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 ...
Yes, this man is a total FRAUD!!!
On what do you base this assertion? Has anybody checked?
I know the birth certificate is kept, because that’s a state requirement, but admission records being kept for 50 years?
Here’s a link to legal requirements for a variety of southeastern states. Requirements vary from 6 to 20 years. None come even close to 50.
You may have misunderstood my original question. Do we have any evidence that admission records are available for anybody else from those hospitals during that time period? The claim is that Obama’s records being unavailable is suspicious. My question is whether any records are available. Burden of proof is on those claim suspiciousness.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Emmerich De Vattel, (1714-1767,) Law of Nations, 1758, § 212, "Of the citizens and naturals."------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, April 2, 2010
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789
In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen. ” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.”
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). “During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task….”
www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay. In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay's History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. “The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,'' Professor Smith concluded, “are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.”
In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.
Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a “natural born citizen.” Given his position of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined “natural born Citizen.” Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time would have known how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and he told us that definition was one where the child was born in the country of citizen parents. In giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined a “natural-born citizen” the same as did Ramsay in his highly acclaimed and influential, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English). We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a “natural born Citizen” the same way the Ramsay did, for being a meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that existed at the time.
Ramsay’s article and explication are further evidence of the influence that Vattel had on the Founders in how they defined the new national citizenship. This article by Ramsay is one of the most important pieces of evidence recently found (provided to us by an anonymous source) which provides direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and that there is little doubt that they defined one as a child born in the country to citizen parents. This time-honored definition of a "natural born Citizen" has been confirmed by subsequent United States Supreme Court and lower court cases such as The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States;” Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (“the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations” are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted from the same definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)).
The two-citizen-parent requirement would have followed from the common law that provided that a woman upon marriage took the citizenship of her husband. In other words, the Framers required both (1) birth on United States soil (or its equivalent) and (2) birth to two United States citizen parents as necessary conditions of being granted that special status which under our Constitution only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military (and also the Vice President under the Twelfth Amendment) must have at the time of his or her birth. Given the necessary conditions that must be satisfied to be granted the status, all "natural born Citizens" are "Citizens of the United States" but not all "Citizens of the United States" are "natural born Citizens." It was only through both parents being citizens that the child was born with unity of citizenship and allegiance to the United States which the Framers required the President and Commander in Chief to have.
Obama fails to meet this “natural born Citizen” eligibility test because when he was born in 1961 (wherever that may be), he was not born to a United States citizen mother and father. At his birth, his mother was a United States citizen. But under the British Nationality Act 1948, his father, who was born in the British colony of Kenya, was born a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) which by descent made Obama himself a CUKC. Prior to Obama’s birth, Obama’s father neither intended to nor did he become a United States citizen. Being temporarily in the United States only for purpose of study and with the intent to return to Kenya, his father did not intend to nor did he even become a legal resident or immigrant to the United States.
Obama may be a plain born “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment or a Congressional Act (if he was born in Hawaii). But as we can see from David Ramsay’s clear presentation, citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. Hence, Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," for upon Obama's birth his father was a British subject and Obama himself by descent was also the same. Hence, Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Obama lacks the birth status of natural sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States which only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military and Vice President must have at the time of birth. Being born subject to a foreign power, he lacks Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance to the United States from the time of birth which assures that required degree of natural sole and absolute birth allegiance and loyalty to the United States, a trait that is constitutionally indispensable in a President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Like a naturalized citizen, who despite taking an oath later in life to having sole allegiance to the United States cannot be President because of being born subject to a foreign power, Obama too cannot be President.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 2, 2010.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. John A. Bingham, who later became the chief architect of the 14th Amendment’s first section,
in the United States House on March 9, 1866
commenting upon Section 1992 of the Civil Rights Act, said that the Act was
“simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution,
that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself,
a natural born citizen”.
Rep. Bingham said “parents.” He did not say “one parent” or “a mother or father.”
We do not KNOW who the mother was anymore than we KNOW who the father is. Obviously, if Gramps is actually Dad, mom must be a woman of color. We don’t KNOW anything about this guy except what he tells us and now we know that you can’t believe much of that.
If private investigators got access to patient data (which I would not expect to be computerized in 1961) then the hospitals involved are in for a big fine for failure to protect patient data. Most hospitals use off site secure storage, and someone would have to get in and sift through boxes of records - many, many hours or days of work without knowing which box held which record.
Second, you’re saying that if there were genuine evidence that Obama’s mother was on record as having been a patient in any Honolulu hospital, amid all this storm and controversy, that said hospital would not step forward to claim ( with the grateful permission of ze Fraudster himself) the distinction of “birthplace” of the Potus?
If the Fraudster gave his permission, they could do it. But absent that permission, it's a HIPAA violation, with a whopping big fine and prison time. I've worked in several hospitals, and no hospital I'm familiar with would risk it. And as I've linked in the past, Kapiolani specifically said
"We can't confirm or deny it — even though all the information out there says he was born at Kapiolani Hospital. And that's because of the HIPA law."
One possibility. I left home at 16 joined the Military soon after. I would return home for visits but never again lived in that area, a girl I knew went to school with but never had any kind of relationship with got pregnant at an early age and to keep the guy who was actually the father from getting into trouble she listed me on the birth certificate as the father. There was a certain stigma in those days for fatherless kids I think is why she did it.
I did not find this out till I was in my mid 40s, take a guess who the kids legal father is. No way I can change it I tried. Even with DNA testing it doesn’t make a difference.
I did get an ATTY to draw up papers that he has no legal claim to anything if something happens to me, and it is to late for him to make any claim like SS.
Wow. That is incredible.
If you really want to make sure he makes no claim against your estate talk to a lawyer about how to either name beneficiaries or put others as joint tenants.
The kid may have no plans to go after your estate but you never know when $$ is involved.
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
I realize you disagree, but you should take up your disagreement with the Court over its century old ruling.
Concerning citizenship you are correct, but concerning "natural born" status as required by the Constitution you are incorrect. It requires both parents being citizens in order to give the child the "natural born" U.S. Citizen status.
You sound less than familiar with hospital procedure and medical records laws. How long hospitals are required to retain records is set by state law, and varies from state to state. There is also a federal requirement for those covered by HIPAA, which mandates retaining records for six years. Hawaii law says
Hawaiian health care providers (such as medical doctors, surgeons, podiatrists and hospitals) generally must keep your whole medical record for at least seven years after the last time they entered information in your record. Health care providers must keep minors’ medical records at least until the minor turns 25.So, depending on the state, and how old Sherman Logan is, those records may have been long since shredded.
See post 109.
The US Supreme Court is somewhat more authoritative than random 200 year old authors.
Already done I guess I should have mentioned that in case some one else had a similar problem. I had a will at a young age!
Lots of people might be surprised at how often this has happened, not all that uncommon from what I was told.
“If private investigators got access to patient data (which I would not expect to be computerized in 1961) then the hospitals involved are in for a big fine for failure to protect patient data.”
Are you seriously just now tumbling to the fact that multiple parties are accessories to this far reaching, gargantuan charade and could be in for a “big fine” as you quaintly put it (try 30 years in the pen).
And whatever reason on God’s green earth would Obama have for blocking the release of his mother’s admission and subsequent delivery of him at any Honolulu hospital?
I wanted to post that tidbit as a reason for hiding the birth certificate as SAD could have listed any one as the father. Who knows I guess that could be a huge embarrassment considering the two books he wrote.
I may be confused, but before accepting a divorce case wouldn’t a court require that evidence a marriage existed be presented?
I am saying that hospitals that fail to keep patient data confidential are liable for big fines. The same thing I’ve said (and I believe you were one of the people I’ve said it to) several times in the past.
I have no idea why 0bama wouldn’t give permission for release of information. Maybe he’s hiding something different, as several have speculated. Or maybe he’s waiting for the right time to make several people look foolish.
I am older than Obama and the not so large, somewhat out of the way hospital where I was born has documentation of my mother’s admission and my arrival there.
It’s also *gasp* on my birth certificate (but I guess that’s confidential HIPPA info, right?...guess birth certificates that document what hospital a person was born in, has been against the law all the years! Wow. Who knew?)
Drop your red herring minutia.
Here’s a link for St. Joseph’s Hospital in Tampa.
http://www.sjbhealth.org/body.cfm?id=2338
They keep medical records for 10 years.
So if a future president is born in SJH in 2011 and there are no records of his admission available in 2061, is this suspicious? Is it evidence of conspiracy?
To make this lack of documentation fly as a conspiracy somebody needs to show records from this period are available for others. But I have found remarkable lack of interest in doing so. Posters just keep repeating, “there are no records,” as if this in itself proves something.
IMO, it makes us conspiracy nuts look really stupid.
Ok, lets go over this again. Hospitals and “covered facilities” may not release medical data, including the fact that someone was a patient, except in specified exceptions.
State or county birth certificates don’t come from a hospital or covered facility, and are therefore are not under HIPAA. With me so far?
This means that state or county birth certificates are regulated by state laws, as in Hawaii’s §338-18.
Your hospital may retain documentation, but it’s rare for hospitals to hold onto records for 50 years. They will maintain records longer if they continue to treat the patient for all that time, but otherwise, it’s unusual. Consider yourself lucky your hospital still has those records.
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.