Skip to comments.The Birth Certificate Question: An Open Letter to Shephard Smith at FOX News
Posted on 06/19/2009 10:27:18 AM PDT by smoothsailing
June 19, 2009
COPYRIGHT 2009 FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS INC.
..... 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).
..... but sadly we havn't proved our case and can't do so without access to those records.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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”
He will be an Azzhole, he always is.
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.
And that same document lists his place of birth as “Honolulu, Hawaii.”
Obama Presidential Eligibility - An Introductory Primer
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.
And you know this because.....
One day this story of the century will achieve critical mass. Every little helps.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.