respect whatever. ◄Dave►