POTUS Usurper Chester Arthur Forced Military To Salute British Flag.


Back in December, this blog broke the story that former US President Chester Arthur lied – in newspaper interviews with the Brooklyn Eagle – about his parental heritage.  These lies covered up the fact that Chester Arthur, at the time of his birth, was a British Subject due to the fact that his father, William Arthur, was not a US citizen at the time Chester was born.  This fact, had it been discovered back when Chester Arthur was running for Vice President, would have been an impediment to his nomination.

As fate would have it, Chester Arthur became President when Garfield was assassinated by a rabid Chester Arthur supporter.

Recently, there has been attempts in the main stream media (Colbert Report and AP propaganda) to normalize the fact that Chester Arthur served as President while also being a closet British subject.

We shall now examine one very upsetting official action taken by Chester Arthur as President of the US which bears witness to the importance of an accurate historical record for establishing such concepts as motive, allegiance and national sovereignty.



[Footnote 2: Read by the Secretary of State before the people assembled
to celebrate the Yorktown Centennial.]

YORKTOWN, VA., _October 19, 1881_.

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

_It is hereby ordered_, That at the close of the ceremonies
commemorative of the valor and success of our forefathers in their
patriotic struggle for independence the British flag shall be saluted by
the forces of the Army and Navy of the United States now at Yorktown.

The Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy will give orders


By the President:
_Secretary of State_.

That’s incredible.  By Executive Order, the POTUS usurper and closet British subject ordered our military to salute the British flag.  I do not know of any other time in our national history where this happened. Read this part again:

commemorative of the valor and success of our forefathers in their
patriotic struggle for independence the British flag shall be saluted by
the forces of the Army and Navy of the United States now at Yorktown.

Commemorative of our struggle to rid ourselves of the British flag, and in recognition of the blood shed on the field of battle, the usurper forced our military to salute the enemy flag.  This is simply a form of blasphemy against our Constitution and our forefathers.  The act of saluting is an act of allegiance.  Chester Arthur can kiss my arse.

It was demanded of our military that they salute the flag of Great Britain.

There is nothing ceremonial about such an act.  A salute is a salute.  It has power and force.  A salute to the Queen in her silly robes and throne holding a golden scepter is disgusting.  Our military swears an oath to protect the US and its Constitution not the monarchy of Great Britain who our forefathers died on the battlefield trying to save us from.

What were they saving us from?  They were saving us from a future as subjects of a Crown.  They were saving us from being forced to bear loyalty to a monarch who believes there is something in her blood which makes her the rightful ruler of a people.

It is the very concept of royalty that the framers designed this country in opposition to.

The US is a direct creation of men who were determined that Government should fear the citizens.  But when was the last time that happened?  Our Government does not fear the people, but rather strikes fear in the people.

In his state of the Union address on December 6, 1881, Chester Arthur discussed this treasonous act as follows:

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.

Wasn’t this unconstitutional act a diplomatic smack in the face to France, our allies in the revolutionary war?  As long as the usurper was in the mood for a flag saluting free for all, why salute the enemy flag and not the flag of France, a country who saw men killed fighting for our freedoms as opposed to saluting the monarchy which tried to enslave us more than once?

[Thanks to reader Joss Brown who first brought this to my attention.]

Chester Arthur also appointed Justice Horace Gray to the US Supreme Court.  Gray wrote the majority decision in Wong Kim Ark.  That decision seriously damaged the true meaning of the 14th Amendment by subverting the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and thereafter weakening the jurisdiction of the US to prevent abuse of our immigration and naturalization laws.

The decision in Wong Kim Ark at first glance tends to give the appearance of sanitizing Chester Arthur’s citizenship issues.  One cannot help but wonder if Justice Gray was protecting the legality of his SCOTUS appointment.  Such is the everlingering stench of usurpation upon national precedent.

I expect that with these revelations coming at a rather fast pace, internet researchers/bloggers etc. will continue to unearth more relevant facts which bear witness to the true wisdom our forefathers had when they wrote Article 2, Section, 1, Clause 5: the natural born citizen POTUS eligibility requirement.

It comes as no surprise to me that usurper Chester Arthur, a closet British Subject, forced the US military to salute the flag of Great Britain.  Furthermore, his words of respect for the unjust institution of  monarchy – where the subjects are held by law to be lesser creatures than those of the throne – is a blasphemy on the principles of our republican form of Government where we the people own the country and its government.

This very concept –  that the government must answer to we the people – is a blasphemy to monarchy.  Since Chester Arthur was a natural born subject of Great Britain, he was born into blasphemy of our republican form of Government.

US President Barack Obama, Jr. was also a natural born British citizen/subject, a fact he has openly admitted.  I will examine his current status under the monarchy of Great Britain in a forthcoming report.


60 Responses to “POTUS Usurper Chester Arthur Forced Military To Salute British Flag.”

  1. Michael R Says:

    Leo – you are doing yeoman’s work. Thank you! I know we’re getting to the Obama defenders because they are now saying that those who doubt BHO’s NBC status are racist against Hawaiians and also doubt that BHO was even born. They are throwing the kitchen sink at this issue with hopes that the crazy theories deflect attention from the simple issue of what is NBC.

    Thank you! !

  2. Joss Brown Says:

    The French were also indignant, because the German and French flag had been presented together on the President’s boat, and because the descendants of the few German officers, who had aided the Americans, were treated with the same honors as the French at the Yorktown centenary, “to the great indignation of the latter” (Jacques Portes, Fascination and misgivings: the United States in French opinion, 1870–1914, p. 4 with n. 11).

    The coupling of the two flags was seen as a shabby bid for German-American support, and some called it a “wounding character to the celebration”. In this context one article specifically mentions the salute to the British flag, while emphasizing “not the Tricolor” (p. 87 in Laurels, American Society of the French Legion of Honor, Vols. 56–57, 1985).
    [Ed, Excellent research.]

  3. MissTickly Says:

    Wonder what’s in store for us with BHO….citizen of the world…..global socialism….new world order..?

  4. Mitchell Staff Says:

    Gee Leo,

    Kind of like when our current president fawns all over the British and Saudi ‘royals’. The royalty had it good for thousands of years until those pesky patriots started a movement to knock them out of power.

    Now as we begin the 21st century they are trying to make a comeback with a catchy phrase (New World Order) and a brand new tax (carbon). The only thing standing in their way is a few savy patriots who realize our freedoms are vanishing.

    Stand against tyranny now, for they are prying away the foundation blocks of our constitution one at a time.

  5. Personally, I do not believe President Chester Arthur was a usurper.

    [Ed. You are wrong and Arthur knew you were wrong. He had motivation to lie in the Brooklyn Eagle interviews.]

    The Naturalization Act of 1802 accorded citizenship rights in application.

    [Ed. This issue isn’t about Chester Arthur’s citizenship. It’s about whether he was a natural born citizen as is required by A2 S1 C5. One is either nbc at birth or they are not. Chester’s father was not a US citizen so that means Chester was a British Subject at birth. This is not what the framers intended for POTUS.]

    A period of fourteen years in resisdence to comply to the application was required. Upon which the children recieved the right to citizenship also. The family had been in residence in Vermont just after the birth of their first born daughter. See the Vermont Historical Soceity. The Father had attended a law school and became a Minister in Vermont. Fairfield, Vermont is where President Chester Arthur was born. I also doubt their was any alliegence to Great Britian by the family as tories were not welcome and hated by the general public. Then also, The War of 1812. I believe the Father was of the local miltia. Though President Chester Arthur may be considered a Statuetory Natural Born Citizen his service and loyality to this nation is without question. Perhaps this instance of saluting the British Flag in ceremony was done for the current tenoir of this nation’s history and our showing humilaty toward former combatants.

  6. Leo:

    Re your post to James … it’s A2 S1 C5 … early Alzheimer’s??? 🙂

    [Ed. fixed. thanks.]

  7. Great find Leo!!!!

    [Ed. My readers found it first, I just reported it.]

  8. Why are Children being denied their birth right citizenship?

    America is a nation of immigrants. The Constitution its self, was necessarily, first, a ‘Collective Naturalization Act’. With the Constitution’s ratification, at that very moment, the very first effect of the Constitution swept across the entire jurisdiction claimed by the Constitution, conferring American Citizenship to all those to which it applied. ‘Those’ were the citizens of the various thirteen States now join under a new Compact, the previous Confederation being set aside, with each now in common agreement to endeavor within the construction of this Republican Federation of Democratic Representation.

    All first generation Americans were then ‘naturalized’ and all new immigrants since that have met the requirements have been naturalized and received the same grant of citizenship, with all of its rights and privileges, obligations and responsibilities as if part of those of the first generation of citizens.

    That it was understood, perhaps even intended, that this new Nation of the United States of America would be a Nation of immigrants desiring to join a compact that recognized humanities ‘Inalienable Rights’ and offered to protect those Rights equally amongst the citizenry and before the Law seems to be implied early in the first Articles of the Constitution.

    Article I Section VIII Clause IV;
    [T]o establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,…[]

    The First Congress, 1790:

    Chapter III- An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.(a)
    Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for a term of two years, may be admitted to become citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one years year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States; Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed. (a)
    Approved, March 26, 1790

    It is here that is found fault with the ‘uniformity’ of all the legislation and laws since written, enacted, interpreted and understood on the subject.

    It is obvious that the Act recognized the existence of a citizenship to be known as an American ‘natural born citizen’. But a simple omission has caused two centuries of ‘confusion’ as to what a ‘natural born citizen’ is.

    Before identifying the speculated omission it is necessary to identify the source of the ‘idiom’, ‘natural born citizen’. It is to be found in the Constitution at Article II Section I Clause V;

    “No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

    There are competing views as to the source of the ‘idiom’ with the most prominent views being, {1} English Common Law usage in matters of citizenship and naturalization; and {2} Emmrich de Vattel, The Law of Nature and Nations, Book I Chapter XIX § 212. Citizens and natives.

    Entered here first are the English Laws as expressed in commentary by Blackstone. The entire chapter is included here so one may find the tenor of citizenship as expressed by the foremost cited expert of English Common Law. (If you feel compelled to skip portions of the discourse please do not pass the paragraph on Naturalization).

    Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England 1765-1769

    Book the First : Chapter the Tenth : Of People, Whether Aliens, Denizens or Natives


    HAVING, in the eight preceding chapters, treated of perfons as they ftand in the public relations of magiftrates, I now proceed to confider fuch perfons as fall under the denomination of the people. And herein all the inferior and fubordinate magiftrates, treated of in the laft chapter, are included.

    THE firft and moft obvious divifion of the people is into aliens and natural-born fubjects. Natural-born fubjects are fuch as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, fuch as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the fubject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the fubject. The thing itfelf, or fubftantial part of it, is founded in reafon and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic anceftors. Under the feodal fyftem, every owner of lands held them in fubjection to fome fuperior or lord, from whom or whofe anceftors the tenant or vafal had received them: and there was mutual truft or confidence fubfifting between the lord and vafal, that the lord fhould protect the vafal in the enjoyment of the territory he had granted him, and, on the other hand, that the vafal fhould be faithful to the lord and defend him againft all his enemies. This obligation on the part of the vafal was called his fidelitas or fealty; and an oath of fealty was required, by the feodal law, to be taken by all tenants to their landlord, which is couched in almoft the fame terms as our antient oath of allegiancea: except that in the ufual oath of fealty there was frequently a faving or exception of the faith due to a fuperior lord by name, under whom the landlord himfelf was perhaps only a tenant or vafal. But when the acknowlegement was made to the abfolute fuperior himfelf, who was vafal to no man, it was no longer called the oath of fealty, but the oath of allegiance; and therein the tenant fwore to bear faith to his fovereign lord, in oppofition to all men, without any faving or exception: “contra omnes bomines fidelitatem fecitb.” Land held by this exalted fpecies of fealty was called feudum ligium, a liege fee; the vafals bomines ligii, or liege men; and the fovereign their dominus ligius, or liege lord. And when fovereign princes did homage to each other, for lands held under their refpective fovereignties, a diftinction was always made between fimple homage, which was only an acknowlegement of tenurec; and liege homage, which included the fealty before-mentioned, and the fervices confequent upon it.

    BUT, befides thefe exprefs engagements, the law alfo holds that there is an implied, original, and virtual allegiance, owing From every fubject to his fovereign, antecedently to any exprefs promife; and although the fubject never fwore any faith or allegiance in form. For as the king, by the very defcent of the crown, is fully invefted with all the rights and bound to all the duties of fovereignty, before his coronation; fo the fubject is bound to his prince by an intrinfic allegiance, before the fuperinduction of thofe outward bonds of oath, homage, and fealty; which were only inftituted to remind the fubject of this his previous duty, and for the better fecuring it’s performancek. The formal proffeffion therefore, or oath of fubjection, is nothing more than a declaration in words of what was before implied in law.

    ALLEGIANCE, both exprefs and implied, is however fiftinguifhed by the law into forts or fpecies, the one natural, the other local; the former being alfo perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is fuch as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birthm. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themfelves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumftance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legiflaturen. An Englifhman who removes to France, or to China, owes the fame allegiance to the king to England there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now. For it is a principle of univerfal lawo, that the natural-born fubject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by fwearing allegiance to another, put off or difcharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinfic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be devefted without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was firft due.

    From which confiderations fir Matthew Haleq deduces this confequence, that, though there be an ufurper of the crown, yet it is treafon for any fubject, while the ufurper is in full poffeffion of the fovereignty, to practice any thing againft his crown and dig-nity: wherefore, although the true prince regain the fovereignty, yet fuch attempts againft the ufurper (unlefs in defence or aid of the rightful king) have been afterwards punifhed with death;

    When I mention thefe rights of an alien, I muft be underftood of alienfriends only, or fuch whofe countries are in peace with ours; for alien-enemies have no rights, no privileges, unlefs by the king’s fpecial favour, during the time of war.
    WHEN I fay, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this alfo muft be underftood with fome reftrictions. The common law indeed ftood abfolutely fo; with only a very few exceptions: fo that a particular act of parliament became neceffary after the reftorationy, for the naturalization of children of his majefty’s Englifh fubjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two fuch allegiances, or ferve two mafters, at once.

    THE children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally fpeaking, natural-born fubjects, and entitled to all the privileges of fuch. In which the conftitution of France differs from curs; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alienc.

    A DENIZEN is an alien born, but who has obtained ex donatione regis letters patent to make him an Englifh fubject: a high and incommunicable branch of the royal prerogatived. A denizen is in a kind of middle ftate between an alien, and natural-born fubject, and partakes of both of them. He may take lands by purchafe or devife, which an alien may not; but cannot take by inheritancee: for his parent, through whom he muft claim, being an alien had no inheritable blood, and therefore could convey none to the fon. And, upon a like defect of hereditary blood, the iffue of a denizen, born before denization, cannot inherit to him; but his iffue born after, mayf. A denizen is not excufedg from paying the alien’s duty, and fome other mercantile burthens. And no denizen can be of the privy council, or either houfe of parliament, or have any office of truft, civil or military, or be capable of any grant from the crownh.

    NATURALIZATION cannot be performed but by act of parliament: for by this an alien is put in exactly the fame ftate as if he had been born in the king’s ligeance; except only that he is incapable, as well as a denizen, of being a member of the privy council, or parliament, &ci. No bill for naturalization can be received in either houfe of parliament, without fuch difabling claufe in itk. Neither can any perfon be naturalized or reftored in blood, unlefs he hath received the facrament of the Lord’s fupper within one month before the bringing in of the bill; and unlefs the alfo takes the oaths of allegiance and fupremacy in the prefence of the parliamentl.

    THESE are the principal diftinctions between aliens, denizens, and natives: diftinctions, which endeavors have been frequently unfed fince the commencement of this century to lay almoft totally afide, by one general naturalization-act for all foreign proteftants. An attempt which was once carried into execution by the ftatute 7 Ann. c. 5. but this, after three years experience of it, was repealed by the ftatute 10 Ann. c. 5. except one claufe, which was juft now mentioned, for naturalizing the children of Englifh parents born abroad. However, every foreign feaman who in time of war ferves two years on board an Englifh fhip is ipfo facto naturalizedm; and all foreign proteftants, and Jews, upon their refiding feven years in any of the American colonies, without being abfent above two months at a time, are upon taking the oaths naturalized to all intents and purpofes, as if they had been born in this kingdomn; and therefore are admiffible to all fuch privileges, and no other, as proteftants or Jews born in this kingdom are entitled to. What thofe privileges areo, was the fubject of very high debates about the time of the famous Jew-billp; which enabled all Jews to prefer bills of naturalization in parliament, without receiving the facrament, as ordained by ftatute 7 Jac. I. It is not my intention to revive this controverfy again; for the act lived only a few months, and was then repealedq: therefore peace be now to it’s manes.

    Having read the chapter in its entirety several times I do not loose the sense of its offensiveness to the High Ideals of the Constitution and the added Amendments of the Bill of Rights, (and have fully 2/3rds of the Commentary), but let us look to the alternative description of the ‘idiom’;

    Emmrich de Vattel, The Law of Nature and Nations,
    Book I Chapter XIX § 212. Citizens and natives.
    The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives*, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

    As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

    The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.

    The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.

    We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.

    I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

    Although many consider the English Common Law the tenor of the Constitution, I must respectfully demur. In reading Vattel, Hobbs, Locke, Martin Luther, Grotis and even Prufendorf I find more similarities in tenor within the Constitution to these writers of the Age of Enlightenment than to Blackstone and the citations of Opinions from those Courts.

    However I do acknowledge the reasoning of their utility, in that the English Common Law had a body of precedents in a common language built from common experiences and therefore it would only be ‘natural’ for the earliest courts of the new Nation to draw from and rely on such body of works.

    But drawing from an American Supreme Court case that relied heavily on the English Common Laws to reach its opinion, (which I believe wrongly decided and join with the dissent), I find at least one expression with which I can agree;

    “Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.”

    obiter dictum [p668] [p669]
    United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 No. 18 Argued: March 5, 8, 1897 — Decided: March 28, 1898 GRAY, J., Opinion of the Court

    So let us reconcile First the English Law construction with the two mentions of citizens within Article I II and Article IV of the Constitution;

    Article I Section II Clause II
    No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

    Article I Section III Clause III
    3. No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

    Article II Section I Clause V
    5. No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

    Article IV Section II Clause I
    The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.

    With the Ratification of the Constitution ‘Naturalized’ all of the existing Citizens of the various States of the Union of Confederated States into the New Nation now known as the United States of America, Article IV, II, I, and from that we find that those ‘citizens’ that have been citizen for the prescribed period of time may be a Senator and/or Congressmen, Article I Section II Clause II, Article I Section III Clause III and with the ‘Grandfather Clause’ of Article II Section I Clause V exempted that ‘Founding’ generation from the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ requirement.

    In the Blackstone Commentaries you will have noted that there were limited and specific use of Naturalization Law with specific limitations of rights and when applied that Naturalized individual or group would have been considered a Subject of the King from birth, a ‘natural born citizen’, though even still barred from any seat of the various Houses of Government.

    This construction of ‘Naturalization’ excludes the English Common Law from applying to the construction considered by the Founding Generation in that there would have been no need for the ‘exempting grandfather Clause’ of Article II Section I Clause V in that the English Common Law version of Naturalization would have made them retro-actively ‘natural born citizens’, as if so from birth, and then, in a self defeating manner, following the English version, they would be barred from eligibility to the seats of government.

    The conclusion MUST be that the English Common Laws of Citizenship were not the model upon which the Founders relied in the considerations of the contemplated American Citizen.

    Thomas Jefferson recognized the ‘inalienable rights of man’ spoken of in the works of Vattel and other writers of the Age of Enlightenment.

    To apply that concept to the construction of natural born citizen found in Vattel’s Book I Chapter XIX:212 comports with the tenor of the high ideals of the Preamble and objectives of the Constitutional compact establishing the sovereignty of the people, the citizens, over the servant, the government, that serves at their pleasure.

    When reconciling the ‘idiom’ natural born citizen being of two citizen parents to the various legislated laws, Amendments and natural needs of the citizens and government, it is as if it was always the circumstance, construction and understanding of the Founders in that it avoids the whimsy and unnatural conception that a nation can survive with sovereign citizens that are unwashed of alienation of allegiance.

    The immigrant brings with them a history of their homeland, both the good and fond memories and those less so, being, in many cases, meant to be left behind. In time those immigrants obtain citizenship through ‘naturalization’, but unlike the unnatural English construction, those immigrants are left with their history of birth circumstances and those years and memories from which they came with both the good and the bad guiding them in their new citizenship status. It is to be hoped for, and by design intended, that the allegiance to this new citizenship insinuates its-self though out the life, actions and even the memories in such a way that when issue is made that growth of allegiance is imbued to those children granted citizenship by virtue of their birth to citizen parents. As Vattel points out, only time will tell which of the citizenship’s of the parents the child will most honor, it being only natural that the child follows in the steps of the parents.

    Here now then we come to the last question of this discourse that even in its answering will remain unanswered before the law and amongst the ‘sovereign peoples’, veiled behind the passage of time and unspoken understandings so common that the words were left unsaid, left within the volumes from which they were drawn.

    With no definition written in the words of the Constitution, nor explicit references from the Framers as to where to look, (although sufficient circumstantial evidence points to Vattel and other writers of the period), what then would be the legal definition of natural born citizen that would be acceptable, compatible and consistent with its usage within the Constitution?

    With my view and inclination being to most observant readers as being obvious the question must be left to the slow turning wheels of Jurisprudence to carry forth that answer into the discourse of this generation.

    So to the questions arising as to what harm may be caused by the lack of an answer to the Constitutional question. In acknowledging the current circumstance, then what of the children of citizen parents? What of their birthright legacy? Does that lack of definition brings harm or deny heritage to these?

    Does being born into citizenship that requires no more attachment to allegiance than a newly arrived immigrant, or even an illegal immigrant for that matter, provide the necessary foundation for the perpetuation of a Nation? Does Patriotism find the necessary fertile ground in the hearts and minds of such children that the concepts of ‘Duty, Honor, Country’ would hold meaning? In a Nation once known as the ‘melting pot’ of the world now being seen as a hyphenated fractionalized amalgamation of competing special interests owe its occurrence to this lack of historical definition?

    This is the sinister result, whether planned or unintended. If unintended its repair is simple and straightforward. Provide a definition that reinforces the original intent, purpose and meaning that provides each arriving immigrant a goal to obtain and each succeeding generation confirmation of their families attachment to the nation.

    But indications exist that the history has been intentionally misplaced, hidden, glossed over in the high Utopian speak of the ‘We are all citizens of the world’ crowd. In this world view American Citizenship holds no value for the American citizen but must be given by the overwhelming generosity of the American citizen to any and all that come to take it. This convolution relies on the tolerance and generosity that has come to exemplify the American People though out its history making it at once the defender of those in need and the envy of a greedy world.

    Therefore the question is not ‘does the lack of definition cause harm’, but rather the obvious observation, ‘Look what harm the lack of definition has caused’.

  9. Not making excuses fro Arthtur, IMO he was a usurper.
    At the time the America had just lost a President and did not have squat for a Navy. Maybe he was appeasing the British to buy time until we built some ships and were able to defend ourselves. Just a thought.

    [Ed. No.]

  10. I agree with Mitchell Staff that Arthur’s homage to monarchy recalls Obama’s servility to Saudi “royalty.” How demeaning to U.S. citizenry that our Commander-in-Chief has bowed before the Islamic ruler whose country furnished most of the 9-11 mass-murderers. And this current usurper is a superman-figure that has been touted as being super- intelligent.

    This whole fake presidency so ridiculous it would be howlingly funny if it were not so deadly to our form of government. We now have an emperor in the White House who is parading around the world as naked of legitimacy as the day he was born–as a loyal subject of the British crown. Yet our military leaders stand and salute him as if he were a genuine C-in-C. Fie on those uniformed cowards.

  11. Leo, allow me a quibble regarding your statement that “. . . his father, William Arthur, was not a US citizen at the time Chester was born. This fact, had it been discovered back when Chester Arthur was running for Vice President, would have been an impediment to his nomination.”

    At the time of Obama’s nomination it was known that his father was not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born (his own website said so), but Nancy Pelosi did not hesitate to officially certify that he was “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

    [Ed. People weren’t aware of the issue until I brought my law suit on late October. The BC issue covered it up very nicely. As for back in Chester Arthur’s time, Hinman accomplished the same for Chester Arthur. He said lookeee over here while people needed to be looking over there. Regardless, had people known back in 1880 that Chester was a British subject it would have resonated due to the closer proximity of various trouble we had with Great Britain.]

    So I don’t think you can assume that Arthur’s birth status “would have been an impediment” if it had been known.

    Perhaps substituting “could” or “should” for “would” would better represent the case. Personally, I like “should.”

  12. “In February 1882 he nominated Roscoe CONKLING to the vacancy on
    the bench of the Supreme Court, but after that gentleman had been confirmed
    by the Senate he respectfully declined to accept the elevation’

    Looks like he tried getting his “Boss” on SCOTUS to cover himself.

  13. Joss Brown Says:

    At the gutenberg.org-URL you gave above— http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12754/12754-8.txt —, I found this:

    Third annual message by President Chester A[lan?] Arthur to the Congress of the United States, Washington, Dec 4, 1883:

    The fourteenth amendment of the Constitution confers the rights of
    citizenship upon all persons born or naturalized in the United States
    and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It was the special purpose of
    this amendment to insure to members of the colored race the full
    enjoyment of civil and political rights. Certain statutory provisions
    intended to secure the enforcement of those rights have been recently
    declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

    Any legislation whereby Congress may lawfully supplement the guaranties
    which the Constitution affords for the equal enjoyment by all the
    citizens of the United States of every right, privilege, and immunity
    of citizenship will receive my unhesitating approval.

    Don’t know if it means or meant anything, but one year later it suddenly all makes sense.

    From the fourth annual message by Arthur to Congress, Dec 1, 1884:

    Our existing naturalization laws also need revision. Those sections
    relating to persons residing within the limits of the United States
    in 1795 and 1798 have now only a historical interest. Section 2172,
    recognizing the citizenship of the children of naturalized parents, is
    ambiguous in its terms and partly obsolete. There are special provisions
    of law favoring the naturalization of those who serve in the Army or in
    merchant vessels, while no similar privileges are granted those who
    serve in the Navy or the Marine Corps.

    “An uniform rule of naturalization” such as the Constitution
    contemplates should, among other things, clearly define the status
    of persons born within the United States subject to a foreign power
    (section 1992) and of minor children of fathers who have declared
    their intention to become citizens but have failed to perfect their
    naturalization. It might be wise to provide for a central bureau of
    registry, wherein should be filed authenticated transcripts of every
    record of naturalization in the several Federal and State courts, and to
    make provision also for the vacation or cancellation of such record in
    cases where fraud had been practiced upon the court by the applicant
    himself or where he had renounced or forfeited his acquired citizenship.
    A just and uniform law in this respect would strengthen the hands of the
    Government in protecting its citizens abroad and would pave the way for
    the conclusion of treaties of naturalization with foreign countries.

    I repeat: “An uniform rule of naturalization” such as the Constitution
    contemplates should, among other things, clearly define the status
    of persons born within the United States subject to a foreign power
    (section 1992) and of minor children of fathers who have declared
    their intention to become citizens but have failed to perfect their

    [Ed. That is one hell of a fins my friend! Bravo. Here we have proof that Chester Arthur appears to be stating that he was not eligible to be President as this statement was before Wong Kim Ark… how bizarre. Seems that Chester admits here that at best he was himself a naturalized citizen. This breaks the entire issue wide open and makes Arthur’s subsequent appointment of Justice Gray very spooky indeed all things considered. We are uncovering hidden history on the blog every day. Perhaps it is not all in vain after all. Congratulation to the various readers who are indeed doing the work of our sold out press. Well done.]

    Here Arthur was clearly writing about himself, his own problem (“subject to a foreign power”) and his father William (“failed to perfect their naturalization”). Pretty spooky.

  14. Leo,
    Seeing how Arthur ordered his troops to salute a Foreign (not to him) flag, and appointed a SCJ that has affected our sovereignty detrimentally by the scrambling of one constitutional phrase (jurisdiction) in order to protect his ambition and legacy. How could you not be worried by what the present Usurper will do? Granted, just about all of the current politicians are Rats, but the clear lack of allegiance makes me wonder as to what extent he will sell out this country.

    [Ed. I clarified that recently by saying I’m not anymore worried about him than I was about Bush and Clinton… I don’t trust any of them. And while Obama is moving fast on his agenda, I believe anything that appears openly treasonous will have been curtailed by the greater scrutiny we’ve focussed upon him. If Marshal law is planned for example, the chances of it happening under Obama are greatly reduced now IMHO.]

  15. Leo, I read almost all of your writings, and I agree with the majority of it. However, I believe you are stretching the boundaries of indignation by being affronted by the salute of our military to another country’s flag. The salute is historically a sign of respect, and originated between enemy knights. They raised their visors to show each other their eyes, and to show their lack of fear of each other. I have read stories of German and American officers saluting each other after battle during WWII as well.

    Perhaps I show my own bias, being born in the US of two British citizens. I am not a natural-born citizen either, and I can personally understand the conflicting allegiance I feel between the US and GB. I distinctly realize that would not be a good thing for the POTUS, and I can understand the requirement of our Constitition to be a natural born citizen. My son has no such allegiance (he in fact has no real interest in even visiting England), and being born to two US citizens, he has the clear and unconflicting conscience to be President if he so wishes.

    [Ed. The military have no business saluting the monarchy. If it was all in the mood of love as you say then why weren’t troops asked to salute our ally France?]

  16. I just want to strangle the “james” types — was this their talking mantra to confabulate obfuscate conflate citizenship with natural born citizenship? Grr. OR can they possibly be that stupid? Now though, they’ve moved back to the wide-swath “racist” labeling… you should’ve heard Dr. Marc Lamont Hill from Columbia try to say that the “racists” are trying to paint Obama as not having “American-ness” with such righteous disgust that I had to send him Obama’s own admission that he was born British! Blame Obama! He lied, not us.
    I learned Michael Medved is just a communist plant intermixed with conservatives, he’s a lawschool drop out after one year…no wonder he never made sense. He’s the greatest fraud in this greatest country on God’s green Earth. Along with his lie, that I’m trying to force him to respond to, that all 14thers are NBC, he said that all “born citizens” are “natural born”…so that’s probably another new mantra, and what still grates is his lie that the issue was “laughed out of court”…when it never even got IN to court (kind of like how Obama says he won’t pull the plug on granny because he’ll never use the machines in the first place).
    I’m buying Platinum, Warren Buffett says in the NYT that the dollar is doomed to worthless paper. The Zimbabwe bus fare is on 50 million now I hear.

  17. Joss Brown Says:

    Addendum to my post above: Why did Arthur mention section 2172 of the U.S. naturalization law? Was he only concerned with the “ambiguity” of its “terms”? Then he may have been referring to the phrase “if dwelling in the United States”. Or was Arthur concerned with something else? 2172 (at least the 1901 revised statute) also states that minor children born abroad are naturalized by their parent’s naturalization, if the minor child resides in the U.S. at the time of the parent’s naturalization. Was this part of the statute added after Arthur’s time? Could this maybe be a hint that Arthur was indeed born abroad and worried about 2172 because it was not making him a citizen through his father’s naturalization—or was at least “ambiguous”, meaning that it could be interpreted in a way that Arthur was not a US citizen? Hmmm…

  18. Hennie Bogan Says:

    Though I remain totally aligned with you (Leo) and will always be in your debt for the political/Constitutional enlightenment you have provided, I see the gesture of a “salute” as being no more than a formal hello and sign of mutual respect. It in no way is meant to be a sign of subservience. Otherwise when enlisted men salute an officer there would be no need for the officer to return the salute. If this little tidbit about Chester Arthur helps to generate more widespread acknowledgement of the real issues as you (Leo) have so clearly and completely communicated. Then I will use this piece to initiate discussion; ie. “Did you know that Chester Arthur ordered our service members to salute the British flag?” But then again, why would BO bow to the Saudi king?
    Then the discussion about our C-issue of eligibility becomes more natural (no pun intended).

    [Ed. If it’s no big deal, then while he was at it, why didn’t Arthur include in the Executive Order that the troops should also salute the flag of our ally, France. Furthermore, if you can find any reference to our troops ever being forced to salute another country this way, please let me know. I have never heard of this before. I have military readers. If any of them would like to jump in —]

  19. Joss Brown Says:

    A slight error: William Arthur actually did naturalize and didn’t “fail to perfect” it. But Chester Arthur (at the time) was in any case a minor.

  20. A limit on Congress found in Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution.

    No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

  21. Leo,

    Please inform above poster “Harry H” that ALL of US are every bit as cowardly as those in uniform (that he so unjustly cites) and in fact we are Far More So, in my humble opinion. Remarks like his Disgust me!! Demanding “someone else” do what he is afraid to do himself. Yuck!

    Thanks, Leo, for passing this along.

  22. What might happen if the United Kingdom were requested to quit and relinquish “subject status” to one Barack H. Obama Jr., British subject at birth?

    They could not, nor could they deny this status if queried.

    One might also say that the UK citizens may have a reason to pursuit legal action, in that one British subject is being allowed to perpetuate acts against other British subjects by acting in the capacity as a head of state against the interests of the UK(causing injury).

    Does not this usurpation violate natural law among nations in both countries?

    These are hypothetical questions of course, but ones I have not yet seen asked.

    [Ed. These are just more examples of the serious problems this scenario has potential to cause. We don’t want our President having any allegiance to any foreign country in any way. Better to exclude all that do then risk the possibility of foreign invasion from the oval office. This is why they made the nbc clause.]

  23. Whistleblower Says:

    I’ve done a little research on the customs of saluting a foreign flag.

    It would appear that saluting a foreign flag, or even a foreign officer is proper and acceptable if the foreign country is a friendly ally.

    The salute is a sign of respect, not a sign a allegience.

    Salute is short for salutation.

    [Ed. Please show me where your research shows that our military was ever ordered to do this before. Also, what about France? Why was it only the British flag that was ordered to be saluted and not the flag of our ally, France?]

  24. A movement for the truth has begun. Proud of you leo. Patriot – vessel of knowledge. We don’t know when the TRUTH will reign again, but it will. In that I truly believe. 2 Thessalonians 2

    What you are doing is giving the american people the knowledge to RETAKE THEIR COUNTRY BACK as President John Quincy Adams and Samuel Adams stated. My what foresight these founding fathers had. Talk about a true revelation from above. Continue to speak and be the rock that cries out.

  25. Joss Brown Says:

    Leo wrote:

    Seems that Chester admits here that at best he was himself a naturalized citizen.

    [Ed. Please dont use bold print. Thank you.]
    At first I thought that this would only apply if Arthur was actually born abroad. (But as with Obama that’s a conspiracy theory, although the circumstantial evidence in Arthur’s case is more striking.) But we know from later interpretations of section 1992 (which Arthur himself mentioned) that even despite the 14th Amendment the child still followed the father before Wong Kim Ark (see the case of the German Richard Greisser). The 14th Amendment did not apply to Greisser, because he was held not to be subject to US jurisdiction. So with Arthur, who was born even before the Civil Rights Act, it would not have been any different. And so the common opinion about Arthur, that he acquired citizenship of Vermont and automatically became a US citizen, is to my mind false. I think that Arthur was in fact a naturalized citizen through his father’s naturalization (Section 2172). After the discovery of his father’s naturalization certificate—, it’s clear that he knew he wasn’t eligible.

    [Ed. You may be correct. I have not settled the answer in my mind as of yet. He was clearly not nbc though – of that much I am sure and it appears he was also sure.]

  26. Technically, the 14th amendment wasn’t even legally ratified; that’s just one more usurpation of power that resulted from the Civil War. Here’s a few resources explaining this:

    1. David Lawrence. “There is No ‘Fourteenth Amendment’!” U.S. News & World Report. September 27, 1957. Pg. 140 et seq. Compiled by Jon Roland of the Constitution Society. Fourteenth Amendment Law Library. Library originally dated December 24, 2000, last updated February 12, 2006. http://www.constitution.org/14ll/14ll.htm Article reproduced at http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

    2. Thomas J. DiLorenzo. “Truth About the 14th Amendment.” Compiled by Jon Roland of the Constitution Society. Fourteenth Amendment Law Library. Library originally dated December 24, 2000, last updated February 12, 2006. http://www.constitution.org/14ll/14ll.htm Article at http://www.constitution.org/14ll/truth_14th.htm

    3. Thomas E. Woods. The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Regnery Publishing, Inc. January 1, 2004. Pg. 86-90. http://books.google.com/books?id=ltSIOnW6XLsC [[[ Some citation information taken from Amazon.com, Inc.’s entry: The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History (Paperback). “Product Details.” Accessed August 19, 2009. http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-American-History/dp/0895260476 ]]]

    Of course, the hope of getting the government — federal or state — to acknowledge this is pretty much 0%.

  27. Re; Ed – Did He lie to the Brooklyn Eagle or to the accusations of a British columnist. Chester Arthur surely knew his Father’s lifetime and hardships in becoming a citizen of the United States. One being of Irish desent, I doubt their was any love for the British blue-blood aristocrait. To pipe about his Father’s origins, blood is thicker than water. Many families were in the same boat as to their forefather’s being displaced for want of circumstances. Some not at all very friendly. Was he indeed a natural born citizen. I believe he was through naturalization.

    [Ed. Naturalized citizens are not natural born citizens. Read the Constitution. The framers made a clear distinction between citizens and nbc.]

    My Father was born in England. His Father had immigrated to the U.S. in about 1930. When my Grandfather could afford passage for his family, they followed. My Father tried to enlist in all the services at the outbreak of WWII, but was turned away because of his British citizenship. He was then drafted and served with the 509th Ordinence Battalion with General MacArthur. He became a citizen of the U.S. in the Phillipines. I was born at Queens Memorial, New York City. My Mother was born here also in the U.S. Being my Father is only a naturalized citizen before my birth, am I or am I not, a natural born citizen?

    [Ed. If your father was a US citizen before your birth on US soil, then you are a natural born citizen.]

  28. The U.S. military frequently and per regulation, salutes the flags of foreign nations.

    1–11. Foreign national anthems
    During the ceremonies, the performance of a foreign country’s national anthem will be followed without pause by playing the national anthem of the United States. (An exception may be made only when 2 or more foreign national anthems are played in succession; then the U.S. national anthem will be played following the sequence.) The same honors rendered to the national anthem of the United States will be rendered during the playing of the foreign national anthems. The anthems of the United States and other countries will not be incorporated into any musical arrangement, composition, or medley and will be played through without repetition of any part except as required to make both words and music complete. Military personnel in uniform and civilians will render honors during the playing of all
    anthems as prescribed in appendix C. The performance of a territorial song at ceremonies will not be played in place of anthems.
    Army Reg. 600-25 Salutes, Honors, and
    Visits of Courtesy

    [Ed. According to your link, honors and salutes are separate measures. Furthermore, since this particular salute to the British flag required an executive order, it is clear this particular salute was not part of any normal procedure existent at the time. Furthermore, if the salute had been part of a normal respect for foreign dignitaries, then the military would have been required to salute the French flag as well. But they weren’t. This event and the salute were insulting to our allies and to our soldiers and the families of those who died fighting for our freedom from the monarchy.]

  29. Leo,
    In response to Harry H. The Book and story about Obama’s father, I believe, was a Kite flown to see if anyone would call Obama on the fact that his father was not a citizen. When a Constitutionally uneducated public (myself included) did not call him on it, he took it as the next step forward, which was Resolution 511. Taranto made that same argument, that basically the fact that Obama’s father was known not to be a citizen makes Obama 2 a legit. NBC. Very circular logic.

  30. Joss Brown Says:

    I have a question, and it goes as follows: Were Section 1992 of the Revised Statutes and later the 14th Amendment null and void until Wong Kim Ark?

    The argument:

    (1) From Marbury v. Madison (1803) we learn that nothing in the Constitution is intended to be without effect.

    (2) Section 1992 of the Revised Statutes declared those to be citizens born in the US and “not subject to any foreign power”. That was regarded to be “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (John A. Bingham). So according to Bingham citizens under Section 1992 were in fact natural born citizens, although the statute only called them “citizens”.

    (3) The 14th Amendment declared those to be citizens that are born in the US and are subject to US jurisdiction. This was also regarded to be complete US jurisdiction, meaning citizens who owe no allegiance to anybody else (cf. Trumbull/Howard, 1st session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, and 14 Op. U.S. Attorney General 300). So citizens under the 14th Amendment were in fact also natural born citizens, because there is no discernible difference between the interpretations of 14A and Section 1992. That’s also why Greisser was not declared a US citizen. He had foreign allegiance.

    (4) Since the 14th Amendment factually defined natural born citizen, while not explicitly naming it—but section 1992 didn’t either, while still being “declaratory” of natural born citizenship according to Bingham—, then the 14th Amendment violated SCOTUS rule in Marbury v. Madison, because it created redundancy of a constitutional meaning. Therefore parts of the 14th Amendment, namely those declaring born citizenship, were null and void, without effect, or simply “declaratory”.

    (5) Along came Chester Arthur, Justice Gray and US v. Wong Kim Ark. Heavily criticized, Wong Kim Ark extended 14th Amendment citizenship to children of parents with foreign allegiance by redefining what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant. And all of a sudden 14A-citizens meant more than just natural born citizens.

    So my conclusion is that the 14th Amendment only gained constitutional “effect” after Wong Kim Ark, because before that time, 14A-citizens were equivalent to natural born citizens.

    I’m not sure if this is a correct line of argumentation, though, and I’ll be happy for any critique.

    [Ed. Not exactly. Bingham’s quote is not accurate. There is nothing in the Constitution which defines nbc. Bingham’s choice of words there is not technically accurate. He’s giving his opinion of what nbc is, but that opinion is not supported by any definition in the Constitution – none exists there as Minor and WKA have pointed out.]

  31. I follow your page religiously. I have begun to drive others around me nuts with the info you and your readers have uncovered. Most if not all believe we should leave this all alone because he was elected by the people. But, the issue still stands. A person elected or selected for a job that does so fraudulently should and would be fired.
    As for this issue, I may be wrong here, but I believe that the American flag bows before no foreign flag or potentate. When marching into the Olympic stadium at the beginning of the games all country flags are dipped as they pass the reviewing stand. The US flag does not. Little actions like this make us targets all over the world, but then again, where do most people want to come to to experience our freedom and liberty. Soldiers saluting one another on the battlefield is a measure of respect,admiration and compassion of the victor over the defeated. No order was given for this action to occur. Arthur was clearly a usurper just like O’Bama is. The current President’s bowing to foreign rulers and his continual comments that America must be like the rest of the world show that as a learned man he is either completely befuddled or he comes to the Presidency with a Manchurian candidate mentality. I leave it up to each individual to decide.

  32. Robare’s personal attack on me above is misguided and unjust. I did NOT say fie on “those in uniform” in general as he accuses me of doing. Rather, I said fie on those “military leaders” who “salute him [Obama] as if he were a genuine C-in-C.” I stand by that despite Robare’s disgusting lack of intellectual integrity.

    I specifically charge the Joint Chiefs of Staff with cowardly dereliction of duty for their failure to verify that our nation’s military chain-of-command is lawful, starting at the top. The Nuremburg Trials established before the world that military officers are obligated to question orders of doubtful legality. Surely by now the JC know that the lawfulness of Obama’s authority is suspect.

    My God, man, do you want our military leaders to be spineless sheep? As for me, I have expended no small amount of time and energy communicating with my fellow citizens. I can’t claim to have spent much money, but I have also donated some money to Orly Taitz and paid to have flyers made that I posted in university buildings, a courthouse, a civic center, senior center, and other places including law offices. I have also had a letter about Obama’s fraud published in my local newspaper and handled phone calls about my letter, and I have written multiple times to my senators and even senators in other states.

    I am not demanding the top brass take a stand that I myself have not publicly taken and defended, as Robare implies. As I see it, the Joint Chiefs could do this nation a great service and live up to their obligation to support and defend our Constitution by simply requesting that Obama establish as a fact that he is a natural born citizen, as required by the Constitution.

    Is that too much to ask of our big brave generals?

  33. […] Leo Donofrio responds to a recent MSBNC piece on President Chester Arthur, showing where the late President issued an […]

  34. RE; Ed – The question is then because William Arthur being a, “naturalized citizen”, he could not impart his son being a natural born citizen because of the date at which his citizenship was rattified. Even though he recieved all rights of citizenship in petition and the children also, under the age of twenty-one. For some reason even though his children were accorded all rights of citizenship through naturalization, the timing as such is a thin line in the rights accorded to a natural born citizen. Nevertheless, William Arthur’s date seems irrevalent to his childrens rights their being under the age of twenty-one. A childs rights at this time follow suit to the legal guardian, his Father. Hence, it could be argued whether a statutory or a constitutional natural born citizen befitts Chester Arthur. Either way he is a son of the soil and follows his guardians alliegence being a minor in circumstance. Not meaning to rock the boat, I also believe Vattel to be the defining source of the issue as to who is a natural born citizen, but their is still a thin line. Chester Arthur in point.

    [Ed. I did an article last week explaining that Presidential eligibility is not a protected civil right. If it were the 35 years age requirement would not be enforceable. 34 year old US citizens have no more rights than 35 year old citizens, but only 35 year old citizens can be President. The POTUS requirements are not rights – they were meant to exclude many to protect many more.]

  35. Thank you Joss Brown. Yes, Chester Arthur may very well have been describing his personal situation in the last major speech of his term and knowing that he was soon to die. It is also of note that he also addresses one of the major concerns of the Irish who immigrated to the United States and naturalized. The British (and also many Democrats believed) once a subject always a subject, and naturalized Irish-Americans were conscripted by the British when in Ireland and Britain. The children of Irish-Americans would also be considered British subjects by patrem. The need for a treaty to allow naturalized Irish-Americans to be considered fully American wherever they or their children were in the world was passionately desired by Irish-Americans.

    “(section 1992) and of minor children of fathers who have declared
    their intention to become citizens but have failed to perfect their
    naturalization. It might be wise to provide for a central bureau of
    registry, wherein should be filed authenticated transcripts of every
    record of naturalization in the several Federal and State courts, and to
    make provision also for the vacation or cancellation of such record in
    cases where fraud had been practiced upon the court by the applicant
    himself or where he had renounced or forfeited his acquired citizenship.
    A just and uniform law in this respect would strengthen the hands of the
    Government in protecting its citizens abroad and would pave the way for
    the conclusion of treaties of naturalization with foreign countries.

  36. Only a guess but this could also apply.

    In “and of minor children of fathers who have declared
    their intention to become citizens but have failed to perfect their
    naturalization”, Arthur may have been remembering his eldest sister’s case. Regina Arthur was born in Canada to a British father, who failed to complete his formal naturalization months before her 21st birthday. I wonder if she formally naturalized also before she was married, or if she would have been naturalized if William filed the final naturalization papers before her birthday.

  37. This is a little off topic. I have a friend who was born here in the US. His father became a US citizen before he was born,the mother was a Italian citizen at the time of his birth. My friend told me that if he was to go to Italy, that he would be arrested because he hasn’t served in the Italian military. I know my friend wouldn’t be eligible to be US President because a foreign power has claims to him, obviously through his mother being a Italian citizen at the time of his birth. He says he got dual citizenship somehow through his mother. He didn’t realize this until he came back from a trip from Italy. He recieved a letter in the mail from the government of Italy stating that he needs to serve in the Italian military if not, if he ever comes to Italy he would be arrested. Too me a Natural born citizen of the US wouldn’t have this issue?

    I started wondering about Obama and his fathers Kenyan/British citizenship and Obama saying he was governed at birth by the British government. Does anyone know if Kenya has such laws like my friend is dealing with? I am curious why Mr. Obama didn’t go to Kenya for his first trip to Africa.

    [Ed. This is a very interesting line of reasoning. Excellent points are made by the reader. ]

  38. JP-research Says:

    Some Newspaper Reporting From the Past:

    From: The Atlanta Constitution, September 20, 1881
    Who Mr. Arthur Is, Whence He Sprung…
    Gath’s Sketch of President Arthur
    …[William Arthur] was born and educated about Belfast, Ireland, and came to Canada and thence, seeking newer fields and larger congregations, crossed the American line, and while settled a few miles east of St. Albans, Vermont, General Arthur was born in the township of Fairfield.
    Probably his father had to recross the line to preach, and even to reside, after the general’s birth; and this has led to some notion that the vice-president was born in Canada, an idea which I think is to be classed with that of Wilkes Booth being still alive and Mr. Stanton having cut his throat.
    It is not reasonable that a gentleman aware of his disabilities should take the oath as vice-president. Yet it is sometimes hard for men of itinerant clerical parentage, born fifty years ago, to be thoroughly accurate about their birthplace.

    From: The Galveston Daily News, September 24, 1881, page 7
    …Settling the Matter of His Birthplace…
    [From the Chicago Times]
    Chester A. Arthur was born at Fairfield, Franklin country, Vermont, Oct. 5, 1830. So say his biographers, and so says the official record, although other and unofficial authorities have located his birthplace on the other side of the Canada line…

    From: The Democrat, Indiana, Philadelphia, Thursday, February 10, 1881
    The Philadelphia Times, which pretends to be a “Sir Oracle” in all public affairs, fell into a stupid blunder in its issue of Sunday last. It published a sensational story of the discovery by a “New York lawyer” that “Chester A. Arthur was born in Canada of Irish parentage and was not eligible under the Constitution for the office of President or Vice President,” and that therefore “William H. English may be Vice President all the same after March 4.” This is sheer bosh. Mr. English cannot be Vice President, for the very good and sufficient reason that he was not elected. Should it be proven that Mr. Arthur was ineligible, by reason of his foreign birth, the effect will be to simply to leave the office of Vice President vacant; which has happened before in several instances from other causes. In that event the Senate is empowered to elect a President pro tempore; who, as such, fills the Vice President’s place; although it is an error to style him “acting Vice President,” as has been sometimes done, for there is no provision in the Constitution or laws for any such officer. The President pro tem of the Senate must be a Senator, and remains a Senator in or out of the chair. This is all there is in the Time’s speculations as to the Vice Presidency. — Press

  39. Leo,
    Have you ever seen this blog entry and considered the part dealing with
    British Law not necessarily what this blogger theorizes about Obama’s mothers actions near the time of his birth. I had never considered that both his parents could be British citizens and subjects by law, this blogger clearly id’s the real issue as to parentage, not birthplace in January of 2009.
    I have not read every post so sorry if someone previously brought this to your attention.

    [Ed. The argument is that Obama’s mother Stanley was a British citizen/subject after she got married and traveled abroad with her husband, a UKC citizen. I have looked into this but the BNA of 1948 does nto appear to support that position exactly as it is written at the blog you linked to. Under the BNA 1948, Stanley Ann was eligible to be registered as a UKC citizen, but unless she did register there is nothing in the BNA 1948 which automatically makes her a UKC citizen or subject. I don’t see anything there which operates as the US federal statute on derivative citizenship that was in effect between 1855 and 1922 which made every woman who married a US citizen automatically a US citizen upon marriage or upon naturalization of the husband. This is different than the status of Obama, who, under the BNA 1948 was both a UKC citizen automatically and was also eligible to be registered as a citizen.]

  40. What are your thoughts on the new article by Philadelphia Weekly on Attorneys Berg and Taitz (posted on Berg’s website)?


  41. RE Rick:
    “A limit on Congress found in Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution….
    …..And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

    Sir Ted: unconstitutional?

    Her Majesty dubs thee . . . Does Ted Kennedy deserve a knighthood?

  42. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

    It is my understanding that Wong Kim Ark changed the meaning of ‘jurisidction’ as pertains to the 14th amendment in such a way as to make it meaningless. Why would the writers of the amendment even have bothered to add “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” if they wanted the amendment to include all persons born on American soil?

    After WKA the effective reading of the 14th sec 1 went from:

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Didn’t the Slaughterhouse Cases enforce the original intent that the 14th required complete jurisidction and not a temporary one?

    [Ed. WKA is awful. Just a terrible decision. If it weren’t for Obama’s rise, the decision would have been tested and reversed by now. The current SCOTUS knows that anchor babies are not supposed to be US citizens under the 14th Amendment. But to make such a ruling while Obama was coming up would have caused damage to his eligibility. Not that WKA actually makes Obama eligible for POTUS, it does not. But it was easy for many to make it appears as if WKA made Obama eligible until we debunked that decisively here at this blog.]

  43. The Bankroft Treaty between the US and UK was not officialy scrapped until 1980 (Jimmy Carter) even though SCOTUS had found portions of them unconstitutional before that date.

    The Bankroft treaty between the US and UK was in effect at the time of Obama’s birth. Is there anything in said treaty that may be useful in regards to Obama’s birth situation?

  44. On Italian citizenship by descent:

    A West Point graduate who frequently blogs as “HistorianDude” revealed that although he is a natural born citizen, he has Italian citizenship through his Italian citizen grandparents and carries both an American and Italian passports when he travels to Europe. He was not aware of his claim to Italian citizenship until he reached the age of 40 and, although he obtained an Italian passport, he has not been required to serve in the Italian military.

    [Ed. He doesn’t have to serve in the Italian military because he served in the US military. Italian law provides a loophole on that basis.

    Q: Will I have to serve in the Italian Military?
    A: If you have already served in the US military or you are 45 and over you do not have to serve in the Italian Military, if you are older than 26 and under 45 you can avoid military service by filling out some paperwork. If you are 18 to 26 years old you must complete your military service unless you enter Italy as a student. After January 1, 2003 military service may become voluntary check with the officials.
    Check with an attorney for more info.

    That Italian citizenship site also states this:

    Risks of Dual Citizenship

    * There are some risks of dual citizenship worth noting.
    * If you get into trouble in Italy (if entered with an Italian passport) the US can do very little to help.
    * May hinder or jepordize your chances of getting or keeping a security clearence.
    * You may be called for military duties in time of war.
    * Some may call it un patriotic.

    The site spelled clearance wrong, not me. Interesting that none of the above has ever been discussed as to Obama.]

  45. Here find an interesting discourse on ‘Dual Nationality/Citizenship’ that looks at the political, legal and societal aspects;


    Dual Nationality: TR’s “Self-Evident Absurdity”

    David A. Martin
    Warner-Booker Distinguished Professor of International Law and Class of 1963 Research Professor
    University of Virginia School of Law
    Chair Lecture, October 27, 2004

    So far my account parallels the advocacy to be found in most contemporary academic writing on the subject, which warmly embraces dual nationality. But I do part company with the greatest enthusiasts, and I do so for reasons about which Roosevelt felt strongly. Some who embrace dual nationality, like Yasemin Soysal or David Jacobson, see its growing incidence as signaling an end of the nation-state and our passage into a post-national global order. Others treat national membership as simply one among many different affiliations that are to be picked up and dropped entirely at an individual’s option. Peter Spiro characterizes citizenship as simply “equivalent to membership in a… civic organization.” Thomas Franck writes of loyalty as “less like a dollar to be bet on one’s favorite racehorse than a handful of birdseed to be distributed among several feeding stations.”

    Such casualness about national allegiance goes too far. Nation-states are going to remain the globe’s key governance units, at least for many decades to come. Membership in the type of institution that holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence is a far more serious matter than joining the Rotary or choosing your sports team—even if it is the Red Sox. Loyalty to a nation can of course go to extremes. It can foster blind and unthinking obedience. It can descend to chauvinism. But a more measured loyalty, built on a genuine and enduring sense of commitment, is crucial in making democracy work.

    Citizens in democracies have to cultivate a far-from-natural impulse to remain engaged in an ongoing common political enterprise even when their side loses an election or a policy battle. Beneath the bombast, Theodore Roosevelt recognized this core value of national solidarity. That is why he wanted new immigrants to identify so completely with the American polity—and also why he wanted the American polity to be sure to treat them, and all citizens, with justice and dignity. In the realm of citizenship, all members are equal. One citizen, one vote.

    The concept of equal citizenship also gives a strong foundation for bridging ethnic divides and for adopting measures meant to reduce the differences between rich and poor. Equal citizenship can be a foothold for resisting individual retreat into selfishness, for winning the comfortable over to public or private efforts to assist the poor or to contribute, even at some individual cost, to community enterprises.

    Such national loyalty may be even more important today, in the face of trends in many parts of the world that seem likely to heighten ethnic divisions. Michael Ignatieff, in his important book called Blood and Belonging, on the violent dissolution of Yugoslavia, observed that “the only reliable antidote to ethnic nationalism turns out to be civic nationalism, because the only guarantee that ethnic groups will live side by side in peace is shared loyalty to a state strong enough, fair enough, equitable enough, to command their obedience.”

    I line up decidedly with Theodore Roosevelt on the value of such civic solidarity. We should not demean or dismiss it. But national allegiance can be genuine without being one-dimensional. The proper analogy for dual citizenship is not bigamy, but rather the birth of a second child. A good parent extends complete love and devotion to the infant, without diminishing at all the love and devotion felt toward the sibling.

    Citizenship is a key building block in civic nationalism, intimately linked to solidarity and effective democratic engagement. Even in a world that rightly accepts dual nationality on a wider scale, we should, like Roosevelt, foster the sense of reciprocal commitment that national citizenship rightly represents.

  46. Joss Brown wrote:

    The 14th Amendment did not apply to Greisser, because he was held not to be subject to US jurisdiction.

    Greisser was denied a US passport by SOS T. F. Bayard in the Cleveland Administration (which followed the Arthur administration) on the grounds that his German national father was “domiciled” in Germany and thus not under the jurisdiction of the United States at his birth and lived during his minority in Europe, apparently applying for a passport at 21 or 22.

    If you would be interested reading Bayard’s original opinion:


    It is interesting to note that Bayard was a Democrat and Democrats at that time were less “liberal” in their views on who was a citizen.

    It was to Bayard that Hinman appealed twice in connection with the question of Chester Arthur’s citizenship status and that Bayard used “native” as equivalent to “natural born citizen”.

    [Ed. We have no evidence that Hinman raised the issue of Chester Arthur with Bayard. We just don’t have that. People are free to assume that he did and I understand the argument, but the historical record does not at this time show that Hinman mentioned Cester Arthur to Bayard.]

  47. Leo,

    In the rebuttal posted by “Harry H” last night, please permit me to personally apologize to him, and then to strongly assert he has overlooked the following!

    Harry H — I do commend you for taking action. This is a good thing and I stand corrected. However, before you demand our military generals take action you — and all of us — will do well to note the dereliction of duty by the following leaders, so-called, within the American system:

    1) Leaders and all members of BOTH major political parties failed to even question, much less to challenge, Obama’s eligibility during the entire campaign as well as in the year leading up to it.
    2) Then, in April 2008, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a Resolution “granting” John McCain natural born status while not addressing Barack Obama’s far more serious situation. Shame, shame, shame!!
    3) Double-Ditto for America’s entire Main Stream Media. Not only did the MSM not so much as ask A question, they ridiculed all who did. So much for Freedom of the Press.
    4) We the People did nothing over the past couple years to urge, lo to demand, action by either of the above.
    5) The entire U.S. Justice System refused to address this topic, up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court, not just once but numerous times via several lawsuits, and there was solid legal footing in these cases for them to act. They simply took a pass.
    6) Neither our esteemed legal profession nor universities said a word on this very clear LEGAL question. SHAME!
    7) Likewise for the Electoral College and The U.S. Congress when it came to “ratify” the vote. Not a peep from anyone, including then U.S. Vice President, Dick Cheney. SHAME!!
    8 – ) There are others I have overlooked who also failed in their responsibilities, and I invite anyone to add to this list of cowards within America’s, so-called, leadership.

    As you know, all of the above reside within our political system. For 222 years, since 1787 when the Constitution was written, America’s military has carefully remained OUTSIDE our political system, and I thank God, and them, for doing so. But now, in the face of America having ignored every political solution to this violation of Our Constitution, you now want, no you demand, that the military save our collective sorry asses. If any military person were to do so, they would not only risk their personal well-being, their livelihood, but also their freedom via court martial and possible imprisonment. Worst of all, if the military were to act they risk endangering our political system forever more. For then America would be immediately viewed, worldwide, as but another “Banana Republic” and America could well evolve to such, notwithstanding the phenomenal culture within our military that has a deep aversion to any engagement into politics. Again, thank God for their dedication to that crucial, and most unappreciated, principle that our military adheres to.

    This is what’s on the table. This is the huge risk we now face. Therefore, Harry H, I will cut you some slack for you seem to ‘only’ be in the same state of emotional upset that I, and most of Leo’s readers, have been in since Leo first brought this to light last October. In view of your emotional state, I do apologize to you, and I respectfully request you carefully consider some of what I have outlined above.

    The real bottom line here is that we must STOP looking to The Leaders … and others … to solve what can only be addressed by that unique & powerful gift Our Founders gave us, namely America is a government of WE THE PEOPLE. Ours is not a government of “we the leaders”, not a government of “me the monarch”, not “we the royalty”, not “we the Court of St. James”, etc., BUT rather a government “of the people, by the people, for the people” and I too pray “it shall not perish from the Earth.”

    It is well past time “The We” got to work!!

    Thank you for listening to MY emotional outburst.

    Respectfully submitted to all who read this,

  48. naturalborncitizen Says:

    Fukino’s July 27, 2009 press release has been uploaded to this blog


  49. Worth looking at this action. It has lots of material from Leo, Mario Apuzzo, thebirthers.org, and many others.


  50. MissTickly Says:

    “Fukino’s July 27, 2009 press release has been uploaded to this blog


    Thanks Leo–hopefully people will find it handy! I know I have referred to it a thousand times now.

  51. […] It’s very interesting to note that just this week Donofrio uncovered another fact. It appears that Chester Arthur, usurper president, actually forced the American military to salute the British flag! […]

  52. Even before the Declaration of Independence, our founders did not consider themselves “subjects”, but rather citizens.

    Even before the Declaration of Independence, our founders did not end documents with “God Save the King”, but rather “GOD SAVE THE PEOPLE”.

    In Congress, March 16, 1776“.

  53. 4) We the People did nothing over the past couple years to urge, lo to demand, action by either of the above.

    Some of us did. I contacted my Representative and my Senators on multiple occasions. You can see the actual text of a letter I received back from one of my Senators in this post.

  54. Thank you, Robare, for the apology and for reviewing many of the failures within our government that have led us to this point. Let’s try to remember that we are on the same side in what could be described as a battle for the soul of this country. (Pardon the emotion.) Let’s try not to injure each other but keep our sights trained on the enemy forces.

    As Robare makes so clear, the mechanisms that were supposed to maintain constitutional governance have failed. One of my senators wrote back to me recently parroting Harry Reid’s refusal to hear anything more about eligibility. She (my senator) said Obama had released his BC (the Big Lie) and thereby proved that he is a natural born citizen. End of story. Brick wall. No facts or reasoning can reach her–at least none coming from a mere constituent like me.

    I agree with Robare that We the People must get to (or continue to) work in defense of our Constitution. Never mind when the lefties shout “racist” or “looney” or whatever. But what if the courts and Congress continue to ignore our legitimate grievances?

    Forces on the left will not stop with words if this goes to the streets, and I still say the Joint Chiefs–standing together, not as single soldiers–would do this country a great service by acting to preserve the integrity of our nation’s military chain-of-command. Those generals are not obligated to let themselves be commanded by an illegal C-in-C. On the contrary, they are obligated NOT to obey unlawful authority.

    Since our courts and Congress have failed us, the military option would be the cleanest and quickest method of handling this mess now, and it would probably also be the best for Obama and his family, if he agrees to resign and be deported. Otherwise we may face blood in the streets and martial law.

    I believe this is a rational rather than an emotional argument.

  55. [Ed. We have no evidence that Hinman raised the issue of Chester Arthur with Bayard. We just don’t have that. People are free to assume that he did and I understand the argument, but the historical record does not at this time show that Hinman mentioned Cester Arthur to Bayard.]

    The following previously referenced article was a little difficult to find due to OCR mis-interpretation of the original text. Here is the Brooklyn Eagle full text of the reference that I gave you the other day:


    Vol 42 No. 281 Page 4 Column 2

    The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 4 o’clock edition
    Tuesday Evening October 11, 1881

    President Arthur’s Birth Place

    A Curious Document Intended to Revive
    the Discussion of the Question.

    The Eagle has received the document which follows, with a request from
    its author that it should be published and with the statement that it is a
    copy of a letter forwarded to the gentleman to whom it is addressed:

    Brooklyn, N. Y., October 10, 1881
    To Hon. Thomas F. Bayard, President of the Senate of the United States:
    Sir – I, Arthur P. Hinman, a citizen of the United States, residing in the
    State of New York, do hereby charge, on information and belief, that
    one Chester Allan Arthur, now acting as president of the these United
    States, is ineligible under the Constitution of our country to occupy the
    said office, by reason of his foreign birth. As an elector under and in
    conformity with the laws of my country, as expressed in the
    Constitution, I call upon you, in your official capacity and the body over
    which you preside, to take such action in the premises as shall be proper.
    Yours, respectfully, Arthur P. Hinman
    No. 215 Spencer street, Brooklyn, N. Y.

    Mr. Arthur P. Hinman is a lawyer who practices his profession in this
    city and in New York. Among the members of the bar on this side of the
    river, at all events, he does not appear to be widely known, but he is
    known, and nothing is known to his discredit. Mr. Hinman secured a
    great deal of notoriety last Fall by raising the question which he now
    seems to be anxious to revive. In a communication published in the
    Eagle during the Presidential canvass, Mr. Hinman asserted that he had
    reason for believing that Mr. Arthur was not born in the United States,
    and that he was for this reason ineligible to the office for which he was
    then a candidate. It is admitted that Mr. Arthur’s father was born in
    Ireland. If our memory serves us, Mr. Hinman, in his first publication on
    this subject, asserted that Mr. Chester A. Arthur was born on the other
    side of the Atlantic – either in Scotland or in Ireland, and before his
    parents came to this country. When the discussion of the question
    assumed such prominence that Mr. Arthur felt justified in participating
    in it, he met the case squarely by saying that his father was born in
    Ireland, reached this country when he was about eighteen years of age,
    entered in the ministry of the Baptist Church, married here, to a lady
    who had never been on the other side of the Atlantic, settled in Canada
    for a while, had four children there – all girls – moved over to a village
    in Vermont, where he (Chester A.) was born about a year after his
    parents went there, as could be testified to by many people still living,
    who remembered a circumstance so notable in a country village as the
    birth of a son in the family of the parson. This plain statement virtually
    closed the discussion, unless Mr. Hinman had some proof to strengthen
    his side of the case. We have not seen or heard of any such proofs since.
    We do not see how the question of President Arthur’s birthplace can
    now come to be of any public concern. The time for raising the
    ineligibility issue would seem to have passed by, if it ever existed. It has
    indeed been rumored that no less a person than Secretary Blaine
    followed up this investigation, while Mr. Garfield was still living. With
    what result is not known. It would be a question of public concern if any
    man in Mr. Blaine’s position had facts in his possession which might
    give him a secret power over the President, for then there would be a
    question as to who is President, apart altogether from the settlement of
    the birthplace of President Arthur. It seems to us there is nothing Mr.
    Hinman’s case. He has either said too little or a great deal too much.

    I have done what I can to determine if Hinman truly was a “Presidential” elector and have not be able to find him in the elector lists of the Republican or either Democratic faction. He may have been an elector for the the Greenbacks or some other third party, or he may have misused the term.

    [Ed. Thanks for posting that. I hadn’t seen that. But once again, the issue of William Arthur’s date of naturalization was not discussed as I’ve said all along. It wasn’t discussed until last year. Nobody has brought forth anything to counter what I’ve said. The place of birth issue covered it all up quite nicely.]

  56. Leo,

    Attn: Harry H.

    Harry, I greatly appreciate your gentlemanly and well-formulated reply. (I just now, at 11:55 p.m., read it; I may have time to write more tomorrow before leaving town, and my PC, for the weekend.)

    In short, I share Harry’s view that, perhaps, the military is our best, most expeditous and only viable avenue to demand restoration of the chain-of-command, but there are risks as I noted earlier. It’s deplorable that all other Constitutional checks on power (political, Congressional, Judicial, media/free-press, various professional organizations, et. al.) have all abdicated leaving only this path. (To be clear, and I feel certain Harry shares my view, this “military path” would be ONLY the exercise of their political power, nothing more.)

    Time is fast running out, and to do nothing will be disasterous!


  57. Last year Dubya had the Marine Color Guard carry, present and salute the Vatican Flag when the troll came over to declare victory over the USA in April last year; and at which time the troll announced Mary/Isis/Mithra the mother ruler over all of us and ready to chastise us all – eg we have BHO as our punishment measured out by the troll and his Jesuit army ensconced in Washington and the BHO / Bush IV NWO team.

  58. RE: Orly’s recent interview on a Prime time TV in Israel

    If you excuse a comment off the subject:

    Orly was called saboteur, agent provocateur and some other undeserved names. She very definitely states here that the nbc is the governing issue not the Birther issue.

  59. Sunnstarr Says:

    Cross-reference the ‘Orly Taitz’ document with the ‘Lucas Smith’ birth certificate (See below.) and just wait for the experts in document forensics to speak.

    Make sure you are looking at the actual ‘original images released’. There are many people on the Internet playing games with these images. Ultimately, analysis of these documents will be performed on the actual paper originals and not photographs or scans.

    Take a look at the latest Youtube video released on August 22, 2009:

    If you follow enough of these websites, you’ll keep coming across the same names – people that are apparently on Obama’s or Acorn’s payroll that do nothing all day but spread disinformation.

    Seek out the truth! Under this mountain of deception and corruption lies the heart of clever Muslim using ‘Taquiya’ Trojan horse tactics and trying to run out the clock.

    The American people’s good nature and generosity of heart has been used against them – Just as predicted by a Russian leader so long ago.

    It’s not too late to take our country back. Stay positive. God bless America.

    [Ed. They will keep looking for Bigfoot because little nbc isn’t all that sexy. People want Bigfoot. That’s the culture we live in.]

  60. R.I.P. NBCs Says:

    We will see a repeat of history with Obama on the 20th of September when Joe McCarthy’s worst nightmare is realized in the Red Communist Chinese Flag is hoisted up a flag pole on the South Lawn of the White House.The propaganda machine of the state-controlled mainstream media is so complete that there is little reporting of this coming event,and not much outrage.Yet,for all the groundwork laid by the previous wannabe dictators we are seeing the fulfillment of the dangerous historical precedent of a non-nbc president in Obama.Technically,one could say –as you are –that there was no legal precedent,but that is a moot point at this time in history.For the people nowadays with all the internet and mass communications at our fingertips.the dumbed down masses are almost as much in the dark as the people were in Arthur’s time.In reality,more so,because the lies are being exposed and corrected with Obama,and yet there is silence over his controversial eligbility status in the courts,and rank dismissal in the media.The truth is being buried in a different manner than with Arthur,but the end result is the same.Does this secretive president concern me more than the past treasonous presidents? Absolutely!A resounding Yes!.The others were out in the open with their lies.They put it in our face and were not forced out of office by the people.This president along with the conspirators that have always been with us,and the rigged system that has been in place almost since our inception,has completely reversed all truth in a satanic and Orwellian manner.Transparency means concealment.Posting true records in the public domain actually means the false records are out there.The MSM telling us the constiutionalists are the low level terorists to be eradicated in the coming months actually means the true patriots are to be exterminated.Do I fear a future dictator in the vein of a Kin il or Osama?I must utter a negative imperative—– NO!!!! I see it here and now with Obama. Let’s put aside all pretense,and damning unconstitutional policies and look at two things that show us we have a Chairman Maobama aka Hitler aka Gengis Khan aka Marx aka “fill in the blank” in our midst : 1. Czars 2. THe Red Communist Chinese Flag flying on the White House lawn on September 20th,2009—- a day that will live in infamy,and cause the late and honorable Joe McCarthy to turn over in his grave,and our deceased founding fathers to beseech the Lord Jesus Christ to return to earth as King of Kings and Lord of Lords to destroy the Satan,the Antichrist and False Prophet,and all enemies of the Lord!!! The spinmeisters and wordsmiths could fool the Americans that draped themselves in the flag with the PATROT Acts because the masses did not want to believe that our government could kill its’ own people on 9-11,which sparked the end of this nation and signaled the point of no return towards a New World Order devoid of national sovereignty and freedom for the masses.The boogieman of Arab terrorists was believed and a perpetual war for perpetual peace on an abstarct idea–terrorism– began and willl end at the Parousia and Armageddon.But what we are seeing now is in our faces.The facade is no longer there.Czars and a Commie flag on the White House lawn in less than a year into this administartion and no revoultion?A strong delusion is sweeping the lan and across the globe.Perhaps this comment belongs under the “Dangerous Precedent set by Obama” article,but I think not.The news of the Red Chinese boldly flying their flag on our White House lawn shows us the similarities between the two usurpers,of which there a re many similarities and parallels that could be drawn to illustrate the precedence set by Arthur has indeed been fulfilled in Obama.The nation might not exist in 8 Years? Pleasssseee.It won’t last another year.China holds much of our debt,and Clinton went over there earlier this year to sign over our land to them.Of course,the elite bankers own it all.Chin and Russia and are tools to bring us down.Same with the jihadists.THe wars are contrived,but the anger and reality of having foreing and domestic enemies are all too real.Sorry Jong and Bin Laden,your sons and daughters will not rule America—Chaiman Maobama has been chosen for that Antichrist role,and is fulfilling it.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: