Skip to comments.Hawaii senator questions Obama's true birth father
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 ...
Oh, I don’t think Obama looks ANYTHING like Davis. I mean, seriously, Davis’s nostrils are bigger than Waxman’s!
I think you refer to citizenship, not “natural born” citizenship.
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.
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.
Yeah, the lying bastard.
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.
"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.
Show me where it mentioned “natural born” citizenship in that case.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But, but, but. I thought the Constitution couldn’t be revised by mere act of Congress.
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.
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.
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.
U.S. Citizens are not "subjects" as the English citizens were. Not the same at all.
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.
“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.
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.