My Letter to General David Petraeus (Sporatica)

COMMANDER, CENTRAL COMMAND, US ARMED FORCES
December 30, 2008
Commander General David Petraeus
U.S. Central Command
7115 South Boundary Boulevard
MacDill AFB
FL 33621-5101

Dear General Petraeus:
I come to you as a loyal American and a patriot. As a fellow patriot and acting commander of our armed forces, I have faith that you will take any and all actions necessary to protect our Constitution and the Republic for which it stands. You may soon be in a position to carry out orders from a Commander in Chief who, in accordance with Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution, is not constitutionally eligible to hold the Office of the Presidency, and therefore not constitutionally eligible to assume the duties and responsibilities of Commander in Chief. I submit to you, for your review, the following facts and supporting documentation.

“May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day’s proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth!…I ask you to consider that we stand this day pleading for the violated majesty of the law, by the graves of half a million of martyred hero-patriots who made death beautiful by the sacrifice of themselves for their country, the Constitution and the laws, and who, by their sublime example, have taught us all to obey the law; that none are above the law;… and that position, however high, patronage, however powerful, cannot be permitted to shelter crime to the peril of the republic.” John Bingham, chief framer of the 14th Amendment.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution clearly states that, “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.”

The Framers of the Constitution were mindful to include a grandfather clause stating, “…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” because, although they were citizens they were not natural born citizens. Accordingly, our Constitution makes a clear distinction between the rights, duties, benefits, and responsibilities of a “citizen” versus the rights, duties, benefits, and responsibilities of a “natural born citizen.”

It is clear the Framers made a distinction between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen”. The constitutional requirement to be a Senator or Representative is that one must be a “Citizen”, but the Constitutional requirement to be President goes a step further and clearly specifies that one must be a, “natural born Citizen” in order to hold the Office of the Presidency.

Representative John Bingham (Ohio), the chief framer of the 14th Amendment, provided the following definition of natural born citizen: “…that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen,” The key phrase being, “…not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.”

By his own admission, Barack Obama Jr. was born subject to the jurisdiction of the British Nationality Act of 1948. His citizenship status was governed by the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. His father was a British subject under Kenyan law, under the jurisdiction of British rule, and owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. In accordance with the British Nationality Act of 1943, that same citizenship, jurisdiction, and owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty was transferred to Barack Obama Jr., through his father, at birth. The fact that Barack Obama Jr. was born with an owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty constitutionally excludes him from ever attaining, exercising the privileges, or partaking in, the duties and/or responsibilities solely reserved to that of a Natural Born Citizens as defined in the US Constitution.

Further, by his own admission, Mr. Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981. As you are well aware, travel by US citizens to Pakistan in 1981 was not allowed. Thus, Mr. Obama would have had to travel under a foreign issued passport. The holding of a passport, other than a US Passport, confirms an allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. The President of the United States shall have no allegiance to any country other than that of the United States of America.

I further invite you to explore the Supreme Court cases on citizenship. To date, the Supreme Court has never decided a case in such a manner that would confer natural born status to a person unless that person was born two American citizens AND on born on US soil.

In the Supreme Court Case entitled, Wong Kim Ark (1898), the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen.” And in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett. The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:

The Court held that Wong Kim Ark was a “citizen” but they did not hold that he was a “natural born citizen”. And Justice Gray thoroughly discussed the definition of “natural born citizen” in his review of the Minor case wherein the Supreme Court in Minor adopted the Laws of Nations definition of “natural born citizen” as being the only definition which is free of doubt.

“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first…” Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”

De Vattel’s The Law of Nations (1758) guided many of the Constitution’s elements. Natural born citizen is defined very clearly by Vattel: § 212. Citizens and natives.

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

The US Immigration Act of 1790 granted natural born status to certain citizens “born beyond sea” but was superseded by the US Immigration Act of 1795, which repealed the term “natural born citizen” from the legislation. This is the last legislative mention of the term natural born citizen. The Framers were extremely cautious with regard to the “granting” of natural born citizenship status. I doubt it is a coincidence or the result of lack of oversight that the process of “granting” natural born citizenship was duly and promptly repealed in 1795. No further legislative attempts to redefine the term natural born citizen were made until recent drafting of the non-binding Senate Resolution SRS 511 (attached).

The United States Immigration Act of 1790 stated “…And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…”

The Immigration Act of 1795 makes the following correction, “…And the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.”

This letter could go on much longer, but I understand the weight of your duties. You have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands. You should not be forced into the position of carrying out the orders of a usurper or an apostate president. I am hopeful that your choice is to carry out your sworn duty and take your stand on the side of the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXX XXXXXXX