Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hawaii senator questions Obama's true birth father
WND ^ | April 23, 2011 | WND

Posted on 04/24/2011 1:22:43 PM PDT by RobinMasters

The lone Republican in the Hawaii State Senate told a radio interviewer today he believes "the real issue" stopping Barack Obama from releasing his long-form birth certificate is something the president has to hide, perhaps even the name of his actual birth father.

Hawaii State Sen. Sam Slom further told the host of "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" on WABC 770 AM in New York City that so long as Obama refuses to be transparent about his past, questions about the president's birth remain "a legitimate issue."

"My particular point of view – and why I haven't identified myself as a 'birther,' per se – is that [Obama] probably was born [in Hawaii] and that the real issue is not the birth certificate, but what's on the birth certificate," Slom told Klein.

Asked what that could be, Slom said, "It could have to do with what his name is on the birth certificate, who is actually listed as his father, the citizenship of the father."

He continued, "My belief is that there is a birth certificate, he was born here, but that there is information that for reasons known only to him he doesn't want released. If it were just the birth certificate, that would be one thing, but it's his school records, it's employment records. … Why would anybody, let alone the president of the United States, spend millions of dollars in legal fees to keep that hidden?"

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: 2012; allegedlyamerican; allegedlyeligible; birth; birthcertificate; certificate; certifigate; hawaii; naturalborncitizen; obamafather; slom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 261-277 next last
To: Trick or Treat

Oh, I don’t think Obama looks ANYTHING like Davis. I mean, seriously, Davis’s nostrils are bigger than Waxman’s!


141 posted on 04/24/2011 7:32:51 PM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I think you refer to citizenship, not “natural born” citizenship.


142 posted on 04/24/2011 7:33:49 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: jarofants

If Frank Marshall Davis WAS the father, it means that he later on molested his own son! That is too sick for me to contemplate. I don’t think he was the father.


143 posted on 04/24/2011 7:36:38 PM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

Minor v. Happerset states there is no question about the natural born status of those born in the country to two citizen parents. But that there are “doubts” as to the status of those born in country to aliens. Since it was not relevant to the case, the court did not address the issue further.

Wong Kim Ark did. As I’ve quoted several times.


144 posted on 04/24/2011 7:39:49 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
something the president has to hide, perhaps even the name of his actual birth father.

Yeah, the lying bastard.

145 posted on 04/24/2011 7:41:03 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month...April.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html

169 U.S. 649 United States v. Wong Kim Ark

All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The case dealt with citizenship, not "natural born" citizenship.

146 posted on 04/24/2011 7:42:31 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
US Supreme Court, Wong Kim Ark case:

"every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject. ... The same rule was in force ... under the Constitution ..."

Seems pretty clear to me.

147 posted on 04/24/2011 7:44:46 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Show me where it mentioned “natural born” citizenship in that case.


148 posted on 04/24/2011 7:45:05 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
169 U.S. 649 United States v. Wong Kim Ark

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

In the opinion section of the case this is stated. But be careful what you read into it. It did not say that birth along gave "natural born" status.

The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.

It said the child was no less a citizen than the "natural born" citizen. But it did not say they were both the same status of citizenship.

Birth on U.S. soil alone does not confer "natural born" citizenship.

149 posted on 04/24/2011 7:53:38 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Go read the 1790 act. It makes it clear, very clear, explicitly clear what is the key factor to natural born status - jus sanguinis.

jus sanguinis is ALL that was legally needed from 1790 to 1795 to be considered - legally - a natural born Citizen.

jus soli was basically waived by this act. That is how much the original Congress thought of jus soli.


150 posted on 04/24/2011 7:54:09 PM PDT by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
So belief that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen has become a litmus test for determining whether one is conservative or eligible for FR? When did that happen?

I can't just think Obama is a lousy president, I also must believe he is a usurper?

That HuffPo (or anybody else) uses a particular talking point does not make them untrue. I'm not familiar with their talking points. I've arrived at my conclusions by my own research.

Per "missing documents." We recently had to come up with a copy of our marriage license for an obscure legal reason. Original had been misplaced during multiple moves. The county had no record. So after 35 years and two daughters we weren't "really married." Had enormous fun teasing the wife about living in sin.

Six months later it turned up at the county offices. Had been misfiled.

FWIW, I'd like to see Obama's LBC. While I doubt anything on it will prove him ineligible for the presidency, I am intrigued by the apparently desperate attempts to keep it under wraps.

I'd like even more to see some of the other documentation of his life he's kept secret.

151 posted on 04/24/2011 7:54:12 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker

You don’t have to be a lawyer to exercise common sense. What you’re saying makes NO sense. You’re saying that at an official Kapiolani event, at the official Kapiolani microphone, an approved speaker could affirm—with cameras rolling, to preserve his remarks for Youtube posterity—that Obama was born at Kapiolani, BUT that it is a major crime for Kapiolani to subsequently affirm that this happened.

Look, no fines or other penalties accrued to the official announcement. So why would a simple affirmation of that announcement be a major crime/sin?

To repeat: what you’re saying makes no sense. And anybody who can’t smell a rat in all this obfuscation has serious, serious problems.


152 posted on 04/24/2011 7:54:52 PM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

But, but, but. I thought the Constitution couldn’t be revised by mere act of Congress.


153 posted on 04/24/2011 7:56:26 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

Absolutely. You had to be grand-fathered in during revolution to meet the provisions the founders set forth. They knew that outside influences would try to steal what they had been given providence to create.


154 posted on 04/24/2011 8:06:34 PM PDT by eyedigress ((Old storm chaser from the west)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Right.

So they pulled it out in 1795.

It may have been a legal error for 5 years. But it gives us our answer that is relevant to today. Even the US Senate references this law in SR 511.

jus sanguinis. It is the critical component.


155 posted on 04/24/2011 8:06:42 PM PDT by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6
And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens

I think an equally reasonable reading of this clause is that it adds jus sanguinis to the existing jus solis.

IOW, it nowhere says children of aliens born in the United States are NOT natural born, it merely says children of US citizens born overseas ARE.

It also does not address the issue of a child born overseas to one citizen and one alien parent, not to mention a child born in the US to the same parents.

156 posted on 04/24/2011 8:07:41 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
B T T T ! ! !

157 posted on 04/24/2011 8:09:22 PM PDT by vox_freedom (America is being tested as never before in its history. May God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
"every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject. The same rule was in force ... under the Constitution ..."

U.S. Citizens are not "subjects" as the English citizens were. Not the same at all.

158 posted on 04/24/2011 8:10:56 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane

I may just do that I have been assured by a couple of Lawyers I was pretty much iron clad protected but with the courts today who knows.

I did meet the lady again about 10 years ago. Got the whole sad story she was 16 he a married man kept none of his promises. In 68 she had read in the local paper I had been shipped to Vietnam an figured I stood a good chance of not coming back, she was closer than she knew on that!

Long story but I will check into your advice.


159 posted on 04/24/2011 8:11:02 PM PDT by Lees Swrd ("Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe and preserve order in the world as well")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

“You reference the Wong Kim Ark case but in that case the defendant was clearly born of 2 U.S. citizens. Obozo is not if BHO, Sr. was his father.”

Very wrong. Wong’s parents were not US citizens; otherwise, there would have been no need for the case to be brought.

I think that BO was born in Hawaii but there is something on the birth certificate that is embarrassing and would show that he’s lied in a big way.

We already know he was raised as a Muslim so it would have to be something else. My best guess is that Barack Hussein Obama is not his real father.


160 posted on 04/24/2011 8:11:10 PM PDT by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 261-277 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson