Laity's being auto-blown off by a spam filter is newsworthy!DESPITE SCHOLARLY RESEARCH QUESTIONING IT
On Saturday morning, The Post & Email received an email from reader Robert Laity, who has filed lawsuits and written extensively about the “natural born Citizen” provision contained in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution relating to presidential eligibility.
He reported that after reading an article on putative 21st President Chester Arthur at the National Constitution Center and attempting to leave a comment in response, he received a message indicating that the comment was considered “spam” and would not be published.
Published October 5 on the anniversary of Arthur’s birth in 1829 or 1830, as his tombstone reportedly states, the article begins, “Arthur was born on October 5, 1829 in Fairfield, Vermont. (In later years there were claims, never proven, that Arthur was born across the border in Canada, which would have threatened his eligibility to serve as President.)”
An article dated October 14, 2009 by Marquette University Law School Prof. J. Gordon Hylton titled, “President Chester A. Arthur and the Birthers, 1880’s Style” acknowledged questions which had arisen over Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility but deemed Obama “clearly eligible” without explanation.
The article states, in part:[Usual birther snipped.]Questions of Arthur’s eligibility for the nation’s highest office surfaced during the 1880 campaign. Arthur was the son of an Irishman who emigrated first to Canada and the then to the United States, and who finally became a naturalized United States citizen in 1843, fifteen years after his son Arthur’s birth in 1829. Arthur’s mother was a United States citizen born in Vermont but whose family emigrated to Canada where she met and married her husband. By the time of Arthur’s birth, his parents had moved back to Vermont.
The controversy over Arthur’s citizenship status centers around the place of Arthur’s actual birth. By one account he was born in his family’s home in Franklin County, Vermont. If this was true, then he was clearly a natural born citizen. On the other hand, the competing account has it that he was born during his pregnant mother’s visit to her family’s home in Canada.
If the latter story is true, then Arthur was technically foreign-born, and in 1829, citizenship in such cases passed to the child only if the father was a United States citizen, and, of course, at this point Arthur’s father was still a citizen of the British Empire.
After receiving the “spam” notification, Laity wrote to the website’s manager, copying this writer and another journalist. His message reads:In an email responding to The Post & Email’s question about his comment, Laity further provided:Laity wrote:I wrote an erudite comment about Arthur and Obama being “Imposters in the Oval Office” (read my book by the same name) and my “comment was marked as spam”. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, Very ashamed. My comment was NOT SPAM!!
Whether you want to admit it or not, Arthur and Obama were FRAUDS.
http://www.thepostemail.com/09/17/2010/ ... dent-obama
http://www.thepostemail.com/11/19/2017/ ... val-office
Robert C. Laity
Founder and President
Society for the Preservation of our American RepublicLaity wrote:I wrote a comment that explained why Arthur and Obama were not bona-fide Presidents. I submitted it and then a notice said that comment would appear after moderation. Several minutes later a notice was written where the coment should have appeared that “Comment was marked as spam”. Oh well. Some people can’t handle the truth.
The offending site in question uses a standard Disqus plug in. It looks like Laity's comment got bounced because he included two links.