The Liar Who Became President ….

Once upon a time there was a politically ambitious man who told many lies about himself and his family. We shall call him Mr. X. During one of his early political campaigns a political enemy circulated rumors that Mr. X was born in a foreign country and therefore ineligible for high elective office. Mr. X denied the charge saying his father was a British subject but that he (X) was born here.

Mr. X claimed that his mother had always lived in the U.S. which was untrue as she had lived in another country with her husband and had (a child) there. Mr. X realized early on that he was not a “natural born citizen” because he knew that he was born before his father was naturalized. X told lie upon lie about his father’s age, the year the father came to America, even his own age; and he destroyed most of his papers all in the effort to conceal the fact that he was ineligible for high office. Who is Mr. X?

As strange as this may sound, we are not discussing Barack Obama here. Mr. X is Chester A. Arthur, the 21st President of the United States who succeeded to the Presidency upon the assassination of President James Garfield. Due to the diligent research of Leo C. Donofrio with the assistance of Arthur biographer Greg Dehler we learn that Chester A. Arthur was a usurper, never eligible for POTUS. Talk about an amazing confluence of events: just as we are ready to install the ineligible Barack Obama as POTUS we learn that this has happened before. As Donofrio says in his report on the matter; “… it’s no precedent to follow.”

The political enemy mentioned in the lead paragraph was, in reality, one Arthur P. Hinman (see footnote below)*, who may have been hired by the Democrats to smear Arthur. Interestingly, the charge of ineligibilty for POTUS brought by Hinman against Arthur was true, but for the wrong reason: Chester A. Arthur was a British subject at birth (just as Obama was) but by virtue of his birth prior to his father’s naturalization rather than birth on foreign soil. As in Obama’s case, who acknowledges on his website that he had dual citizenship at birth, we find the evidence in plain sight but too late discern its meaning.

President Chester A. Arthur

President Chester A. Arthur

*More interesting but entirely without foundation was the Hinman myth circulated in 1880 and 1881. This story asserted that Elder Arthur had three sons: William Chester Alan Arthur, born at the home of his mother’s parents in Dunham, Province of Quebec; Chester Abell Arthur, born at Fairfield; and William Arthur, Jr., born at Hinesburgh, Vermont. When William Arthur, Jr., was born, the oldest son dropped the William and retained the names Chester Alan, as he could do because of the death in infancy of his brother, Chester Abell. He later, according to the Hinman story, appropriated the birth record of the second son in order to sustain his American citizenship. No death record existed to prove this substitution because the father had sold the infant’s body to a medical school! On the basis of these allegations, the American public were assured that Arthur was a British subject and in consequence disqualified for the Vice Presidency or Presidency. It was a political maneuver, and, as such, ineffective. (from “Chester A. Arthur-A Quarter-Century of Machine Politics” by George F. Howe)

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , ,

26 Responses to “The Liar Who Became President ….”

  1. Scy Says:

    There is nothing more enjoyable than watching conservatives suffer. Nothing

  2. steadyjohn Says:

    Suffering Hell, this is delicious!

  3. Libby Says:

    All conservatives should be killed, because they’re fucking Nazis and hate everybody.

  4. steadyjohn Says:

    Libby: Your ignorance is on display here for all to see!

  5. ConstitutionForever Says:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/birthcertificate/index

  6. Ted Says:

    The choice facing the Supreme Court boils down to civil unrest to protect the Constitution or civil war to proceed to ‘inaugurate’ a non-”natural born citizen”.

  7. Adam Says:

    Ted you are absolutely right. I have said all along that this will come down to a revolution and all the Barach-opods want to do is continue to incite. They will rue the day they thought it more important to ensconce a smooth talking alien in the highest office in the world then to uphold our constitution. Most of them are far to stupid to realize this is not a vote count issue but rather the eligibility to receive those votes at all. You gotta love government schools. These Baracho-pods must have been learning to put condoms on cucumbers during history class.

  8. ED Says:

    Leo you are an idiot! Sorry your canidate(s) lost. No suprise why they did, but get over it…and move on.

  9. Joy Says:

    You people are sick, sick I tell you! Get over it!! Barack Obama will become President, hooray! I love how you are suffering over this. You are all stupid a**holes. Just all drop dead. The best man won and he will be a great president for all of us, yeah, even for you a**holes who all you care about is your bible and guns and fighting the gay people. Once again, drop dead all evangelicans, who are about the most vile people ever to inhabit this earth.

  10. steadyjohn Says:

    Joy’s ignorance on display here for all to see!

  11. Stefan Says:

    I find it intriguing that suddenly the conservative right is all about “defending the constitution” now that Obama is about to be sworn in. I ask, only partly tongue in cheek, where this same constitutional vigilence was while the patriot act was being enacted and then subsequently renewed, while phone companies were being forced to turn over the records of innocent US citizens who were not charged with or under suspicion of a crime, while unauthorized warrantless wiretapping of those same innocent US citizens was being performed, while the basic human rights of habeous corpus were being denied to detainees and gitmo, while an undercover operative was being “outed” in a petty case of retribution, etc etc etc. I mean, the irony is laughable: that after suffering the worst erosion in history of our constitutional protections over the 8 years of the Bush administration, the right wing does a 180 about face and looks to that same document for political gain.

    Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways – you either believe in the sanctity of the constitution or you don’t. You can’t pick and choose when it suits your purposes…

  12. Dave Says:

    Go fuck yourself you racist sack of shit.

  13. steadyjohn Says:

    Dave’s ignorance is on display here for all to see!

  14. an obnoxious individual Says:

    Why you always gotta be hatin on the British folks? What has Chester Alan Arthur ever done to you? Garfield died: get over it.

  15. Juliette Says:

    Stefan, my thoughts exactly! When they can’t steal the election or intimidate voters successfully enough to swing the vote towards the candidate from their own party, then they resort to desperate measures like this. It’s just ridiculous. Hey Republicans, we know what it’s like to be bitter about election results, but really, it’s time to move on…

  16. steadyjohn Says:

    an obnoxious individual: Nobody’s “hatin on the British folks”, they’re fine people.It’s just that you can’t be President here if you were a British (or any other ) subject at birth, no matter where you were born.Chet Arthur knew that and Barry Obama knows it also. Article II, Section 1 of our Constitution reads in part:

    “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.”

  17. steadyjohn Says:

    Stefan: The litany of alleged abuses you cite has nothing to do with presidential eligibility under our Constitution and really not much to do with the Patriot Act either. The Patriot Act only built upon already existing government powers and was passed overwhelming by the Congress to help deal with a very serious national security situation. It dealt almost exclusively with foreign nationals and had very little effect on our citizenry. According to one commentator:

    “putting aside the rhetoric, the worst thing about the Patriot Act is its Orwellian name. It creates no revolution in government powers. Rather, the Patriot Act contains a series of evolutionary changes in law enforcement that improve upon, and expand, existing powers already exercised by the government. And even if the act marginally reduces peacetime liberties, this is a reasonable price to pay for a valuable weapon against al-Qaeda, a resourceful and adaptable enemy that is skilled at escaping detection.

    Even well-known liberal Democrats have dismissed the idea that constitutional freedoms are in danger. In a hearing last year on the Patriot Act, Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein of California stated: “I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me. My staff e-mailed the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] and asked them for instances of actual abuse. They e-mailed back and said they had none.” Democratic senator Joe Biden of Delaware said at the same hearing that “the tide of criticism” being directed against the act “is both misinformed and overblown.”

    It is true that our nation has a system of secret courts, which use secret evidence presented in closed, classified hearings before federal judges, to grant secret warrants. Critics are correct that these warrants can authorize the secret search and/or surveillance of suspected terrorists without notice to the target. But the Patriot Act did not create these practices. President Jimmy Carter and a Democratic Congress established them in 1978 in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).” (John C. Yoo Source: http://is.gd/aMt8)

    You mention a “worst erosion in history of our constitutional protection” as occurring under Pres George W Bush despite the fact that the efforts of this President have kept us free from additional attacks on our country these eight years. Nothing could be worse than the erosion of constitutional authority caused by an ineligible person taking office. Every act of such a usurper would be subject to legal challenge. This would be an unprecedented constitutional crisis.

    Juliette: This is not about Republicans bitter about election results; in fact I would guess most Republicans are not on board with this challenge. I am not a Republican but a constitutionalist.If we allow an ineligible person to take office than what provision of the Constitution will we let fall by the wayside next. Little by little, or perhaps in one fell swoop, our Constitution will be dead. Oh,except for the 16th Amendment! Ha!

  18. WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ Moves Forward, Supplemental Brief Tomorrow « Steady Habits Says:

    [...] reported on the Arthur business yesterday (The Liar Who Became President). Donofrio’s complete update is here. He concludes his report: Leo Donofrio will accompany [...]

  19. Stefan Says:

    “And even if the act marginally reduces peacetime liberties, this is a reasonable price to pay for a valuable weapon against al-Qaeda, a resourceful and adaptable enemy that is skilled at escaping detection.”

    And now we see steadyjohn’s duplicity. If he was a “constitutionalist” as he claims, this one passage would set off alarm bells for him. And thus the fundamental difference between our points of view. I would rather die in another terrorist attack than live with my civil liberties curtailed. And if there was a legitimate challenge to Obama’s eligiblity to serve, I would be fine with investigating it. Thusfar no credible evidence to support that has been brought forth, AND there is not even a clearcut definition of what the founding fathers meant by “natural born citizen”

    So this is hardly as cut and dried as our personal freedoms being impinged by the Patriot Act et al.

    Like I said, you can’t pick and choose, especially as a self-styled constitutionalist. They should all outrage you, thus your defense of the Patriot Act and other constitutional erosions belies your self-description and in my eye brands you as another power-mongering right winger.

  20. steadyjohn Says:

    Stefan: If you can, kindly point out exactly which of your personal civil liberties have been curtailed. Also, bottom line here is Obama has brought all of this controversy upon himself. He could have put a stop to this months ago by coming clean with his college records,his medical records and most importantly his actual birth certificate. He is definitely hiding something. We know less about Obama after two years than we knew about Joe the Plumber in 24 hours.

  21. Mark Says:

    10 million AMERICANS have lost their jobs, people are loosing their homes cost of living has exceeded the actual pay, and this is all that you have to worry about? That you THINK he is not a natural born citizen. If the supreme court voched for him and said it is what it is then drop it. We have more serious issues at hand than some bogus conspiracy theory.

  22. Stefan Says:

    Steadyjohn, nice red herring. The issue at hand is whether or not he’s hiding something, and certainly not how much we knew about Joe the Plumber and how quickly.

    If your argument is based on constitutional law, then stick to that issue. If your only goal is upholding the constitution as a document of intent (as opposed to a living document) then you need to be consistent.

    And to answer your first point, I have no way of knowing if any of my phone calls have been intercepted, if my financial and other private records have been gone through by the government without justification, etc. This is why Fienstein’s statement is meaningless – how do you prove that Big Brother has had his eye on you? I have done nothing wrong so there would certainly not be any charges or other aftermath. You see the slippery slope this creates, right? I mean, look at the name of the legislation established in 1978 – the “FOREIGN intelligence” etc etc…domestic spying is a whole other issue.

    Again, be consistent. Be for the constitution and all its protections, or admit that you only believe in its tenets when you have something to gain from it…

  23. steadyjohn Says:

    Mark: Neither the Supreme Court nor anyone else has vouched for Obama; that is the problem. No one is vetting these candidates.That the Supremes declined to hear one case does not mean they have vouched for him.

  24. Ted Says:

    EASY WAY TO MAKE SURE OBAMA NEVER GETS INAUGURATED (READ CAREFULLY):–

    Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II “natural born citizen” based on the Kenyan/British citizenship of Barack Obama’s father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a “citizen” born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution — the Court having done so three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors — it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen”.

  25. Ted Says:

    Moreover, each and every member of Congress should be notified that he or she is personally liable (can be sued) for his or her own failure, or the same in conspiracy with other members, to perform what is a ministerial and constitutional duty, that is, to require and/or insist that Presidential electoral votes only be counted for candidates who are “natural born citizens” under Article II of the United States Constitution, the failure of which creates a cause of action for deprivation of claimants’ constitutional rights (as allowed under the Bivens case) against employees of the Federal Government, in this case, to a lawful President and Commander in Chief, and therefore, for deprivation of adequate continuation of the United States as a Constitutional Republic. The constitutionally tortious conduct is not subject to congressional immunity and would be the jettison of Article II of the Constitution by failure to stop and/or object to the counting of electoral votes for Barack H. Obama who has admitted that at the time of his birth his father was a Kenyan/British citizen and not a citizen of the United States of America.

    Finally, if 1/20/09 comes and goes with a usurper in the Whitehouse (that is, Obama is definitely NOT an Article II “natural born citizen” — dad Kenyan/British citizen at BHO’s birth — albeit he MAY be a 14th Amendment “citizen”) with usurper enablers in Congress and the Supreme Court … God help us because many of the people will — rightfully and under our Constitution and Declaration of Independence — endeavor through other means to take back the Government from what is nothing less than a non-constitutional coup d’etat. (SCOTUS now does have the power to forestall that grim yet inevitable scenario, otherwise the blood and possible loss of our Constitutional Republic is SQUARELY ON THEIR HEADS.)

  26. Obama Not the First Usurper: Day 24 - February 12, 2009 « The Usurpation Chronicles Says:

    [...] We republish here “The Liar Who Became President” which originally appeared at Steady Habits December 7, [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: