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.

[John Valentine]

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.

[Non-Sequitur]

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.

[Non-Sequitur]

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.

[Volubrjotr]

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/

[John Valentine]

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.

[Jacksonian Grouch]

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 Rat^her'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

[Non-Sequitur]

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.