A Cross Word For The Two Citizen-Parent Birthers

Embarrassed At Their Inability To Provide An Answer, The Birthers Just Took To Shooting Blanks

In light of the memo below, there is no longer any point whatsoever for the two citizen-parent Birthers to carry on propagating their theory. Not only does this memo debunk their theory, but it also places a burden on them to refute the legal reasoning contained therein. What that means is that in addition to providing a legal basis for their own theory, they also need to address the counter-evidence, the 50 pages of law and reasoning in this memo. So far, that burden has been met by Leo Donofrio, Esq. to the extent that he found one whole sentence in the 50 page memo to quibble about.

There never was any legal basis for the two citizen parent theory. Jerome Corsi wrote an entire book in 2008, called Obama Nation, where in 308 pages of reasons why we should not vote for Obama, there was not one mention of eligibility. The reason was simple. The two citizen-parent theory had not been invented yet. In contrast, the law contained in the memo goes back many hundreds of years. Do the math.

It is time for the two citizen-parent to put up or STFU.  Either refute the memo with law and reasoning, or just STFU. Meet legal cases with later legal cases which reverse them or STFU.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: This memo can also be found on a separate page here called Natural Born Citizenship. It is there also for easier access. Just look in the header above.


About Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

Hi!!! I am a Girl Reporter on the Internet. I am 31. Plus I am a INTP. I have a Major in Human Kinetics, and a Minor in English. I have 2 cats, and a new kitten! I write poetry, and plus I am trying to learn how to play guitar. I think that is all??? Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter View all posts by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

11 responses to “A Cross Word For The Two Citizen-Parent Birthers

  • David Farrar

    Oh crap! I just got through doing exactly that over at this other Birtherthinktank cite.


    “December 5th, 2011 at 7:43 pm

    “Mr. Farrar,

    “I haven’t said anything of the sort–you’re just making up requirements that aren’t in the Constitution. The Founders believed that “natural born citizenship” provided a strong check to the admission of foreigners to the presidency. They never said that it was the strongest possible check on allegiance. In any case, blood allegiance sounds like how a monarchy works–what the founders wanted to avoid. Why do you hate the Constitution so much?”

    Well, by extension, yes; it does. A ‘strong check’ will always be the stronger of the two presented, leading inevitably to the “strongest check”.

    ex animo

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Farrar,

    You are completely wrong. “A strong check” and “the strongest check” are two different things. While the strongest check is a strong check (if anything is a strong check). The Founding Fathers were highly literate men–if they had meant “the strongest check” they would have said that and not “a strong check”. Pretending that the two things have the same meaning only demonstrates your own lack of understanding.


    I’m not sure that birthers of Mr. Farrar’s caliber will be able to complete your puzzle–couldn’t you have made it easy enough for them? 😉

  • Monkey Boy


    You are MEEN!

    Tee hee

  • whatever4

    You should provide a link to the answer for some of our “eligibility activist” friends.

  • Sally Hill

    Why on earth would I put any time into refuting a memo written by a government Attorney employed under the administration in which he is trying to cover for? Why is his memo any more authoritative than any of Leo’s published papers? I mean who is he? REALLY – who is he?

    Yes, yes, I know he is independent and appointed counsel – likened to the Congressional Budget Office…..and we all know that when Obama summoned the head of the CBO to his office before the vote on Obamacare, suddenly the CBO scored it as saving trillions and trillions of dollars, when in actuality it will cost the country dearly if it is ever fully implemented.

    So you have Donofrio disputing the memo – what more do you want? Shredding Leo’s take on the memo wasn’t good enough, so the rest of us should just stfu…..because?????? I’m unclear on what your temper tantrum is actually trying to accomplish.

    I see some real genius in your writing. I’m just sorry that you are wasting such talent. You come across as an angry child that needs a good butt-busting.

    I find the subject of Obama’s eligibility to be interesting in a historic sense. I like to debate the subject and try and see the issue from both sides. There is absolutely no sense in trying to belittle those with differing opinions than mine, or call them names, or throw tantrums. None of that will change or affect one thing having to do with the issue. Obama IS POTUS and not likely to be leaving office anytime soon – although I do HOPE for CHANGE in 2012.

    The only thing that we can gain from this point forward is a better understanding of what our Founding Fathers intended. You have a different opinion than I do and the courts seem too scared to take up the actual issue, rather they would prefer to dismiss the cases on the grounds of standing rather than merits. Personally, If I were on your side of the argument that would infuriate me to no end. I would want SCOTUS to declare my opinion as true and correct – especially since you feel all the rulings validate your opinion. I would not want to rely on vague rulings and interpretations and I most certainly would not want half of the country wondering whether I was right or not. I would want validation. But that’s just me.

  • David Farrar


    I think Leo Donofrio, Esq. is doing exactly what you are asking for….validating his point of view. And while we may all have different opinions of his work, but it is detailed and scholarly. Take for example his latest dissertation on the Grey decision in Wong Kim Art, The McCreery v. Somerville Funeral – Maskell And Gray To Attend – Minor v. Happersett To Preside.

    But while we are at it, even while my attorney in presently in Hawaii trying to subpoena Obama’s birth records from which we can authenticate or dispute Obama’s prima facie birth documents, Hawaiian Health officials and the Hawaiian court still won’t allow us access, and have set a rehearing date for the same date as her Georgia hearing. This is the kind of blatant resistance we, who simply want to prove Obama has met his constitutional requirement, or not, by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than the presentation of prima facie evidence.

    If you are not sure why this is important, and in keeping with your validation request stated above, please go to “A Birth Certificate Fraud” and find out what the Office of Inspector General, of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services thinks about using birth certificates as a means to identify anybody for any reason.

    “A certified copy of a birth certificate is proof only that a birth occurred and was recorded.For that purpose, it may be desirable that the public be allowed easy access to them. However, the agencies and organizations that use birth certificates as proof of identification for employment purposes, to obtain benefits or other documents (e.g., driver’s licenses, Social Security cards, and passports), and to assist them indetermining eligibility for public assistance and other benefits, may have concerns withhow easily certified copies of birth certificates can be obtained. These conflictingperspectives are at the very heart of the birth certificate controversy.”

    ex animo

  • Sally Hill

    Something keeps me thinking about your stance on the NBC issue. I remember when I started seeing you post over on Dr. C’s site. You were totally of the opinion that Obama was NOT a NBC. But now you have changed your mind and I can’t help wondering why, how, who?

    I can’t help but think the time you spent being belittled and abused over at Dr. C’s didn’t change your mind. Sort of a ‘if you can’t beat them thing, then might as well join them.’. I’m having a hard time being convinced in your writings that you truly believe what you have posted. I could be wrong, and if so I apologize, but something here doesn’t ring true to me.

    On a separate note…

    Leo has a very interesting new post. I have a question for you along the same lines of your Breckenridge document and wondering why he didn’t use MvH to hit his argument home…..I think I’m remembering that correctly.
    If Chester Arthur, given that he was born to an alien father was considered a NBC, why on earth wouldn’t Justice Grey have used that fact when considering the WKA case? I mean, what better way to bolster the holding that WKA was a NBC, let alone a US Citizen than to have used the analogy that the POTUS himself was of alien parentage and was NBC as evidenced by the sheer fact that such was a requirement to hold the office of POTUS?

    Of course, that is under the assumption that everyone knew of Arthur’s alien parentage. In my opinion, this is just more proof that no one knew of Arthur’s fathers citizenship – at least precious few. If they had, WKA would never have even been an issue to have come before the court. All the evidence they needed was the current POTUS.

  • Fred Muggs

    I am concerned a bit about Squeeky. Donofrio has been posting batshit inane stuff of late that should have elicited a response from the Girl Reporter. I sincerely hope she is all right.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: