Posted on 04/02/2011 2:50:52 PM PDT by BCwant2see
Thanks, I’ll listen to it.
You asked me to re-read an entire thread which covers a wide range of issues. Be specific.
No, I gave you a link to a specific post that has a link, posted to you, that has the history of Chester Arthur that you keep lying about. How freaking lazy are you?
I love you too. Let’s try again. What precisely am I lying about in regard to Arthur?
Go to the link and read the history, you lazy liberal troll.
Where does US law define a natural born citizen as one having been born on US soil with two American parents?
I did. What "history" are you talking about? By the way, did I mention that I admire you? If not, let me say it proudly again. You are a really, really nice guy and a true role model for debators!
Hinman's sole issue was the question of whether Arthur was born in Canada. The fact that Arthur's father was an Irish immigrant was well known even before he became president. Hinman didn't "uncover" it. Here is an article from in 1880 (months before Arthur became vice president) in the Brooklyn Eagle from 1880! noting father-of-factly that his father was a Irish immigrant. If that doesn't convince you, here's another one from the Brooklyn Eagle in the same year
Your lazy troll friend, Captain Kirk
Hinman's sole issue was the question of whether Arthur was born in Canada. The fact that Arthur's father was an Irish immigrant was well known even before he became president. Hinman didn't "uncover" it. Here is an article from in 1880 (months before Arthur became vice president) in the Brooklyn Eagle from 1880! noting matter-of-factly that his father was a Irish immigrant. If that doesn't convince you, here's another one from the Brooklyn Eagle in the same year
Your lazy troll friend, Captain Kirk
Chester Arthur’s father became a naturalized US citizen in 1843, but Chester was born in 1829. Chester Arthur covered up his dual citizenship at birth with a complicated web of lies and obfuscation, as he was aware this made him ineligible for the presidency. The Constitution stipulates the president must be a natural born citizen, which the framers’ clearly understood to mean born on on US soil to US citizen parents - born under the sole jurisdiction of the US.
From Leo Donofrio’s blog: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/
“[Chester] Arthur lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s age plus where and when he got off the boat from Ireland. By obscuring his parents’ personal history he curtailed the possibility that anybody might discover he was born many years before his father had naturalized.
“When Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along essentially 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.
“Is this the twilight zone?”
He’s always been a lib-troll now he’s an anti-birther troll. Apparently telling absolute lies in the face of contradictory evidence isn’t a bridge too far for him. But trolls live under bridges so...
Very very sly but this the blog dances around the central issue. If you read through you find no evidence that Arthur was ever questioned about his father’s citizenship. The answer is quite obvious. NOBODY CARED. Whether he lied about his father’s age and the other details is totally beside the point since it has NOTHING to do with whether the father became a citizen and when. If Arthur covered up anything it was not his father’s citizenship because NOBODY cared enough about this issue to even ask him a question about it.
My point stands.
Very very sly but this the blog dances around the central issue. If you read through you find no evidence that Arthur was ever questioned about his father’s citizenship. The answer is quite obvious. NOBODY CARED. Whether he lied about his father’s age and the other details is totally beside the point since it has NOTHING to do with whether the father became a citizen and when. If Arthur covered up anything it was not his father’s citizenship because NOBODY cared enough about this issue to even ask him a question about it.
My point stands.
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.