From what I just read on another thread, Obama isn’t a legal President because his FATHER was a British Citizen. Blamo. No go historically. Chester Aurthur wasn’t legal either, but he successfully HID his birth Parentage.
It's much harder to hide things today. And I read the same thing you did. That's just one of many I've seen here on FR and elsewhere.
Ironic that he may have been born a British Subject when the Founders were pointedly trying to sever ties to the Crown.
But Bammi has not. Just because one guy gets away with breaking into your house, doesn't mean you shouldn't shoot the next one who tries it.
There were/are some diferences between the father parentage of Arthur and the father parentage of Obama, not that the final issue of eligibility is different. The difference to me is that Arthur had parents , father and mother, who were for the good of the USA, Obama’s parents, father and mother, could not be claimed as USA friends and his fathers relationship with the USA was far apart from what Arthur’s father’s relationship was. This is no justification for Arthur’s nomination,election or presidency. However, I believe I would have been more comfortable with a usurper like Arthur than the usurper we have today.