It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
...Obama is the only president or even presidential hopeful who has not been open and transparent about his roots...
Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage. President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843. But Chester Arthur was born in 1829. Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.
He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it.
We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Chester Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year.
How ironic that the allegations started by Arthur Hinman in his pamphlet entitled, “How A British Subject Became President”, have turned out to be true…but not for the reason Hinman suggested.
Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada as a British subject. It was bunk. It’s been definitively established that Chester Arthur was born in Vermont. But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old.
That means Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth.
Chester Arthur’s lies came during his Vice Presidential campaign in 1880. His fraudulent attempt to obfuscate family history provides context and evidence that in 1880 it was recognized that having been born as a British citizen would make one ineligible to be President or VP. His falsification of family history indicates he was aware of POTUS ineligibility.
We can't find Obama's papers either.
It was a necessary work since old Chester Arthur was a very wily protector of his strange history. He burned all of his papers. (See page 2365.)
Chester Arthur had something to hide.
He had all of his papers burned which was very odd for a President.
Arthur lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s age plus where and when he got off the boat from Ireland. By obscuring his parents’ personal history he curtailed the possibility that anybody might discover he was born many years before his father had naturalized.
Originally posted by ChaosComplex
This is the most obvious case of deception from the friggin government.
If Obama was born in the US, then he would have no issue providing the birth certificate. Plain and simple. If he was not born here, he should not be our president, according to our own rules for the position.
I don't get why people are still questioning any aspect of the current government. There are so many things that don't line up whatsoever.
OPEN YOUR EYE'S ALREADY...
We can't do anything by sitting around and bitching, or even by protesting. The only way to fix this problem is to attack it head on.
(Mar. 30, 2011) — The following letter will be sent to Mr. Roger Ailes, President of Fox News Channel and Chairman of Fox Television Stations Group:
March 30, 2011
Mr. Roger Ailes President
Fox News Channel
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
Dear Mr. Ailes:
Despite your leadership of the “profit engine” of News Corporation owned by Rupert Murdoch and a recipient of $23,000,000 in salary and bonuses last year, you have failed the American public by refusing to report the questions regarding the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States. (snip)
His colour or race isnt the issue, but what is with the name?? It's almost like it is slamming it in the face of the US people and population?? Can you really call it as a coincidence?
Originally posted by Puck 22
reply to post by JR MacBeth
This is not relevant to the question. I asked about transparency and/or an attempt to conceal birth records. Did Eisenhower attempt to hide the fact he had no birth certificate. Did he hire lawyers to ward off those asking to see it?
You are answering a question I did not ask. Now try answering the one I did. Did Eisenhower try to hide the facts surrounding his birth certificate?
I think it's possible that Trump IS being backed - auditioned? - by the Bilderbergers et al as a potential new puppet. Surely he knows the inside story...no?
He he! Well, actually "they" would have to find one who can lick boots....we keep being duped into thinking these candidates are selected by ourselves, and voted in by ourselves. Not so. Not from what I can tell.