Monday, August 17, 2009



U.S. President Chester Arthur


Today the Associated Press issued a story titled

“Obama Birthplace Flap Evokes Arthur Debate”.

The story makes an analogy between the Obama birth certificate issue

and the controversy surrounding Chester Arthur’s birthplace.

The story contains a lie.

It states that Chester Arthur never publicly addressed the issue of Hinman’s allegations

that he was born in Canada.

But Arthur did specifically address these issues in the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper.

However, AP and MSNBC won’t tell you that

because Arthur was caught lying about his parents heritage

in those newspaper interviews.

He was lying to cover up the fact that Hinman was correct –

Chester Arthur was a British subject –

but for a different reason than where he was born.

AP and MSNBC forgot to mention that Chester Arthur’s father

William didn’t become a naturalized citizen of the US until 1843

– 14 years after old Chester was born.

This means that Chester Arthur was not a natural born citizen

since at the time of his birth he was a subject of Great Britain.

These facts as to Chester Arthur’s failure to meet the Constitutional requirement

were first reported at this blog back in December ‘08.

Please see that report,

Historical Breakthrough – Proof: Chester Arthur Concealed He Was A British Subject At Birth.

No main stream media outlet

has reported this historical discovery

and as we can see by the AP piece today,

objective reporting has been replaced by propaganda.

AP reported as follows:

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

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

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

But Arthur did address the issue.

In the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper,

an article interviewing Chester Arthur about Hinman’s accusations

was published on August 13, 1880.

In that article, Chester Arthur defended himself as follows:

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

This was another blatant lie.

His father emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23.

William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 –

when his first child was born in Dunham, Canada

–and March 1824 –

when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont.

The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26.

On August 16, 1880 Chester Arthur told the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper that

at the time of his birth, his father was forty years old.

Another blatant lie.

His father would have been only thirty-three years old when Chester was born.

In that same article he lied that

his father settled in Vermont and reiterated the lie that

William came here at the age of eighteen.

This age discrepancy was exposed in the August 19, 1880 edition

of the Brooklyn Eagle in an article written by Hinman .

It was very convenient for Arthur that Hinman

kept the focus on the extraordinary and false claim

– that Arthur was born abroad –

while the more subtle and true eligibility issue stayed hidden in plain sight.

AP just published a story that said

Arthur never publicly addressed the issue and the stench of a propaganda lie fills the air.

We are treading in very dangerous waters, America.

History is being controlled by lies.

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


by Leo Donofrio

Monday, August 17, 2009



He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
as required by the Constitution.

His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources.

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.


“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

- Leo Rugiens

No comments:

Post a Comment