Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Birth Certificate Question: An Open Letter to Shephard Smith at FOX News
Family Security Matters ^ | 6-19-09 | Col. Bob Pappas (USMC, ret.)

Posted on 06/19/2009 10:27:18 AM PDT by smoothsailing

June 19, 2009

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

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; colb; eligibility; fox; ineligible; obamanoncitizenissue; truthers; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-127 last
To: BIGLOOK
HEY BL!!!! It's been a while!

Shep Smith vs a Marine......This'll be good!

Never happen. Smith will hide under the desk.

101 posted on 06/20/2009 3:07:22 PM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah
Sheepherder is only there until he can get hired by MSLSD or CNN where he belongs.
102 posted on 06/20/2009 3:15:03 PM PDT by rodguy911 (HOME OF THE FREE BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE--GO SARAHCUDA !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
Shep reads teleprompters, not e-mails.
103 posted on 06/20/2009 3:17:51 PM PDT by Radix (This Tag Line no verb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
On the other hand, your statement “under the laws in place at the time Obama could not be a citizen,” assuming that you are referring to Indonesia, is simply untrue.

Then point out exactly where I'm wrong. Or are we to merely take your word for it?

104 posted on 06/20/2009 5:13:52 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
Assuming a Hawaiian birth for Obama, you correctly state that he is a United States Citizen by birth, but you INCORRECTLY state that he is a “natural-born” citizen by virtue of the physical location of his birth. That stems from a common but false equivocating between native-born and natural-born.

That is based on your belief that there are three or more classes of citizenship. A position not to be found in the Constitution or federal law.

Obama would ONLY have natural born citizenship if his father was an American citizen at the time of Obama’s birth in Hawaii. Otherwise he has citizenship by statute; i.e. a form of naturalized citizenship. Since Obama’s father was a British subject at the time of Obama’s birth, he cannot be a natural-born citizen, despite being a US citizen by birth.

And you can, of course, point to the law that supports this? The clause in the Constitution? A Supreme Court decision that states it?

There are MANY varieties of citizenship. Citizenship is something that can be sliced and diced many ways to draw valid distinctions.

There are, no doubt, as many varieties of citizenship as you care to make up. But the Constitution identifies two, and only two.

The point is that there is only one set of criteria for natural born citizenship, and no matter which set of facts you take, Obama does not meet them.

Based on what rule of law?

105 posted on 06/20/2009 5:19:05 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

They (fox) could send his application back to him!


106 posted on 06/20/2009 5:26:16 PM PDT by Citizen Soldier (Made in USA and proud of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Soldier
They (fox) could send his application back to him!

I wish it was true. It would be only too funny if an application of his to Fox was uncovered, especially given the way he's been bad-mouthing them lately.

107 posted on 06/20/2009 5:29:24 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
"...A position not to be found in the Constitution or federal law..."

I believe the founding fathers assumed their words "natural born" would be understood as born within the confines of the United States of two citizen parents. If they had foreseen a case where the POTUS candidate was the bastard son of a foreigner, they probably would have been more specific, but they didn't have time to expound on scenarios that must have seemed ridiculous at that time.

And in the course of US history since, when were the Federal courts faced with such a case to decide upon?

108 posted on 06/20/2009 5:49:23 PM PDT by Zman516 (socialists & muslims -- satan's useful idiots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Zman516
I believe the founding fathers assumed their words "natural born" would be understood as born within the confines of the United States of two citizen parents

English common law doesn't say that, and since many were lawyers then they would know that to be the case. If they had meant for the meaning to be outside of that then I would expect that they would have mentioned it somewhere in their writings. If they did, then I'm not aware of it.

You are also aware that your definition would exclude McCain, Jindal, and numerous others.

109 posted on 06/20/2009 5:58:17 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Yes, Jindal would be unqualified under that definition.

I think McCain was OK in the sense that his parents were both citizens and their home of record was within the US, even though on temporary duty in Panama at the time. It’s no different than if two US citizens had a child while visiting a foreign country. i.e., I think the important thing is two citizen parents, not location. If Zero’s father had been a US citizen this wouldn’t be an issue, obviously.


110 posted on 06/20/2009 6:19:37 PM PDT by Zman516 (socialists & muslims -- satan's useful idiots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: LucyT
It's all conjecture; there is no evidence to prove, or disprove, 0bama's place of birth.

The only way for Obama to have been born in Hawaii is if his father is not OBama Sr., like Malcolm X or Frank Marshall Davis. That would be a reason to hide the BC.

Over on RoverPatrol's blog it says that Obama’s lawyers are [still] fighting the release of Obama’s birth certificate claiming it would cause a serious embarrassment to Obama if they were produced to the court. They then filed for a protective order to keep it sealed.

I believe that they did this last year, too.

Recall when we covered this issue and discussed what might so terrible on the BC that is too embarrassing to show.

Well, having a Marxist/Communist father in FMD, or a radical Nation of Islam father in Malcolm X might fit the bill.

111 posted on 06/20/2009 9:30:18 PM PDT by Polarik (It's the forgery, Stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Zman516

According to how the law has been interpreted and put into pracrtice Both parents have to be US citizens and the birth of the baby has to occur on US soil for that child to be a natural born citizen.


112 posted on 06/20/2009 9:39:48 PM PDT by Polarik (It's the forgery, Stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
A Supreme Court decision that states it?

The dissent in Wong Kim Ark correctly states the law in this regard. While exposition on the matter of "natural-born" citizenship is merely dicta in both opinions, the majority opinion is based almost exclusively on misstatements of fact and dissembling about the law. It is an embarrassment to the history of American jurisprudence.

113 posted on 06/20/2009 10:31:39 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Zman516
I think McCain was OK in the sense that his parents were both citizens and their home of record was within the US, even though on temporary duty in Panama at the time. It’s no different than if two US citizens had a child while visiting a foreign country. i.e., I think the important thing is two citizen parents, not location.

The claim is that a natural born citizen is one born to two U.S. citizen parents on U.S. soil. Under that definition McCain is not a natural born citizen.

114 posted on 06/21/2009 5:37:18 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
So I'm assuming that line 2 translates into date and place of birth? Which is given as Honolulu and August 4, 1861? So if once accepts this as gospel proof of Obama's citizenship status then one would also have to accept his natural born status as well, right?

Not so. There is no equivalency there.

His alleged birthplace of Honolulu would not have been a requirement for entrance into the Indonesian school system and would have had no bearing whatsoever on his application for acceptance. His parents could have stated on that form that he was born in Timbuktu or on the planet Venus, and Indonesia would not have requested documentation or cared one iota about it. So a lie there would be inconsequential and irrelevant to his admission to the school.

On the other hand, his Indonesian citizenship would have been a substantive requirement for entrance into the system for which documentation would have to have been provided, especially given the fact that they stated that he was foreign born.

The fact that he was allowed into the Indonesian educational system at all, a system set aside for Indonesian citizens [not those born in Hawaii] is a compelling indication that his parents' statement regarding his Indonesian citizenship was true and they possessed and presented the documentation to back it up.

115 posted on 06/21/2009 8:04:59 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
The dissent in Wong Kim Ark correctly states the law in this regard.

The minority opinion is just that, a minority opinion. It has no standing in the law and certainly does not supersede the majority.

While exposition on the matter of "natural-born" citizenship is merely dicta in both opinions...

Hardly dicta. The question of whether Ark was a citizen was the question before the court. The court ruled that he was a citizen from birth. AKA, a natural born citizen.

..., the majority opinion is based almost exclusively on misstatements of fact and dissembling about the law.

Complete and utter nonsense.

116 posted on 06/21/2009 10:54:52 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Joann37

He will only read it if it shows up on a teleprompter. After all why do you think all the news people dismiss the natural born citizen thing...the teleprompters are working in conspiracy to protect TOTUS...so any news broadcaster that reads responses from the teleprompter will get the same line.

:)


117 posted on 06/21/2009 10:59:41 AM PDT by surfer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: surfer

Good one - I forgot about the POTUS - TOTUS connection!


118 posted on 06/21/2009 11:12:42 AM PDT by Joann37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

I believe that you are truly beyond reach, but for one final try:

Number one: the majority did rule that Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born citizen”. Fact. They did not. They ruled that he was a citizen, and that only. MANY citizens by birth are not natural born citizens, for example, my son, Gerald. While he is a US citizen, and has never been a citizen of any other country but the US, and was a US citizen by the circumstances of his birth, those circumstances are described and authorized by US statute, and while many of the Framers would have argued that his circumstances of birth might make him “natural born” this was not generally agreed at the time. As a result, it is only by the operation of statute law that he derives his citizenship. Ergo, not natural born.

Second: Almost every argument in the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark derives from an “analysis” of English common law. But that analysis is incomplete, deceptive, and duplicitous. Moreover, the entire argument overlooks the express intent of the framers NOT to base our citizenship on the English model.

Third: Dicta is not controlling precedent whether it appears in the majority or minority opinion. Dicta depends for whatever force it may carry on the weight of argument. In the Wong Kim Ark case, the minority opinion is logical, faithful to history, and true to the Constitution. The majority opinion is an embarrassment.

So are you.


119 posted on 06/21/2009 11:34:10 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Uncle Chip, I fear you are wasting your breath on Non-Sequitur. As his name implies he has no commitment to finding conclusions that follow from fact and reason. He is a tendentious blowhard and is apparently committed to remaining one, come what may.


120 posted on 06/21/2009 11:37:43 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Under that definition McCain is not a natural born citizen.

I guess even a stopped watch gets the time right twice a day.

Mccain is a US citizen by birth, due to the operation of statute law. But he is NOT a natural born citizen. Especially not if you buy the majority opinion in Kim Wong Ark, as you seem so willing to do.

121 posted on 06/21/2009 11:40:36 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
Number one: the majority did rule that Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born citizen”. Fact. They did not. They ruled that he was a citizen, and that only.

It might help if you read the decision. Justice Gray wrote, "The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."

Citizen by birth, citizen at birth, natural born citizen, all are synonymous.

MANY citizens by birth are not natural born citizens, for example, my son, Gerald.

Not being familiar with the circumstances of his birth I couldn't say. But the fact that Congress legislates who is a natural born citizen and who is not changes nothing. The Constitution says Congress will enact uniform rules of naturalization. Logically, in order to enact the laws on naturalization Congress must first identify who doesn't need to be naturalized.

As a result, it is only by the operation of statute law that he derives his citizenship. Ergo, not natural born.

Not true at all.

Second: Almost every argument in the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark derives from an “analysis” of English common law. But that analysis is incomplete, deceptive, and duplicitous. Moreover, the entire argument overlooks the express intent of the framers NOT to base our citizenship on the English model.

And where is this intent expressed?

In the Wong Kim Ark case, the minority opinion is logical, faithful to history, and true to the Constitution. The majority opinion is an embarrassment.

Because you say it is? Well thanks for clearing that us for us.

122 posted on 06/21/2009 12:45:23 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
Mccain is a US citizen by birth, due to the operation of statute law. But he is NOT a natural born citizen. Especially not if you buy the majority opinion in Kim Wong Ark, as you seem so willing to do.

Yes he is, and the Ark case has nothing to do with that. He is a natural born citizen because according to the law in place at the time, birth overseas to parents, both of whom are U.S. citizens, makes him a citizen at birth. AKA, natural born citizen.

123 posted on 06/21/2009 12:47:04 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

Fantastic Article Dr. Polarik - Bravo! :O)

I wrote a piece on ole Shepard Smith too - I was amazed at such a stupid/Arrogant statement by him (who should be Fair & Balance).

I really could not figure out the reasoning of such a statement unless he was simply playing up to MSM. But how can that make any sense when employed by Fox News?

Oh well, I guess it was one of those moments when he just wasn’t thinking as it appears he may be a little flippant/impulsive in his personality make up.

For Shitz & Giggles here’s my post on ole Smith.

http://volubrjotr.com/2009/06/15/shepard-smiths-hate-speech-shepards-smiths-arrest-short-fuse-but-no-powder/


124 posted on 06/21/2009 1:20:47 PM PDT by Volubrjotr (Dr. Polarik, Smith, birth certificate, colb, hawaii, eligibility)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Yes he is, and the Ark case has nothing to do with that. He is a natural born citizen because according to the law in place at the time, birth overseas to parents, both of whom are U.S. citizens, makes him a citizen at birth. AKA, natural born citizen.

Almost right, but profoundly wrong.

"...according to the law in place at the time, birth overseas to parents, both of whom are U.S. citizens, makes him a citizen at birth." True.

"AKA, natural born citizen." False. The status of "natural born citizen" does not depend on the operation of any statute, and indeed cannot, or a new statute could take it away. Whatever the citizenship status, if it depends on legislation, it is not "natural". "Natural-born citizenship" is a citizenship status that derives from the operation of natural law independently of any statute, and which cannot be removed by statute - or any act of man.

This is the view of the fremaers, and it is the view of the drafters of the 14th, and it ought to be our view if we wish to be true to the Constitution.

125 posted on 06/21/2009 3:37:26 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
This is a fine letter, reasonably worded in a common sense manner.

One thing I've wondered about, why no blog/bulletin board activity across the conservative spectrum about how many people didn't do their Constitutional duty by properly vetting the man, and documenting the results? Surely someone must have signed off on having seen &/or confirmed chosen1's alleged qualifications. I remember seeing something a couple months ago which had pelosi's name on a certification along these lines.

I would think this would be worth pursueing, because it's not just chosen1's usurpation that endangers the Constitution, but the hundreds of enablers who - if these documents come to light - will be shown to have failed their oaths to protect the same. 2nd thing I worry about, besides the 'birther' tag which is clearly used to denigrate/ridicule those who have expressed this legitimate concern, is that the main leg of the BC group is, "... if he doesn't have anything to hide, why all the money spent on lawyers preventing disclosure of his records?". My worry is that this sounds just a tad bit like Dan Rather's "...there's no evidence to disprove it, either..." meme.

I'm not saying it they are alike, any reasonable reader or freeper will know the differences - but we're opposed by a left which spoonfeeds the lemmings on their sofas, and these are not noted for their reasonableness or common sense. If anything, even this lame a comparison, if delivered on a medium news friday afternoon, would serve to obfuscate the BC effort further.

for my part, I would hope that some kind of effective campaign can be mounted for the 2010 midterms. Absent a revelation of this chosen1's true NBC status, the only path to defeating him is via the voting booth.

JG

126 posted on 06/21/2009 9:00:55 PM PDT by Jacksonian Grouch (God has granted us Freedom; we owe Him our courage in return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
Almost right, but profoundly wrong.

Hardly.

The status of "natural born citizen" does not depend on the operation of any statute, and indeed cannot, or a new statute could take it away..."Natural-born citizenship" is a citizenship status that derives from the operation of natural law independently of any statute, and which cannot be removed by statute - or any act of man.

Nor, apparently, is it defined anywhere so 'natural born citizen' apparently means what you want it to mean. Very convenient, but totally impractical and completely at odds with the Constitution which says that it is supreme and not some unwritten law.

This is the view of the fremaers, and it is the view of the drafters of the 14th, and it ought to be our view if we wish to be true to the Constitution.

Recognizing that the Constitution recognizes only two forms of citizenship is being true to it. The idea that there might be three or more classes of citizenship ignores the Constitution.

127 posted on 06/22/2009 1:09:31 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-127 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson