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 next last
To: Non-Sequitur
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.......

51 posted on 06/19/2009 1:47:05 PM PDT by usmcobra (Your chances of dying in bed are reduced by getting out of it, but most people still die in bed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: mlo

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.


52 posted on 06/19/2009 1:56:23 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s........you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

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


53 posted on 06/19/2009 2:05:14 PM PDT by xzins (Chaplain Says: Jesus befriends those who seek His help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
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.
54 posted on 06/19/2009 2:07:11 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra
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.

55 posted on 06/19/2009 2:15:26 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
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.

56 posted on 06/19/2009 2:24:18 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

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.


57 posted on 06/19/2009 3:17:56 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: mlo; All
< 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.”

58 posted on 06/19/2009 3:26:44 PM PDT by SloopJohnB (CONGRESS.SYS corrupted...Re-boot Washington D.C? (Y/N))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: cycle of discernment

Could mlo be michelle labelle obama?


59 posted on 06/19/2009 3:27:36 PM PDT by IM2MAD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

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


60 posted on 06/19/2009 3:36:29 PM PDT by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org | Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
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).

61 posted on 06/19/2009 3:37:37 PM PDT by Peter Libra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: 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.

62 posted on 06/19/2009 3:42:57 PM PDT by Peter Libra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory

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?


63 posted on 06/19/2009 3:47:47 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
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?

64 posted on 06/19/2009 4:00:10 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

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.


65 posted on 06/19/2009 4:02:53 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.

66 posted on 06/19/2009 4:06:19 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

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”


67 posted on 06/19/2009 4:37:05 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Joann37

He will be an Azzhole, he always is.


68 posted on 06/19/2009 4:41:06 PM PDT by dforest (Anyone dumb enough to have voted for him deserves what they get.. No Pity!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
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.

69 posted on 06/19/2009 4:46:58 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
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.
70 posted on 06/19/2009 4:54:21 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

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


71 posted on 06/19/2009 4:55:09 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: All

Obama Presidential Eligibility - An Introductory Primer

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


72 posted on 06/19/2009 5:19:56 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

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.


73 posted on 06/19/2009 5:30:07 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: mlo
The Birthers have no case.

And you know this because.....

74 posted on 06/19/2009 5:39:41 PM PDT by Churchillspirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
Excellent letter.

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

75 posted on 06/19/2009 5:40:48 PM PDT by Churchillspirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SloopJohnB
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.

76 posted on 06/19/2009 5:46:17 PM PDT by Jim Noble (Pas d'ennmis a droit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: All

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.


77 posted on 06/19/2009 5:49:45 PM PDT by SloopJohnB (CONGRESS.SYS corrupted...Re-boot Washington D.C? (Y/N))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
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!

78 posted on 06/19/2009 5:56:25 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (RATs...nothing more than Bald Haired Hippies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
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.

79 posted on 06/19/2009 6:43:43 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
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.

80 posted on 06/19/2009 7:48:51 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

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

Your point being? That parents lie?

81 posted on 06/19/2009 7:52:24 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

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

Your comment would seem to indicate that this entry was somehow out of place, but if Barry was adopted as a child of Soetoro's new American-born wife, where else would you think they might claim he was born? Kenya?

Seriously, where else would you expect the Soetoros to have named as a birthplace, if not Honolulu?

82 posted on 06/19/2009 8:00:30 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
I’m just throwing out some potential reasons for the lack of appeasement.

"Lack of appeasement"?

The American people aren't looking for appeasement from Barack Obama. Just simple honesty and openness. No one's asking him to do anything extraordinary, or anything unusual.

And, none of the reasons you threw out hold water. Only a usurper or dictator would ignore half of the American people for the reasons you gave.

The fact that he produced a JPEG of a Certification of Live Birth when asked for his birth certificate, instead of producing the real thing - and thereafter ignored ALL requests from the public to do so, is reason enough to suspect that something's amiss.

If that weren't enough, ALL of his travel records, visas, and education records are sealed as well, and that's just the short list.

An honest (and innocent) person would simply open their records up for public inspection and end all of the suspicion and speculation. Especially someone who's in the most important job on planet earth.

Barry Obama has not done so. Why? What's he got to hide?

It's far too late to play devil's advocate at this late stage. Doing so now only makes you appear like an Obama apologist or supporter.

83 posted on 06/19/2009 8:45:33 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
.... Doing so now only makes you appear like an Obama apologist or supporter.

I have to say that the word stooge comes to mind referring to stuartcr.

84 posted on 06/19/2009 8:52:10 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Shep, you’ve been exposed!


85 posted on 06/20/2009 5:10:31 AM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Please substitute whatever word you wish for appeasement. I really don’t care if any of the reasons hols water, as I said, they were potential reasons, if you don’t think they’re any good, OK.


86 posted on 06/20/2009 5:20:33 AM PDT by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

His documentation to enter Indonesian school. It has been posted several times. Interestingly, it shows citizenship as Indonesian, religion as muslim (not that I think Barry has any religion, just shows he was brought up muslim)


87 posted on 06/20/2009 5:32:07 AM PDT by Mom MD (Jesus is the Light of the world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
to deny anyone other than Obama access the original document in Hawaii.

I have often wondered that if he was born in Kenya why whould the "original" BC be in Hawaii? It would be in Kenya, would it not?

88 posted on 06/20/2009 5:59:20 AM PDT by mc5cents (Show me just what Mohammd brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 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”

I've seen the Document.

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?

In any case, under the laws in place at the time Obama could not be a citizen. Absent anything else like adoption documentation or naturalization papers or his passport or identity card then this is not conclusive evidence.

89 posted on 06/20/2009 7:04:49 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Mom MD
His documentation to enter Indonesian school. It has been posted several times. Interestingly, it shows citizenship as Indonesian, religion as muslim (not that I think Barry has any religion, just shows he was brought up muslim)

And in line two it also shows his birthplace as Honolulu. Does that clear up the natural born citizenship question for you?

Link

90 posted on 06/20/2009 7:06:25 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
By U.S. law it would not.

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.

Ignoring the clause about being 18 years old.

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.

For naturalized citizens we didn't. We still require naturalized citizens to forsake any loyalty to any other country when they take the oath of citizenship. But they are adults. If a child acquires citizenship status at birth in another country, then U.S. law cannot overrule that. A child born in the U.S. of parents, one of whom is a citizen of Great Britain, has dual citizenship and there is nothing the U.S. can do to prevent that. Likewise, a child born in Great Britain of parents, one of whom is a U.S. citizen, can have dual citizenship in the U.S. and there is nothing British law can do to prevent that. If Obama was born in Hawaii then he's a U.S. citizen, a natural born U.S. citizen. Nobody can strip that from him - not a foreign country and not his mother on his behalf. The only way a U.S. citizen can relinquish that birthright is to do so himself, as an adult, in writing, before U.S. authorities. And if such a situation violated Indonesian law then it would be his Indonesian citizenship that was fraudulent and not his U.S. one.

It seems likely that Barry Soetoro's mother acquired Indonesian citizenship under Article 7 (2) of the statute.

There is absolutely no evidence that Obama's mother gave up her U.S. citizenship, yet you say "it seems likely". What do you have to support your claim other than wishful thinking?

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?

Unless he formally relinquished his U.S. citizenship, yes he would. And if you want to posit that he attended U.S. schools as a foreign national then some evidence of that would be nice. Remember, by the time he went to college he'd been back in the U.S. for 8 or 9 years.

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

Because you're the one misrepresenting and misleading and wishing and hoping and calling conjecture fact, not me. You whole tale is full of if's and maybe's and likely's and possibly's, and very short on fact.

91 posted on 06/20/2009 7:20:32 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

I wouldn’t term this as “gospel proof” of anything. It’s just evidence.

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. Based on other post of yours on this thread, I have already concluded that you have no idea what you are talking about with respect to Indonesian law, and this latest statement is further evidence of that truth.


92 posted on 06/20/2009 8:07:13 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

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.

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.

Please don’t come back at me with some nonsense about multiple classes of citizenship. There are MANY varieties of citizenship. Citizenship is something that can be sliced and diced many ways to draw valid distinctions. 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.


93 posted on 06/20/2009 8:52:39 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: xzins
If O’Reilly were getting over 5 million, he’d have been in 6th place.

He have may have been referring to his combined audience, since his show replays 3 hours later, both combined top 5,000,000 regularly.

94 posted on 06/20/2009 9:11:43 AM PDT by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing; null and void; Beckwith; stockpirate; pissant; PhilDragoo; Candor7; MeekOneGOP; ...

PING!


95 posted on 06/20/2009 12:28:27 PM PDT by Polarik (It's the forgery, Stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joann37

Yeah, Shep will react, like most dead-soul liberals do, by tightening his Obamanoid kneepads. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Shep enjoys his blindness and will not allow anyone to disturb that childhood he’s in.


96 posted on 06/20/2009 12:54:58 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing; dk/coro; 2ndDivisionVet; unkus; flat; river rat; DooDahhhh; ...

Since Shep Baby won’t admit to ever receiving this excellent letter, I think it should be sent to Glenn Beck, Rush, Mark Levin, and others so it can be read on their shows. The truth is in short supply these days and the state-run Media is, obviously, hiding anything negative about Zero.

Those that read history will remember that it was the “Underground” that had to fight back against Hitler. Freepers and others will now have to become the “American Underground” in order to get the truth out against state-run media and the Fuhrer’s machine.


97 posted on 06/20/2009 12:55:05 PM PDT by ExTexasRedhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

Of course nothing will come of it. Shep spends more time in makeup than at the news desk.

Aloha Smooth!
98 posted on 06/20/2009 12:55:24 PM PDT by BIGLOOK (Government needs a Keelhauling now and then.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan; null and void; Beckwith; stockpirate; pissant; PhilDragoo; Candor7; MeekOneGOP; ...
We have no proof of where Obama was born. Anyone who claims that he was born in Hawaii is suffering from COLB Derangement Syndrome. Hawaii never confirmed that he was born in Hawaii, never confirmed that he has a Hawaiian long-form birth certificate or any other US birth certificate on file, or even if they have anything tangible beyond a computer record.

Most of all, Hawaii confirmed that they never released a copy of Obama’s COLB to anyone in June 2007.

Einstein could have called himself, “Humpty Dumpty,” and hid his face, but that would not change the fact that he discovered E= mc^2. Likewise, Obama’s 2007 COLB would be just as nonexistent as if I had never discovered that it was nonexistent. But, it is a good thing that I did.

It's positively amazing the amount of effort that people have expended in defense of this piece of crap COLB image that the Poseur-in-Chief now admits to posting online. There is only one reason why, after more than a year, that only one scan image of one side only has ever been made from what is alleged to be Obama’s 2007 COLB: it doesn't exist. Obama’s 2007 COLB is a forged fake, fabricated in Photoshop, and nothing that anyone says or does can change that fact.

There is absolutely no reason, whatsoever, that the Obama Campaign would not make another, more detailed scan, including one of the reverse side of the COLB, and send that out to quiet critics. No reason, EXCEPT that the document does not exist in the real world. It only exists in the unreal, virtual world of Photoshopped fakes.

BTW, a digital photo is not the same thing as a scan image, and it most certainly cannot be used to validate a scan image. Certainly not when the document object is photographed at a steep angles from the capture device (which were intentional).

Remember that Factcheck did not take a digital photo of the reverse side (all that Factcheck photographed was only 1/4 of the entire back page, and only 2/3 of the Seal). Why was so little of the back page shown? Because what was photographed belonged to a different COLB!! Check it out for yourself: the Seal on the reverse side does not match the one on the front side. It is one of several, new discoveries I've made after revisitng the Factcheck photographs.

A year later after the bogus scan image was posted, THAT is exactly what people are still talking about. They are referring back to the original forged image on Fight the Smears and Factcheck. They are quoting Factcheck — the co-conspirator in this birth certficate scam — as having “verified” the bogus “scan image”.

Recall that Factcheck claimed they photographed the same object that the Obama Campaign scanned two months earlier. They took these photos SOLELY IN DEFENSE of the scan image that they alleged to have “validated,” and to fend off the widespread criticism of the COLB as a forged image. However, they failed to “debunk” the critics. This was all part of an elaborate ruse to create the illusion that Obama had released his genuine, certified original birth certificate to the public.

What is hard to believe are the people in high places who actually believe that this document exists, but of those, here is a segment who also discount it as being proof of where Obama was actually born. COLBs are incredibly easy to get with little documentation required. And, yes, it is a well-documented fact that Hawaii was giving COLBs to foreign-born children.

But the bottom line is that the original “scan image” is what people are still talking about today, and it is an indisputable fact that Obama, or anyone else, does not have a genuine 2007 COLB document. and that what is posted online is as bogus as a four-dollar bill.

Obama ascended to the position of President by fraudulent means, including document fraud, Internet fraud, voter fraud, and campaign funding fraud, to name a few. The only question at hand now is whether he will be removed by invalidating his election, or by the articles of impeachment. If I were a Democratic Congressman, and I was going to be implicated in this fraud, I'd be calling for impeachment in a New York minute.

99 posted on 06/20/2009 2:44:05 PM PDT by Polarik (It's the forgery, Stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan; null and void; Polarik
Hey nully, someone is talking about us.

sadly we haven’t proved our case and can’t do so without access to those records.

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

100 posted on 06/20/2009 2:57:28 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-127 next 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