Skip to comments.The Agnew Funeral.
Posted on 12/23/2011 7:44:12 PM PST by Danae
Today we can finally bury, and lay to rest, the slander that Spiro Agnew, Vice President under Richard Nixon, did not meet the two citizen parent standard defined in Minor v. Happersett.
I was at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. yesterday and today double checking the information I found at Princetons amazing Firestone library earlier this week. Before that, I was in Baltimore where I received a couple of important clues.
A few weeks ago, I was researching this issue at the Maryland Historical Society in Baltimore, only blocks from where Spiro Agnew grew up. I asked the head reference librarian to help me track down the 1910 census. I was hoping it would provide more information than the 1920 and 1930 census info, which contain a serious discrepancy. The 1920 census indicates Spiros father was not naturalized by 1920, two years after Spiro was born, which, if true, would mean Agnew was born to an alien. This has been alleged as precedent for Obama, who was born of an alien father.
The 1930 census indicates that Spiros father Theodore had been naturalized by then. It was also common knowledge that the 1920 census info contradicts a World War I draft registration card on file for Theodore Agnew dating back to September 12, 1918, which indicates he was naturalized just prior to Spiros birth on November 9, 1918.
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
Ping to the Usual Suspects. Leo has posted!
God bless you and Leo! I am praying for you!
Thank you! It will be enough to get over the black malack I have gotten. The anti-biotics appear to be working however! :) Now to ditch the incessant cough... :)
Yes indeed! It steals just a bit more thunder from the after-birthers. Agnew was a constitutional NBC.
Smoke and mirrors from Camp Usurper. If it had been that Angew's dad hadn't been naturalized before his birth, two wrongs wouldn't have made a right.
Leo is my Hero bringing down Zero!
Amazing piece of focused, determined work.
I never knew this was a problem but, Leo Donofrio,Esq. has done an excellent job.
Lets capture the sources of the lie:
Captain Kirk on FR:
“VP Spiro Agnew, was born to a non-naturalized greek father. No one protested his citizenship in 1968 or 1972.http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/"
“And like Barack Obama, Agnew’s father was not a U.S. citizen when Agnew was born. To evidence this, I offer the Agnew family’s entry in the 1920 U.S. Census (see lines 72-75), where just three lines above the entry for one-year-old Spiro Agnew, Theodore Agnew’s citizenship is clearly listed as “Alien”:”
Notice the cut-and-paste approach. Same wording in multiple postings:
“VP Spiro Agnew, was born to a non-naturalized greek father. No one protested his citizenship in 1968 or 1972.”
All of the sources are now discredited. Fogbow, barackryphal, obamaconspiracy...all are now shown to be nothing by political cover blogs. Pathetic.
Nice genealogical investigative work
This will be some great Christmas reading with the family.
He is in a word, Brilliant.
More than nice. He must have spent HOURS in libraries. Not to mention all the driving.... But still I envy him his location. Here in Oregon we have precisely SQUAT for historical information. Being in the NE has it’s downsides, but on the historical side, it is nothing short of priceless.
I swear, if I get to DC on my own sans kids and husband, I tell you, you’ll have to pry me out of the Library of Congress with a crow bar and serious money. Maybe the National Archives or the Smithsonian as well if I have the time. I am so jealous of all that history... just there, for the looking... it gives me chills at times.
Leo is doing the Nation a great service in digging this history up. We are sincerely in his debt.
LOL Its shorter than the “Night before Christmas”!!
With visions of the constitution dancing in my head.... ok, time to lay off the spiked egg-nog... ;)
Thanks for the Ping!
Leo Donofrio admits, “The 1920 census indicates Spiros father was not naturalized by 1920, two years after Spiro was born”, but has found evidence that the 1920 census indication was wrong. There is documentation on both sides, so Donofrio put forth the effort to show that the Vice President Agnew’s father was a citizen and time of the Vice President’s birth.
The case of our 21’st President, Chester Arthur, went the other way, according to Donofrio’s research. Arthur’s father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of President Arthur’s birth.
The problem for Donfrio’s legal theory is that no one cared whether Vice President Agnew’s father, nor President Chester Arthur’s father, was a citizen. It’s not that no one could have gone to the library and checked it out, nor that Donofrio was the first person in a century to think defending the Constitution is worth a trip to stacks.
Reality is that no one cared whether the son of a Greek or an Irishman became President of the United States, until a certain faction realized that such cases would serve as precedent to show that the son of a Kenyan could be President. This thread is not really about laying to rest the slander about Spiro Agnew. It’s a desperate attempt by a losing attorney to revive a slander upon Obama.
Thanks for the interesting and no doubt good news Ping!
Merry Christmas to you FRiend!!
Thanks for the ping!
Merry Christmas to all!
Some precedent there. Does this also mean that since Jimmy Hoffa is missing and the perps unknown, its OK to make other union bosses go missing? Not prosecuted does not mean its a precedent.
Good to see Leo is still in on the fight. All the rationalizing by the Fogbowers to justify the illegal candidate for having assumed the highest public office of the land is being being exposed for untruth.
All that will be left to these anti-constitutionalists is the fact that Obama was not properly challenged prior to the election of 2008. Which of course is absurd because of efforts to obfuscate by Obama supporters including SanFranNan who provided all 50 states with 2 different versions of the OCON, and of course Mark Schatz Chief Election Officer of HI failed in his duties to abide by State election law by allowing the usurper on the state ballot.
Wonder what Agnew would think of the “effete corps of impudent snobs” who cover for this president.
And YOUR side turned out to be WRONG again. (No surprise to me.)
The case of our 21st President, Chester Arthur, went the other way, according to Donofrios research. Arthurs father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of President Arthurs birth.
But no one knew it at the time because all involved LIED about when his father naturalized and when Arthur was born. Arthur pulled a coverup that was only recently discovered thanks to the efforts of those who are investigating, (such as Donofrio) as opposed to helping obfuscate. (such as Blade Bryan)
The problem for Donfrios legal theory is that no one cared whether Vice President Agnews father, nor President Chester Arthurs father, was a citizen. Its not that no one could have gone to the library and checked it out, nor that Donofrio was the first person in a century to think defending the Constitution is worth a trip to stacks.
No one cared alright, because Arthur led everyone to believe that his father had naturalized prior to Chester's birth. It's all in the book I keep showing you.
Reality is that no one cared whether the son of a Greek or an Irishman became President of the United States, until a certain faction realized that such cases would serve as precedent to show that the son of a Kenyan could be President. This thread is not really about laying to rest the slander about Spiro Agnew. Its a desperate attempt by a losing attorney to revive a slander upon Obama.
You attempt to substitute apathy for intent. The American People WANT their laws upheld, especially the constitutional ones, but they don't want to strain their little brains with complications. Over the years people have not been diligent in the protection of their laws, but not because they intentionally want them ignored. Instead this has occurred through a lack of paying attention.
Someone who has lived their entire lives in the United States, with Parents who are known to have been Residents of the United States for the entire life of the person, is automatically assumed to be a "natural born citizen." The question doesn't come up because most of the time no one thinks it necessary to ask it.
Now you have been told OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER that both Chester A Arthur and Charlies Evans Hughes were challenged as to their eligibility because they were not natural born citizens, and yet you keep repeating the lie that there is no such standard, and it's all a "conspiracy" to pick on the stupid "black" child currently pretending to be our leader.
That no one cared, has more to do with ignorance of the facts as opposed to having made an actual choice in the matter. I daresay a sufficient number of Democrats are so stupid they wouldn't care if a Candidate was 25 years old either. (or 12, like you seem to be.)
Debunked there months ago.
And over a year ago:
“Welcome, Edward. I also read your blog entry. I once looked into the issue of Spiro Agnew’s natural born citizenship. I found his father’s WWI draft registration in the National Archives:
WWI Registration Card 559 A2691
Theodore Spiro Agnew
226 W. Madison St.
Baltimore City, Maryland
Age 40 Birthdate Sept. 12, 1878
NATURALIZED U.S. CITIZEN
Margaret M. Agnew, wife (nearest relative)
DATE OF REGISTRATION: Sept. 12, 1918
The 1910 census indicates that he was naturalized by the time that census was taken. His wife was born in the US and so was a US citizen from birth. Spiro Agnew was born in 1919; therefore, both his parents were US citizens when he was born, so he WAS a natural born citizen and thus eligible to become president, should it have become necessary.”
Never give up...well done...Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to ya!
DiogenesLamp wrote: “But no one knew it at the time because all involved LIED about when his father naturalized and when Arthur was born.”
So cite them lying about when Arthur’s father was naturalized.
DiogenesLamp wrote: “No one cared alright, because Arthur led everyone to believe that his father had naturalized prior to Chester’s birth. It’s all in the book I keep showing you.”
You seem to have showed the wrong page. How about you show the page saying the citizenship of Arthur’s father mattered?
Hinman thought, incorrectly, that Chester Arthur was born in Canada. Hinman was a proto-birther, but not so stupid as to be a proto-Vattel-birther.
True, but it was still being used by Obots on all the regular sites. Time to utterly obliterate it.
You see, as much as Rubio is being groomed for POTUS or Veep, he is NOT constitutionally qualified for the offices. I consider it of PARAMOUNT importance that we NEVER have another unconstitutional POTUS again. No matter how attractive he or she is.
I want to prevent a conservative establishment unconstitutional POTUS as much as a democrat unconstitutional POTUS. Either way weakens the constitution, and THAT should be prevented at all costs. It is the only thing which makes us Americans, and guarantees us our freedoms... and it has already lost too much potency.
No one knew that William Arthur was not a Citizen at the time of Chester’s birth. He has been in the United States after Canada for long enough that no one thought to question it. Those who did were just told he had been around for decades and must be a citizen.
In articles published in “The Brooklyn Daily Eagle” at the time showed rather definitively that Arthur lied on several occasions about his family history. If you want a real good paper on the matter please see one I wrote on the subject for my history class. I got an A on the paper by the way, and believe me, the prof went through every citation for accuracy, that was part of the assignment. You can find it on SCRIBD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/76438484/21st-President-Chester-A-Arthur-America%E2%80%99s-First-Unconstitutional-President I just uploaded it there so it might take a minute or two to finish the conversion process from the word doc original. There were a lot of citations to do.
Danae wrote: “You see, as much as Rubio is being groomed for POTUS or Veep, he is NOT constitutionally qualified for the offices.”
It’s a cautionary tale, a warning against going in for crank nonsense. The fringe codswallop hurt Obama not at all. Now Vattel-birthers are boxed into asserting their stupid theory against Rubio because they so vehemently, albeit uselessly, asserted it against Obama.
For the record, Hinman tossed up a number of possibilities, Canada was just one. The other was Ireland. Hinman sort of threw the whole kitchen sink at Arthur in an effort to prove he wasn’t born in the US. I believe it was a smoke screen, and no one has ever specifically identified who hired Hinman to do his work. He was PAID to investigate. So it is possible that Arthur through a third party hired Hinman to keep people looking at his place of birth rather than for his father’s citizenship status at the time his son was born. Also for the record, it was Leo Donofrio who FOUND the Naturalization document, the actual physical document which was never located by Hinman, something you would think he might have found considering all the other digging he was doing, and all the locations he went to in order to do that digging.
To further muddy the waters Arthur burned nearly all his documents after leaving the Office. Within 18 months the man was dead of a kidney ailment which was his real reason for not running for a second term.
“The problem for Donfrios legal theory is that no one cared whether Vice President Agnews father, nor President Chester Arthurs father, was a citizen. Its not that no one could have gone to the library and checked it out, nor that Donofrio was the first person in a century to think defending the Constitution is worth a trip to stacks.”
that is a blatant lie and you know it. The citizenship issue was a big darned deal to Hinman, who went to some lenghts to prove Arthur unqualified. He was jsut looking in the wrong place. Kind of like all those digging at Oblidiots place of birth, Hawaii (Mele Kalikimaka and Hau’oli Makahiki Hou by the way! :)). People are easily distracted by the comparitavely simplistic place of birth (just Soli) aspect of Natural Born Citizenship, and completely tossed into confusion about Jus Sanguinus - blood right citizenship. You see, if there is question about blood right citizenship - more than one for example, then the person does not meet the Jus Sanguinus aspect of Natural Born Citizenship, they are not naturally a citizen of only their birthplace.
Most people don’t know that there is NATURAL law and Man-made law. Natural Born Citizenship stems from Natural Law and is CONSISTENT ACROSS NATIONS because they are laws of nature, not man-made laws which are built upon natural law and vary between nations. THAT has been the linchpin of both Arthur and Obama who merely did what Arthur did to usurp the office.
Here is a thought for you, remember factcheck and all that? How Obama put up that he was born under the British Nationality Act of 1948? Well when Stanley Ann married British Kenyan Obama Sr., didn’t she become a statutory citizen of Great Britain at that point? Is THAT why Obama put that there? or was it to just put up the obvious as if it wasn’t relevant? I still don’t have a satisfactory answer to that... If that is the case, Obama would only have a birth place claim to American citizenship. It isn’t relevant in a way, because the cretin inherited British citizenship and that right there disqualifies him regardless of the citizenship of his momma. So I suppose it is a moot point...
Look my genius friend, it applies to EVERYONE.
Natural law is Natural Law, and it doesn’t vary from nation to nation. Each nation determines basic NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP the same way because it is the ONLY utterly consistent, the common denominator, the number that cannot be divided by anything but 1, a prime number if you will. The way ALL nations determine Natural Born Citizenship - at its most basic - is that of being born on the soil to two parents who are it’s citizens. Thats it. This is consistent the world over. It would apply if on the moon for heaven’s sake.
That is why it is referred to as “natural law” it doesn’t need to be written by man, only noted!
This is where you and so many others have screwed up.
Every other law on citizenship, the world over, is STATUTORY law, written by man. Natural Born Citizenship is NOT dependent upon Statutory Law. In fact, if one MUST rely upon statutory law in order to determine citizenship AT ALL, the one is NOT a Natural Born Citizen - by definition!
There is a massive difference between Natural Law and Statutory Law. It is far past time for folks like you to get and make this distinction.
I won’t attempt to answer any of that...because I don’t believe the kenyan was his father...and I am of the opinion the ‘marriage’ was a sham that if it took place, was while the kenyan was still married - not just to his tribal wife in Kenya - but to the ‘US citizen from whom he is separated, living in the Philippenes’ (according to the immigration docs!)
But I wonder...have you seen this? (excerpt)
When Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along essentially demanding to see Chesters birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States. This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont but at the same time, the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal.
Is this the twilight zone?
William Arthur was not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthurs birth, and therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.
Chester Arthur lied about his fathers emigration to Canada and the time his mother spent there married to William. Some sixty years later, Chester lied about all of this and kept his candidacy on track. Back then it would have been virtually impossible to see through this, especially since Arthurs father had died in 1875 and had been a United States citizen for thirty-two years.
And without knowledge of his fathers time in Canada, or the proper timeline of events, potential researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start.
Reeves proved that Arthur changed his birth year from 1829 to 1830. I dont know if that would have protected recorded information. Its another lie. I just dont know what it means.
You bet I have. I wrote a paper on it years ago: http://www.scribd.com/doc/76438484/21st-President-Chester-A-Arthur-America%E2%80%99s-First-Unconstitutional-President
Danae wrote: “So it is possible that Arthur through a third party hired Hinman to keep people looking at his place of birth rather than for his fathers citizenship status at the time his son was born.”
Ah, so this new conspiracy theory explains why you couldn’t find anyone taking an interest in Arthur’s father’s citizenship.
Did you read the book? No? Then shut up.
YOU are the one that has a conspiracy theory. You think everyone is conspiring to "make up" the meaning of "natural citizen" just to disqualify your ignorant "precedent."
You keep ignoring the challenges against Arthur and Charles Evan Hughes as precedent. They don't fit your "conspiracy theory."
Knowing that Chester Arthur’s father was not a citizen of the United States when Chester was born, what would you consider Arthur’s father to have been? Was he a domiciled alien? Was he a foreigner? At the time of Arthur’s birth, had his father declared an intent to become a citizen?
Danae wrote: “Within 18 months the man was dead of a kidney ailment which was his real reason for not running for a second term.”
Arther did run for a second term. He put little effort into his primary campaign, and was defeated for the nomination on the fourth ballot at the Republican National Convention.
Danae wrote: “If you want a real good paper on the matter please see one I wrote on the subject for my history class. I got an A on the paper by the way, and believe me, the prof went through every citation for accuracy, that was part of the assignment.”
Not so impressed by the fact-checking.
Did you see this thread?
You’re so correct. The thing about obots is that they NEVER let facts or the truth get in their way. If the facts aren’t on their side, well, then they just lie or make things up.
Some sites, like Leo’s, certainly get more publicity than others. I hope that this rampant lie about Agnew will truly be obliterated.
I agree with you about Rubio and any other “attractive” non-natural-born citizen. If they want to run, then let them first have the Constitution amended, the correct way—by the method supplied by the Constitution.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you, too, Fred Nerks! I WILL never give up. Never fear. No worries.
Thanks, I’ll check it out.
Sorry for the delay, but I was off the net for a while.
You are incorrect, many were and still are interested in the fact that Arthur was born British due to his father’s citizenship.
Now back to the topic, NO ONE until Donofrio dug up the original records on Agnew. Furthermore, no one had recognized, in modern times, that Agnew’s father had changed his name TWICE. First to Thedore Anagnost in Schenectady NY. Only later did he change it to Agnew. No one found the biographies Donofrio did which documented all this.
You might just be playing the part of wiseass with your accusations of conspiracy theory, but in reality it is those using the false case of Agnew’s lack of Natural Born Citizenship status (he IS a natural born citizen) who are the conspiracy theorists. It is THEY who are spreading a pack of lies in order to support an unconstitutional POTUS, and you are one of them.
Every single bit of evidence coming to light further makes the points Leo is bringing up. Every one of them points to Natural Born Citizenship being a citizen born in country to two parents who are it’s citizens. This is NATURAL LAW, it never had to be written by man per say, because even a fool in motley could see that a person born in country to two parents who are it’s citizens are OF COURSE Natural Born Citizens, they can be nothing else. The Founders knew it, every nation on earth knows it, yet somehow it slips past the after-birthers. It is never-endingly astounding to me just how deliberately ignorant people can be.
That was an excellent find by the person who found it, but it still isn’t what Donofrio found. If there is a comment somewhere on the net that documents the 1910 census I would like to see it. I believe Donofrio is the first to do research that in-depth. It also does not show the evidence of Theodore changing his name twice. Donofrio discovered new evidence which really does shut the door on obots who try to use Agnew as an example.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.