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 ...
Most excellent evidence.
Your hospital in unnamed location has 50+ year old admission records available.
Not particularly relevant evidence, of course.
Do you have anything vaguely resembling evidence that such information is available for anyone from the hospital where it is claimed Obama was born?
May 17
That is informative.
Yes, English law not U.S. Law. For clarity you can look at the case of U.S. President Chester Alan Arthur.
What is the source and circumstances of the quote you referenced?
Hospital records are controlled by HIPA, but the HI state index of birth records is not....
None are on record with the documents supporting the divorce.
I am convinced that the only reason the divorce was handled as it was, with Obozo’s name no longer being listed under her passport, was to make it clear that he was a U.S. citizen after the divorce.
There is no written evidence of the marriage of Stanley Ann Dunham and BHO, Sr. I have read that Obozo stated that he is unsure if there was a marriage license for them. (village wedding)
Odingo doesn’t have anything.
Are you aware that Neil Abercrombie read a letter supposedly written by Obama, claiming Kapiolani as his birth place, at the hospital’s centennial dinner?
I’ve heard there was such a letter, I don’t know the details. However, that wouldn’t change Kapiolani’s legal requirement to keep Protected Health Information confidential.
So publicly announcing at a centennial celebration that Obama was born there is okay; subsequently confirming they anncounced it is not?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
English law not U.S. Law.
Nope.
"III. The same rule was in force ... in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution..."
As I said, if you don't like it, go argue with the Court. I consider a Court ruling a good deal more authoritative than special pleading by cherry picking ancient authors.
I am unaware of any legal decision involving Arthur's situation. Claims were made he wasn't NBC. But it appears the claims never got any traction. Nobody cared.
You’re not answering my question.
Let’s assume you’re a divorce court judge. Ms. Obama-Dunham files to have her marriage dissolved.
You don’t ask for evidence she’s even married to Mr. Obama? You just proceed with a divorce with no evidence in front of you there was ever a marriage?
We need to keep in mind nobody at the time had any idea this would be a hot political issue 50 years later. These were just normal people going about their everyday business.
Minor v. Happersett 21 Wall. 162, 166-168 (1874) was the guiding case for the Wong Kim Ark decision. In that case the Court cited the “Law of Nations” and clearly established who was a “natural born citizen”.
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.
Nope, he hid his father's records because he knew he was not eligible under the Constitution.
And in the current case with Obozo, I think there are other issues besides the mixed nationality parent issue.
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.
You might want to check with some Freeper lawyers or...
I was surprised to hear that news. I was told by a friend that the way to be sure is to name a beneficiary of 401k’s or whatever or to make them a joint owner. That way the judge can’t be bought off.
Well, then his true father could not be Barack Obama Sr, Frank Marshall Davis, Malcolm X, or Jimi Hendrix, because all of them are too dead to be questioned!!
Wong Kim Ark was born in this country to two legal resident non-citizens. In fact, due to the Chinese Exclusion Act in effect at the time, they weren’t eligible to be naturalized. Ever.
While I know HIPAA from the medical confidentiality end, I am not a lawyer. From what I know, they would risk a HIPAA violation to release information that came to them from treating a patient. If he sent a letter, I’m not sure if that would be a HIPAA violation or not - perhaps a freeper lawyer could comment?
No, I simply stated a fact about the documents available now. You are clearly a defender of Obozo's "natural born" status. You have all the talking points down, but it seem very out of place here on FR. HuffPo uses some of the same talking points.
Ya wanna explain this quote, then? Referring to English common law and jus solis as the determination of who is natural born.
“The same rule was in force ... in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution...”
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.