AP Issues Chester Arthur Propaganda To Protect Obama.

chestert

Today the AP issued a story titled “Obama Birthplace Flap Evokes Arthur Debate”. The story makes an analogy between the Obama birth certificate issue and the controversy surrounding Chester Arthur’s birthplace.   The story contains a lie.  It states that Chester Arthur never publicly addressed the issue of Hinman’s allegations that he was born in Canada.  But Arthur did specifically address these issues in the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper.

However, AP and MSNBC won’t tell you that because Arthur was caught lying about his parents heritage in those newspaper interviews.  He was lying to cover up the fact that Hinman was correct – Chester Arthur was a British subject – but for a different reason than where he was born.

AP and MSNBC forgot to mention that Chester Arthur’s father William didn’t become a naturalized citizen of the US until 1843 – 14 years after old Chester was born.  This means that Chester Arthur was not a natural born citizen since at the time of his birth he was a subject of Great Britain.  These facts as to Chester Arthur’s failure to meet the Constitutional requirement were first reported at this blog back in December ’08.

Please see that report, Historical Breakthrough – Proof: Chester Arthur Concealed He Was A British Subject At Birth.

No main stream media outlet has reported this historical discovery and as we can see by the AP piece today, objective reporting has been replaced by propaganda.  AP reported as follows:

Never addressed allegation
Democrats, meanwhile, hired a lawyer named Arthur Hinman who sought to discredit Arthur, claiming he was born in Dunham, Quebec, about 47 miles north of Fairfield. Hinman traveled to Vermont and Canada to research Arthur’s past, eventually concluding that Arthur was born in Canada but appropriated the birth records of a baby brother who was born in Fairfield, but died as an infant.

He later incorporated the findings into a book titled “How A British Subject Became President of the United States.”

Arthur, who served from 1881 to 1885, never publicly addressed the allegation.

But Arthur did address the issue.

In the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, an article interviewing Chester Arthur about Hinman’s accusations was published on August 13, 1880.  In that article, Chester Arthur defended himself as follows:

“My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland.  He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.”

This was another blatant lie.   His father emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23.   William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 – when his first child was born in Dunham, Canada – and March 1824 – when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont.  The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26.

On August 16, 1880 Chester Arthur told the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper that at the time of his birth, his father was forty years old.  Another blatant lie.  His father would have been only thirty-three years old when Chester was born.

In that same article he lied that his father settled in Vermont and reiterated the lie that William came here at the age of eighteen.  This age discrepancy was exposed in the August 19, 1880 edition of the Brooklyn Eagle in an article written by Hinman .

It was very convenient for Arthur that Hinman kept the focus on the extraordinary and false claim – that Arthur was born abroad – while the more subtle and true eligibility issue  stayed hidden in plain site.

AP just published a story that said Arthur never publicly addressed the issue and the stench of a  propaganda lie fills the air.  We are treading in very dangerous waters, America.  History is being controlled by lies.

“He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future”.  George Orwell.

91 Responses to “AP Issues Chester Arthur Propaganda To Protect Obama.”

  1. It is the top story on the Yahoo page. Never does it even touch on the fact that Arthur’s father was not a citizen until Chester was 14. They make it out to be like, “see, this craziness about BCs went on then too”.

  2. MissTickly Says:

    I think this is great. This article is so crazy! This should at the very least make you feel important Leo! Now they have to obfuscate Chester Arthur’s father’s citizenship, too! This whole article is about whether Arthur was born in Canada or not.

    Looks like someone has been reading your little blog here!

  3. MissTickly Says:

    I know self-importance isn’t driving you. But I just think you should gloat for a moment–you are really getting to someone.

  4. And here I thought Obama was the first usurper.

  5. Another new twist I wasn’t aware of concerning the difference between ‘constituional natural born citizen’ and ‘statutory natural born citizen’. at
    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=7070

  6. hmmm..that would be George Orwell, 1984, and the full quote is: “He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future”.

    I think you have left in no doubt who controls the present.

    My Best Regards
    The Big Boo

    [Ed. Duh on me. My gut said check it but I was in a hurry. Thanks for the correction.]

  7. Neologizer Says:

    Chester A Arthur – 21st President of the USA
    His father was a British subject at the time of his birth

    This was already settled over a century ago. Precedent was set.

    [Ed. Snip — Precedent was not set. Show me one source, one single text that discusses William Arthur’s 1843 naturalization in the context of Chester Arthur’s POTUS eligibility prior to that issue being exposed on this blog. Citation please. No precedent is set by a lie that was unknown back when he was running.]

  8. Gary Richards Says:

    Leo, I have sent a couple of rebuttals on the AP story to media people. I tend to be idealistic but I still think that perhaps someone in the media may finally see the light and expose the grand propaganda effort in play.

  9. This note on the repeated and blatant inaccuracies, or deliberately midleading information, circulated by the Assoc. Press, raises questions about the education and ethics of mass media journalists. It suggests that questions about Obama’s citizenship status may not be as far fetched as MSM editors and publishers arrogantly suggest.

    The facts of Obama’s citizenship are currently being successfully repressed by Obama’s lawyers. The AP has ignored what is known – and refuses to embarrass itself by pursuing records that could clarify Obama’s status. Its reporters, and local media who accept the AP lead on what is news, refuse to make a demand that the President release all personal records to clarify his legitimacy.

    Distributing false information in the Arthur story, and refusal to agressively seek out facts, Constitutionally required of Presidential candidates, is surely a violation of the basic canons of journalism. Enough, already!!

  10. MissTickly Says:

    There’s no controlling history. They just don’t have the mandate for all that.

    The truth will come out.

  11. Since we know media bias favors Obama and played a large role in pulling off his fraud, and since this is more about Obama than it is Arthur, I would have to agree with Leo that the AP is not just being sloppy here but is indeed slanting and distorting for a reason.

    The reason is readily apparent in other places, where Obama apologists say, well, so what if Obama is not technically eligible, neither was Chester Arthur. Two wrongs make a right, don’t you know.

    What is really insufferable is that Congress exerted itself mightily to investigate John McCain’s birth qualifications but did nothing to vet Obama. Why not? Scared someone would holler “racist”?

    Looks like white people no longer have the right to equal protection under the law (14th Amendment, Section 1). Why else did Congress have legal research done on McCain and hold a hearing on McCain and pass a resolution (S.R. 511) on McCain while not giving equal treatment to Obama, whose birth qualification was known to be suspect at the time? Black privilege or just typical Democrat duplicity?

    Even after Obama was elected, Congress had the duty to verify that he was quailifed to serve, as the 20th Amendment, Section 3 makes clear, but still Congress was derelict in its duty to represent the interests of the people by its failure to determine whether the elected president “shall have failed to qualify.”

  12. Well, my caps are working today and look what I found? A future candidate in the Republican party, member of the CFR who is running for President…
    along with I bet Jindall..

    neither eligible

    “Tom Tancredo, the only candidate for president from either party to declare himself in opposition to legal immigration, and to have a specific aversion to Mexican immigration, dropped out of the presidential race last week. Then he did something quite odd — he endorsed Mitt Romney, the only candidate whose father was born in Mexico and whose family made use of the porous border to immigrate between Mexico and the United States.”

    Hence the reason, I suspect for the Republican silence on the issue..
    Coulter supports Romney…

    so?

    Pretty sure these people think Article 2 Sec. 1 is antiquated

    S

    [Ed. It doesn’t matter where Mitt’s parents were born – for Mitt all that matters is whther they were citizens at the time of his birth and that Mitt was born in the USA.]

  13. Here is the article. Sorry. I meant to put it on the comment.

    http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/24/romney-family-immigration/

  14. Why would AP and MsNBC put fuel on a fire that was dying down?

    Anybody remember the movie the Pelican Brief? Do they honestly think that a lawyer/law clerk would not see the blatant INCONSISTENICES and use the internet to expose the lies?

    Sometimes it is best to keep their mouth shut on an issue especially since Obamacare (or obama hell care) is being exposed for what it is.

    You and Cort are true patriots and we thank you for supporting to enlighten the truth to Americans who are thirsting to preserve (or let me say reinstate) our constitutional republic as in the words of Samuel Adams and President John Quincy Adams.

  15. Another great catch Mr. Donofrio, exposing the media for the propagandists they’ve become, shameful lot all of them!

  16. Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney was also a democratic candidate for President, who lost to Nixon. I was not aware that George Romney was born in Mexico during the campaign, but I was much younger then.

    Has anyone examined the record to see if George’s Mexican birthplace was discussed in that campaign? He would not have been natural born.

    The other major party Presidential candidate whose birth status was questioned was Barry Goldwater.

  17. I find it quite interesting that until just few weeks ago, the MSM & left wing blogs had pretty much written off the Chester Arthur story. Then came your brilliant article(Obama was a British Subject) and POW!

    http://letters.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/05/birther_faq/view/index7.html

    Now even the AP has picked up on it and right after their little announcement that they would be publishing stories from the Soros funded groups:

    http://www.propublica.org/article/associated-press-joins-steal-our-stories-movement-613

    The Soros funded groups are notorious for publishing Pravda style propaganda.

    The left wing propagandists are finding out that American history is nothing to mess with and true Americans will not let the history of their country and its founding be re-written.

    This also shows what you are writing here Leo, cuts to the core of the issue and they are writing scared! So let’s keep up the pressure.

    In the meantime, I’m off to finalize the transfer of our granddaughters 529 from a secondary school account to a primary/secondary account to help her parents begin the process of home schooling the kids. It seems that liberal propanda books have now reached the core of South Dakota christian farm country. I was shocked to hear what was in the new text books that the SDEA had purchased.

    And, Leo, you should be proud of what your efforts here have accomplished. You helped me better understand so that now at age 9, our granddaughter reads out loud her pocket constitution like a pro and she is now starting to read the Federalist papers to better understand the delaration, constitution & bill of rights.

    We had always expanded the education of our children beyond the classroom and now we will continue by helping to expand our granddaughter’s education.

    It’s time to take our education system back. If we don’t, we have no chance of fighting back against the propaganda machines known as the MSM.

    Thank You Leo & God Bless,

    Linda

  18. Santeria voodoo being performed in the White House…What’s next?

    http://atkinsonsadvice.blogtownhall.com/2009/08/15/witchcraft_in_the_white_house.thtml

  19. Neologizer Says:

    LOL

    Like I said crack those history books you fools
    oh and better luck next time

    From
    How a British Subject became President of the United States.
    A. P. Hinman
    circa 1884

    A. P. Hinman assuming that Arthur was born in Canada, wrote a letter to Senator Bayard, asking if the father becoming naturalized could make his [alleged Canadian born] son a “natural born citizen”. This is the Senator’s reply:

    Senate of the United States
    City of Washington, January 10th, 1881.
    A. P. HINMAN, E sq., New York.
    DEAR SIR :-In response to your letter of the 7th instant-
    the term” natural-born citizen,” as used in the Constitution
    and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of
    the U. S.
    The naturalization by law of a father before his child
    attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of
    such minor.
    Yours respectfully,
    T. F. BAYARD.

    Page 89.

    You see, we can infer that Arthur’s fiercest critic, A. P. Hinman knew Arthur’s father was naturalized after Arthur was born. He shows it in his own book.

    -LOL

    [Ed. There is no discussion of Chester Arthur in Bayard’s letter to Hinman. Furthermore, if they were discussing Chester Arthur as having been naturalized this would be an admission that Chester Arthur was not eligible as naturalized citizens can’t be President. Bayard knew that a person who needed to be naturalized couldn’t be President. We have no evidence that Hinman even mentioned Arthur in that letter. Like I said there’s no publication which directly discusses Arthur being a British subject at birth. No newspaper – nada zilch. Hinman looks like a smokescreen to me and I personally believe he was helping Arthur by distracting people from the genuine issue just as the BC crowd is doing right now. They’re running the same play. ]

  20. Sheikh yer Bu'Tay Says:

    What?! Another AP story got it’s facts “wrong”?! Follow the money. AP is owned by George Soros and he doesn’t get anything “wrong”. This is nothing new. AP has been doing this for years, then other media outlets around the world site the incorrect AP story as gospel. Mr. Donofrio is correct, it is propaganda, pure and simple.

  21. Leo,
    The Researcher for the AP article on Authur was researched by Rhonda Shafner. who researched this Gem.
    Election Spurs ‘Hundreds’ of Race Threats, Crimes
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/WireStory?id=6261962&page=1
    The Southern Poverty law Center was the source, a far left wing group.
    More disinformation to come, I am sure.
    Keep up the good work!

  22. QUOTE CHALLENGES!

    “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”

    – Sir Walter Scott (Scottish Novelist, Poet, Historian and Biographer, 1771-1832).

    “The reason people find it so hard to be happy is that they always see the past better than it was, the present worse than it is and the future less resolved than it will be”

    – Marcel Pagnol (French Writer, Producer and Film Director, 1895-1974)

  23. Some people say that deVattel didn’t have anything to do with the Constitution. Article I Section 8 “enumerated Powers of Congress”: # 10: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations.”

  24. Leo,
    I believe that two simple things need to be done by a member of Congress:

    1) Verification of the vital records of Obama’s birth.

    2) Ask the Supreme Court to define “natural born Citizen” and put to rest the doubts that the Court itself raised (in the 1875 Minor v Happersett case) about whether or not children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents can be considered natural born citizens.

    Both of those things must happen.

    ——–

    I have received verbal confirmation from a member of Congress that they are willing to do step 1!

    ——–
    My question to you, Leo, is which of the following methods of verification do you think is best:

    A) The Constitution is the “Supreme Law of the Land”, and the 20th Amendment requires that the President-elect “qualify”. The qualifications to hold the office of President are found in Article II Section 1, as well as basis for disqualification found in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as well as the 25th Amendment. Members of Congress are sworn to support and defend the Constitution, including these sections on Presidential eligibility. Therefore, by the “Supreme Law of the Land”, they have both a right and a sworn obligation to inspect Obama’s original birth certificate. No Hawaii law can stand in the way of them supporting and defending the Supreme Law of the Land.

    B) Defer to Hawaiian law, and expect that a Member of Congress will be declared by the State of Hawaii as not having a “tangible interest” in Obama’s original vital record of his birth. Fall back to requesting a “Letter of Verification” from the State of Hawaii, under [§338-14.3] and [§338-18 (g)]:

    [§338-14.3] Verification in lieu of a certified copy. (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.

    The only part of section 338-18 that is relevant to a Letter of Verification is part (g). Pay no attention to parts (a) through (f).

    [§338-18] Disclosure of records…

    (g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:

    (1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;

    (2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities;

    (3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;

    (4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or

    (5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes.

    Which approach would you suggest, and if you suggest (B), the Letter of Verification, which method would you suggest? #3? #5?

    [Ed. 3 and 5 look good.]

  25. Oh to be a fly on the wall of one of these editorial rooms that decide how to present a story for maximum distracting value!

    This attempt to make “birthers ” feel duped and guilty for wanting to see some evidence is so Obama compliant!

    British subjects … still not natural born citizens in America.

    I do not see where Arthur ever admitted to being a British subject at the time of his birth as Obama essentially did on his website.

    [Ed. Arthur didn’t admit it. It wasn’t an issue, only his place of birth was. ]

  26. Leo,

    That the president has been set is an argument that my brother in law uses all the time and I have to admit I’m always at a loss of words how to explain how it didn’t. Would you consider writing more about why it doesn’t in more depth? Apparently this misconception is becoming widespread.

    Keep up the good work. Your research has been invaluable and has provided me great jumping off points for me to dig into the information. I love your style and your passion.

    Stay awesome!!

    [Ed. There was no discussion of his father’s naturalization status at the time he was running or in the newspapers or press in the years since. A precedent is set if there was a national discussion surrounding the issue of whether Chester was ineligible because his father wasnt a US citizen when Chester was born. My article here in December 08 was the first time that was questioned openly in the press as far as I can tell.]

  27. Civis Naturaliter Natus Says:

    Leo,

    The AP by putting out this propaganda on Chester A Arthur, has indirectly confirmed that it is an untrustworthy news source, a rag for Obama, an enemy of the Constitution, and really knows that Obama is ineligible. You don’t lie to cover for an enemy, and you don’t have to craft propaganda to hide what no one knows is true.

  28. [ ed. we aren’t in kansas anymore. ]

    I think you’re right, ed. Not kansas…, definitely not kansas.

    [ MissTickly. There’s no controlling history.
    They just don’t have the mandate for all that….]

    Nor do I think were in munchkin land anymore, either.

    I think we might just have found Dorothy. Good work, people.

    [MissTickly. The truth will come out. ]

    (p.s. So watch out for falling farm houses if you’re a courtroom be-witcher….

    …but if you’re a an Oz-mobot wizard, listen out for a little yappy dog with absolutely no Oz-etiquette, nor respect for true wizard talent, and no regard for any NBW (natural born wizard)…..the call for “Toto” means trouble, and it’s no good hiding behind a curtain either. )

    This time, I really don’t think the woman’s going to quit, just listening to her words. This is it. Her hour has come, and this lady’s going to bring forth the truth, just as she says, ain’t no doubt ’bout it.

    I just might change my ways and become a betting man….’cause this would be where my wager would go.

    g. amos

  29. billvanallen Says:

    if you have not seen this prior posted item:

    “Chester A Stalin” Orly-Colbert skit focused on Obama’s father’s lack of US citizenship.

    and the lead up skit

  30. Messenger Says:

    PRIVATE – do not post.Hey,Pal Leo.Brace yourself,because the real disinfo agents like Neologizer will be coming out in droves,and having you spin your wheel over faux history books in the comments section.It’s good to set them straight.But the damage will be ongoing and it can be traced to your” Dangerous Precedent…” Don’t let them get the better of you.Think about correcting that article.Anyway,if the new distraction of Barry’s age is true,we can see that my Willy Wonka essay is on target.I don’t see there being any real BC,but the one forthcoming will be accepted as real,genuine,and bonafide.You’ll really get knocked for a loop if he comes out prior to Orly’s case begins in the kangaroo courts and makes an embarrasing admission of his parents,but leaves it a cliffhanger as to parentage and birthplace,saying it will come out in the courts.But hey,we have to go by what we know is in print and from his mouth until that time.But behind the scenes,between us,there is no logical reason or proof of him being born in Hawaii.None whatsoever.As an aside—– The Obama White House is abuzz with talk of witchcraft by first grandmother, 72-year-old Marian Robinson, who lives in the White House residence. A close friend of Michelle Obama says the president is furious at his mother-in-law after learning that she was practicing Santeria, an African spirit cult, in the White House.
    http://countusout.wordpress.com/ Now think back to the black voodoo dress Michelle wore back in January.But witchcraft in the White House goes back a long way.

  31. Rick Evans Says:

    George Romney was a Republican candidate for president, not Democrat as stated above. He was deemed eligible to run because of the reason that his U.S. citizen parents were in Mexico. They had fled to Mexico to escape religious persecution. They were Mormons. He left the race when his poll numbers fell apart after he said he was “brain washed” about Viet-Nam.

  32. MissTickly Says:

    I would love to know what this means??

    “[ ed. we aren’t in kansas anymore. ]

    I think you’re right, ed. Not kansas…, definitely not kansas.

    [ MissTickly. There’s no controlling history.
    They just don’t have the mandate for all that….]

    Nor do I think were in munchkin land anymore, either.

    I think we might just have found Dorothy. Good work, people.

    [MissTickly. The truth will come out. ]

    (p.s. So watch out for falling farm houses if you’re a courtroom be-witcher….

    …but if you’re a an Oz-mobot wizard, listen out for a little yappy dog with absolutely no Oz-etiquette, nor respect for true wizard talent, and no regard for any NBW (natural born wizard)…..the call for “Toto” means trouble, and it’s no good hiding behind a curtain either. )”

  33. Leo,
    Please allow me to correct

    kj Says:
    August 17, 2009 at 1:25 pm

    “Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney was also a democratic candidate for President, who lost to Nixon”…..

    Although born in a Mormon settlement in Chihuahua, Mexico, George Romney was a Republican.

    And Mitt Romney does not have an NBC issue….unlike Bobby Jindal who does just like Barry Soetoro.

  34. MissTickly Says:

    itooktheredpill: I like your stuff! Keep going!=)

  35. Ok , IMO the witchcraft is yet another BS story planted by those who wish to change the subject. Just like the Kenyan BC.

  36. sakahound Says:

    I think it’s great that they ran that story. It’s shows they are a bit nervous about “the chosen one”. They have tried to skip over the fact that Arthur was ineligible as Obama is. Anyone that thinks that Arthur’s presidency sets precedence is sadly mistaken. You can maybe see how that could can back in the 19th century, but today?

  37. Troy writes what next?

    This is off topic from the AP but maybe Leo will know were to place it.

    Tex says I just added the below to my Obama page http://www.dixhistory.com/obama.htm It hit me when Obama said the public option was not really needed.

    As you might recall they want to sell health insurance across state lines and transfer other records across state line. That gives them control if passed to do any thing they want after that becomes law.

    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The term commerce as used in the Constitution means business or commercial exchanges in any and all of its forms between citizens of different states, including purely social communications between citizens of different states by telegraph, telephone, or radio, and the mere passage of persons from one state to another for either business or pleasure.

    Intrastate, or domestic, commerce is trade that occurs solely within the geographic borders of one state. As it does not move across state lines, intrastate commerce is subject to the exclusive control of the state.

    Interstate commerce, or commerce among the several states, is the free exchange of commodities between citizens of different states across state lines. Commerce with foreign nations occurs between citizens of the United States and citizens or subjects of foreign governments and, either immediately or at some stage of its progress, is extraterritorial. Commerce with Indian tribes refers to traffic or commercial exchanges involving both the United States and American Indians.

    That is what Federal Health Care is all about END of Story

    With our US Constitution as written, We Control Government and without it they control Us.
    Texo-

  38. OK, now we see where Obama’s law school education and choice to specialize in Constitutional law kicks in. I believe wholly that he’s had a game plan in place to stay just one step ahead of anyone who might look more closely at his eligibility, or lack thereof, to qualify as a “natural born citizen” and now sees that he needs to activate Plan B just in case.

    It’s interesting that the Clinton campaign backed off from exposing these questions. I’m speculating that the fix was in at so high a level in the DNC that even Hilary found it unsafe to take on?

  39. Tony Stark Says:

    Leo,

    You and your sister really need to finish that book on Chester Arthur PDQ ASAP STAT because you are clearly hitting a nerve in the ass of the Establishment with your expose on the lies of Chester Arthur and his relevance to the fraud being perpetuated by both political parties, the MSM and, of course, the current occupant in the White House on the American people!

  40. Have you seen this article (OMG)?!

    Looks like Orly needs MUCH help!

    http://usjf.net/archives/1321

  41. billvanallen Says:

    interesting CA Arthur scandal story

    TheStar.com | World | Smear campaigns arose way before Obama

    http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/682416

  42. Hmmmm…Obama’s MySpace page here: http://www.myspace.com/barackobama claims he is 52 y.o. (so if he was born in 1961 per his COLB that would make the current year 2013!) Sounds like BO might be taking his playbook from Chester Arthur in misleading people about his birth year.

    Oh, I’m sure they’ll correct the myspace page, I’m sure it’s just a typo. Yeah right!

  43. Was it known at the time that Chester Arthur’s father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth? I see a parallel here with the born in Kenya/Canada issue but I don’t see a parallel along the lines of the ‘father not US citizen’ issue.

    If Arthur and Obama are NBCs doesn’t that also mean that anyone born on US soil regardless of their parent’s citizenship status would also have to be considered an NBC? Wasn’t that the fear of the disenters in Wong Kim Ark?

    [Ed. We have argued that neither Obama nor Chester Arthur are NBC since both were British at birth. Please see previous blog posts which indicate Wong Kim Ark stated that the native born son of an alien is not natural born.]

  44. MissTickly Says:

    As I recall, Leo, you touched on how ridiculous this would be to lop off only a year ‘for vanity.’

    “Reeves attributes the discrepancy in birthdates to vanity.

    “Arthur was lying about his age. He did what so many vain people do; he just lopped a year off,” he said. “

  45. Sheikh yer Bu'Tay Says:

    Third full page ad to be published this Thursday. The left does not own all newspapers!

    Everyone should do this. Find a locale paper willing to run an ad on the truth of NBC. A sympathic publisher will do this at cost. Talk to everyone you know interested in this issue. Trust me, you will be supprised at how many are following this. Ask for their help. Donate, publish, ask for donations in the publication, do it again. Once in print… MAIL THIS TO DETRACTORS! Then do even more!

    Spread the word. Take to the streets. Time is on our side. Their side is trying to kill the story, but the story will never die. Chester Arthur is proof of that.

    DO IT!!

  46. Leo, I was referring to the position of Obama supporters in that those who believe Obama and Arthur are NBC must also believe that anyone born on US soil (regardless of parental citizenship status) must also be an NBC if they are to be consistent in their logic.

    As to the first part of my comment, was the ‘father not citizen’ angle ever used to try and prove Arthur was not an NBC before his election as VP

    [Ed. No it wasn’t. That’s why no precedent was ever set by Chester Arthur. His lies covered the issue as did the place of birth issue and Hinman.]

    or was it like today where a fringe group of ‘birthers’ got all of the attention and the Constitutional question was ignored?

  47. Bob Says:

    kj Says:
    August 17, 2009 at 1:25 pm

    ““Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney was also a democratic candidate for President, who lost to Nixon”…..

    Although born in a Mormon settlement in Chihuahua, Mexico, George Romney was a Republican.”

    You are right. George Romney was a Republican who lost the Republican nomination to Nixon. Romney was born outside the borders of the United States when his parents were not in Mexico at the request of the US government.

    The issue still remains: would G. Romney have been eligible to be President? He ran for the office in primaries. Was there any debate on his eligibility during the President run?

  48. Neologizer Says:

    “A. P. Hinman assuming that Arthur was born in Canada, wrote a letter to Senator Bayard, asking if the father becoming naturalized could make his [alleged Canadian born] son a “natural born citizen”.”

    Why don’t you publish Hinman’s letter to Bayard as presented in Hinman’s book. Can you go one step further, and find what the & etc. in Hinman’s letter was? I for one, would like to know exactly what Hinman asked Bayard.

    [Ed. Here is the exchange right from the book. Nothing in it discusses Chester Arthur.

    Hinman wrote this to Bayard:

    Dear Sir: -What is the construction of Article II, S I, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States – that “No person, except a natural-born citizen, etc., shall be eligible, etc.”***.

    Yours respectfully, A. P. HINMAN

    Bayard responded:


    Senate of the United States
    City of Washington, January 10th, I881.
    A. P. HINMAN, E sq., New York.
    DEAR SIR :-In response to your letter of the 7th instant- the term” natural-born citizen,” as used in the Constitution and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of the U. S. The naturalization by law of a father before his child attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of such minor.
    Yours respectfully,
    T. F. BAYARD.

    Interesting to note that Bayard uses the word NATIVE as a synonym for NATURAL BORN CITIZEN – he doesn’t say “native born”. This is exactly what Vattell said as well. All NATIVES are native born – but not all of those who are native born are NATURAL BORN NATIVES. Natural born and Native mean born on the soil to parents who are citizens. Native born just means born on the soil.]

  49. I spoke to the Bonneville International KTTH station manager, Mr. Arquette, who invited me to provide a basis for my statement that Michael Medved is a LIAR in his assertion that all 14th amendment citizens are natural born citizens. ?What is the most succinct way to “prove” that statement is false, because he says he will take this directly to Michael Medved and that I can get feedback later on? Oh, and he has the attention span of a gnat and he’s clueless about the constitution and about the supreme court, giving pat reassurances that Medved is knowledgeable about what he speaks. Yah, I know Michael knows he’s lying, that’s for sure. I just want him to know we all know too, and his station manager, and his advertisers, and…
    arquette@973kiro.com

    [Ed. Both the Minor and Wong Kim Ark cases state that the definition of nbc is not contained anywhere in the Constitution. Minor was decided 6 years after the 14th Amendment was adopted. WKA was decided 30 years after the 14th Amendment was adopted. If the 14th Amendment defined nbc, then the SCOTUS in Minor and WKA would have said that. But they didn’t. The SCOTUS in both cases said that we must look outside the Constitution for this answer. Furthermore, Justice Gray in WKA indicated that the native born child of an alien is not natural born. The Court in Minor also stated that such persons have doubts upon their citizenship.]

  50. Joss Brown Says:

    Note: This has nothing to do with the real issue of NBC and the father’s naturalization, only slightly (see below).

    The AP article says that there are no official records. However there’s the 2-volume genealogical and family history of Vermont, published 1903. Here you can download the files of the volume containing info on Chester A. Arthur—I suggest the PDF and the txt version:

    http://ia351438.us.archive.org/3/items/genealogicaland00compgoog/

    Sadly, the Univ. of Michigan scan (via google and archive.org) is pretty bad—maybe someone can acquire a better copy (maybe on one of those genealogical CD-Roms?)—, but the article for one thing has a photo of the log cabin north of Fairfield, where Arthur was born, it has the false year of birth (as in many publications by the way, even some from 2003), and even more interesting, he’s apparently called “Chester Abell Arthur” in the article.

    This is quite eerie, because it parallels the allegations by Hinman in his book — http://www.scribd.com/doc/18450082/ —, that Chester Alan Arthur was born in Canada, but assumed the birth records/identity of his younger brother Abell, who had died very early. (Not that I think that this is in any way correct, but it’s striking that the 1903 edition calls the president Abell, not Alan.)

    Sidenote: In the “Proceedings of the Vermont Historical Society”, Volume 8 (1940), it says via google snippet preview: “The statement was never challenged that he was an American citizen (son of an American citizen by naturalization […].”

    It seems this is a source, where it’s maintained that Arthur was born of a naturalized citizen father—which is of course false.

    The Vermont Historical Society also once published an article by Reeves: “The Mystery of Chester Alan Arthur’s Birthplace”, in Vermont
    History
    38–39 (Autumn 1970): pp. 291–304.

    If someone reads this and has already acquired the articles/passages, a link would be great, or some info on how to obtain them.

    PS: A good summary of Hinman’s pamphlet is in the book “Decisions of Destiny” by Richard L. Tobin, also available via archive.org.

    [Ed. Excellent research.]

  51. I need to know how best to communicate and convince the logic and facts of the natural born citizen issue. I could’ve stated the conclusions of the esteemed Mr. Donofrio, Apuzzo, Viera, read A2, MvH, MvM, etc…but he was of the mindset to put it down succinctly send it to him and he will ask Mr. Medved, and so I could use some advice to really uber-simplify this concept. “Natural Born Citizenship for Dummies” as it were…

    [Ed. Obama admits he was a British citizen at the time of his birth via his father who was never a US citizen. To be NBC you must be born on the soil to parents who are citizens. Otherwise we set the standard that a dual citizen can be President and Commander In Chief. The framers declared that they were not nbc since they were natural born subjects of Great Britain – hence the Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 grandfather clause that allowed “citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution” to be eligible even though they were not nbc. Obama is a natural born subject of the UK. The precedent set by allowing Obama to be President means that somebody like Kim Jong Il or Osama Bin Laden can have a child with a US woman citizen and that child can be President of the US and Commander In Chief.]

  52. Joss Brown Says:

    Big chunk of historical irony: “By [newly sworn in President Arthur’s] direction, the British flag was saluted by the national military and naval forces at the conclusion of the ceremonies.”

    [Ed. Whoa. WTF? Where did you read this?]

  53. [ MissTickly Says:
    August 17, 2009 at 7:56 pm

    quote: I would love to know what this means?? ]

    MissTickly, me too.

    You know, we’re all waiting for something amazing to happen, aren’t we?
    Well maybe it’s happening, though no one recognizes it. Just wondering if maybe that “something amazing” is simply us.

    All that ‘this’ is, whatever America is, and all that the Constitution protects, whatever it protects or dosen’t protect, really comes down to this, dosen’t it?: A group of fathers (if that’s what we call them) seeking to provide something good and sustainable for those that are to follow.
    Maybe not so good, true. Maybe not so sustainable, beyond ‘xy&z’, so what would their mysterious voice say to us in this dark hour, if not”

    “It’s for you, as best as we could imagine at the time. If something stinks, clean it. If something breaks, fix it. If something is worn out, remove it and start anew. We really wanted to pass along the gem of good judgment, nothing more. ”

    Anyhow, back to a legal blog (wipe tear away with cuff of sleeve).

    There was some discussion a few posts back with leo concerning ‘law of nations’ within the Constitution, upon which you had a couple of late night thoughts, if I remember correctly. Would you be willing to go back and review the topic, if blog host is amicable? It raises a question or two for me. Possiblemente?

    Seems appropriate, since someone just posted this up above:

    [ “Some people say that deVattel didn’t have anything to do with the Constitution. Article I Section 8 “enumerated Powers of Congress”: # 10: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations.”]

    Curiosity continues….where was that post located anyway?

    g. amos

  54. Leo,

    I would like to respectfully disagree with you about Hinman’s motivations in raising the question of Arthur’s birthplace. I believe that Hinman felt strongly that Chester Arthur was not eligible. Hinman probably also was one of many people in both parties who felt that Chester Arthur was politically corrupt and not to be trusted as Vice President or President. Hinman doggedly pursued the question of Arthur’s eligibility for more than four years. Remember that NO ONE believed Arthur would ever serve as President when he was put on the 1880 national ticket as a concession to the Stalwart political machine.

    Hinman raised the eligibility issue about Chester Arthur before anyone else did and apparently was not publicly supported by Democrats or Republicans. After the close general election, Hinman began serious research into the question of Chester Arthur’s eligibility, personally traveling into Vermont and Canada to interview people and inspect documents, and corresponding with many people in the Vermont/Canada border area to uncover the history of not only Chester, but also his father William.

    Before the Electoral College vote, Hinman wrote a letter to T. F. Bayard, the leading Democrat in the Senate and an independent thinker, seeking a definition of the Constitutional eligibility for the President. Bayard was also a gentleman and had deferred open judgment about the severe irregularities in the 1876 elections, allowing the Republican Hayes to serve with honor although he did personally not believe that Hayes had the right to be President. UnConstitutional actions were taken in the 1877 process that led to Hayes service as President.

    After Garfield died, T. F. Bayard was elected President Pro Tempore of the Senate for 3 days. Hinman again wrote President Pro Tempore Bayard requesting that then President Arthur’s eligibility be examined (Brooklyn Eagle October 11, 1881). The Brooklyn Eagle published his letter as he requested, but essentially told him to forget the issue.

    Before the next national Republican convention in Chicago (1884), Hinman had his “pamphlet” printed up and personally took enough copies to Chicago for all of the delegates (Brooklyn Eagle, June 2, 1884). President Arthur had not formally withdrawn from seeking a second term, but had not actively sought the second term, a strategy meant to hide his serious and fatal illness. Arthur would not have been selected as the Republican candidate anyway because his public popularity was very low and his actions as President had alienated the main factions of the Republican party. In spite of the political situation unfavorable to Arthur, Hinman put forth the effort to inform the delegates, who probably did not take him seriously, that Arthur was not eligible.

    I believe that Hinman truly believed that Arthur was not eligible and did whatever he could to get a formal investigation started. Hinman concentrated on Arthur’s birthplace, but must have been aware that the other issue was in question. Why else would he publish Bayard’s response inferring that “natural born” was identical to “a native”?

    [Ed. Hinman’s request form Bayard is published and it does not mention Chester Arthur. It simply asks for a definition of nbc. Hinman simply published what was written by Bayard. I can’t attribute word or motives to them because the published communication does not contain what you suggest. Furthermore, if you search the newspapers of the time during both the 1880 and 1884 campaigns the only issue you will find mentioned is the issue of where Chester was born. It appears to me that since Chester’s father served in various municipal positions and was, in fact a naturalized US citizen in 1880 when Chester ran for VP, that people simply assumed Chester’s father was a US citizen when Chester was born. Chester aided and abetted that assumption by changing the dates of his father’s arrival in the US and his age as well as other lies which would have made it seem as if his father was in the US for many years before Chester was born. The lies facilitated an assumption that William Arthur was alread naturalized when Chester was born. There is nothing in the historical record to suggest that anybody questioned this issue.

    As for Hinman, perhaps he was led to the birthplace issue by somebody trying to create a smokescreen. I do not know. Perhaps he was trying to right a wrong. Regardless, the birthplace issue then, like the BC issue now, has provided certain cover for the nbc legal question.]

    To raise the question of descent with a native birth would have been politically incorrect in 1880. The Lynch verdict was relatively recent and the “second class” Irish population would not have tolerated questioning Arthur’s eligibility based his Irish father’s citizenship status, if it had been openly known. Arthur offered cover for his eligibility by descent in a lie: that an 18 year old William entered the United States to live with a maternal uncle implies that his father William could have been adopted by a citizen uncle and become an minor instantly naturalized.

    [Ed. The Lynch decision was an obscure NY state court decision with absolutely no bearing on federal law. I doubt it was even known to the public at large in any way shape or form. Only lawyers would have known about it. State court decisions do not decide federal law and are not influential at all to a federal court unless that court is applying state law. Who is an nbc is not a state law question and as such the holding in Lynch is not even on point. The nbc statement is simply dicta. Irrelevant.]

  55. rarquette@973kiro.com is the correct email for Mr. Rod Arquette, program manager for KTTH and KIRO in Seattle…

  56. RE: Chester Arthur

    It seems that the Chester Arthur story will not help BHO camp, no matter how they twist it. It is not creating a legal precedent as Leo pointed out. It widens the debate – as the public gets more educated on this related issue, it will be more difficult for the media to ignore it.

  57. Would you care to comment on this?

    http://riseupforamerica.com/

    [Ed. No comment.]

  58. [ ed. said,

    Interesting to note that Bayard uses the word NATIVE as a synonym for NATURAL BORN CITIZEN – he doesn’t say “native born”. This is exactly what Vattell said as well. All NATIVES are native born – but not all of those who are native born are NATURAL BORN NATIVES. Natural born and Native mean born on the soil to parents who are citizens. Native born just means born on the soil.]

    Question, Leo.

    These words in this last paragraph of yours seem to distill the very swirl of confusion for me in the “word-to-concept” transition. I continue to get lost with these guys:

    NATIVE, NATURAL, CITIZEN, and BORN.

    Do these words stand by themselves with any meaning?

    Let’s talk chemistry here, and call these 4 different elements, mixing into compounds. Are they all mixable? Do they behave in similar and expected fashions, or is there one mixture that behaves differently? I see that your blog name is a mixture of the last 3…. can any 3 be mixed in the same way as I’ve asked about the mixing of two? Certainly, all 4 wouldn’t make sense in any kind of arrangement, would they?

    If your response is not “go back and look at prev. posts,” I’d be grateful for some links, or thoughts from other folks.

    Could a sharp mind (and brave soul) out there dare to run a set of terms, and then post their conclusion in the most simple, elemental way. Could we then run some experiments here in the lab, and see what compounds we can come up with, you know, if the world only had these 4 basic elements in it, and every argument was derived from that source.

    Funny, sounds almost like ancient greece, Fire, Wind, Water, …..Earth? Is that right? or is it Air, and not Wind? Is there a difference?

    Anyhow, seems like these 4 (is there more?) words are like a turbulent, spiraling hurricane of unclear ideas and concepts being whipped around, lashed, updrafted out-of-sight, and remixed down again to make it’s way to the eyewall. Do we need to be in the eye of this thing in order to see how the 4 interact with each other, and which word is limiting another word, etc. etc.

    Any takers?

    g. amos

  59. The archive of my show, with guest Leo Donofrio is here.

    “Liberty Pole 8/13/2009”
    http://www.plainsradio.com/810.html

  60. MissTickly Says:

    Leo–If one were to file a UIPA request appeal in circuit court in Hawaii, would you need to appear in court? This is probably a dumb question but I thought maybe they have provisions because they are not on the mainland…

    I can’t find anything on it.

    thanks

    [Ed. Only if you were to put it in the courts on appeal.]

  61. i read where obama is following arthur’s lead. don’t say anything and he is going a good job, but Leo, will this ever be resolved by his impeachment????????????????/

    [Ed. No.]

  62. Big chunk of historical irony: “By [newly sworn in President Arthur’s] direction, the British flag was saluted by the national military and naval forces at the conclusion of the ceremonies.”

    [Ed. Whoa. WTF? Where did you read this?]

    Perhaps here?:

    Genealogical and Family History of the State of Vermont, Volume 2
    edited by Hiram Carleton

    http://books.google.com/books?id=3wjt3eoLPF4C&pg=PA525&lpg=PA525&dq=%22the+British+flag+was+saluted+by+the+national+military%22&source=bl&ots=py3RQMIZFP&sig=PoyQF55xD6Y08ioPSJQHxmMf0QU&hl=en&ei=FTCLStaVH4PAsQPGxMHNDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=%22the%20British%20flag%20was%20saluted%20by%20the%20national%20military%22&f=false

    [Ed. Thanks for the link.]

  63. Joss Brown Says:

    Big chunk of historical irony: “By [newly sworn in President Arthur’s] direction, the British flag was saluted by the national military and naval forces at the conclusion of the ceremonies.”

    [Ed. Whoa. WTF? Where did you read this?]

    It’s in one of the sources I gave above: Hiram Carleton of Montpelier, Genealogical and Family History of the State of Vermont. A Record of the Achievements of Her People in the Making of Commonwealth and the Founding of a Nation, Vol. II, New York/Chicago 1903, p. 524 sq., the one book that includes the personal and presidential history of a person called Chester Abell Arthur. Here’s the full quote… it’s about the aftermath of Garfield’s assassination, after Arthur took office:

    October [10?], 1881, at Yorktown, on the oocasion of the centennial celebration of the surrender of Cornwall[s?], President Arthur delivered an admirable address, in course of which he made grateful acknowledgement of the manner in which the English sovereign and her people had expressed their sorrow and sympathy for the United States in the death of its chief magistrate [Garfield], and, by his direction, the British flag was saluted by the national military and naval forces at the conclusion of the ceremonies.


    [Ed. Seeing it in this context, it appears less weird – but it still leaves one with a creepy feeling knowing what we know about his being born a British subject.]

  64. The Yorktown Celebration.—The -hundredth anniversary of Cornwallis’s surrender (§ 262) was celebrated at Yorktown 1881. But, in order to show the country’s friendship at present for Great Britain, President Arthur ordered that the celebration should end with a general salute to the British flag.
    A history of the United States for schools … By Alexander Johnston , page 395

  65. Another version, this ones better

    http://famousamericans.net/chesteralanarthur/

    The prominent events of President Arthur’s administration, including his most important recommendations to congress, may be here summarized: Shortly after his accession to the presidency he participated in the dedication of the monument erected at Yorktown, Virginia, to commemorate the surrender of Lord Cornwallis at that place, 19 October 1781. Representatives of our French allies and of the German participants were present. At the close of the celebration the president felicitously directed a salute to be fired in honor of the British flag, ” in recognition of the friendly relations so long and so happily subsisting between Great Britain and the United States, in the trust and confidence of peace and good-will between the two countries for all the centuries to come, and especially as a mark of the profound respect entertained by the American people for the illustrious sovereign and gracious lady who sits upon the British throne.”

    [Ed. What about the French and German flag? Did he have them salute those as well?]

  66. A little perspective, Arthur’s 1st State of the Union

    http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/93.html

    [Ed. This is kind of twisted. Chester said this in the address:


    The feeling of good will between our own Government and that of Great Britain was never more marked than at present. In recognition of this pleasing fact I directed, on the occasion of the late centennial celebration at Yorktown, that a salute be given to the British flag….

    The presence at the Yorktown celebration of representatives of the French Republic and descendants of Lafayette and of his gallant compatriots who were our allies in the Revolution has served to strengthen the spirit of good will which has always existed between the two nations.

    Why did Chester Arthur have our troops salute the flag of Great Britain – our enemy in the Revolutionary war, but he did not have them salute the flags of our ally, France?]

  67. [Ed. The Lynch decision was an obscure NY state court decision with absolutely no bearing on federal law. I doubt it was even known to the public at large in any way shape or form. Only lawyers would have known about it. …

    True, and Hinman was a lawyer in New York City. He would have been aware of both Lynch and the Irish feelings about citizenship.

    The latter probably would have been more politically significant if the patrem issue had been raised. The Irish in the U S were very sensitive about US citizenship, wanting naturalization after one year of residence and decrying the idea of “once an Irishman always an Irishman”. The Irish vote was very important to the Republican cause in 1880 and possibly any challenge of his rather well known father’s citizenship status at his birth would have made a full investigation politically impossible or unwise. There could have been other factors that influenced the New York City lawyer such as worries about a possible boycott of his law practice.

    [Ed. Hinman’s request form Bayard is published and it does not mention Chester Arthur. It simply asks for a definition of nbc. ….

    All that Hinman published for us in his pamphlet and thus allowed us to see is part of Hinman’s letter. The “***” is used to imply that there is something else. We have no idea what else Hinman asked Bayard, but can only guess. Perhaps it is the same as his October 1881 letter to Bayard published in the Brooklyn Eagle. I doubt that Hinman was asking Bayard about baseball or cricket. As the Hinman Bayard correspondence apparently no longer exists in any other form than what Hinman and the Brooklyn Eagle chose to publish, we will never know.

    Also interesting is Hinman’s first letter published in the Brooklyn Eagle (August 11, 1880)

    Office of Arthur P. Hinman
    Attorney and Counselor at Law.
    8 Wall Street, New York, August 10, 1880

    To the Editor of the Brooklyn Eagle:

    I have been informed, by good authority, that one William H. Arthur, who was born in the County Antrim, Province of Ulster, Ireland, came to this country about thirty-five years ago and landed in Canada. ….

    1880-35=1845 is the approximate date of William Arthur’s naturalization. Perhaps coincidence, perhaps not.

    [Ed. William Arthur was naturalized in 1843.]

    Who was the “good authority” who contacted Mr. Hinman?

    As more evidence that Hinman was not working for the (Stalwart) Republicans, consider that an A. P. Hinman ran for Judge in NYC as a Republican in 1889 and loses. Hardly spoils for a person successfully fronting for Chester Arthur, a Stalwart.

  68. MissTickly Says:

    Thank you, you are so helpful!

    [Ed. Only if you were to put it in the courts on appeal.]

  69. RE: Joss Brown Says:
    August 18, 2009 at 1:02 pm

    http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/ca21/speeches/ca_1881.htm

    “The feeling of good will between our own Government and that of Great Britain was never more marked than at present. In recognition of this pleasing fact I directed, on the occasion of the late centennial celebration at Yorktown, that a salute be given to the British flag.”
    — Chester Arthur, State of the Union 1881, 6 December 1881

    Never in my military career (USMC) did I salute, nor was I required to salute a foreign flag. There may have been the occasion (when deployed on foreign soil) to stand at attention, in respect for a foreign “colors” or national anthem, but NEVER to salute (show allegiance) it. I was never in my career, put into the position to where the U.N. Blue. I’m curious as to those who have (i.e. 82nd Airborne in the Sinai), what protocol was expected of them during ceremonies involving the U.N. flag…

    [Ed. I seems a drastic action for a President to take. When we now look back on history and see that this president was also born a British subject, questions do and should arise.]

  70. Whistleblower Says:

    Leo,

    A must read! Supreme Court Reporter, Volume 18, October 1897; riight side, page 483

    Born in U.S., but father a foreigner, = NOT a citizen.

    I also found another place in this digest where Justice Story relies on Law of Nations for the citizen rights of a woman.

    [Ed. That is the dissent in Wong Kim Ark.]

  71. g. amos

    The structure is there in Leo’s paragraph. A native does not need the qualifier of “born.” They are already native; i.e., natural born.

    If you are interested, there is a rather agonizing but well cited advocacy attempted by its author in a 1988 Yale Law Review note which I think offers insight into how the contemporary postmodern meme deconstructing the framers otherwise clear intent has operated up to today among the last few generations of lawyers. I find it unlikely Pryor would have strayed far from what she was being taught. You may recognize the foundations of Taranto’s propaganda in that YLR note. I think I did. It popped up at the top the my google search on the topic, so that would likely be the case for those working in for-hire and produced media looking for historical content on the subject.

    http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf

    Also, this was interesting. At the url immediately below, on my screen, the words “Pryor” and “natural-born” are defaced and obscured by yellow overlay. You might see if the same occurs through your view.

  72. NATURAL BORN NATIVES = what?

    [ed. Natural born and Native mean born on the soil to parents who are citizens. Native born just means born on the soil.]

    NtB = Nv = soil & mom & dad.

    But NvB = only soil?

    Will someone please tell me how adding the word “born” to the word “native” means losing your mom and dad.

    I’m smelling fish to high heaven right now.

    Explicame, por favor.

    [Ed. It’s a mistake others have made. I just pointed it out.]

  73. Nope. Correction. Those were indeed search identifier artifacts. When I pasted the url into an entirely new page the yellow overlay disappeared. It didn’t clear on refresh. I should have tested further and caught my error.

    My search terms “natural born yale pryor” yield additional reading.

  74. Found this posted by a commenter July 28, 2009 at the url below:

    “”It’s interesting to note that a year ago, when the NY Times wrote an article regarding McCain’t elibility for the job, they mentioned Jill Pryor’s earlier commentary:

    In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be “unpredictable and unsatisfactory.”

    “If I were on the Supreme Court, I would decide for John McCain,” Ms. Pryor said in a recent interview. “But it is certainly not a frivolous issue.”

    In her article in 1988, Pryor actually sets out the very same THREE categories at issue that I earlier commented on:

    “Despite its. apparent simplicity, the natural-born citizen clause of the Constitution” has never been,completely understood. It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization,” do not.” But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent,” qualifies/as natural born has never been resolved.”

    Once again–the issue is not one which has ever been settled, since 1787, and remains in need either of a clear Congressional diktat, or a Supreme Court decision, or if necessary, a constitutional amendment, making clear once and for all that citizenship bestowed on an individual at birth, regardless of location, qualifies as being “natural born.”

    http://letters.mobile.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/07/28/conservative_birthers/view/index14.html

    That’s the meme in a nutshell. Note what conclusion it presumes.

    Where did that revisionist bias come from?

  75. This was posted by another commenter at the url inserted below:

    “It’s interesting to note that a year ago, when the NY Times wrote an article regarding McCain’t elibility for the job, they mentioned Jill Pryor’s earlier commentary:

    In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be “unpredictable and unsatisfactory.”

    “If I were on the Supreme Court, I would decide for John McCain,” Ms. Pryor said in a recent interview. “But it is certainly not a frivolous issue.”

    In her article in 1988, Pryor actually sets out the very same THREE categories at issue that I earlier commented on:

    “Despite its. apparent simplicity, the natural-born citizen clause of the Constitution” has never been,completely understood. It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization,” do not.” But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent,” qualifies/as natural born has never been resolved.”

    Once again–the issue is not one which has ever been settled, since 1787, and remains in need either of a clear Congressional diktat, or a Supreme Court decision, or if necessary, a constitutional amendment, making clear once and for all that citizenship bestowed on an individual at birth, regardless of location, qualifies as being “natural born.””

    http://letters.mobile.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/07/28/conservative_birthers/view/index14.html

    That’s the normalized meme now operating. Notice the bias in the presumed conclusion?

    That has been taught. Why and by whom is another question.

    That Article II imposes specific POTUS eligibility restrictions on all citizens, naturalized or not, does not seem to exist in the postmodern legal mind.

    [Ed. Be careful. You’re falling for their propaganda here by allowing them to be the sole arbiter of the term “postmodern legal mind”. I think I’m a post modern kind of guy and there are many more who do not buy the propaganda.]

    NBC is but one of those restrictions imposed on each and every American citizen by the framers before the laws of naturalization were written. NBC can therefore not be synonymous with not-naturalized citizen status as it imposes a restriction on same.

    Neither is “has never been resolved” synonymous with “has never been litigated.”

    It was resolved when it was first written and adopted by the framers.

  76. I listened to the section of the show mentioned at https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/ap-issues-chester-arthur-propaganda-to-protect-obama/#comment-9042 in which you were interviewed. You mentioned that you want to keep putting pressure on the James Taranto issue.

    Recently Newscorp chief Rupert Murdoch said he wants to start charging for the use of his news websites. So the rhetorical question to pose to executives with The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones and Newscorp (the global parent company) regarding the Taranto issue is something like this: you’re already disseminating false information that you refuse to correct, and now you want us to pay you to deceive us?

    I suggest that you have your supporters send a single e-mail to all of these management/executive/editor/feedback contacts and press them on that matter, as well as linking to Taranto’s flawed article and your two blog commentaries about the issue.

    teverett@newscorp.com, jhorner@newscorp.com, Howard.Hoffman@DowJones.com, robert.christie@dowjones.com, emily.edmonds@dowjones.com, a.murray@wsj.com, d.bernard@wsj.com, wsjcontact@dowjones.com, newseditors@wsj.com

    Taken from http://www.newscorp.com/management/newscor.html and http://www.newscorp.com/management/DJ.html and http://www.newscorp.com/management/WSJ.html and http://help.wsj.com/contact-us/

  77. Hi Leo,
    Re: Josh Brown’s post on Chester Arthur having the military salute the British flag:
    I was so intrigued by this I had to look it up-this happened during the Centennial celebration at Yorktown on October 19, 1881. Chester Arthur made a point, in his December 6, 1881 State of the Union address, to state that there was much “good will” between the US and Britain and that it was he who directed the salute. Here is a link to his speech (I also found it elsewhere)
    http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/ca21/speeches/ca_1881.htm

    This is fascinating and thanks to you, the country will eventually know the truth…it always prevails.

  78. This is not a new issue, but I just played Leo’s 8/13/2009 interview on Plains Radio and it came up again during the interview:
    Late in December of 2008, Congressman Paul was asked if he would
    challenge the Electoral votes in Congress. Here is his response:
    “If I did that, I would be laughed out of Congress.”

    Can someone explain to me why he would be laughed at by his colleagues?

    There must be some general belief in Congress, that the possibility of the objection provided very clearly by the Constitution and used in the past is a laughable matter?

    Why was it not laughable when the Democrats objected in the Gore-Bush case?

    I could never understand why the GOP did not object. I talked about that at this site before so I don’t want to repeat it. But this is the first time I heard that the objection would be “laughable”.

    This is so strange, especially from the lips of Ron Paul, who even brought a constitutional law suit to SCOTUS some years back. (Of course, SCOTUS said that he had no “Standing”. )

    Have this republic reached the same point that the Republic of Rome did about 2,000 years ago, when the Roman Senate was so corrupt that Julius Caesar had not much problem convincing the plebs that a good dictator was better than the inefficient and corrupt Roman senate?

    The similarities are there. Julius Caesar kept the appearance of the republic, but he controlled everything single-handedly.

    Does Congress now submitting to a dictator?

    As the Constitution is made unenforceable by politically-correct judges, is it nothing more than laughing matter?

    Can someone explain what is going on in the minds of Congress?

    [Ed. That was the exact point I made on the radio. You can’t be laughed out of Congress – only your constituesnts can be voted out. Ron Paul’s people are not going to let him lose his seat. He has always been a contrarian – they call him Dr. No. Why on this issue does the COnstitution not matter anymore to Ron Paul? I lost all respect for him and now see him a a shill like all the rest.]

  79. Since Chester Arthur was born before the adoption of the 14th amendment wouldn’t his citizenship status be governed by the Constitution of the state of Vermont?

    § 66. [Citizenship]

    Every person of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold and transfer land or other real estate; and after one year’s residence shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all rights of a natural born subject of this State, except those privileges, the right to which is herein elsewhere determined, and except also that such person shall not be capable of being elected Treasurer, or Representative in Assembly, until after two years’ residence, nor be eligible to the office of Governor or Lieutenant-Governor until the person shall have resided in this State as required by section 23 of this Constitution.

    § 66. [Citizenship]

    [Ed. Not sure how this plays out between denizens and citizens. But if Chester was born in Vermont then I believe he was a citizen of Vermont and therefore a citizen of the US – not natural born though.]

  80. Unbamboozleus Says:

    Ken Dunbar Says:
    August 18, 2009 at 4:17 pm

    The archive of my show, with guest Leo Donofrio is here.

    “Liberty Pole 8/13/2009″
    http://www.plainsradio.com/810.html

    I tried to listen to this but apparently, since the law suit didn’t work and the cutting of the cable didn’t work, somehow the audio of this has been scrambled such that it was unintelligible.

    Someone posted this the other day and it includes a link to an MP3 file of the broadcast which seems to be fine.

    elbuggo Says:
    August 16, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    Leo Donofrio on Plains Radio with Ken Dunbar at 8:00 PM ET 2009-0813

    Youtube playlist: http://tinyurl.com/pejkd8

    Download edited MP3, 40min, 5.7MB: http://tinyurl.com/lwwr3g – (The link will expire in 7 days)

  81. Joss Brown Says:

    Tobin was a little prophet. He also didn’t touch the British subject issue, but nevertheless the following paragraph foreshadowed Donofrio v. Wells, specifically the part about John McCain:

    But Hinman’s complicated and thoroughly documented hymn of hate will always appear beside the point. The Constitution words the birth requirement “natural born citizen.’* It doesn’t say “native born”. It may well have meant, in spite of partisan opinions on the subject from time to time, precisely what it has come legally to mean when two American citizens have a child on foreign soil that the child is truly an American citizen.

    So, whether (William) Chester Alan Arthur was delivered at the home of his grandparents in Dunham Flats, Quebec, Canada, on or near St Patrick’s Day, 1828, or in Fairfield, Vermont, on October 5, 1830, may not be terribly important, though a case of this sort has never yet been brought to the Supreme Court for final interpretation of the wording of Article II. This fugitive semantic will undoubtedly arise one day when an American child born on foreign soil gets a major party nomination to the Presidency or Vice-Presidency. Arthur’s case is closed and nothing the Supreme Court or anyone else can do will alter the fact that, during his lifetime he was, by the people who had elected him, accepted as President of the United States.

    from: Richard L. Tobin, Decisions of Destiny. Ten Crucial Moments in the American Presidency, Cleveland 1961, p. 122 sq.

    [Ed. very good find.]

  82. “In many countries (such as Japan), being native-born is not sufficient to confer citizenship. For example, Sadaharu Oh is not a Japanese citizen despite being born in Japan and having a Japanese mother”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native-born_citizen

    So BO would not be NBC even in Japan

  83. Joss Brown Says:

    HMTKSteve wrote:

    Since Chester Arthur was born before the adoption of the 14th amendment wouldn’t his citizenship status be governed by the Constitution of the state of Vermont?

    Vermont adopted common law, and I believe that the term natural-born subject of Vermont clearly shows that. So if British law was to some extent the fundament here, it would mean ius soli: You’re born in the territory of Vermont and become a natural-born subject of the state, no matter who your parents are. But that doesn’t mean that he was automatically a natural born citizen of the U.S., simply because Vermont called him “natural-born”. Those are two different concepts. I think Leo once wrote that the common-law definition of natural-born subject roughly equals a born U.S. citizen—whether statutory or constitutional (14A) would then depend on the parent’s status.

    The denizenship is (to my mind) only relevant for William Arthur, because he would have needed Vermont residence one year before his son’s birth to be a denizen in time. But a denizen is not a full subject or citizen. William Arthur still needed to naturalize, so the denizenship issue is in all probability a non-argument.

    I just wonder if the one-year change of Arthur’s year of birth from 1829 to 1830 is in any way connected to his father’s one-year residence requirement until denizenship, or if it has something to do with that alleged Abell conspiracy, or if it was simply done out of vanity, as Reeves purported? (Which I find absolutely unconvincing by the way. Vanity? Just one year? Why not five or even ten years? It doesn’t make sense.)

    But it isn’t the relevant issue anyway. Still, I would love to know the reason.

  84. Joss Brown Says:

    Voco Indubium wrote:

    Have this republic reached the same point that the Republic of Rome did about 2,000 years ago, when the Roman Senate was so corrupt that Julius Caesar had not much problem convincing the plebs that a good dictator was better than the inefficient and corrupt Roman senate?

    The similarities are there. Julius Caesar kept the appearance of the republic, but he controlled everything single-handedly.

    It’s nice to see that people are waking up to the fact that politicians are corrupt. I always tell myself that in Latin the word senatus isn’t that far removed from satanas.😉

    One point of criticism however: You’re flat-out wrong when you say that Julius Caesar kept the “appearance of the Republic”. It was actually his successor Caesar Augustus. Just look up the vast secondary literature. He used the slogan restitutio rei publicae (reinstatement of the Republic) as the propaganda cover to install autocratic monarchic rule. He was a tyrant, ruthless, brutal, murderous. Augustus killed the republic with his principate, not Caesar with his dictatura, which was a completely normal and legal political office, elected and conferred by the senate.

    The “caesarism” of modern times, which dictators like Hitler and especially Mussolini loved so much, was based on Augustus, not Julius Caesar. Just look into Italian history, the Ara Pacis, the march to Rome, which Mussolini copied directly from Augustus etc. pp.

  85. HMTKSteve Says:
    August 19, 2009 at 6:15 am

    “Since Chester Arthur was born before the adoption of the 14th amendment wouldn’t his citizenship status be governed by the Constitution of the state of Vermont?

    § 66. [Citizenship]

    Every person of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold and transfer land or other real estate; and after one year’s residence shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all rights of a natural born subject of this State, except those privileges, the right to which is herein elsewhere determined, and except also that such person shall not be capable of being elected Treasurer, or Representative in Assembly, until after two years’ residence, nor be eligible to the office of Governor or Lieutenant-Governor until the person shall have resided in this State as required by section 23 of this Constitution.

    § 66. [Citizenship]”

    Please provide the date for the version of the Vermont Constitution that you are quoting here.

  86. Attn.: Joss Brown
    RE: Roman history

    The point I was making is that the Roman Senate was so inefficient and corrupt that republic was ripe for a “Change”. Also, when JC controlled just about all the power, the senate fell into flattering and pleasing him everyway they could.

    With regard to legalities according to the traditions of the republic, both Julius and Augustus covered up the obvuius fact that they were at total control, and made gestures such as formally rejecting some of the additional powers and honors the senate wanted to the grant to them. They had so many they really did not need them more.

    There are of course many differences between Julius and his nephew, Augustus, how they handled their power, but the republic practically ended with Julius. It was not functional due to the corrupt senate – that was my main point.

  87. Regarding Ron Paul — https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/ap-issues-chester-arthur-propaganda-to-protect-obama/#comment-9073 — perhaps he was referring to Article I, section 5, clauses 1 and 2:

    “Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members […] Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.”

    [Ed. Making an objection as is allowed by Federal law is in no way disorderly conduct, especially when the objection is to a President who was born British. I would like to express my frustration at this moment. RON PAUL FAILED HIS DUTY. On this he proved himself no maverick to me, just another good soldier for the powers that be.]

    CITED: United States Constitution. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. Accessed August 19, 2009. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html

    Granted, it’s unlikely that he would be expelled for raising concerns over Obama’s eligibility. Maybe he’s just trying to pick his battles; as a *possible* example of that (though it’s somewhat debatable what Paul was intending to say in this clip about his 9/11 beliefs), see this clip from July: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88x6JdfjwCY

    And if he did just simply avoid the issue for fear of embarrassment, I can’t defend that, but I also know that there’s been plenty of times in my own life when I’ve not spoken out on something that I knew I should. We’re imperfect people. There’s actually a lot of us in the Ron Paul movement who are involved in the natural born citizen issue. Anyway, at least Paul takes up fights that hardly anybody else will, and at least I know that he’s not sold out to the bankers; I can’t say that about most members of Congress.

  88. Attn.: Nick

    RE: Ron Paul – https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/ap-issues-chester-arthur-propaganda-to-protect-obama/#comment-9073

    You made the case that Ron Paul was just a little too shy to make the objection, and yes it was a mistake but it was human mistake.

    Before going further I would like to remind you: (United States Code, Title 3 Chapter 1. § 15.) “Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. “

    It is clear as a whistle – how can anyone laugh when a member of Congress follows US Code? No one was laughing when the Democrats objected after the Gore-Bush election debate.

    I am not blaming Ron alone – I used to have a lot of respect for him, before I heard this remark. Other members of Congress probably thought also that it was inappropriate to use the above quoted code.

    There are some strange powers at work in Congress – can not quite explain? Or is it just ordinary pervasive moral corruption?

    You have to admit, that when Ron says something like that, it is more than just human weakness.

  89. […] born citizenship status point to the following passage from the opinion written by Justice Gray[ii]: The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: