Tuesday, August 11, 2009



Today, World Net Daily published a piece of sneaky propaganda. On one hand it purports to give a fair and balanced overview pertaining to the issue of whether Obama is not eligible due to his father’s British/Kenyan citizenship, while on the other hand it gives credibility and respect to infamous propaganda recently issued by the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto.

The propaganda issued by Taranto came in the form of two articles – both dissected at length by yours truly – wherein he lied to his readers by stating that a US statute was signed by Ronald Reagan which grants “natural born citizen” status to certain persons born abroad.


No current US law even includes the phrase “natural born citizen”. But the Wall Street Journal – via propaganda agent James Taranto – would have you believe such laws exist. This is the very definition of propaganda.

They got slammed in comments all over the web for their propaganda lies. So now World Net Daily has come to their emotional rescue citing Taranto as a credible source while ignoring his blatant propaganda shilling for Obama’s eligibility. And in doing so WND is aiding and abetting propaganda. This is how they do it, America. It’s sneaky but efficient.

Furthermore, the WND article gives respect to other points of view which are blatantly false. Here is a relevant passage:

If a baby was born to U.S. citizens in the U.S., there would be no question of being a “natural born” citizen, he said. For a baby born outside the U.S. to U.S. citizens, likewise. But being born in the U.S. to non-citizens, Eidsmore said, doesn’t count.

“If he was born outside the U.S. to one citizen and one non-citizen, particularly the father, it is very doubtful that he qualifies for ‘natural born’ citizenship,” said Eidsmoe, who works with former Judge Roy Moore’s Foundation for Moral Law.

Eidsmoe said in many circumstances the citizenship follows the father.

“My conclusion if Obama was, in fact, born in Kenya, he is in all probability not a ‘natural born’ citizen,” he said.

To say there is “no question” that a baby born of US parents outside the US is a “natural born citizen” is simply false. That’s the McCain issue. And there certainly is a question. (My law suit – Donofrio v. Wells - which went to the Supreme Court and was responsible for bringing attention to this issue – sought to have both McCain and Obama removed from New Jersey ballots.)

Now let’s move onto the propaganda regarding Obama in the quote above.

Read this again:

“If he was born outside the U.S. to one citizen and one non-citizen, particularly the father, it is very doubtful that he qualifies for ‘natural born’ citizenship,” said Eidsmoe, who works with former Judge Roy Moore’s Foundation for Moral Law.

No, it’s not “very doubtful” – it’s a certainty that Obama was not a natural born citizen if born in Kenya. What this article and quote fail to point out is that Obama would not even be a basic US citizen if he was born in Kenya. And that extends to the present.

If Obama was born in Kenya, since he was never naturalized, he wouldn’t be a US citizen at all – as we speak – today – as he inhabits the White House. That’s right, if born in Kenya, Obama isn’t even a US citizen. He most certainly could not be a “natural born citizen” if he isn’t even a basic US citizen.

If Obama was born in Kenya - according to US law at the time of his birth – in order for him to be a US citizen at birth, his mother had to have been a US citizen for five years after the age of 14. She was only 18 when she had Obama and as such she could not transmit US citizenship to him if he was born abroad.

This fact is even admitted by propaganda agent Taranto – although he refers to the US law on this issue stating:

This is something of a technicality…

If the law doesn’t support your propaganda then just call it a technicality. I’m sure all the people in prison right now would love to have that defense.

In order to show you just how far the rabbit hole protecting Obama goes, I must once again quote Taranto’s original propaganda. It’s so blatant that it must not be left to rot. World Net Daily – if it were seriously trying to publish legal truth – would have called Taranto out on it. Instead, they glorify by citing him as some sort of credible source.

This is how they do it now. One guy lies and the others then give him status.

This is how the lie is rewarded. This is how propaganda flourishes.

I do not fool myself that we will ever see justice on the eligibility issue. But if this blog can draw the veil from the face of propagandists like the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto and phonies like World Net Daily then this blog will have done good service to its readers.

The original propaganda lie stated by Taranto at the Wall Street Journal was this:

“Someone born overseas and after 1986, but otherwise in identical circumstances to Obama, would be a natural-born citizen thanks to a law signed by President Reagan.”

No such law exists. No such law was signed by Ronald Reagan. It’s a lie.

And finally, there’s a sinister quote attributed to attorney Gary Kreep:

“There’s nothing that I’m aware of that says you have to have two American parents,” said the executive director of the United States Justice Foundation… “My understanding of it is if you’re born in the United States, you’re a natural born citizen, period.”

I suppose the following quote from the US Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett – which was actually quoted in the WND article – has somehow escaped Kreep:

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the Framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

What part of “doubts” does Kreep not understand? That “period” he ends his statement with could not be more misplaced.

America, you are in a lot of trouble. Obama eligibility truth threatens the power which pervades both parties. You are seeing a true propaganda moment in the selective and tainted coverage of this issue. The country is in very dangerous waters – out to sea without a raft and in danger of drowning to a certain death of liberty: a death our founders tried to save us from.

But that death is upon us now like it has never been before.


by Leo Donofrio


Tuesday, 11 August 09



He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
as required by the Constitution.

His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘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…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources.

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.


“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

- Leo Rugiens

No comments:

Post a Comment