Breaking News: Judge Doesn't Rule, Secretary of State Doesn't Agree - Obama NOT off

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
Chester A Arthur's Dad was born in Ireland.

And he was a Republican.

Very true.

While running for office in 1880, Chester Arthur lied to newspaper reporters about his family history (and later burned most of his family records), thereby concealing the fact that, when he was born, his father (William Arthur) was British subject, not a U.S. citizen (Historical Breakthrough - Chester Arthur).

people.mags.net...

Sounds like Chester Arthur KNEW he wasn't technically eligible, hence lying and burning records.

By the way, that link is a fascinating read.

Here's one more thing to consider from that link:

Since President Obama acquired foreign nationality (in addition to U.S. citizenship) at birth, his "natural born citizen" status is in doubt [07]. This doubt is not based on the imaginings of tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists on the lunatic fringe of society. This doubt comes from what the Supreme Court has said, as well as a variety of other historical and legal sources which are presented and discussed here.

And now I am done. Agree or not---fine. I don't have anything else to say on the issue, however. If you want to delve into the question more thoroughly, check out the link.

reply to post by IFeelForty


No they don't. They don't even vaguely have grounds for it.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
Chester A Arthur's Dad was born in Ireland.

And he was a Republican.

It wasn't a secret and was not in anyway seen as controversial.

Birtherism is political propaganda. Nothing more.

Your allegation that Arthur's eligibility was not controversial is incorrect.

reply to post by METACOMET


It is NOT.

At least, at the time no one claimed he was not a natural born citizen because his dad was Irish. People on the opposite side of the aisle did briefly claim he was born in Canada though.

Two separate issues, only one of which is related to this.

Originally posted by METACOMET

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
Chester A Arthur's Dad was born in Ireland.

And he was a Republican.

It wasn't a secret and was not in anyway seen as controversial.

Birtherism is political propaganda. Nothing more.

Your allegation that Arthur's eligibility was not controversial is incorrect.

His eligibility was only controversial because someone tried to prove Chester Arthur was born in Canada. There was no secret that his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, and this fact was NOT the controversial part.

To me Obama is a disaster..

He has failed miserably ...

With that being said .. surely he isn't American ... which would be one more thing he has screwed up.

And to those saying his BC doesn't matter... your ignorance in denial.

reply to post by LeoStarchild


No one is saying anything like what you're trying to say...

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


That link is PURE BS.

The Supreme court has NEVER said that being a dual citizen takes away your rights as a natural born citizen AND most of the much spread by Democrats about Arthur at the time was false. It was a factless political smear, which has hilariously been unearthed by Republicans to justify their insane paranoia.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic

State one legitimate reason for impeachment.... Legitimate not some racist birther tea bagger crap.

See that's the problem.

They can't, so they keep crying about the same idiotic things over and over.

RP doesn't have a chance in hell, but who really wants Newt or Mitt as president? They are both complete tools.

So as a way to get some kind of satisfaction out of this process, they go back to the samr tired old disproven arguments.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
Chester A Arthur's Dad was born in Ireland.

And he was a Republican.

Very true.

While running for office in 1880, Chester Arthur lied to newspaper reporters about his family history (and later burned most of his family records), thereby concealing the fact that, when he was born, his father (William Arthur) was British subject, not a U.S. citizen (Historical Breakthrough - Chester Arthur).

people.mags.net...

Sounds like Chester Arthur KNEW he wasn't technically eligible, hence lying and burning records.

By the way, that link is a fascinating read.

Here's one more thing to consider from that link:

Since President Obama acquired foreign nationality (in addition to U.S. citizenship) at birth, his "natural born citizen" status is in doubt [07]. This doubt is not based on the imaginings of tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists on the lunatic fringe of society. This doubt comes from what the Supreme Court has said, as well as a variety of other historical and legal sources which are presented and discussed here.

And now I am done. Agree or not---fine. I don't have anything else to say on the issue, however. If you want to delve into the question more thoroughly, check out the link.

edit on 27-1-2012 by GeorgiaGirl because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-1-2012 by GeorgiaGirl because: (no reason given)

Well, I have a link that says your link is FALSE.

www.obamaconspiracy.org...

You see, we can infer that Arthur’s fiercest critic, A. P. Hinman knew Arthur’s father was naturalized after Arthur was born. He shows it in his own book. And certainly the Donofrio allegation that Hinman was so utterly confused by the Canadian birth issue that he didn’t think of the naturalization of Arthur’s father is completely ruled out by the contents of the preceding letter.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


Your right ... im saying what should be said.

Your saying that the BC is a non issue ... which is incorrect. It is an issue. He did not show up for court ... which any normal american would be thrown in jail following a warrant.

Is this true?

reply to post by kaylaluv


I read your source and found this comment interesting

If in fact it were widely known that Arthur was not a NBC (which your paucity of “examples” certainly do not demonstrate) then perhaps he was not as anti-American as the current office holder appears to be and no one pursued the issue (the author Hinman seems to have not pursued the matter at the time perhaps illustrating that some of your “examples” were also a bit off-kilter as your second example).

In any event, Arthur’s father did not become naturalized until Arthur (seemingly born in VT to one US citizen parent and the other not – much as with Onama) was approximately 14 – clearly showing him to not be a NBC and Arthur destroyed almost all of his papers and records no doubt to prevent anyone from unearthing that information (which has only recently surfaced).

Regardless, basing the Presidency upon a fraud (as Arthur did) does not set a valid precedent for Obama – and your “research” shows nothing like widespread knowledge (in fact, none at all) of the fact. Why do you pretend otherwise? Can you not accept the fact that Obama is most likely ineligible under the Constitution to be the President??

And the saga continues...

This thread is just as bad as the other one, no the judge has not ruled against Obama standing at the next election in Georgia, but has NOT ruled in favour of him either...

The fact is, charges were levied against Obama, and a subpoena issued, which Obama ignored, therefore he presented NO defence against the charges put forward, the judge has retired stating he will give a Judgement at a later date, allegedly the 6th of February, and the Secretary of State for Georgia has said he WILL follow what ever that judgement will be.

The fact that Obama failed to show, puts the judge in a position where he more or less HAS to accept the charges laid due to no defence given, a case on non contestation, and before all of you think he wont, do remember, Obama was refused when asking for a dismissal of this case and a subpoena issued, the judge felt the case had merit in the first place and a right to be heard.

The blog linked in the other thread, did not state the ruling had been given, what it did state was that the author had been informed by someone at the courthouse that the judge WAS going to rule in favour of the charges laid, but all of the attorneys still wanted a summery hearing so the evidence was placed before the court and therefore recorded within the legal framework.

no side can fully claim victory until that judgement is given, but I will say now, it does not look like it will go in favour of Obama

As long as you are born in USA, you are entitled to the right of citizenship, even if both parents are foreigners, as had been for centuries till CURRENT laws, which are not RETROACTIVE, seek to limit it due to belief in curbing immigration.

For the Constitution Fundamentalists whom use the sacred Constitution as a means to achieve their hideous political agenda of denying citizenship rights to an elected official by the nation, I only ask of these:-

1. Were the founding fathers natural born citizens, or naturalized citizens of USA in 1776?

2. When the noble Constitution was created, was its purpose to make America strong, with more humankind participation from around the world, or exclusive, keeping America to 13 States in the Union only?

3. Is the mother of the President an american citizen, guaranteed of full rights as citizenship entails?

It is only comprehensible that this being an election year, all kinds of characters will spring forth from the shadows, with attempts to sway not only the truths, but perceptions as well. Part and parcel of the political gamesmanship I suppose.

But may those unsavory characters not push it to BRINKSMANSHIP, such as those spreading half truths and lies in world events, or only chaos and deep violence will result, with innocents hurt and harmed.

Originally posted by relocator
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

I read your source and found this comment interesting

If in fact it were widely known that Arthur was not a NBC (which your paucity of “examples” certainly do not demonstrate) then perhaps he was not as anti-American as the current office holder appears to be and no one pursued the issue (the author Hinman seems to have not pursued the matter at the time perhaps illustrating that some of your “examples” were also a bit off-kilter as your second example).

In any event, Arthur’s father did not become naturalized until Arthur (seemingly born in VT to one US citizen parent and the other not – much as with Onama) was approximately 14 – clearly showing him to not be a NBC and Arthur destroyed almost all of his papers and records no doubt to prevent anyone from unearthing that information (which has only recently surfaced).

Regardless, basing the Presidency upon a fraud (as Arthur did) does not set a valid precedent for Obama – and your “research” shows nothing like widespread knowledge (in fact, none at all) of the fact. Why do you pretend otherwise? Can you not accept the fact that Obama is most likely ineligible under the Constitution to be the President??

And the saga continues...

Yes, and I think the author responded quite well to this person's comment:

What you didn’t know, I suppose, is that Hinman published his book in 1884 to prevent Arthur’s re-election. My third citation clearly shows Hinman was aware of the naturalization status of Arthur’s father, but he makes nothing of it. The real secret of the Arthur presidency, which Arthur did keep well, was that he was dying, and this is why he didn’t seek a third term.

Your point about Arthur’s burning his papers (which he did) is laughable. His father’s naturalization was a public record, and they didn’t have photocopies. What relevant document do you imagine that he burned? The point of the last two examples, and the complete and utter lack of any public outcry, and Arthur’s fiercest opponent hell bent on preventing his re-election making nothing of the information he had, all points to the obvious conclusion that no one thought that Arthur’s father’s immigration status meant anything. And if further proof were needed, then let me leave you with this comment from Vice Chancellor Sandford of the Supreme Court of Arthur’s own State of New York:

After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice-chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Well then finish reading all the way down the page....

You may find it “laughable” when you say Arthur “burned his papers” (BTW I did not say that but did say he “destroyed” them so please don’t misquote me), but I believe it is no more “laughable” that one running for, or achieving, high public office do such a thing than for such a person to hide the vital statistics of his birth as well as various school records, etc. from the public – as the current President has done; that’s certainly “laughable” (sad, more to the point).

You – and the other “O-borters” that chime in seem to believe that such a technique is just fine since it fits with what your political opinions are at present. Let’s see, however, how your opinions alter when various disasters clearly at the feet of the present President take place … or perhaps you folks really DO think the guy is the messiah?

Keep in mind that almost all of your “arguments” and “opinions” along the psuedo-legalistic lines (or perhaps you are an attorney in active practice) will most likely be inadmissible arguments when SCOTUS finally hears things on the merits – but in view of your quaint theories, I’m sure you won’t believe that either.

In any event I note that you additionally throw up yet another red herring with the opinion of a NY court officer in attempting to backstop your various claims. That court officer can not (also) change the Constitution by his personal opinion which is no better than that of Ted Olson when he tried to opine similarly in SR 511 recetly.

The only “nonsense” in the current eligibility issue that I can see is that the O-borters continue to blindly offer up their opinions and trying to project them as the equivalent of SCOTUS rulings when really all that needs to be done is for you to join with the birthers to get to the bottom of this entire nonsense. Let’s all insist that a jury trial of Quo Warranto be instituted under the laws of this country, the single finding of fact by the jury as to what the President’s vital birth statistics might be and, from that, a judicial ruling by the court on the NBC ruling. Any such rsesult (regardless of of the outcome) should be automatically appealed to SCOTUS for review and ruling for posterity as to the eligibility/NBC issue and meaning.

That way we can ALL stop wasting our time and punishing the keyboards with all the birther/Oborter nonsense. Perhaps you do not have another life. I do.

reply to post by applesthateatpeople


Umm there is no good alternative. All the republican candiates are loons. I would rather have an ok demcratic president then a right wing nut job for president. Remember George W?

Originally posted by relocator
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Well then finish reading all the way down the page....

Yes, it does go back and forth. You can tell which comments are by the birthers by their immature middle-school name calling ("O-borters"). None of their comments are very persuasive - same as on this site.

reply to post by dreamseeker


George W? Yes, his presidency is probably the single most contributing factor to the current state of the country. See my signature.

reply to post by kaylaluv


..." None of their comments are very persuasive - same as on this site"

Yeah tell me about it. Oh wait... I'm bad...you already did: "Well, I have a link that says your link is FALSE."