I Put My Thinking Cap On

I left this response on an older post today in response to an obama fan (clinger).

It is imperfect logic, I know full well, but it is based on writings I haven’t yet studied in depth, having only read through the one twice quickly, and being in the process of reading another that also references this one.

In the meanwhile, I will post this here and you can all have a look.  Discuss this with me in comments please.


Actually-I’ve been reading William Rawle’s take on the Constitution. The whole thing. I am now in the process of reading “Commentaries on the Constitution”, by Story.
Thing is with what you referenced in a different comment (still in moderation), about the “natural born citizen” definition by William R., is that all I can find to read is an edited version-not one with the original wording. Also, Rawles mentioned three classes of citizens, one is naturalized, which he spends most time on, the other two he is very vauge. He is a RABID abolitionist, and so his comment on “natural born” may reflect somewhat on his personal viewpoint-that is just my own supposition.
For it is not spelled out that a child born to “aliens” on US soil, would have to become naturalized prior to running for president – not in his essay or in the Constitution itself. What I mean by this is if the “aliens” were simply visitors, and never intended or desired to become naturalized, and returned to their home country, taking Baby along with them, then Baby comes back at age thirty, kicks around for awhile, then decides to run for president, are there no checks against this? He does spell out the requirements for a senator to have to be at least a naturalized citizen for no less than nine years prior to seeking office. the reason he sets out is: (emphasis mine)

“The person appointed must be at least thirty years of age, have been a citizen of the United States nine years, and at the time of his election, he must be an inhabitant of the state by which he shall be chosen. The senatorial trust requiring great extent of information and stability of character, a mature age is requisite. Participating immediately in some of the transactions with foreign nations, it ought to be exercised by those who are thoroughly weaned from the prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education. The term of nine years is a reasonable medium between a total exclusion of naturalized citizens, whose merits and talents may claim a share of public confidence, and an indiscriminate and hasty admission of them, which might possibly create a channel for foreign influence in the national council. 2″


Here is the part that you referenced:

“It cannot escape notice, that no definition of the nature and rights of citizens appears in the Constitution. The descriptive term is used, with a plain indication that its meaning is understood by all, and this indeed is the general character of the whole instrument. Except in one instance, it gives no definitions, but it acts in all its parts, on qualifies and relations supposed to be already known. Thus it declares, that 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 — that no person shall be a senator who shall not have been nine years a citizen of the United States, nor a representative who has not been such a citizen seven years, and it will therefore be not inconsistent with the scope and tendency of the present essay, to enter shortly into the nature of citizenship.”


The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.

The reference is clearly to clarify that AT THE SIGNING OF THE CONSTITUTION (or when the constitution was ratified), all citizens of all the states, regardless if their parents were aliens at the time, became “natural born citizens”. Of course there were alien parents at that time – it wasn’t “quite” the United States yet, although we had been officially recognized as a sovereign nation on Sept. 3, 1783, the Constitution hadn’t been ratified yet.. The states had until that time each done their own thing as to naturalization. Once the Constitution was signed, that job was now regulated to the Congress of the United States. So, yes, at the signing and ratified, everyone born in the country was considered a natural born, and their parents were no longer “aliens” but (naturalized) citizens.


~ by ladysforest on February 1, 2011.

13 Responses to “I Put My Thinking Cap On”

  1. I am sorry to make the first comment here off topic, but I wanted to make you aware that I referenced your blog, particularly your research on the newspaper articles. I wanted to direct your attention to the thread so that you could see some of the comments and respond if you choose either here or there. You’ll have to scroll through. The comments at this point are at 129 and the discussion about the newspaper articles is only a small portion of the thread.


    • Oh, them. I don’t bother much with that. Thing is, they don’t seem to come to terms with the fact that I never made any absolute claim that the things were altered. They did that themselves.
      Do the things LOOK altered, oh you bet they do. I’ve seen in person.
      But I don’t state anything as FACT if I don’t see it happen with my eyeballs. It’s just the way I am.
      That post has been viewed over 20,000 times, and only ONE person, who declared himself an expert, tried to explain away the anomalies.
      Not successfully, not even on THIS blog, where the work is published. He only did that on the ONE blog, where he has buddies. Bah!
      Listen – out of all of those views, I had less than twenty “nasty” or “dismissive” responses. And the dude you refer to? He never even had the courtesy or courage to post his “professional” take on it here.
      No worries if he did, I have a few experts up my sleeve – I wouldn’t spend all that time and money and not consult experts. Do I seem like the type? Hahaha.

      • Thanks for your reply. Do you plan to do any further updates?

        • Yes, some. With the newspaper film copies it is difficult. Due to the refusal of the newspapers, now consolidated into the StarAdvertiser, to ever be forthcoming about their practices, and refusal to allow the on site archived papers and microfilms to be viewed, there is not a lot more that can be done with that. Well, on my end. There is another blogger whom I have provided with copies of the material, and she has done a ton of her own research into this, I believe she had something that she was working on. She has a bit of an experts background in it you see.
          Did you read this post yet?
          There is a bit more info there and a better breakdown of the original two examples of the birth announcements. I explain why KOA could NOT have made the copy in person as claimed.

      • I really don’t yet clearly see where all the intrigue about the anomalous newspaper clippings is leading. I know you don’t like to jump to less-than-firm conclusions, but I wonder if it would be reasonable to suggest that the various inconsistencies, cut-and-paste marks, etc. supports the possibility that the Hawaiian newspaper birth announcements for Obama are totally contemporary fabrications that never existed at all in the original records.

        I always thought that the records reported by the newspapers legitimately came from the HDOH, but were based on the lie of a Hawaiian birth that Obama’s grandmother (or some other relative) had filed with the HDOH at the time.

        Is it possible that Obama’s grandmother may have never actually filed the fraudulent HDOH birth report until a much later time (too late for the newspaper announcements to have appeared with the correct historical timing – or at all, since the actual birth event was long past)?

        Or is it reasonably possible that the questionable nature of the incomplete and unsubstantiated birth report that *was* filed may have kept the HDOH from releasing the data to the newspapers?

        I suppose either of these two reasons could be the motivation to produce forged announcements. Perhaps other scenarios are possible (redacted : sorry, don’t want that out there too much just yet 🙂 ). Whatever the case, I have been following this unfolding saga with sad and angry, but rapt fascination. I do hope eventually you and Butterdezillion share your best suppositions of what this all means. Is anything about Obama’s life story not some sort of fraud?

        • All of the things that you suggest are reasonable. It’s like a row of dominoes waiting for the kitty to come along and bump into even one domino, and down the rest go.

      • Oopps – loose lips and of that… I thought that scenario had already been mentioned on Free Republic (just the general scenario sans details).

        Maybe someday, if this all turns out for the better, we can look back at this saga like a tightly interwoven and captivating who-done-it suspense thriller, but right now I just want the smarmy tool of evil who is masquerading as our President gone, preferably convicted of high treason and (oops-redacted, violent imagery 🙂 ) — that would be just warning to all the other criminal politicians in Washington. How can so many of them not care a whit about upholding the most fundamental tenets of the Constitution and the rule of law? What about the solemn oaths they all took?

        Hopefully the first domino has already been tipped. I can hardly wait to see them all come tumbling down.

  2. the problem with their tatics is that they get old.

  3. Natural born citizens are the descendants of the citizens created after the ratification of the Constitution.

    The 14th amendment made citizens of the freed slaves.

    A natural born citizen is a Kind.

  4. The half sister is said to have a Hawaiian COLB. I am curious as to whether her birth announcement was in the paper. Do you know if anyone has looked?

    • No, I don’t know if anyone has checked for that, it shouldn’t be difficult, although having no idea if/when the COLB would have been applied for, one would have to scan through at least two months. The whole thing about her having a COLB is a rumor that I have never been able to verify. Some think she has one, others think it’s a red herring.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: