The Birth Certificate Question: An Open Letter to Shephard Smith at FOX News

Family Security Matters ^ | 6-19-09 | Col. Bob Pappas (USMC, ret.)

[smoothsailing]

June 19, 2009

The Birth Certificate Question: An Open Letter to Shephard Smith at FOX News

Col. Bob Pappas (USMC, ret.)

Dear "Shep,"

 

I am a regular viewer of your program, specifically the evening news, since I work. I appreciate your show and the news you deliver. As one who watches Fox because of its Fair and Balanced coverage, It is most unsettling that you would refer to those who challenge Obama's eligibility as "right wing crazies." Your definitive statement, "there is no truth whatsoever that Obama is not a natural born citizen" is problematic.

 

As one not given to "conspiracy theories," the larger issue surrounding Obama's eligibility strikes at the heart of the Constitutional underpinning of virtually all oaths of office at the Federal level, including Obama's. Your comments trivialize that exceptionally important issue for all Americans and for me personally and millions of past, present and future military service personnel or for that matter anyone who takes an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

 

First, your assertion suggests that you have seen his original birth certificate. Okay, since you are in effect a "star witness" in a case of monumental proportions with millions Fox News viewer's being the jury, have you? If not, you might consider doing some no kidding investigative journalism and apologize to your viewers for the unfounded blather.

 

Second, there is considerable anecdotal evidence that Obama is not a natural born citizen. His eligibility is complicated further by his sojourn in Indonesia, or did you know that? It is my understanding that his step-father adopted him, is that true, or not? If so, the question then would be, "did that act confer Indonesian citizenship?" If so, where are the documents that "restored" his U.S. citizenship, if indeed he was natural born?

 

It is complicated even more by the fact that at the time of his birth his father, "The Old Man," was a British citizen, which alone would not be a show stopper, but given his paternal (Obama's father) grandmother's claim that she was present at Obama's birth in Kenya raises a legitimate question about citizenship, not to mention the "natural born issue." Is he a British citizen born of an underage American girl in Kenya? Would he then be a British citizen or an American citizen? Or, is he a dual citizen, and can a person with dual citizenship be President of the United States of America?

 

I would appreciate a definitive explanation of your rationale and sources, i.e., where did you get your information and an explanation so that would I can put this to rest. Because I would like to do exactly that, but it bugs the hell out of me that he is so clinched fisted about it, and so far you are an accomplice. I would expect that of MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN, but it disappoints me greatly that Fox News would stoop, no grovel for Administration approval at the expense of the right of the American public to know.

 

On the other hand, if you do not have any definitive data and please don't brush anyone off with the "old saw" that "Hawaii issued a certificate," especially since it is well known that Hawaii issues or issued certificates for people born elsewhere, please make it your business to find out.

 

Given Mr. Obama's commitment to be totally transparent with the American people, please explain in detail why he has gone to such lengths to deny discovery of any of his records. Or, is that an untrue allegation? If he has nothing to hide, what's the problem? Either way, you have a responsibility to the public to find out not summarily sweep the matter aside especially with unbecoming derisive comments.

 

One must conclude that you have a set of journalist integrity problems:

 

1. Either you have your mind made up without regard to the issues, or

2. You have been told what to say by someone with power over you.

3. You don't know what you are talking about,

4. Someone is buying you off,

5. You are biased and don't care about truth much less letting the truth to be known,

5. You are too lazy to discover the facts, or

6. All of the above, and more.

 

Finally, we either have a Constitution or it is an anachronistic piece of paper. In addition to the "natural born" requirement, which is arguably suspect in Obama's case, it appears that there is a legitimate argument that the courts are shirking their responsibility by refusing to adjudicate the matter. So, absent the legal process, how does one clear the air? It would not matter that 100% voted for Obama, if he is not qualified, he cannot be President under the provisions of the Constitution. To repeat what I've already noted, we either have a Constitution or we do not.

 

Sorry, but your backhanded and insulting treatment of those who have a right, not merely a desire, but a right to know, and that includes every American citizen, diminishes both you and Fox News.

 

Please reconsider your comments at the least, or better, do some serious growing up with respect to those whose sacrifices have given you the right and opportunity to be who you are and dig into it. You have an historic opportunity and you are blowing it.

 

 Semper Fidelis

 

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Col. Bob Pappas (USMC, ret.) writes for Gulf1.com from his home in Florida’s Panhandle. E-mail him at pappas@gulf1.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS INC.

[Peter Libra]

Your post #49.

..... but sadly we havn't proved out case and can't do so without access those records.

No need to cringe on that statement of course. Yes, that is the whole crux of the matter and it is absolutely incredible how the records are unavailable. It seems no moral or ethical offence for people to want to see these records. The fact that they cannot, is causing some angst and frustration out there.

My hobby is genealogy for over 35 years and I have never seen anything like the - either loss of, or sharked up supposed information yet. This pertaining to President Obama. I have learnt more about Chester Arthur, the President after President Garfield in 1880, than President Obama. Seen more documentation.

Any way all birthers get an A for effort. (chuckle).

[Peter Libra]

Whoops my bad- should read.

..... but sadly we havn't proved our case and can't do so without access to those records.

[BuckeyeTexan]

You asked N-S to cite the Indonesian law that allowed Obama to have dual citizenship. I suggested that Indonesian law isn’t binding on our courts therefore it is irrelevant what Indonesian law requires.

You then tell me that it is irrelevant whether or not Indonesian law is binding on us because our own law prevented dual citizenship. I’m scratching my head wondering why you asked N-S to cite Indonesian law if you think it’s irrelevant?

[AmericanVictory]

Your persistence in misrepresenting the law indicates that you are doing so willfully. I realize that it is possible that you simply don't know how to read a statute but the likelihood of that being the case is decreasing with each of your inaccurate posts.

Let's start at the beginning.

You stated that: As for the second part, even if he had been adopted by Soetoro and even if that adoption conferred Indonesian citizenship on Obama, that still wouldn't impact his U.S. citizenship status at all.

I pointed to one article of the statute under which that was clearly not the case in that particular instance and cited the general doctrine then obtaining in both Indonesia and the U.S. But the article I was pointing to was not the section about adoption of a younger child that you were relying upon, which was article 2.

I pointed to Article 4 because it is one of several places in the full statute which embodies the controlling doctrine at the time that barred dual citizenship.

There is nothing in Article 2 that would have allowed the dual citizenship that you so confidently assert. There is nothing that makes Article 4 specifically applicable here except as demonstrating the general doctrine that Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship. Neither did we at the time. There are numerous other places in this law and the regulations under it that make that doctrine of no dual citizenship unavoidably clear. It seems likely that Barry Soetoro's mother acquired Indonesian citizenship under Article 7 (2) of the statute.

This would have made it possible for young Barry to have acquired citizenship under Article 2 as you seem to believe and as we have reason to believe is what happened. Under Article 13 Barry's mother, when divorced from her Indonesian husband, would have had to renounce her Indonesian citizenship formally to lose it. We don't know enough to know what her status really was under this statute and that is the point.

We do know that under Article 14, if Barry did become an Indonesian citizen under Article 2 as you posit, he would still be an Indonesian citizen today unless he formally released that citizenship within a year of becoming 21. What if he did not release and in fact claimed it at one or more U. S. institutions of higher education. Under that scenario, how would he have still been a U. S. citizen?

In short you continue to misrepresent and mislead. Why don't you have the decency and integrity to stop?

[AmericanVictory]

See my latest post to him. If under our law he cannot have been a dual citizen at the crucial points and under Indonesian law he was an Indonesian citizen there is nothing in our law that overcomes that and nothing that our courts could interpret under our law that would make him not a citizen of Indonesia and not of the U.S.

[Lurking Libertarian]

It does not matter whether our courts are or are not bound by Indonesian law because in the 1960’s our own law did not allow dual citizenship. If the One became an Indonesian citizen at that time his U. S. citizenship would have been lost.

Under the 14th Amendment, if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was a natural-born citizen. Under the Supreme Court's decision in Afroyim v. Rusk, a U.S. citizen does not lose his citizenship by becoming a dual citizen of another country, unless he also voluntarily renounces his U.S. citizenship.

[John Valentine]

For school registration. And, for the record, his school registration documents list Barry as “Warga Negara: Indonesia”. For those not familiar with Indonesian that translates as “Citizenship: Indonesia”

[dforest]

He will be an Azzhole, he always is.

[John Valentine]

Under the 14th Amendment, if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was a natural-born citizen.

The 14th Amendment has NOTHING to do with the definition of "natural-born citizen" and the phrase does not even appear in the Amendment. The 14th did not define, re-define, clarify, or in any way whatsoever alter the meaning of "natural-born citizen" as used in the main body of the United States Constitution.

[Lurking Libertarian]

The Supreme Court ruled in Wong Kim Ark that thereare only two kinds of citizens: Naturalized, and natural-born. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he was natural born. In any event, the point of my post was that even if Obama had become an Indonesian citizen, he would not have lost his U.S. citizenship.

[Lurking Libertarian]

And that same document lists his place of birth as “Honolulu, Hawaii.”

[BuckeyeTexan]

Obama Presidential Eligibility - An Introductory Primer

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2275574/posts?page=2

[AmericanVictory]

There is sufficient evidence that he was not born in Hawaii to warrant discovery if the courts would stop ducking by invoking standing. We don’t know whether or not he voluntarily gave up his U. S. citizenship because he refuses to reveal the information that would reveal whether he did or not and in fact has spent very large sums of money avoiding providing that information. Further, his minions have persisted in using an altered document as “proof” which is generally a tactic that raises an inference of fraud.

[Churchillspirit]

The Birthers have no case.

And you know this because.....

[Churchillspirit]

Excellent letter.

One day this story of the century will achieve critical mass. Every little helps.

[Jim Noble]

Instead, he must produce a Certificate of Live Birth, which sets forth his name, his mother’s name, his father’s name, the hospital where he was born, the attending physician, and which includes his mother’s signature, the attending physician’s signature, and the signature of another witness.

According to whom "must" he do so? You?

So far, he has produced the same evidence as every other President-Elect. No court of competent jurisdiction has required that he do more. A special Joint Session of Congress, with Richard Cheney of Wyoming in the chair, declined to require that he do so, and certified his election as President of the United States.

Under the circumstances, your assertion about what he "must" do is just a truckload of BS.

[SloopJohnB]

Address for Shepard Smith of Fox News: Foxreport@Foxnews.com. Consider sending a copy to Executive Vice President, Corporate Communications, Brian Lewis at brian.lewis@foxnews.com.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

First, your assertion suggests that you have seen his original birth certificate. Okay, since you are in effect a "star witness" in a case of monumental proportions with millions Fox News viewer's being the jury, have you?

Yes, have you?

Well then, let's have a full reporting of the pertinent facts such as hospital of birth, delivering doctor, witnesses, name of the father etc.

If not, you might consider doing some no kidding investigative journalism and apologize to your viewers for the unfounded blather.

Either that or sitting down to a big plate of STFU!

[AmericanVictory]

In 1874, in Minor v. Happersett the Supreme Court held that if a person was born in the U.S. and one parent was not a U.S. citizen then your natural born citizenship was in doubt. The Supreme Court has left it at that and not resolved the matter further. We don't know if Obama was born in the U.S. and even if he was his status as a "natural born citizen" remains in doubt,as the Supreme Court said in 1874.

But we don't know if Obama was born in the United States and there is enough evidence that he was not to warrant discovery into that question even if the evidence is not itself admissible. Correspondingly we don't know for sure if he in fact ever "acquired" U. S. citizenship. If he never acquired U. S. citizenship then the decision that you cite does not apply. Further, even if he acquired U. S. citizenship, which is very much a question, we don't know if he voluntarily relinquished it or not.

[John Valentine]

The Supreme Court ruled in Wong Kim Ark that thereare only two kinds of citizens: Naturalized, and natural-born.

You really need another, closer read of Wong Kim Ark, if you honestly believe that. I happen to think that Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided,but the case NEVER ventured near the issue of "natural-born citizenship" Why would it? Wong Kim Ark wasn't running for President.