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.

[Czar]

"Let’s hope Shep responds."

Why?

If he does, it will be the same kind of tortured CYA rationale that all of these liberal drive-by media types use when cornered. Shep is a complete loser--every one should have figured that out back when the "parking space" fiasco occurred. He's the kind of self important blowhard who, when denied immediate seating at a restaurant, responds with "Don't you know who I am?"

[stuartcr]

Of course he’s not a king, and I certainly can’t answer for him. I’m just throwing out some potential reasons for the lack of appeasement.

[AmericanVictory]

Back again, eh? Care to cite the Indonesian law of the time that allowed one to have dual citizenship? We didn’t think so.

[John Valentine]

The Birthers have no case.

What a load. If the "birthers" really "have no case" the case would die in the first court to hear the facts. If the "birthers" have no case, why spend nearly a million dollars trying to obstruct it, as the Zero has. It would be complete and total waste of money.

I think the conclusion is obvious and moreover, the conclusion is also obvious that you are shilling for the impostor.

[John Valentine]

under Indonesian law even if Soetoro did adopt him then that would not make Obama an Indonesian citizen.

Maybe not, but as someone with a decades long involvement with Indonesia, and a part time resident there even now, I can tell you that Indonesia does not issue Indonesian Passports to non-Indonesian citizens. Nor does it issue Kartu Pendudks to them. Young Barry was passed off in Indonesia as an Indonesian citizen, and that could not have been done without possession of at least one of these critical documents.

Barry Soetoro's citizenship status stinks like yesterday's cod.

[Non-Sequitur]

Back again, eh? Care to cite the Indonesian law of the time that allowed one to have dual citizenship?

Not at all. It's called Law Number 62 of 1958, and it's posted here.

If you look at Article 2, Section 1 you'll note that a foreign child under the age of 5 who is adopted automatically becomes an Indonesian citizen. Obama, being 6 or 7 when Soetoro took the family to Indonesia, doesn't qualify. Therefore he would have had to go through the naturalization process and based on the rest of Law 62 it doesn't appear that he was there long enough or old enough to do so. Also, I might add, nowhere in the law does it say that Obama would have lost his U.S. citizenship unless he voluntarily gave it up as part of the naturalization process. Which he could not do unless he was an adult, so had Obama been under the age of 5 and had Soetoro adopted him, resulting in Obama automatically becoming an Indonesian citizen, nothing prohibited him from retaining his U.S. citizenship.

We didn’t think so.

Keep thinking like that and you might hurt yourself.

[xzins]

Couric gets nearly 6 million.

O’Reilly’s show gets about 3, iirc.

[Non-Sequitur]

Maybe not, but as someone with a decades long involvement with Indonesia, and a part time resident there even now, I can tell you that Indonesia does not issue Indonesian Passports to non-Indonesian citizens. Nor does it issue Kartu Pendudks to them.

And no doubt that is true. So the question becomes how do we know that he had either a passport or an identity card? Where would he have had to produce one, as a child under 10? If Soetoro said Obama was a citizen, where would he have had to show documentation to prove it?

[BuckeyeTexan]

I am a birther. (Although LucyT & nully may disown me after this post.) I’ve had a couple of discussions with N-S & mlo. They’re not out to prove us wrong. They simply do not believe we have proved our case. And that’s a fair assessment because we haven’t.

Take the Indonesian citizenship issue as an example. We have only the American Soetoro-Dunham divorce decree as evidenciary proof (as opposed to hearsay) that Soetorro adopted Obama. Even then we don’t know if the adoption occurred in the U.S. or in Indonesia. The Indonesian school records prove only registration, not adoption. We do not have Indonesian legal documents to back up the adoption claim. Since we can’t prove the adoption, we also can’t prove he obtained Indonesian citizenship through that adoption. We also cannot prove that Obama had an Indonesian passport, which would be another way to prove citizenship.

While Indonesian law may indicate that Obama had to be an Indonesian citizen in order to attend school there or that he lost his U.S. citizenship if he became an Indonesian citizen, our courts are not bound by Indonesian law.

Since we can’t prove he was ever adopted or obtained Indonesian citizenship, we also cannot prove that he ever lost his U.S. citizenship or needed to reaffirm it.

We have lots of “probably” and “likely,” but sadly we haven’t proved our case and can’t do so without access to those records.

Flame away. *cringes*

[itsahoot]

O’Reilly’s show gets about 3, iirc.

Just repeated O'Reiley's claim last night.

[usmcobra]

Actually Obama could apply if he was adopted at five.

(2)Said declaration of legality by the Pengadilan Negeri shall be requested by the person adopting the child within 1 year after such an adoption or within 1 year after enforcement of this law.

Section two of article two allows a year to claim Indonesian citizenship, the question then becomes when was Obama adopted by Lolo Soetoro and where, and was Indonesian citizenship applied for by his parents.

Just another document Obama won't be providing anytime soon.......

[ChildOfThe60s]

There are two facts.

1)The BC has not been produced and properly verified.
2)The Obama camp is expending not insignificant funds and effort to fight the request(s) to produce it.

Finally, it doesn’t matter if he was born in Podunk and 30 people witnessed his birth. Any citizen of the US has the right to demand sufficient proof that he does indeed qualify.

[xzins]

This is from Nielsen for June 7-14 (8-14?) Top Ten Cable. If O’Reilly were getting over 5 million, he’d have been in 6th place. As it is, he isn’t on the list. I’m not sure how they add the numbers. Maybe they just do the primetime show, and O’Reilly counts the numbers on his 11pm and 5 am show. Who knows???

Not to argue....just curiosity.

RANK NAME NETWORK DAY VIEWERS (P2+)
1 CLOSER, THE TNT MONDAY 7,139,000
2 WWE ENTERTAINMENT (WWE RAW) USA MONDAY 5,935,000
3 ROYAL PAINS USA THURSDAY 5,590,000
4 NASCAR POST RACE SHOW TNT SUNDAY 5,531,000
5 BURN NOTICE USA THURSDAY 5,242,000
6 SPRINT CUP RACNG/MICHIGAN TNT SUNDAY 5,118,000
7 WWE ENTERTAINMENT (WWE RAW) USA MONDAY 4,873,000
8 IN PLAIN SIGHT USA SUNDAY 4,271,000
9 JON & KATE PLUS 8(S)-06/08/2009 TLC MONDAY 4,252,000
10 DEADLIEST CATCH DISC TUESDAY 4,189,000

[AmericanVictory]

At the time in Indonesia once you were an Indonesian citizen, you could not be a citizen of another country. This doctrine of jus solis is one we ourselves had in the 1960's and it was not changed here until relatively late in the day. You may not know of this doctrine but perhaps you should investigate and see if what I say is not so. Indonesia had not given up the doctrine at the pertinent times. I don't think I have hurt myself but you, I believe, have exposed yourself. It is not clear to me whether you are unable to read what you have posted and comprehend it or whether you just enjoy misleading people. But if you read Article 4 of the very law you reference you will see that if one became a citizen of Indonesia at the time then one had to either not have another nationality or release that other nationality unless there was a treaty between Indonesia and the other country allowing dual citizenship. Unless you can point to such a treaty between the U.S. and Indonesia at the time (none existed) you have once again illustrated that you care not to actually examine the truth of the matter.

[Non-Sequitur]

Actually Obama could apply if he was adopted at five...

Well, no. Section 2 applies to section 1, which clearly states children under 5. In any event, Soetoro is supposed to have married Dunham in 1966 and they didn't return to Indonesia until 1967 when Obama would have been over five and perhaps six. Any adoption, if in fact he adopted him at all, would have occurred when Obama was past the magic age of 5 and citizenship would not be automatic.

Just another document Obama won't be providing anytime soon.......

Nor, apparently, can anyone else.

[Non-Sequitur]

This doctrine of jus solis is one we ourselves had in the 1960's and it was not changed here until relatively late in the day. You may not know of this doctrine but perhaps you should investigate and see if what I say is not so.

Such doctrine would not apply to Obama in the case of Indonesian citizenship since he wasn't born there. He could only obtain citizenship through other means, none of which he was eligible for during the period he lived in Indonesia.

But if you read Article 4 of the very law you reference you will see that if one became a citizen of Indonesia at the time then one had to either not have another nationality or release that other nationality unless there was a treaty between Indonesia and the other country allowing dual citizenship.

And if you read Article 4, it says it has to be done within one year of the person in question reaching 18.

Unless you can point to such a treaty between the U.S. and Indonesia at the time (none existed) you have once again illustrated that you care not to actually examine the truth of the matter.

Obviously I have.

[AmericanVictory]

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.

[SloopJohnB]

< Those “facts” are not true. <

Like this?

Smmary Of Arguments
December 10, 2008
Broe v. Reed
Washington State Supreme Court
Cause No. 8-2-473-8

[…]

Many of the cases challenging Sen. Obama’s citizenship status have been dismissed for “lack of standing.” Plaintiffs in Broe v. Reed claim standing pursuant to the authorization given them by the legislature of Washington in RCW 29A.68.020(2). This statute creates standing for Plaintiffs to challenge the election of a candidate who has been elected but was ineligible at the time of his election to run for the office.

[...]

Federal Law, Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution provides: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States

[…]

ARGUMENTS

Barack Obama is ineligible for the office of the presidency because he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution provides:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. “Natural born citizen” means a person born in the United States to parents that were both citizens, and to children born out of the United States to parents that were both citizens, provided that no citizenship would be allowed for a person whose father was not a resident of the United States. Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, First Congress, Sess. II, Chapter 3, Section I, approved March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.\

Compare with the Fourteenth Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. “Natural born citizens” continues to mean a person born in the United States to parents that were both citizens, and arguably to people born outside of the United States to parents who were both citizens, provided that the father was a resident of the United States. The Amendment also provides that persons “naturalized” and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens [not “natural born citizens”].

THEREFORE, at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment, you were either a “natural born citizen” or, if you had citizenship, it was obtained through a process of naturalization, as established by federal Acts of Naturalization, Immigration and Nationality. A child born overseas, of an American citizen and a foreign national is not a “natural born citizen,” and the child’s citizenship can only be established by a process of naturalization.

A child born in the United States of an American citizen and a foreign national is also not a “natural born citizen” if the child obtained citizenship of another nation automatically at the time of his birth.

The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent [italics added] if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth [italics added].” The legislative history of the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant, according to the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment, exclusive jurisdiction. A subject of the British Crown, for instance, could claim that jurisdiction was proper only under the Crown.

Barack Obama has failed to establish that he is an American citizen. Barack Obama readily admits the following facts:

1. He was born in 1961.
2. His mother was an American citizen.
3. His father was a Kenyan citizen.

To establish American citizenship, Sen. Obama must prove one of two things:

1. He was born on American soil, and was not subject to any other jurisdiction;
2. He was naturalized pursuant to the immigration laws of the United States.

At the time of his birth, he was automatically a British citizen, pursuant to the The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5). Consequently, the United States did not have exclusive jurisdiction, and he is disqualified from automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. He has failed to demonstrate that he was actually born in Hawaii.

Barack Obama has submitted the following to establish his birth in Hawaii:

1. A Certification of Live Birth (not a Certificate of Live Birth) purportedly from the state of Hawaii;
2. The affidavit of an Hawaiian official who claims that he has seen a “birth certificate.”

While these may be legally sufficient to register a birth in Hawaii, neither is sufficient to establish that he was born on American soil.

Hawaii, under HRS 338-17.8 allows for the registration of births to parents who gave birth while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii [emphasis added] and who declare the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

Because HRS 338-17.8 exists, a Certification of Live Birth in the form provided by Barack Obama is insufficient to establish native birth. 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.

As a matter of law, there is no official Hawaiian “birth certificate” – there is only the Certification of Live Birth, and the Certificate of Live Birth.

As of the present moment, Barack Obama has not produced a single piece of evidence demonstrating that he was born on U.S. soil. Even his birth announcement in the Hawaiian press is inconclusive, given that he was born in August of 1961, and the article was published in August, 1962, and at that time, his father was already back in Kenya.

Corroborating evidence as to his birth and citizenship allegiances could be established by the production of his passport, and his college transcripts, none of which can be obtained because Barack Obama has hired several law firms to make sure that such records remained sealed.

In the meantime, informal polling of the hospitals in Hawaii have received responses from all of the hospitals in Honolulu reporting that they have no records for Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack’s mother, or Barack Hussein Obama. On the other side of the world, however, Barack’s paternal grandmother has stated that she was present at his birth in the Coastal Hospital of Mombasa, Kenya. The Kenyan Ambassador to the United States has said that a memorial is being placed at the site of Barack Obama’s birth in Mombasa, Kenya.

In addition, because Barack Obama was adopted by his mother’s second husband, Lolo Soetoro, he obtained Indonesian citizenship as well. Because of his multiple citizenships, Barack Obama does not have automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Barack Obama has never demonstrated that he was naturalized as an American citizen, which requires a residency period, a test, and an oath of allegiance.

Barack Obama is not qualified under 8 U.S.C. §1401(g). In 1986, Congress amended the statute, replacing the phrase “ten years, at least five” with “five years, at least two.” Pub. L. No. 99-653, § 12, 100 Stat. 3655 (1986), now codified at 8 U.S.C.§ 1401(g). The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act also replaced the “residence” requirement, found in the earlier Nationality Act of 1940, with a requirement of “physical presence” for transmission of citizenship to a child born abroad. See Drozd, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 155 F.3d 871 at 87( 2nd Cir.1998) (citing to the Nationality Act of 1940, ch.876, § 201(g), 54 Stat. 1137, 1139). That change in language “compel[s] a strict adherence to the plain terms of the Act.” Id. Further, the change from “ten years, at least five” years to “five years at least two” applies only to those born after 1986. U.S. v. Flores-Villar, 497 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1162-64 (S.D. Cal. 2007) aff’d, 536 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2008). The amendment had no retroactive application that would change the legal analysis for Senator Obama.

Barack Obama did not qualify for automatic citizenship under the INA of 1952. Barack’s mother gave birth at age 18. The INA of 1952 simply disqualified children that were born to mothers who were less than 19 because of the five years of continuous residency requirement after age 14. Because Sen. Obama has not established that he was born in the United States, he cannot claim automatic citizenship, and can only establish his citizenship by means of naturalization (process described above). There is no record of Barack ever naturalizing as an American citizen.

BARACK OBAMA HAS NEVER ESTABLISHED THAT HE IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. Barack Obama did not run under his legal name. Barack Hussein Obama is not the legal name of the candidate, and Sen. Obama has failed to produce any evidence of a legal name change from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama. Sometime in the 1960’s, Barack was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, and obtained the legal name Barry Soetoro and Indonesian citizenship. When a person is adopted, a new birth certificate issues in the name of the adopted father, establishing the legal name of the child in the name of the father, and establishing the citizenship of the child in the citizenship of the father. Barack Obama has never produced a single piece of evidence demonstrating a legal name change from his adopted name Barry Soetoro to his name at birth, Barack Hussein Obama. Obama is in direct violation of Washington statute RCW 29A.24.060(3), which provides that “no candidate may . . use a nickname designed intentionally to mislead voters.” Barack Obama’s candidacy is a violation of WAC 434-215-012, which requires that declarations of candidacy contain the following affirmation:

I declare that this information is, to the best of my knowledge, true. I also swear, or affirm, that I will support the Constitution and laws of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington. Senator Obama either failed to sign such a document, or has misled the Secretary of State as to the affirmation in paragraph 2 of the required Declaration of Candidacy which declares that “and, at the time of filing this declaration, I am legally qualified to assume office if elected.”

[IM2MAD]

Could mlo be michelle labelle obama?

[2nd amendment mama]

I do the same thing. If I want to watch queens I’ll go over to HGTV...LOL