I'm not sure, just my opinion, but I think they were banking on the ignorance of people to overlook the us citizen and natural born citizen, as evidenced by so many here at FR.
I know this quote was added long after the site was launched, but Im not sure when. A correlation to Donofrio's case perhaps? Part of their planned legal defense?
It is bizarre. Thoughts anyone?
December 6th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, published a follow up posting to his original essay on Presidents who had parents born abroad. He suggests that Arthur’s presidency does not set precendent for Obama, as nobody knew, at the time, to look and confirm whether or not Arthur was actually a British subject.
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1673
Leo also answered in his comment section:
December 6, 2008 at 11:34 pm
[Ed. Note - No such thing as precedent from fraud. It could only be a precedent if it had been part of the public story of Chester Arthur, meaning everybody knew about it and accepted it as being cool. Not the case. During his time, he lied to obfuscate his family history. And he was a lawyer. Not cool. Not precedent. If it comes down to this, and Obama has to rely on Chester's Arthur to argue precedent, I think he'll be in trouble.]