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 ...
It may lead to a web of lies that ties him to Connecticut SSN’s and illegal payments to Occidental, Harvard, Columbia, name it.
I agree with your suspicion.
You are correct I forgot the exact details of that case, but the point is the same. It deals only with “citizenship” by birth. Not the status of “natural born” citizenship. Natural born citizenship is not acquired simply by birth, it requires both parents being citizens at the time of the childs birth.
It is 100% clear on all accounts.
Additive to jus soli - that is creative. Wrong but creative.
As for the parents - it says parents - see the word - PARENTS. See the S at the end. It is clear. ‘Dual Citizenship’ is not accepted then. Citizenship followed the father. Women could not vote, much less pass on Citizenship (sorry ladies). This is why being a bastard was such a negative.
It is clear. Why are the trolls out on Easter?
In the Happersett case the Court addressed the issue of subject vs. citizen. They don't seem to place enormous importance on which word is used.
For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words "subject," "inhabitant," and "citizen" have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.
IOW, it's pretty clear the Court considered the terms "subject" and "citizen" more or less synonymous. They certainly don't seem to draw great conclusions from which word is used.
The entire legal history of the US shows that, with exception of LA, common law has been the standard except where overridden by statute or judicial decision. Changes are made in terminology as appropriate for a republic vs. a monarchy. Citizen rather than subject, state rather than crown, etc. But the principles were transferred over with little change. This was even more true in the early years of the nation.
Yep, and it's not uncommon. Say old man Smith leaves his fortune to his three sons, Alan, Brad, and Charles. Charles dies broke, intestate, and leaves no natural heirs. Old man Smith never changes his will. The probate judge decides how Charles' share gets divided.
Also, check out a family partnership. My mother, brother, and I have one. They’re all the rage these days for protecting wealth, but they have other purposes as well. Make sure you have a very good lawyer who specializes in estate protection.
Thanks for your truly brilliant exposition of how I misinterpreted the act’s language.
No attempt at explaining why I’m wrong, just a statement that I am. In fact, the Act says nothing at all about those born in the United States, only those born outside.
You aren’t going to convince many people who don’t already agree with you by such methods.
I’m signing off now. Didn’t want you to think I was running away in fear. Getting late.
How about payments to Barack H. Obama, Sr. to go along with being named the father. His behavior over the years indicates he has no emotional or other ties to his alleged son.
One more thing.
“In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response.”
Would you care to point out which posts of mine have been “inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic?”
While I disagree with some of the other posters, I’ve always tried to be polite and on-topic. Has the definition of troll recently expanded to mean someone who dares to disagree with you?
Until I see clear and convincing evidence that he is a natural born US citizen and eligible to be POTUS, he is just a pretender to me. Two simple questions. What is he hiding and why is he hiding it?
As a vet I had to show my DD214 for the following:
1. Eligibility for my 5-pt preference for my Federal employment.
2. Membership in the VFW.
3. To purchase my Korea War vet license plates for my car.
Is this more important than the pretender’s Birth Certificate?
I don’t care who calls me a birther.
No, that’s not what I’m saying, read my last post.
HIPAA law forbids any release of Protected Health Information except for certain exemptions.
If Abercrombie read a letter 0bama sent to him, the hospital is not (in a HIPAA sense) involved at all. If the letter was sent to Kapiolani, I don’t know. It may take a lawyer to figure out whether a letter sent by an ex-patient, referencing a medical event, but only in the context of congratulations on a centennial, is covered by HIPAA or not.
However, If Kapiolani had read the letter publicly, it sounds like they are (indirectly) confirming he was born there?
Don’t get the idea that HIPAA goes by common sense, because it doesn’t. My employer has some of the most inconvenient, non commonsensical policies in place because like all covered entities, they’re terrified of HIPAA.
That’s why the mystery of Obama’s past will always remain so. Too many are in a position of being blackmailed and they know that if Bambi falls, he will drag all of them down with him.
Kapiolani displayed the letter for six mos. I suppose they weren’t responsible for that either?
You seem determined to misunderstand. Kapiolani is not allowed to release medical information (with a few exceptions) under HIPAA. If they displayed the letter, obviously they are responsible for that. I have said in previous posts that I don’t know if the letter falls under HIPAA - it may take a lawyer to tell.
You didn’t answer - if they displayed the letter, are they indirectly confirming he was born in Kapiolani?
They freaking used the letter to fund raise off of. You answer me: were they affirming Obama was born there, when they used that very instance to raise $ for the hospital?
You may cut the condescending tone, also. I’m not the one defending irrationality. You’re saying, in so many words, ‘They can affirm he was born there; they just can’t affirm he was born there’.
If I were that irrational, I wouldn’t advertise it.
Well that's an interesting way to look at it. What you've ignored is that the Court addressed the specific definition of natural born citizen: all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens. The Wong Kim Ark decision quoted and affirmed this definition more than 20 years later. It only relied on British common law to give teeth to the 14th amendment, but clearly distinguished its type of citizenship from natural born citizenship.
These days, Sherman Logan, it wouldn't surprise me to see the public take your word over Chief Justice Morrison Waite's from Minor v. Happersett:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
The law evolved with an implicit respect for logical consistency. Vattel’s Law of Nations strives to be the implementation of the natural law, nature's law, to man's law, common law. Vattel's primary influence was the inventor of the calculus, Gottlieb Leibniz, who also appreciated the importance, when attempting to establish civil justice, of logical consistency. I simple terms, if it sounds unfair, the combatants may just keep fighting.
I won't ask you where you got your assumption, Mr. Rogers is no longer participating here, but suggest you don't depend upon it again, since it is wrong. Read the framers, justices, founders, Mario Apuzzo or Leo Donofrio. Require proof, a citation or quotation.
Depends on where he was born.
As I understand the law on the books at the time of Obama's birth, Stanley Ann would had to have given birth to Barry on US soil to confer citizenship on him.
If she gave birth to him outside the territorial US, the law says she was not of sufficient age to confer US citizenship on him.
If she gave birth to him outside the US, he's not even a US citizen, much less, a Natural Born US Citizen.
Which completely explains his ridiculous Apology Tour, kissing the rings of potentates, all of the bowing and kowtowing, rolling over for our enemies, ad infinitum...
Chief Justice John Roberts swore him in twice, in full knowledge of his parentage. Give it up.
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.