Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jindal's Louisiana miracle
Journal Sentinel Online ^ | Oct. 26, 2011 | Cal Thomas

Posted on 10/27/2011 2:19:58 PM PDT by La Enchiladita

Republican Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana last weekend won re-election with a staggering 65.8% of the vote in a state that remains heavily Democratic. It is, the governor's office contends, the highest percentage achieved by a candidate since the state's open primary was created. Jindal won all of the state's 64 parishes, increasing by four the number of parishes he won in 2007.

One might expect this to be big news beyond the state, but most newspapers and TV media outside Louisiana either buried Jindal's win on inside pages and deep into their newscasts, or ignored it.

In a telephone conversation, I asked Governor Jindal why? "It runs contrary to the political thinking in Washington, which is about more spending and bigger government," he said. The big media don't want to focus on successes that come as the result of smaller government and less spending because it not only reduces the size and power of government, but the influence of journalists who see themselves co-equal with, if not superior to, government.

(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Politics/Elections; US: Louisiana
KEYWORDS: birthersarenuts; bobbyjindal; borninusa; election2012; futurepotus; jindal
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last
Jindal is the man with the message that conservatives clamor for and the record to back it up.

PLEASE do not start in on eligibility issues. He is eligible.

1 posted on 10/27/2011 2:20:01 PM PDT by La Enchiladita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
Jindal also confronted wasteful spending, which Washington politicians often talk about, but do little to reverse. He reduced the state budget by $9 billion, or 26%, in part by eliminating unnecessary government jobs and streamlining services.

Hello, Congress, see how easy it is??!! Hmmm??

2 posted on 10/27/2011 2:22:37 PM PDT by La Enchiladita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

I really like this guy! I’d vote for him if he were running for president.


3 posted on 10/27/2011 2:23:22 PM PDT by basil (It's time to rid the country of "gun free zones" aka "Killing Fields")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita
"He is eligible."

No.

Four Supreme Court Cases Define Natural Born Citizen

4 posted on 10/27/2011 2:25:29 PM PDT by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: basil

If he made VP nominee this time around, it would greatly enhance the ticket in my view, and then he is positioned for President. Yes, I like it.


5 posted on 10/27/2011 2:29:07 PM PDT by La Enchiladita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

Yep—I’d vote for that....


6 posted on 10/27/2011 2:31:56 PM PDT by basil (It's time to rid the country of "gun free zones" aka "Killing Fields")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
He is as eligible as Obama who has a Kenyan father. A father that returned to his native country and was involved in that countries politics. Obama IS President. Therefore, Jindal is eligible. Quod erat demonstrandum!
7 posted on 10/27/2011 2:37:33 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

He is NOT eligible.


8 posted on 10/27/2011 2:38:35 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town

So you believe two wrongs make a right?


9 posted on 10/27/2011 2:40:21 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita; basil; All

The $9 billion cut from the budget was due to the fact that we (Louisiana) no longer receives Fed money from Katrina...if you don’t get it, ya can’t spend it.

Jindal is a brilliant politician, nothing more. He didn’t get my vote and never will....again.


10 posted on 10/27/2011 2:40:35 PM PDT by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

His mother and father were aliens when he was born. Please explain to us how he is eligible for the presidency?


11 posted on 10/27/2011 2:41:59 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (You can't invade the US. There'd be a rifle behind every blade of grass.~Admiral Yamamoto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

“In a telephone conversation, I asked Governor Jindal why? “It runs contrary to the political thinking in Washington, which is about more spending and bigger government,” he said. The big media don’t want to focus on successes that come as the result of smaller government and less spending because it not only reduces the size and power of government, but the influence of journalists who see themselves co-equal with, if not superior to, government.”

What an absolutely SUPERB statement!!!!!!!!!!!! And certainly explains the lack of news coverage on his outstanding re-election.


12 posted on 10/27/2011 2:46:11 PM PDT by SueRae (I can see November 2012 from my HOUSE!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob

Sorry, SgtBob, looks like Bobby is doing fine without your vote.


13 posted on 10/27/2011 2:49:07 PM PDT by La Enchiladita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

No, he is not eligible.


14 posted on 10/27/2011 3:11:27 PM PDT by wolfman23601
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Zero’s father was on a student visa and his mother was underage. Why was he allowed to sit in the WH? Because he
was born in Hawaii, according to his fake certificate. And
that is all that matters for him being a “natural born” citizen. If not, why is he still in office? Have you heard of so called “anchor babies”? As far as I know they get all the rights of 10th generation native Americans. I would’nt be surprised if one of them runs for president.


15 posted on 10/27/2011 3:13:31 PM PDT by federal__reserve (Perry is a good man but his one on one debates with Obama keeps me awake at nights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

You are right. Governor Jindal has requested of the State Senate, the elevation of John A. Alario, Jr. to the post of senate President...you might want to wiki this cat.

You might also try, http://soitgoesinshreveport.blogspot.com/2011/10/governor-jindal-causes-another-uproar.html

I’ll admit, the only group of people that Jindal has p!$$ed off is conservatives; the MSM only has high praise for him. That in itself should be telling...ya think?


16 posted on 10/27/2011 3:15:52 PM PDT by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
Four Supreme Court Cases Define Natural Born Citizen

I prefer the original, written Constitution. You know, the one that permitted Thomas Jefferson, whose mother was born in England, to be president. But I guess I'm just one of those pesky originalists.

But I guess if our judicial overlords have decided better, then we must bow before them.

•Andrew Jackson‘s parents were both born in Ireland

•James Buchanan had an Irish father

• Chester A. Arthur had an Irish father

•Woodrow Wilson‘s mother was English

•Herbert Hoover had a Canadian-born mother

Those are the precedents I care about.

17 posted on 10/27/2011 3:20:30 PM PDT by BfloGuy (Even the opponents of Socialism are dominated by socialist ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita
He reduced the state budget by $9 billion, or 26%, in part by eliminating unnecessary government jobs and streamlining services.

I think I'm in love.

18 posted on 10/27/2011 3:41:56 PM PDT by Opinionated Blowhard ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
No it is now a FACT that birthright citizenship is now equal to Natural Born Citizen status as PROVED by Obama being president.

By actual demonstration of factual events, all arguments against a Jindal or Rubio presidency based on Natural Born Citizen status are STUPID. They are stupid because Obama is the President and he has a father that is a PROVED citizen of a foreign country. His step father is a proved foreigner as well.

Both Jindal and Rubio are people who have both parents as naturalized citizens, Even if their status as citizens occurred AFTER their birth.

The precedent has been set, plane and simple. You may disagree, but that just makes your opinion WRONG.

19 posted on 10/27/2011 3:44:02 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy

Natural Born Citizen

HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH - PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH

 

“PRESIDENT?” CHESTER ARTHUR et al - WHY THEY AREN’T PRECEDENT FOR OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY

December 5, 2008 - 5:34 am

This essay will discuss the eligibility of every President who had parents born abroad.   As long as the parents had the future President on US soil after they became citizens, then that person is a natural born citizen.

 

Every President born before the adoption of the Constitution was eligible because of the grandfather clause of Article 2, Section 1 :

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;

JAMES BUCHANAN

The first President we must examine then was James Buchanan, 14th President of the United States.   He was born on April 23, 1791 in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania.  He just missed  out on the grandfather clause as the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.   Buchanan was also the only President from Pennsylvania and the only President never to marry.

His mother Elizabeth Speer was born in Pennsylvani.  His father James Buchanan emigrated to the United States from Ireland in 1783.   It was an interesting year for the United States as the Treaty of 1783 was signed between the US and Great Britain.  Colonists chose to be United States citizens and by virtue of the Treaty, Great Britain recognized those former subjects as United States citizens.

Before the Constitution, United States citizenship was conferred on citizens by the States.   When the Constitution was ratified, each citizen of a state became a citizen of the United States.  No formal naturalization was needed.

On June 21, 1788 the Constitution was ratified.  The Buchanans were citizens of Pennsylvania and therefore James Sr. was a citizen of the United States.   When James Jr. was born in Pennsylvania he was therefore a natural born citizen, born on United States soil to two US citizen parents.

ANDREW JOHNSON

Johnson, our 17th President, was born in Raleigh, North Carolina on December 29, 1808.  Wiki has this on his father:

Jacob Johnson was born circa 1778. Some sources indicate that he was born in Newcastle, England and sailed to America around 1795, but other sources indicate that he was born in Raleigh, North Carolina, and that it was his grandfather (and possible namesake) who sailed to North America from England. Historian Rev. Nash A. Odom writes that “In the year 1760, Peter Johnson, migrated from Kintyre, Scotland to North Carolina with his large family and settled in Cumberland County.  The preaching instinct broke out again and a number of the Johnsons became ministers. One was the father of Jacob Johnson, who moved to Raleigh, North Carolina and was the father of President Andrew Johnson.” Author Billy Kennedy writes that Jacob’s father, named Andrew, a Presbyterian, came to North Carolina about 1750 from Mounthill, Ireland.

The weight of authority is that Jacob was born in the US.   But even if the other sources were correct, he would have been in the US for 13 years before Andrew was born.   The Naturalization act of 1795 called for a five year residence before Naturalization.  The Act was modified in 1798 to a 14 year requirement, but then the Naturalization act of 1802 it was put back to five years.

Jacob Johnson also served as  a militia Captain of Muster Division 20 and was the city constable.   I can find no allegations that Jacob wasn’t a citizen when Andrew was born.   (Jacob Johnson died from complications caused by his heroic saving of a friend’s life.)

Andrew Johnson’s mother was born in North Carolina in 1782.

So, Andrew Johnson - born in North Carolina to two US citizen parents, hence - natural born citizen.

[Chester Arthur would be next, but I shall save him for last.]

WOODROW WILSON

Born December 28, 1856 - the 28th President, born in Staunton, Virginia.

Wilson’s mother was from Carlisle, England.  His father was a US citizen from Ohio.   Wilson’s mother gained US citizenship when she married his father according to a congressional Act of February 1855, which stated,

any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” [Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, section 2]

This was called derivative citizenship.   This act was enacted in 1855.  Woodrow Wilson was born in December 1856.  He was born in the US, both parents were US citizens - natural born citizen.

HERBERT HOOVER

Hoover was born in Iowa, 1874.  He was the 31st President.   His father Jesse was from Ohio, a US citizen.  His mother Hulda Minthorn was from Ontario, Canada.   They were married in 1870.  According to the 1855 act, which was in effect until 1922, Hoover’s mother became a US citizen automatically when she married Jesse.

So, Hoover was born in the US, both parents were citizens - natural born citizen.

CHESTER ARTHUR …or the strange lies of our 21st President

And here we have a very interesting story full of intrigue.   Arthur became President when one of his supporters shot President Garfield with an exclamation of joy that Arthur would now be President.

More relevant to our discussion is that during his Vice-Presidential campaign, Chester Arthur was accused by an attorney named Arthur Hinman of having been born abroad.   But there was absolutely no merit to the charge.  Hinman first accused Chester of being born in Ireland, then he switched his claim to Canada.  Hinman, a new York lawyer, wrote an accusatory pamphlet under the heading, “How A British Subject Became A President of the United States.”

The definitive biography on Chester Arthur is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves.  It’s an exhaustive reference chock full of notes.  Many of the blanks in Chester Arthur’s legend were filled in by this book which utilized interviews with family members and authentic documents like the Arthur family Bible.   It was a necessary work since old Chester Arthur was a very wily protector of his strange history.  Also, Chester Arthur burned all of his papers. (See page 2365.)

“Gentleman Boss” establishes, on page 4, that Chester Arthur’s father William was born in Ireland, 1796, and emigrated to Canada in 1818 or 1819.  His mother Malvina was born in Vermont and his parents eloped to Canada in 1821.  They had their first child, Regina in Dunham, Canada on March 8, 1822.

THE MYSTERY - When was William Arthur naturalized?  I don’t know.  The only reference historian I know who ventured a date said it was 1843, but that historian also said he got that from “Gentleman Boss” and I could not find such a reference in the book.  I spent a few hours with the book today. I examined every reference to William in the index and also went over the early years with a microscope.  No reference to the naturalization date.

FACTS

By no later than 1824, the Arthur family had moved to Burlington, Vermont.  Their second child Jane was born there on March 14, 1824.   Chester Arthur was their fifth child, and he was born on October 5, 1829.   Reeves established these facts (and the correct date of Chester Arthur’s birth) from the Arthur family Bible.

It gets interesting here because of the Naturalization Act of 1802.  That act set the requisite of five years residence in the United States for those who wanted to become naturalized citizens.   Doing the math, we know that William Arthur had moved to Vermont no later than 1824.  Chester was born in October 1829.  So if William had taken action on being naturalized in his first year, then he very well could have been a US citizen when Arthur was born.  William studied law and taught school before he became a preacher in 1827, so he should have been familiar with the process of acquiring citizenship.

CHESTER ARTHUR’S FIRST LIE

From “Gentleman Boss”, page 5… regarding Chester’s birthday:

“…on October 5, 1829, Malvina Arthur gave birth to her fifth child.  (The traditional date 1830 is incorrect.  Arthur made himself a year younger, no doubt out of simply vanity, some time between 1870 and 1880…)”

Perhaps it was out of vanity, but perhaps he had a more sinister motive.   Reeves establishes Chester changed his date in the decade of his most serious political career, 1770-1780.   Chester was also a very skilled New York lawyer.   If he had a problem with his father’s naturalization date, then moving back his birthday by a year might have fixed it.  We will revisit this later.   Suspend judgment for now.

CHESTER ARTHUR’S SECOND LIE

And this is where our villain Hinman returns.  But was he a villain to Arthur?  Hinman made a big stink in various New York publications alleging that Chester Arthur was born abroad as a British subject, much like those who are trying to say Obama is not a US citizen.   It wasn’t true.  Chester was born in Vermont.   But this scandal had the effect of keeping public attention off of the issue of whether Chester Arthur’s father William was a British subject which would have made Chester a British subject “at birth” even though he was born in Vermont.

Does any of this sound familiar?

From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 and 203:

“…Hinman was hired, apparently by democrats, to explore rumors that Arthur had been born in a foreign country, was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the vice-presidency.  By mid-August, Hinman was claiming that Arthur was born in Ireland and had been brought to the United States by his father when he was fourteen.  Arthur denied the charge and said that his mother was a New Englander who had never left her native country — a statement every member of the Arthur family knew was untrue.”

His mother had lived in Canada with her husband and had her first child there.  This was a blatant lie.

CHESTER ARTHUR’S THIRD LIE

In the 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.   So, a third blatant lie.

CONCLUSIONS

I think we’ve discovered a bit of esoteric history tonight.  I’ve not seen this analysis elsewhere.

It looks like Chester Arthur had something to hide.   He burned all of his papers (but the family Bible survived).   He moved his age back a year.  I think vanity is a poor excuse.   Only one year?  He lied about his mother’s time in Canada.  He lied about his father’s time in Canada.

By obscuring his parents’ past lives and time in Canada, he would have clouded all attempts at researching when his father naturalized.  Think about the time period.  He ran for Vice-President in 1880.  His father, being a law student, and moving his family to the United States, would have probably naturalized as soon as possible.  But it might not have been soon enough to make old Chester a natural born citizen.

As discussed above, the time frame between William Arthur’s five year residence requirement being met and the day Chester was born were probably very close.

Then when Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along basically demanding to see Chester’s 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.

William Arthur was probably not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur would have been a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.

Regardless, Chester Arthur lied through his teeth about his father’s 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 impossible to see through this, especially since Arthur’s father had died in 1875 as a United States citizen.  Had anybody been suspicious, Arthur having changed his age by a year could have protected his eligibility.  And without knowledge of his father’s time in Canada, researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start.

Because Chester Arthur lied about his father, any precedent he might have set for Obama is nullified completely as it appears Chester Arthur may have been a usurper to the Presidency.   Eventually we will probably unearth William Arthur’s naturalization records.

While he did move around alot, he was a resident of Fairfield, Franklin County Vermont,  between 1829 when Chester was born, and 1832 when Malvina Almeda was born.  This is the most likely time period for his naturalization.  The official word from Franklin County was a fast, “We don’t have naturalization records for William Arthur.”

I have a strong feeling we’ve uncovered the truth about Chester Arthur.  Looks like he was the only ineligible President we’ve ever had.  And he got away with it through his lies.  But the light has a way of finding the darkness.

It’s no precedent to follow.

Leo C. Donofrio

 

Concerned citizen Says:
December 5, 2008 at 7:31 am

Just wanted to let you know about a typo in the second paragraph under your analysis of Chester Arthur: “Hoover was accused by an attorney named Arthur Hinman of having been born abroad”. I think you meant Arthur not Hoover. You don’t have to post this. Just wanted to let you know so you have a chance to correct it. Thanks for very detailed information on this topic. Discussions on Chester Arthur’s eligibility has been flying around the chat rooms for several days now. You are a true patriot, Leo. Thank you for all you have done.

wayfaringstranger Says:
December 5, 2008 at 7:35 am

Pretty good work in short time, once you became aware of the exceptions. Elizabeth Speer was born in PA, though, not Ireland. Johnson’s father would have had to take action under the 1802 Act. Unclear that he did. The mothers were always going to be the easiest to work with. So, let me give you a new set of precedents to look at: VP Dallas, whose father was from Jamaica; VP Humphrey, whose mother was from Norway (but who is likely to be covered through the marriage to an American citizen before 1922); and VP Agnew, whose father was from Greece.

The last of them there is not much to be done about. Charles Curtis’s mother was ineligible to be a United States citizen, even though she married a resident of the Territory of Kansas. Indeed, he spent many of his childhood years living with her people.

 


20 posted on 10/27/2011 3:46:34 PM PDT by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town
No it is now a FACT that birthright citizenship is now equal to Natural Born Citizen status as PROVED by Obama being president.

That is an incredibly bizarre excuse for trashing the Constitution and four SCOTUS precedents.

See post #4.

21 posted on 10/27/2011 3:51:45 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy

Owned.


22 posted on 10/27/2011 3:51:55 PM PDT by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy
Read this and have your eyes opened:

Natural Born Citizen HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH - PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH

“PRESIDENT?” CHESTER ARTHUR et al - WHY THEY AREN’T PRECEDENT FOR OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY December 5, 2008 - 5:34 am

This essay will discuss the eligibility of every President who had parents born abroad. As long as the parents had the future President on US soil after they became citizens, then that person is a natural born citizen.

Every President born before the adoption of the Constitution was eligible because of the grandfather clause of Article 2, Section 1 :

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;

JAMES BUCHANAN

The first President we must examine then was James Buchanan, 14th President of the United States. He was born on April 23, 1791 in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania. He just missed out on the grandfather clause as the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Buchanan was also the only President from Pennsylvania and the only President never to marry.

His mother Elizabeth Speer was born in Pennsylvani. His father James Buchanan emigrated to the United States from Ireland in 1783. It was an interesting year for the United States as the Treaty of 1783 was signed between the US and Great Britain. Colonists chose to be United States citizens and by virtue of the Treaty, Great Britain recognized those former subjects as United States citizens.

Before the Constitution, United States citizenship was conferred on citizens by the States. When the Constitution was ratified, each citizen of a state became a citizen of the United States. No formal naturalization was needed.

On June 21, 1788 the Constitution was ratified. The Buchanans were citizens of Pennsylvania and therefore James Sr. was a citizen of the United States. When James Jr. was born in Pennsylvania he was therefore a natural born citizen, born on United States soil to two US citizen parents.

ANDREW JOHNSON

Johnson, our 17th President, was born in Raleigh, North Carolina on December 29, 1808. Wiki has this on his father:

Jacob Johnson was born circa 1778. Some sources indicate that he was born in Newcastle, England and sailed to America around 1795, but other sources indicate that he was born in Raleigh, North Carolina, and that it was his grandfather (and possible namesake) who sailed to North America from England. Historian Rev. Nash A. Odom writes that “In the year 1760, Peter Johnson, migrated from Kintyre, Scotland to North Carolina with his large family and settled in Cumberland County. The preaching instinct broke out again and a number of the Johnsons became ministers. One was the father of Jacob Johnson, who moved to Raleigh, North Carolina and was the father of President Andrew Johnson.” Author Billy Kennedy writes that Jacob’s father, named Andrew, a Presbyterian, came to North Carolina about 1750 from Mounthill, Ireland.

The weight of authority is that Jacob was born in the US. But even if the other sources were correct, he would have been in the US for 13 years before Andrew was born. The Naturalization act of 1795 called for a five year residence before Naturalization. The Act was modified in 1798 to a 14 year requirement, but then the Naturalization act of 1802 it was put back to five years.

Jacob Johnson also served as a militia Captain of Muster Division 20 and was the city constable. I can find no allegations that Jacob wasn’t a citizen when Andrew was born. (Jacob Johnson died from complications caused by his heroic saving of a friend’s life.)

Andrew Johnson’s mother was born in North Carolina in 1782.

So, Andrew Johnson - born in North Carolina to two US citizen parents, hence - natural born citizen.

[Chester Arthur would be next, but I shall save him for last.]

WOODROW WILSON

Born December 28, 1856 - the 28th President, born in Staunton, Virginia.

Wilson’s mother was from Carlisle, England. His father was a US citizen from Ohio. Wilson’s mother gained US citizenship when she married his father according to a congressional Act of February 1855, which stated,

“any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” [Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, section 2]

This was called derivative citizenship. This act was enacted in 1855. Woodrow Wilson was born in December 1856. He was born in the US, both parents were US citizens - natural born citizen.

HERBERT HOOVER

Hoover was born in Iowa, 1874. He was the 31st President. His father Jesse was from Ohio, a US citizen. His mother Hulda Minthorn was from Ontario, Canada. They were married in 1870. According to the 1855 act, which was in effect until 1922, Hoover’s mother became a US citizen automatically when she married Jesse.

So, Hoover was born in the US, both parents were citizens - natural born citizen.

CHESTER ARTHUR …or the strange lies of our 21st President

And here we have a very interesting story full of intrigue. Arthur became President when one of his supporters shot President Garfield with an exclamation of joy that Arthur would now be President.

More relevant to our discussion is that during his Vice-Presidential campaign, Chester Arthur was accused by an attorney named Arthur Hinman of having been born abroad. But there was absolutely no merit to the charge. Hinman first accused Chester of being born in Ireland, then he switched his claim to Canada. Hinman, a new York lawyer, wrote an accusatory pamphlet under the heading, “How A British Subject Became A President of the United States.”

The definitive biography on Chester Arthur is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves. It’s an exhaustive reference chock full of notes. Many of the blanks in Chester Arthur’s legend were filled in by this book which utilized interviews with family members and authentic documents like the Arthur family Bible. It was a necessary work since old Chester Arthur was a very wily protector of his strange history. Also, Chester Arthur burned all of his papers. (See page 2365.)

“Gentleman Boss” establishes, on page 4, that Chester Arthur’s father William was born in Ireland, 1796, and emigrated to Canada in 1818 or 1819. His mother Malvina was born in Vermont and his parents eloped to Canada in 1821. They had their first child, Regina in Dunham, Canada on March 8, 1822.

THE MYSTERY - When was William Arthur naturalized? I don’t know. The only reference historian I know who ventured a date said it was 1843, but that historian also said he got that from “Gentleman Boss” and I could not find such a reference in the book. I spent a few hours with the book today. I examined every reference to William in the index and also went over the early years with a microscope. No reference to the naturalization date.

FACTS

By no later than 1824, the Arthur family had moved to Burlington, Vermont. Their second child Jane was born there on March 14, 1824. Chester Arthur was their fifth child, and he was born on October 5, 1829. Reeves established these facts (and the correct date of Chester Arthur’s birth) from the Arthur family Bible.

It gets interesting here because of the Naturalization Act of 1802. That act set the requisite of five years residence in the United States for those who wanted to become naturalized citizens. Doing the math, we know that William Arthur had moved to Vermont no later than 1824. Chester was born in October 1829. So if William had taken action on being naturalized in his first year, then he very well could have been a US citizen when Arthur was born. William studied law and taught school before he became a preacher in 1827, so he should have been familiar with the process of acquiring citizenship.

CHESTER ARTHUR’S FIRST LIE

From “Gentleman Boss”, page 5… regarding Chester’s birthday:

“…on October 5, 1829, Malvina Arthur gave birth to her fifth child. (The traditional date 1830 is incorrect. Arthur made himself a year younger, no doubt out of simply vanity, some time between 1870 and 1880…)”

Perhaps it was out of vanity, but perhaps he had a more sinister motive. Reeves establishes Chester changed his date in the decade of his most serious political career, 1770-1780. Chester was also a very skilled New York lawyer. If he had a problem with his father’s naturalization date, then moving back his birthday by a year might have fixed it. We will revisit this later. Suspend judgment for now.

CHESTER ARTHUR’S SECOND LIE

And this is where our villain Hinman returns. But was he a villain to Arthur? Hinman made a big stink in various New York publications alleging that Chester Arthur was born abroad as a British subject, much like those who are trying to say Obama is not a US citizen. It wasn’t true. Chester was born in Vermont. But this scandal had the effect of keeping public attention off of the issue of whether Chester Arthur’s father William was a British subject which would have made Chester a British subject “at birth” even though he was born in Vermont.

Does any of this sound familiar?

From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 and 203:

“…Hinman was hired, apparently by democrats, to explore rumors that Arthur had been born in a foreign country, was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the vice-presidency. By mid-August, Hinman was claiming that Arthur was born in Ireland and had been brought to the United States by his father when he was fourteen. Arthur denied the charge and said that his mother was a New Englander who had never left her native country — a statement every member of the Arthur family knew was untrue.”

His mother had lived in Canada with her husband and had her first child there. This was a blatant lie.

CHESTER ARTHUR’S THIRD LIE

In the 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. So, a third blatant lie.

CONCLUSIONS

I think we’ve discovered a bit of esoteric history tonight. I’ve not seen this analysis elsewhere.

It looks like Chester Arthur had something to hide. He burned all of his papers (but the family Bible survived). He moved his age back a year. I think vanity is a poor excuse. Only one year? He lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada.

By obscuring his parents’ past lives and time in Canada, he would have clouded all attempts at researching when his father naturalized. Think about the time period. He ran for Vice-President in 1880. His father, being a law student, and moving his family to the United States, would have probably naturalized as soon as possible. But it might not have been soon enough to make old Chester a natural born citizen.

As discussed above, the time frame between William Arthur’s five year residence requirement being met and the day Chester was born were probably very close.

Then when Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along basically demanding to see Chester’s 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.

William Arthur was probably not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur would have been a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.

Regardless, Chester Arthur lied through his teeth about his father’s 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 impossible to see through this, especially since Arthur’s father had died in 1875 as a United States citizen. Had anybody been suspicious, Arthur having changed his age by a year could have protected his eligibility. And without knowledge of his father’s time in Canada, researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start.

Because Chester Arthur lied about his father, any precedent he might have set for Obama is nullified completely as it appears Chester Arthur may have been a usurper to the Presidency. Eventually we will probably unearth William Arthur’s naturalization records.

While he did move around alot, he was a resident of Fairfield, Franklin County Vermont, between 1829 when Chester was born, and 1832 when Malvina Almeda was born. This is the most likely time period for his naturalization. The official word from Franklin County was a fast, “We don’t have naturalization records for William Arthur.”

I have a strong feeling we’ve uncovered the truth about Chester Arthur. Looks like he was the only ineligible President we’ve ever had. And he got away with it through his lies. But the light has a way of finding the darkness.

It’s no precedent to follow.

Leo C. Donofrio

23 posted on 10/27/2011 4:02:26 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

Great minds think alike!


24 posted on 10/27/2011 4:04:02 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

You have to expect the “Jin-Rubio for Prez.” comments sometimes on these threads, but it should make you wonder about the FRcredentials of some of these folks.


25 posted on 10/27/2011 4:08:56 PM PDT by urtax$@work (The only kind of memorial is a Burning memorial !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

The guy is an obot for sure. He was just soundly thrashed and humiliated.


26 posted on 10/27/2011 4:22:22 PM PDT by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
I read the post. Facts are facts. Obama is President. Therefore anyone born in the U.S. A. and has birth right citizenship IS ELIBIBLE FOR POTUS. Regardless of your reading of precedent. There is a new precedent set by the election and service of Obama as president.

The case is closed.

We must now work on getting Obama removed from office through the ballot box. It is almost three years into this disaster and we must keep it from being an eight year disaster.

27 posted on 10/27/2011 4:23:11 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy
It's not about where the parents were born. It is about whether they became citizens before their child was born.

NBC was never about WHERE the parents were born.

-PJ

28 posted on 10/27/2011 4:26:44 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

There are several of them around here in recent months.


29 posted on 10/27/2011 4:32:39 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town
OJ was found not guilty of murder. Therefore murder is now legal

That is exactly the kind of argument you're making in the case of eligibility.

Wrong is wrong. Period. I will not vote for any ticket with Rubio or Jindal on it. Ever.

30 posted on 10/27/2011 4:35:55 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: urtax$@work
You have to expect the “Jin-Rubio for Prez.” comments sometimes on these threads, but it should make you wonder about the FRcredentials of some of these folks.

I agree. There are a lot of people on FR who are not conservatives it would seem. Lately they've been getting bolder. They certainly have no respect for the Constitution.

31 posted on 10/27/2011 4:39:08 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob
He didn’t get my vote

Who did?

32 posted on 10/27/2011 4:44:42 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
I am sure neitther would care about your one vote. I am sure Obama didn't get your vote, yet he is still president. A fact that destroys ALL your arguments about Jindal’s or Rubio’s eligibility.
33 posted on 10/27/2011 4:51:55 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy
Those are the precedents I care about.

Yep. And you can add this one to the mix:


Chief Justice John Roberts, just making sure

OK, admittedly, that's not a formal majority opinion. But, after the uncontested election and inauguration of Barack Obama, it is inconceivable that John Roberts and his colleagues would ever find that a natural born citizen is anything beyond a person who is entitled to citizenship by reason of birth, as opposed to naturalization. Jindal was born a citizen by reason of being born in the United States. It's really simple.

Stare decisis et non quieta movere.

34 posted on 10/27/2011 4:55:45 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

I abstained, and voted the down ballot. If Treasury Secretary Kennedy would have throw his hat in the ring, he would have probably won.

The voters of LA chose what they consider the “least” of all evils...I don’t think many know voting down would have put Jindal into a run-off.


35 posted on 10/27/2011 5:18:25 PM PDT by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Opinionated Blowhard

Hey, OB! Read post #10.


36 posted on 10/27/2011 5:21:19 PM PDT by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

Jindal is a RINO fraud who supported the Louisiana Purchase by ganging up with the Dims. He has been set up by the Establishment RINOs. Look at his Resume and you will see what that he is nothing but a product of the RINO Establishment giving him many titles at a young age. If not for the internet and the TEA Party, he would have been considered a conservative.


37 posted on 10/27/2011 5:42:05 PM PDT by JimWayne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town

Your “logic” is nonsensical.


38 posted on 10/27/2011 6:04:02 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob

Some people are just never satisfied at all, even though none of the other candidates were worth the ink on the ballots. I proudly voted for him because unlike you I can see the good he’s done, you know like bringing a lot or real manufacturing jobs here.


39 posted on 10/27/2011 6:17:39 PM PDT by CajunConservative ( Leadership. It is defined by action, not position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81; Godebert; wolfman23601; BfloGuy
There's been a lot of wheel spinnin’ at this thread. Consider separation of powers.

See, federal courts can no more interfere with the duty of the states to appoint Presidential electors than it can interfere with the President’s power to nominate ambassadors. Both acts are non-justiciable.

40 posted on 10/27/2011 6:19:14 PM PDT by Jacquerie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: CajunConservative

Lots ‘o manufacturing jobs like NUCOR Steel down in St. James...Gov Jindal says he got 6,050 new jobs. Call up NUCOR, why don’t ya, and make them tell the “truth”. NUCOR’s website says that the will hire 150 permanent jobs.

Quit drinkin the Kool-Aid. SHEEP!


41 posted on 10/27/2011 6:34:22 PM PDT by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

I know damn good and well, that we aren’t the only conservative FReepers in LA.

Good post, Jim!


42 posted on 10/27/2011 6:38:16 PM PDT by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob

There’s been several here in the Lake Charles area. It’s not just NUCOR. But hey, I’m not one of the nutjob libertarians who got pissed off that he didn’t veto a bill fast enough.

I have your number now. You call me a SHEEP, I will call you a LOON.


43 posted on 10/27/2011 8:02:26 PM PDT by CajunConservative ( Leadership. It is defined by action, not position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
Here is the logic.

Obama IS the President of the U.S.

His Father was a citizen of Kenya and returned to Kenya to be involved in their politics. Yet he remains President.

Therefore: If he is eligible, and he must be because he remains in office and there is no possibility what so ever of him being removed due to his father being a foreigner, than Jindal and Rubio are both eligible. Both have immigrant parents who became citizens. They where both born in this country. The NEW STANDARD IS birthright citizenship = Natural Born Status as far as POTUS and VPOTUS are concerned.

Q.E.D AGAIN!

Regardless, neither is running for either position right now and I doubt either will be doing so in 2012.

44 posted on 10/27/2011 10:03:41 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town
The NEW STANDARD

You're insane. The "New Standard" also applies to abortion, illegal aliens and other abhorrent actions.

45 posted on 10/27/2011 10:36:25 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
Yes it does apply to all those as well. It is called reality. Try living in it. Until these things changed by either Constitutional Amendment, Legislative Action or a judicial ruling they are the law of the land. If a Constitutional Amendment is passed to make abortion illegal, I would be thrilled. If a Judicial ruling throws out the stupidity of Roe VS. Wade I would agree with it. If a law mandating a wall and strong action against illegals and their countries of origin I would be for that as well. And if a law, ruling or amendment was passed that outlawed Chicago Machine community rabble rousers who have Kenyan fathers from rising to the level of POUTUS I would stand and cheer and cry for joy.

You don't have to agree with the FACTS. Your opinion is irrelevant.p>

FACT: Obama is president.

FACT: Obama has a father who was a foreigner his entire life.

FACT: No One of ANY authority has even considered removing Obama due to his fathers status as a Non-Citizen. No one, not one.

FACT: The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court swore Obama in: NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE. He sure as Hell isn't going to look at any case that brings his judgment into question so the SCOTUS will never rule him ineligible.

FINAL FACT: To continue to dwell on this line of reason is ridiculous and the sign of being a bit of a knucklehead.

If Obama is eligible and the reality is that he IS President, than both Jindal or Rubio are eligible.

I can not believe that people are still arguing the stupidity of Obama’s eligibility. He isn't going to leave without getting voted out. Continuing to argue about it makes you a lunatic!

46 posted on 10/27/2011 11:16:27 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town
Why Republicans Will Never Address Obama’s Crimes
47 posted on 10/28/2011 4:37:01 AM PDT by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

404 Error! Page Not Found


48 posted on 10/28/2011 8:33:39 AM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy

The issue isn’t that Jindal’s parents weren’t BORN in the US. The issue is that they were not CITIZENS of the US at the time of Bobby’s birth.


49 posted on 10/28/2011 9:30:05 AM PDT by wolfman23601
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town
Wrong is wrong is wrong. Some things are not to be accepted...ever. This is one of them. Real conservatives stand for something.

Am I to assume that you have accepted abortion in the same way you accept the Obama presidency?

50 posted on 10/28/2011 9:36:46 AM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson