Obama is British and Harry Potter is a Muggle

Considering the News…

The grandest court in all the land has rejected an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who claims to know more about the President-elect than even, say, the President-elect.

No, he’s not a biographer, per se, but he understands natural citizenship more than most, which makes it a damn shame his case won’t be heard in earnest by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Leo Donofrio (yes, that’s his real name) of Brunswick, N.J., contends that as Obama’s mother was American but his father was Kenyan, and thus a British subject, in no way whatsoever can Obama really be a pure-blood American, rendering him ineligible for the presidency.

It’s a vague and shady genetic equation, but Donofrio’s theory is flawless and has the backing of a monumental precedent. You see, in the case of Hermione v. Hogwartz School of Wizardry, Professor Dumbledore ruled that as Ms. Granger was undeniably the mixed blood product of a witch and a muggle, she did not qualify for classification as a pure-blood witch, no matter how prodigious her abilities.

Thus I hope the U.S. Supreme Court reconsiders the egregious dismissal of such a sincere case. Once again America finds itself at the mercy of the courts electing to legislate from the bench. What a dark world we live in.


Filed under Dirty Politics

3 responses to “Obama is British and Harry Potter is a Muggle

  1. JessicaJay

    Can you read? Did you pass the 7TH grade because in Constitution does it no where states that any future president had to be pure blood American. For crying out loud if this was the case then we would never have a president because no one is a pure- blooded American everyone came from somewhere else, Europe,France,or even Africa, it might be as far back as your great great great great grand parents or like Barack Obama your dad or even your mom.
    So people of this great country of mine breath easy for you have a new president elect BARACK OBAMA .
    Deal with it!

  2. Ted

    from itooktheredpill.wordpress.com:

    The truth is that the Supreme Court did NOT “deny cert” to Leo Donofrio yesterday. The truth is the Supreme Court did NOT “turn down” Donofrio’s case yesterday. The truth is that Leo Donofrio’s case is still “PENDING” at the Supreme Court, and the court only denied the application to stay an election.

    …the election that Donofrio had been trying to stay was the November 4th election (he hurriedly filed his case on November 3rd to do so).

    So, it is logical that the court would, on December 8th, deny an application to stay an election that already happened on November 4th.

    Donofrio’s case is still PENDING.

    MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2008

    The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and referred to the Court is denied.

    [Note the ABSENCE of Donofrio’s case here]

    Donofrio’s case is NOT listed under CERTIORARI DENIED.

    Everyone should take another look at the order list from the SCOTUS yesterday.

    Not only was Donofrio’s case NOT denied certiorari, but a third case (Cort Wrotnowski vs. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State) was referred to the Court by Justice Scalia – distributed for conference this coming Friday:

    Dec 8 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008.
    Dec 8 2008 Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.

    It sounds like Donofrio may have called this correctly earlier today:

    On the chance that SCOTUS was looking at both my case and Cort’s case, I must stress that Cort’s case does not have the same procedural hang up that mine does. It may be that without a decision on the Judicial misconduct allegation correcting the NJ Appellate Division case file, SCOTUS might have been in the position of not being able to hear my case as it would appear that my case was not before them on the proper procedural grounds.

    I did file a direct appeal under the proper NJ Court rules, but the lower Court judge refused to acknowledge that and if his fraudulent docketing was used by SCOTUS they would have a solid procedural basis to throw mine out.

    Friday could turn out to be a very, very big news day.

  3. jmwinn

    Ms. JessicaJay,

    Thank you for the fine response. I must say, though, you should have given more consideration to the lawsuit I cited before making any hasty allegations. Should you give it another glance, perhaps my reading ability will no longer be the one in question.

    Thanks for the thoughts.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s