<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Leo Donofrio: Active Military Suit is Best Chance at Challenging POTUS Eligibility (Updated)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/01/30/leo-donofrio-active-military-suit-is-best-chance-at-challenging-potus-eligibility/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/01/30/leo-donofrio-active-military-suit-is-best-chance-at-challenging-potus-eligibility/</link>
	<description>Questioning everything, in love, for the truth</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:40:44 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bryan</title>
		<link>http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/01/30/leo-donofrio-active-military-suit-is-best-chance-at-challenging-potus-eligibility/comment-page-1/#comment-7219</link>
		<dc:creator>Bryan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:18:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3310#comment-7219</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve thought from the start, that this &quot;standing&quot; or &quot;direct harm&quot; issue was just a subversive and subjective technicality at best, which in and of itself, has no standing. As so many millions of us are &quot;natural born citizens&quot;, we absolutely have standing and are being directly harmed, if for no other reason that the founders expected loyalty to the Constitution above all else. 
   That being said, we most definitely have standing and direct harm now, that BHO has signed into law legislation which affects us all in so many ways, least of which are our check books and lively hood. I still have hope that honorable jurors will do what they absolutely know is the RIGHT THING, even if not PC, and live up to a small degree of the courage of the loyalists from bygone eras.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve thought from the start, that this &#8220;standing&#8221; or &#8220;direct harm&#8221; issue was just a subversive and subjective technicality at best, which in and of itself, has no standing. As so many millions of us are &#8220;natural born citizens&#8221;, we absolutely have standing and are being directly harmed, if for no other reason that the founders expected loyalty to the Constitution above all else.<br />
   That being said, we most definitely have standing and direct harm now, that BHO has signed into law legislation which affects us all in so many ways, least of which are our check books and lively hood. I still have hope that honorable jurors will do what they absolutely know is the RIGHT THING, even if not PC, and live up to a small degree of the courage of the loyalists from bygone eras.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phil</title>
		<link>http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/01/30/leo-donofrio-active-military-suit-is-best-chance-at-challenging-potus-eligibility/comment-page-1/#comment-7175</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:12:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3310#comment-7175</guid>
		<description>sus,

I think that sentiment goes without saying when attributed to folks such as yourself ;)

-Phil</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>sus,</p>
<p>I think that sentiment goes without saying when attributed to folks such as yourself <img src='http://www.therightsideoflife.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>-Phil</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sus</title>
		<link>http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/01/30/leo-donofrio-active-military-suit-is-best-chance-at-challenging-potus-eligibility/comment-page-1/#comment-7163</link>
		<dc:creator>sus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:48:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3310#comment-7163</guid>
		<description>Yeah.  Saw that.  Looks to me like Leo thinks Orly&#039;s reckless.  See his reply in the comments:
\
&quot;[Ed. I can appreciate putting a Constitutional battle in play and sticking with it.

I can also appreciate the following law. By allowing the officer&#039;s comments to be published and by spreading the particularly aggressive vibe she and WND put out, they may have exposed the officer and themselves to prosecution under the following law. There was a more wise way of discussing the eligibility issue available to them which would have better protected all involved from exposure to the following law while at the same time expressing their legal questions. They chose to be inflammatory and that was a legal mistake. Starting a press campaign in this way serves no purpose, especially since no law suit has actually been filed. Regardless, sensationalizing the issues as they did, going so far to include a blatantly false headline was insane.

Check this out... then review what went down over the last few days. 

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C115.txt

TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
***
Sec. 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally

-STATUTE-
(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence
the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces
of the United States:
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or
attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal
of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the
United States; or
(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or
printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination,
disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the
military or naval forces of the United States -

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the
United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five
years next following his conviction.
(b) For the purposes of this section, the term &quot;military or naval
forces of the United States&quot; includes the Army of the United
States, the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Navy
Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve of the
United States; and, when any merchant vessel is commissioned in the
Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes the
master, officers, and crew of such vessel. ]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah.  Saw that.  Looks to me like Leo thinks Orly&#8217;s reckless.  See his reply in the comments:<br />
\<br />
&#8220;[Ed. I can appreciate putting a Constitutional battle in play and sticking with it.</p>
<p>I can also appreciate the following law. By allowing the officer's comments to be published and by spreading the particularly aggressive vibe she and WND put out, they may have exposed the officer and themselves to prosecution under the following law. There was a more wise way of discussing the eligibility issue available to them which would have better protected all involved from exposure to the following law while at the same time expressing their legal questions. They chose to be inflammatory and that was a legal mistake. Starting a press campaign in this way serves no purpose, especially since no law suit has actually been filed. Regardless, sensationalizing the issues as they did, going so far to include a blatantly false headline was insane.</p>
<p>Check this out... then review what went down over the last few days. </p>
<p><a href="http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C115.txt" rel="nofollow">http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C115.txt</a></p>
<p>TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE<br />
PART I - CRIMES<br />
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES<br />
***<br />
Sec. 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally</p>
<p>-STATUTE-<br />
(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence<br />
the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces<br />
of the United States:<br />
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or<br />
attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal<br />
of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the<br />
United States; or<br />
(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or<br />
printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination,<br />
disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the<br />
military or naval forces of the United States -</p>
<p>Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten<br />
years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the<br />
United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five<br />
years next following his conviction.<br />
(b) For the purposes of this section, the term "military or naval<br />
forces of the United States" includes the Army of the United<br />
States, the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Navy<br />
Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve of the<br />
United States; and, when any merchant vessel is commissioned in the<br />
Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes the<br />
master, officers, and crew of such vessel. ]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sus</title>
		<link>http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/01/30/leo-donofrio-active-military-suit-is-best-chance-at-challenging-potus-eligibility/comment-page-1/#comment-7162</link>
		<dc:creator>sus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:39:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3310#comment-7162</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m LMAO.  And, looking into buying stock in Popcorn.  The market may be down... but I&#039;m thinking popcorn sales are up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m LMAO.  And, looking into buying stock in Popcorn.  The market may be down&#8230; but I&#8217;m thinking popcorn sales are up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sus</title>
		<link>http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/01/30/leo-donofrio-active-military-suit-is-best-chance-at-challenging-potus-eligibility/comment-page-1/#comment-7161</link>
		<dc:creator>sus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:36:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3310#comment-7161</guid>
		<description>I never did like Reagan or Nixon.  Always felt they were up to something.  This proves it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I never did like Reagan or Nixon.  Always felt they were up to something.  This proves it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sus</title>
		<link>http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/01/30/leo-donofrio-active-military-suit-is-best-chance-at-challenging-potus-eligibility/comment-page-1/#comment-7159</link>
		<dc:creator>sus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:28:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3310#comment-7159</guid>
		<description>I think Patrick is trying to point out the hypocrisy of a certain segment of the birther brigade.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Patrick is trying to point out the hypocrisy of a certain segment of the birther brigade.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sus</title>
		<link>http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/01/30/leo-donofrio-active-military-suit-is-best-chance-at-challenging-potus-eligibility/comment-page-1/#comment-7158</link>
		<dc:creator>sus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:24:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3310#comment-7158</guid>
		<description>Dismisses &quot;Factcheck&quot; and instead refers to &quot;Center for Security Policy&quot;.  &quot;The Center sponsors &quot;Family Security Matters.&quot; On August 3, 2007, Family Security Matters published an opinion piece by Philip Atkinson, which advocated for making George W. Bush president for life, because &quot;The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable.&quot;

That&#039;s America!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dismisses &#8220;Factcheck&#8221; and instead refers to &#8220;Center for Security Policy&#8221;.  &#8220;The Center sponsors &#8220;Family Security Matters.&#8221; On August 3, 2007, Family Security Matters published an opinion piece by Philip Atkinson, which advocated for making George W. Bush president for life, because &#8220;The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable.&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s America!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ??????????</title>
		<link>http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/01/30/leo-donofrio-active-military-suit-is-best-chance-at-challenging-potus-eligibility/comment-page-1/#comment-6371</link>
		<dc:creator>??????????</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:41:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3310#comment-6371</guid>
		<description>How about the Republican Election Overseer and Rick Leventhal who were intimated and denied entrance by the BP to the voting room in Philadelphia?  Finally the Overseer was allowed after the police became involved, but Rick Leventhal was not and he seemed to feel intimation throughout the whole saga.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How about the Republican Election Overseer and Rick Leventhal who were intimated and denied entrance by the BP to the voting room in Philadelphia?  Finally the Overseer was allowed after the police became involved, but Rick Leventhal was not and he seemed to feel intimation throughout the whole saga.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ??????????</title>
		<link>http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/01/30/leo-donofrio-active-military-suit-is-best-chance-at-challenging-potus-eligibility/comment-page-1/#comment-4775</link>
		<dc:creator>??????????</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2009 04:00:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3310#comment-4775</guid>
		<description>I did my homework.  This has been investigated.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I did my homework.  This has been investigated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reality Check</title>
		<link>http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/01/30/leo-donofrio-active-military-suit-is-best-chance-at-challenging-potus-eligibility/comment-page-1/#comment-4757</link>
		<dc:creator>Reality Check</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:31:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3310#comment-4757</guid>
		<description>&lt;b&gt;@ ????????&lt;/b&gt;

The Annenburg Foundation was started by that Walter Annenberg who was a great friend of Ronald Reagan and worked for Nixon. he sounds like a flaming liberal to me. Factcheck is also non-partisan. Do your homework.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>@ ????????</b></p>
<p>The Annenburg Foundation was started by that Walter Annenberg who was a great friend of Ronald Reagan and worked for Nixon. he sounds like a flaming liberal to me. Factcheck is also non-partisan. Do your homework.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 1Lishell</title>
		<link>http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/01/30/leo-donofrio-active-military-suit-is-best-chance-at-challenging-potus-eligibility/comment-page-1/#comment-4754</link>
		<dc:creator>1Lishell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:22:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3310#comment-4754</guid>
		<description>Georgetown,
I think this is actually a great idea, but only if they can get Joe Jamail to represent them.  Do you not see the potential of having Berg, Orly, Donofrio and Jamail taking depositions together?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Georgetown,<br />
I think this is actually a great idea, but only if they can get Joe Jamail to represent them.  Do you not see the potential of having Berg, Orly, Donofrio and Jamail taking depositions together?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ??????????</title>
		<link>http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/01/30/leo-donofrio-active-military-suit-is-best-chance-at-challenging-potus-eligibility/comment-page-1/#comment-4719</link>
		<dc:creator>??????????</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:14:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3310#comment-4719</guid>
		<description>Not all in agreement with President Obama.

I think  that President Obama may just be making a big mistake here with his plan of the withdrawal of troops in Iraq.  Although these Military Officers will obey the President, they certainly are not in agreement with his proposal.  Re: This Story - 

 
US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
By Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 (IPS) - CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn&#039;t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting. 

Obama&#039;s decision to override Petraeus&#039;s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy. 

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama&#039;s decision. 
 
The Full Story:  http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45640</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not all in agreement with President Obama.</p>
<p>I think  that President Obama may just be making a big mistake here with his plan of the withdrawal of troops in Iraq.  Although these Military Officers will obey the President, they certainly are not in agreement with his proposal.  Re: This Story &#8211; </p>
<p>US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision<br />
By Gareth Porter*</p>
<p>WASHINGTON, Feb 2 (IPS) &#8211; CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.</p>
<p>But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn&#8217;t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting. </p>
<p>Obama&#8217;s decision to override Petraeus&#8217;s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy. </p>
<p>A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama&#8217;s decision. </p>
<p>The Full Story:  <a href="http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45640" rel="nofollow">http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45640</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GeorgetownJD</title>
		<link>http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/01/30/leo-donofrio-active-military-suit-is-best-chance-at-challenging-potus-eligibility/comment-page-1/#comment-4690</link>
		<dc:creator>GeorgetownJD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 05:21:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3310#comment-4690</guid>
		<description>Sue,

Leo is sore about a procedural thing with the New Jersey judge, so he filed a complaint against the judge.  I doubt it will get anywhere because at the end of the day SCOTUS considered his case and declined to accept it.  Een if the New Jersey commission on judicial ethics wants to investigate Leo&#039;s complaint, it cannot and would not issue subpoenas to SCOTUS justices.  Their immunity from legal process includes immunity from being subpoenaed.

Leo just needs to blow off some steam, get back to jamming with his band.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sue,</p>
<p>Leo is sore about a procedural thing with the New Jersey judge, so he filed a complaint against the judge.  I doubt it will get anywhere because at the end of the day SCOTUS considered his case and declined to accept it.  Een if the New Jersey commission on judicial ethics wants to investigate Leo&#8217;s complaint, it cannot and would not issue subpoenas to SCOTUS justices.  Their immunity from legal process includes immunity from being subpoenaed.</p>
<p>Leo just needs to blow off some steam, get back to jamming with his band.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GeorgetownJD</title>
		<link>http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/01/30/leo-donofrio-active-military-suit-is-best-chance-at-challenging-potus-eligibility/comment-page-1/#comment-4688</link>
		<dc:creator>GeorgetownJD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 05:05:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3310#comment-4688</guid>
		<description>Tychicus,

The &quot;three fifths of all other Persons&quot; is a reference to slaves.  Research the Three Fifths Compromise of 1787.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tychicus,</p>
<p>The &#8220;three fifths of all other Persons&#8221; is a reference to slaves.  Research the Three Fifths Compromise of 1787.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GeorgetownJD</title>
		<link>http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/01/30/leo-donofrio-active-military-suit-is-best-chance-at-challenging-potus-eligibility/comment-page-1/#comment-4687</link>
		<dc:creator>GeorgetownJD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 05:00:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3310#comment-4687</guid>
		<description>Class actions do not have any more weight simply by sheer numbers.  Besides, you don&#039;t just declare yourselves a class and file a class action.  You must obtain the court&#039;s certification of the class.  Good luck with that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Class actions do not have any more weight simply by sheer numbers.  Besides, you don&#8217;t just declare yourselves a class and file a class action.  You must obtain the court&#8217;s certification of the class.  Good luck with that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
