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 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-277 next last
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]

To: DallasMike

It may lead to a web of lies that ties him to Connecticut SSN’s and illegal payments to Occidental, Harvard, Columbia, name it.


161 posted on 04/24/2011 8:13:58 PM PDT by eyedigress ((Old storm chaser from the west)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike

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.


162 posted on 04/24/2011 8:14:34 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 160 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Spin away.

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?


163 posted on 04/24/2011 8:15:19 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 156 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
Then why did the Court say "the same rule?"

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.

164 posted on 04/24/2011 8:22:11 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane
Believe it or not I read the other day that a will is not an iron clad document that determines who gets your money. Apparently the person who dies lists their preferences but the probate judge makes the decision as to who actually gets the money.
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.

165 posted on 04/24/2011 8:22:31 PM PDT by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Lees Swrd

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.


166 posted on 04/24/2011 8:30:47 PM PDT by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

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.


167 posted on 04/24/2011 8:32:29 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: eyedigress

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.


168 posted on 04/24/2011 8:34:47 PM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

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?


169 posted on 04/24/2011 8:37:17 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

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.


170 posted on 04/24/2011 8:54:28 PM PDT by willibeaux (de ole Korean War vet age 81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

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.


171 posted on 04/24/2011 8:58:50 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: MissDairyGoodnessVT

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.


172 posted on 04/24/2011 9:20:43 PM PDT by 353FMG (The M1911 is mightier than the sword.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker

Kapiolani displayed the letter for six mos. I suppose they weren’t responsible for that either?


173 posted on 04/24/2011 9:37:43 PM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

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?


174 posted on 04/24/2011 9:48:35 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker

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.


175 posted on 04/24/2011 9:52:59 PM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
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.

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.

176 posted on 04/24/2011 10:19:51 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Nope. Common law is jus solis, place of birth.

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.

177 posted on 04/24/2011 10:41:06 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: SERKIT
...the baby-momma could not have conferred NBC due to her age.

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.

178 posted on 04/24/2011 11:28:44 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf
Do you not think the KGB, the Chinese, and other foreign intelligence services have not already done this ....

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...

179 posted on 04/24/2011 11:34:25 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
There is only 1 way for Obozo to be a “natural born” U.S. Citizen as required by the Constitution. Only if his father is someone other than BHO, Sr. and that someone is also a U.S. Citizen.

Chief Justice John Roberts swore him in twice, in full knowledge of his parentage. Give it up.

180 posted on 04/24/2011 11:40:16 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Here is the U.S. Immigration Law that covers the issue of children born abroad to 1 citizen and 1 alien.

http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/66%20stat%20163.pdf

the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

Public law 82-414 Chapter 1 Section 301 (7)

This applies to Obozo, assuming he is the son of Barrack H. Obama, Sr. and that he was born abroad.

If born abroad with the stated father, he is not even a U.S. Citizen.....


181 posted on 04/24/2011 11:43:30 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 178 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody
Chief Justice John Roberts swore him in twice

True that. But did you ever figure out why that was necessary?

And, I have yet to see anything in law that convinces me that anyone other than a person born in the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. Citizens can be a "natural born" citizen.

182 posted on 04/24/2011 11:48:06 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 180 | View Replies]

To: Mila
One of the sons is deceased, but the other whose name is Mark lives in China and runs an internet company and, to my eye at least, bears a resemblance to Obama Jr. He also seems to look nothing like his father Obama Sr.

Interesting. No doubt, Mark's net contribution to the world far exceeds that of his more famous relative.


183 posted on 04/24/2011 11:56:10 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

You don’t seriously expect a federal law like HIPAA to be rational, do you? It’s as convoluted and cumbersome and as much a PITA as any other federal law.

My guess (and that’s all it is) is that the hospital’s lawyers OK’ed the letter to be read because the hospital isn’t the source of the information - the writer of the letter is. They may have had his permission to read it - but that’s not the same as permission to confirm or deny the content. If a hospital employee says, “What’s in the letter is true (or false),” then THAT information comes from the hospital and is in violation of the law.

My experience with HIPAA is that in order to get a provider to release information, they want very specific written permission.

Here’s my real-life example of HIPAA in action: I want a print of my husband’s X-ray that was taken in January. He has to sign a document that expressly gives them permission to release THAT particular record to ME. Then, I can get that X-ray. They won’t give it to anyone else. Later on, they won’t give me his other X-ray that was taken in March, unless he signs another form permitting that one to be released to me, too. See, the first form was for the January X-ray only and is no good for anything else.

Yes, it is stupid. I’m his wife and they have a letter on file that I have permission to get one X-ray and they won’t give me the other one without another signature. It’s stupid but that’s the law.

It may be that Obama can’t legally give permission for his mother’s records to be released. I just don’t know what the procedure is for dead people’s records.

I suppose someone could go try to get a dead relative’s medical records released to someone else and see what happens, see if they can do it. It would have to be released directly to someone else if we ever were to see Obama’s mother’s records. Who would believe anything that went through Obama’s hands first?


184 posted on 04/25/2011 2:35:56 AM PDT by Hepsabeth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: jcsjcm

If Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann were married when Obama was born, he would have been listed as the father unless there was contrary proof. I have no idea who his father was but I would expect Obama Sr. to be on the BC.


185 posted on 04/25/2011 5:50:15 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Trick or Treat

maybe he has a different mother; how do we know Stanley was his birth mom?


186 posted on 04/25/2011 5:51:36 AM PDT by CT Hillbilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MissDairyGoodnessVT
"This pubbie is a dummie on the bc issue. It’s not just the father issue but ALL his other records that have been willfully concealed!"

Did you read the article?

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.

187 posted on 04/25/2011 5:52:41 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Trick or Treat

But, if Davis is his real father, then that means that zero is eligible to be president. The Commie was a U.S. citizen, so, this doesn’t cut the mustard for me.

Maybe he really doesn’t know who his real father is, in which case, wouldn’t he still be a nbc?

He just needs to release the darned records. Like that’s going to happen.


188 posted on 04/25/2011 6:00:18 AM PDT by Catsrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MissDairyGoodnessVT

You were wrong about the article. Admit it,man up, Miss Dairy, and move on.


189 posted on 04/25/2011 6:09:54 AM PDT by Clint Lippo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Trick or Treat; Sarah Barracuda
I’m also incline to believe that Frank Marshall Davis was Obama’s father. If you look at pictures of Obama, Obama Sr, and Davis, Obama looks much more like Davis than Obama Sr.

Really? I don't see that at all.

Photobucket

190 posted on 04/25/2011 6:11:00 AM PDT by Just A Nobody (Beware the ENEMEDIA ... Never Again! Support our Troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

No


191 posted on 04/25/2011 6:19:09 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Hepsabeth

The hospital displayed the letter on hospital property for 6 mos. They used it for fund raising. What you’re saying is that even though they validated the letter and it’s contents—and exposed themselves to legal liability [it’s called fraud; if you say, ‘give to us; we delivered the baby Obama’ and it’s a lie, then the donors who were hoodwinked can sue. Definition of fraud (which is a crime): A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed.] they never acknowledged the contents to be true.

It’s a degree of pretzel logic to which I can’t descend. But you Obama defenders keep on plucking that chicken. You’re so good at it, after all.


192 posted on 04/25/2011 6:19:36 AM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody

Agree. I do not see much resemblance between Obama and Davis. Neither with Obama Snr.

What is a fact though is that either Stanley Armour or Stanley Ann is a parent of the Alien.

The other parent is a mystery.


193 posted on 04/25/2011 6:22:46 AM PDT by Sloane_Ranger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: cycle of discernment
"WHY is there no record in any Hawaiian hospital of Stanley Ann Dunham ever being admitted?"

How did you come by the information that there is no record that Stanley Ann was admitted to the hospital? You could do everyone a big favor if you would provide the evidence of this.

194 posted on 04/25/2011 6:30:47 AM PDT by cookcounty (Eric Holder, Head of the Department of JUST-US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
If 0bama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro in Hawaii, then his original birth records would have been sealed. Any BC issued to him nowadays would be a Certification, not a Certificate. It would have less information than the original LFBC. His BC would now say Soetoro.
An adopted person has to jump through hoops to get his/her original BC, at least in NC. My current BC is called a Certification and is missing much of the info that is on my original, including the question 'Is Mother Married?' :)
When did Barry Soetoro become Barack 0bama?
195 posted on 04/25/2011 6:31:18 AM PDT by ComputerGuy (HM2/USN M/3/3 Marines RVN 66-67)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Bluebird Singing
"And if anyone other than Barack Sr is his father then the man committed a Felony/fraud by listing BO sr. as the father on the released Certification of live birth.”

That assumes that Barry, jr., knows who his father is.

Maybe the Dunhams didn't want to let Frank M Davis into the family (for which there are a number of possible reasons), so they just "assigned" him to the far away foreigner because while still a bit messy, it was much easier to deal with. Think of the internal family dynamics when Grandpa's drinking pal (which is what Dreams explicitly says he was), gets the daughter pregnant. Big family crisis. Lots of embarrassment, followed by "Hey Frank, how about you move back to Chicago?"

196 posted on 04/25/2011 6:39:08 AM PDT by cookcounty (Eric Holder, Head of the Department of JUST-US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty

Pop

Sitting in his seat, a seat broad and broken
In, sprinkled with ashes,
Pop switches channels, takes another
Shot of Seagrams, neat, and asks
What to do with me, a green young man
Who fails to consider the
Flim and flam of the world, since
Things have been easy for me;
I stare hard at his face, a stare
That deflects off his brow;
I’m sure he’s unaware of his
Dark, watery eyes, that
Glance in different directions,
And his slow, unwelcome twitches,
Fail to pass.
I listen, nod,
Listen, open, till I cling to his pale,
Beige T-shirt, yelling,
Yelling in his ears, that hang
With heavy lobes, but he’s still telling
His joke, so I ask why
He’s so unhappy, to which he replies . . .
But I don’t care anymore, cause
He took too damn long, and from
Under my seat, I pull out the
Mirror I’ve been saving; I’m laughing,
Laughing loud, the blood rushing from his face
To mine, as he grows small,
A spot in my brain, something
That may be squeezed out, like a
Watermelon seed between
Two fingers.
Pop takes another shot, neat,
Points out the same amber
Stain on his shorts that I’ve got on mine and
Makes me smell his smell, coming
From me; he switches channels, recites an old poem
He wrote before his mother died,
Stands, shouts, and asks
For a hug, as I shink, my
Arms barely reaching around
His thick, oily neck, and his broad back; ‘cause
I see my face, framed within
Pop’s black-framed glasses
And know he’s laughing too.

— Barack Obama (Cashill says it’s written by and about Obama’s real father, Frank Marshall Davis)


197 posted on 04/25/2011 6:45:05 AM PDT by struggle ((The struggle continues))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Mila

Wow, Mark Ndesandjo (Obama) certainly does resemble his half-brother Barack. Maybe Barack doesn’t help out his half-bro George because he figures Mark has more $$$ and he should do it?


198 posted on 04/25/2011 6:49:51 AM PDT by cookcounty (Eric Holder, Head of the Department of JUST-US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Obama isn’t the first President with paternity doubts.

Bill Clinton (William Blythe) was born only seven months after his “father” returned to the US. His “father” died a couple of months before Bill was born a full term baby with only seven months gestation.

He was never adopted although his name was changed to Clinton so his younger brother would have the same surname in school.

Who was Bills real Daddy? Was he American? Who knows?


199 posted on 04/25/2011 6:51:16 AM PDT by opbuzz (Right way, wrong way, Marine way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
Regardless of whether the failure to show a valid marriage is in fact a jurisdictional defect or is simply a failure to state a claim, our review shows that dismissal was required on either basis because Appellant failed to show proof of a valid marriage.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/courtside/2010/03/ok-court-no-proof-of-marriage-no-same-sex-divorce.html

200 posted on 04/25/2011 6:51:27 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-277 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