Possible 2012 Republican Presidential Candidates: Part 3 (Jindal/Barbour/Christie)

Well we've reviewed the top of the field, yet there are still some true contenders likely to be on stage. This is a crowded class, filled with plausible nominees. My gut tells me that fund raising is going to be the biggest factor, with a couple of candidates pulling way out very early and that being the only thing that thins the herd.

The other factor may be perceived electibility, which was not much of a factor in this year's congressional races, as Republicans boldly nominated some of the most conservative candidates of recent memory. Did they learn a lesson in places like Delaware and Nevada, or will their overall success this year and the rise of the Tea Party inspire them to nominate far right conservatives once thought too radical for the mainstream.

The climate seems like the most favorable one to do so since 1980, when the same Ronald Reagan who'd lost to Gerald Ford in the '76 primary swept through the nomination process and onto a landslide victory over a struggling Democratic incumbent. On the other hand, nominating a very conservative candidate could cost Republicans independent votes and inspire a strong youth turnout, which was absent in 2010. Again, I feel as though the big money might be the one making this decision and there is a lot of green on the far right that might come out strong if it senses a unique opportunity.

Bobby Jindal – The governor of Louisiana was also on the McCain short list in 2008. Known as the wonder kid of the GOP, Jindal's story is enticing. A first-generation American, his family immigrated from Punjab, India. Jindal is an extremely intelligent individual – an intellectual heavyweight that few politicians (or anyone else for that matter) can match brain power with.

[Spiro Agnew's] father immigrated through the Ellis Island port of entry in 1902 and was naturalized before Spiro’s birth. The erroneous claims to the contrary are based upon a single erroneous census record in 1920 was supplied by an informant who gave the census taker erroneous information. The immigration record, 1910 Census, 1930 Census, and WWI draft registration card reported the correct information demonstrating the father was a naturalized U.S. citizen before Spiro’s birth.

Loren,

I've seen the above claims about 1910 & 1930 census records, as well as a WW1 draft registration card, floating around around in the comments sections of various blogs. Birthers claim these records contract the facts about Spiro's father contained in the 1920 census record that you uncovered. However, I haven't seen any documentation backing up this claim. No pdf files, no links, no photos to the records in question, just unsubstantiated claims about what they say.

Out of curiosity, have you checked to see if the records in question say what the birthers claim, or, as usual, are they just making crap up out of thin air?

Theodore Spiro Agnew; born Sept. 12, 1878, U.S. Citizen, [checked] Naturalized....

Theodore Spiro Agnew, [date of rrecord] 12 September 1918, Draft Board 11, Baltimore City, Maryland, World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918. United States, Selective Service System. World War I Selective Service System Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration. M1509, 4,582 rolls.

First off, Spiro Agnew was born in 1918. To the extent that any of these documents state whether a person was naturalized, none of them say *when.* That said...

1910 Census: I haven't found a Theodore Agnew in 1910, but I did find a "Theodoros Anagnostopoulos" (his original name) in Massachusetts who's the right age. He's listed as "Alien."

Source Citation: Year: 1910; Census Place: New Bedford Ward 6, Bristol, Massachusetts; Roll: T624_579; Page: 4B; Enumeration District: 211; Image: 689.

1920 Census: Citizenship is "Alien."

Source Citation: Year: 1920;Census Place: Baltimore Ward 11, Baltimore (Independent City), Maryland; Roll: T625_661; Page: 3B; Enumeration District: 166; Image: 835.

1930 Census: Under "Naturalization," the word "No" is written but stricken through, with a tiny "Al" written above for 'alien.'

Source Citation: Year: 1930; Census Place: Baltimore, Baltimore (Independent City), Maryland; Roll: 859; Page: 8B; Enumeration District: 467; Image: 18.0.

WWI Registration Card (dated Sep. 1918): "Naturalized" is checked. There's a subscript that isn't legible on the online image.

I'll do images later if you like, when I have the time to upload them.

---

So what you have is three Census records that say he wasn't naturalized (even as of 1930), and a registration card that says he was. Conflicting information.

Frankly, the most important thing to take away from this is that despite the lack of clarity on the issue, no one cared. And the reason no one cared was because it didn't matter. Everyone knew Agnew's father was from Greece, and absolutely no one cared whether he'd naturalized before or after Spiro's birth because it didn't matter.

That's why the answer isn't publicly known. Because it's just a bit of random obscure Agnew family trivia, not a Constitutional requirement.

Now you are trying to take the comment out of context and twist it into something it was never meant to be in the first place. His immigration record demonstrated the 1920 Census record and informant were in gross error and thereby supported the census records, draft registrations, and other records which reported him to be a naturalized citizen at least by 12 September 1918. The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence seen to date, everything other than some informant’s error ridden 1920 U.S. Census entry, reports Theodore Spiro Agnew was a naturalized U.S. citizen before the birth of his son. You have been given the exact citation where you can see the report of his U.S. citizenship in the draft registration for yourself. If you want to attempt to rebut the record of the man’s U.S. citizenship in those records, you are certainly free to find the persuasive documentary records needed to do so.

[Quote]
1910 Census: I haven’t found a Theodore Agnew in 1910, but I did find a “Theodoros Anagnostopoulos” (his original name) in Massachusetts who’s the right age. He’s listed as “Alien.”

Source Citation: Year: 1910; Census Place: New Bedford Ward 6, Bristol, Massachusetts; Roll: T624_579; Page: 4B; Enumeration District: 211; Image: 689.
[Unquote]

You are reporting the wrong census record and the wrong person. He is not the father of Spiro Theodore Agnew.

He is listed under a different name in another state and city. the 1910 U.S. Census reports he is “Na”, a naturalized U.S. citizen.

The 1930 U.S. Census reports he is “Na”, a naturalized U.S. citizen, but someone used a pencil to cross out the “Na” and write “Al”, meaning an Alien, in pencil above the “Na” written in ink. This was also done for some reason to other “Na” entries made by this census taker as well for reasons that are unknown.

The original entry for the 1910 U.S. Census very definitely reports he was a naturalized U.S. citizen eight years before the birth of his son. The draft registration reports he was a naturalized U.S. citizen no less than two months before the birth of his son. The 1920 U.S. Census record reports him as “Al” and Alien, but there are so many gross errors about age, year of immigration, the informant obviously was reporting erroneous information to the census taker. The 1930 U.S. Census reported he was a naturalized U.S. citizen, except the pen and ink entry was altered by pencil to report an Alien instead of naturalized U.S. citizen.

The natural born citizen requirement only matters to people who believe in enforcing the articles of the Constitution without bias and favortism to any party or person. Everyone else is acting in contempt of the Constitution and the principles for which it stands. It remains to be seen who will protect and defend the Constitution and who will effectively destroy the Constitution and the principles of freedom it was created to defend.

The original entry for the 1910 U.S. Census very definitely reports he was a naturalized U.S. citizen eight years before the birth of his son.

Sorry, but I won't take your word for it. Birthers have a history of making crap up out of thin air. Show me an image of the records, or at the very least, provide a link to a site that has them.

and thereby supported the census records, draft registrations, and other records which reported him to be a naturalized citizen at least by 12 September 1918. The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence seen to date, everything other than some informant’s error ridden 1920 U.S. Census entry, reports Theodore Spiro Agnew was a naturalized U.S. citizen before the birth of his son.

You've identified the WWI draft card. The same one I identified in my post above. But you claim that "census records" (plural) "draft registrations" (plural) "and other records" (plural) evidence this same conclusion. So what are these multiple other documents you claim exist?

I've pointed out that the 1910 and 1930 Censuses don't show him as being naturalized, despite your claim to the contrary. I've already provided the source locations, but I'll provide images of those two pages if you like.

And you have a funny definition of "overwhelming preponderance." Since 'not naturalized' currently has three Census records in its favor, and 'naturalized' has one draft card.

Sorry, but I won't take your word for it. Birthers have a history of making crap up out of thin air. Show me an image of the records, or at the very least, provide a link to a site that has them.

Here are images of both:

1910 Census

1930 Census

The 1930 one could say "Na," but there's clearly a line drawn through it an an "Al" written above.

You are reporting the wrong census record and the wrong person. He is not the father of Spiro Theodore Agnew.

He is listed under a different name in another state and city. the 1910 U.S. Census reports he is “Na”, a naturalized U.S. citizen.

Now I've posted two images to back up my claims. You, on the other hand, have claimed that you found Theodore Agnew elsewhere in the 1910 Census.

You say it's under a different name, but you don't say WHAT name. You say it's in a different state and city, but not WHAT state and city. You provide absolutely no source or location or useful information to find this supposed entry.

Now I'm not saying it DOESN'T exist. After all, I'm relying on an entry I found for his original name; it could be a different guy with the same name. You could be right. But I've provided the record location and an image. Whereas you've provided nothing.

[Quote]
Sorry, but I won’t take your word for it. Birthers have a history of making crap up out of thin air. Show me an image of the records, or at the very least, provide a link to a site that has them.
[Unquote]

Nobody asked you to take my word or anyone’s word on it. You were invited to look it up for yourself. That is what genuine scholars and responsible people do. Obviously, you find it much more convenient to spout misinformation, falsehoods, and “birther” insults to be bothered with the real world facts and evidence. So be it. Get it yourself. That way, the rest of us will not have to put up with your “birther” insults or be falsely accused of doctoring the images, inventing images, or some other delusional nonsense.

Loren, I’ve demonstrated good faith by providing the exact citation for the WW1 draft registration. You have provided your citations, which is good.

Unfortunately, you failed to notice your error on the citation of the 1910 U.S. Census, and you have erroneously reported Alien citizenship, when the record for the correct person clearly reports naturalized U.S. citizenship in 1910.

I have a citation of the exact record, but I am disinclined to share it at this time because of the boorish and abusive Birther slurs coming from Curiosity. I know the record exists, and I’m looking at it right now. I know it is the corect record, because information in it is corroborated by an article in an old magazine. I figure Curiosity will just have to find the record for himself, because he has already indicated the rest of us can’t be trusted. Too bad for Curiosity, who will just have to wallow in blithering ignorance for awhile.

If you want to find the correct 1910 Census record as a puzzle and a challenge, I’ll provide you with this clue. Broaden your search parameters and/or correlate the search with information from an old magazine article. It’s there for you to find, if you know what to look for.

If you want to share with Curiosity, that’s your business. Given his abusiveness, however, I would rather see Curiosity remain incurious and suffer the consequences for awhile longer.

You can close your eyes and ears and hum hum to yourself all you want, and it won’t make you any less self-deluded and dishonest. The genuine Census records are there to read for anyone with the intelligence and adult responsibility to find, read, and comprehend them. You, evidently, have opted out of all that. That is your problem, and not ours. The only thing which cannot bear scrutiny is your own stubbornly willful ignorance and obnoxiously insulting behavior.

Loren,

The following is the record you are looking for, with the name and locations redacted to keep from spoiling your fun in solving the puzzle.

Name: [redacted]; Relation: Head; Personal Description, Sex: M[ale], Color or Race: W[hite], Age at last birthday: 32, Whether single, married, or divorced: S[ingle], Number of years of present marriage: [blank], Mother of how many children, Number born: [blank], Mother of how many children, Number now living: [blank]; Nativity, Place of birth of this person: Greece Greek, Place of birth of Father of this person: Greece Greek, Place of birth of Mother of this person: Greece Greek; Citizenship, Year of immigration of this person: 1902, Whether naturalized of Alien: Na[turalized]; Whether able to speak English, or, if not, give language spoken:English; occupation, Trade or profession of, or particular kind of work done by this person: restaurant, General nature of industry, business, or establishment in which this person works: Fruit, Whether an employer, employee, or working on own account: Emp[loyee], If an employee- Whether out of work on April 15, 1910: No, Number of weeks out of work during 1909: 0; Education, Whether able to read: Yes, Whether able to write: Yes, Attended school any time since Sept. 1, 1909: Yes; Ownership of Home: O[wned], Owned free or mortgaged: [checkmark], Farm or House: H; Whether a survivor of the Union or Confederate Army or Navy: [blank]: [blank]; Whether blind (both eyes): [blank]; Whether deaf and dumb: [blank].

Entry for [redacted], House No. [redacted], Dwelling Number [redacted], Number of Family in Visitation [redacted], [redacted] St.; [redacted] Ward [redacted], [redacted], [redacted]; Roll: [redacted]_[redacted]; Page: [redacted]; Enumeration District: [redacted]; Thirteenth Census of the United States, 1910 (NARA microfilm publication T624, 1,178 rolls). Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29. National Archives, Washington, D.C.

A bonus clue, he can be found living with family in the home.

I don’t get your point.

There are:

Native citizens

Naturalized citizens

Natural Born Citizens

Clearly Jindal is not a “Natural Born Citizen”. He is a Native citizen and like the other two groups of citizens he has all the rights of citizenry save one, being the president.

There is no “Common Law” that makes him a Natural Born Citizen.

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.