Letters to Military Associations - File in US Federal Court Regarding Obama's Citizenship

CAPT XXXX XXXX, USXX (Ret.)

XXXXX XXXXXXX Association, Washington Office
Washington, DC 20002

XXXX XXXX
XXX XXXXXXX
XXXX, XX XXXXX

Captain XXXXX,

Sir, as a fellow vet, I know you fully understand the obligation we accept when we say the words, “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” As citizen soldiers, those words have special meaning to us. Our allegiance rises above party politics, a man or an institution. Our allegiance is to the US Constitution -- that we “defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” To that end, I have a CALL TO ACTION for the XXXXX XXXXXXX Association, action that will not be easy, yet required to ensure the Rule of Law stays intact.

Former US Senator Barack Obama has openly acknowledged that his father was a Kenyan (British) citizen and his mother was an American citizen. At birth in 1961, Barack Obama (Jr) was a dual-citizen – he has confirmed this fact himself. When Barack Obama, Jr, was born in Hawaii, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama, Sr was a British Citizen, whose status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr‘s children.

As outlined in 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 if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”

As a result, Barack Obama, Jr, IS a US citizen, but he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen as required by Article 2, Sect 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution. Note that the US Constitution outlines that Senators and Representative are required to be US Citizens to hold office. However, the office of President has the unique requirement of Natural Born Citizen. That prerequisite was specifically outlined by the Framers, hearkened by John Jay, the first Chief Justice, to ensure that our Commander in Chief would have “undivided loyalties” to uphold our nation’s interest.

It is unfortunate that the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission allowed this to happen, i.e., not vetting the qualifications of Candidate Barack Obama for the National Election. We are on the precipice of a Constitutional Crisis. Numerous lawsuits are docketed in the US Supreme Court at this time, including a closed-door Conference that has received little press coverage, DONOFRIO V. WELLS, docket# 08A407, which takes place Friday, December 5. Many other cases are coming from different venues, disputing Barack Obama’s birth records to lawsuits challenging various Secretaries of States for their Certification process. Donofrio’s case is unique and directly challenges Barack Obama’s former British citizenship. However, nothing is for sure in the courtroom, and the clock is ticking until judgment is rendered.

Those who wear the uniform are in a unique position. We are UNDER OATH to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” We are the last line of defense against our enemies, and we put ourselves directly in harm’s ways at the direction of the Commander in Chief. While serving our nation, although we may not believe in the politics of the President, we follow his directions.

However, under UCMJ, we are to follow all LEGAL orders of our Commanding Officer. I dare say that if an illegitimate CINC holds office, our military may have some significant disorder following Barack Obama’s Inauguration on January 20. The potential of a breakdown in the military Chain of Command should shivers down the spine of any American, certainly those who understand how vulnerable it would make us to our enemies.

Many cases have been swept aside by lower courts for “lack of standing.” Military personnel actually do have the right, and duty, to request verification if there is doubt that the Commander in Chief does not meet Constitutional requirements to hold office. Such “questioning” is not governed by UCMJ Article 88 (Contempt toward Officials), DoD DIRECTIVE 1344.10 (Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces on Active Duty), or any other UCMJ Article or Directive I can find.

Captain XXXXX, I ask that you consult with attorneys in your network and ask them to review this – I think you’ll be surprised by their response. IT IS VITAL, SIR, THAT YOU UNDERSTAND: There IS a difference between a Citizen, and Natural Born Citizen -- even if you are born on US Soil, especially if only ONE of your parents is an American Citizen. If you check online, you’ll find that many Constitutional lawyers are looking at this and agree we are headed toward a Constitutional crisis in the next few weeks. Unfortunately, it may fall on those of us are affected by this the most, the nation’s military, to keep this from happening.

Because military personnel are bound to the US Constitution by oath, it is believed by many of who are watching this situation that US Active Duty and Reservist have the legal standing to file lawsuits directly in the US Federal Court system. In doing so, these groups of Active Duty and/or Reservists can “fast track” this issue directly to the US Supreme Court to “Stay” the Electoral College vote that is to take place on December 15. Barack Obama is NOT President-Elect officially until the Electoral College meets and declares him so.

The Objective of these lawsuits is to have the US Supreme Court, or a significant portion of states’ Electoral College officials, investigate this further before Electoral College delegates from each state cast their votes on December 15. The 22nd Amendment would permit President George Bush to remain CINC until this issue is resolved.

Please note that AFTER the Electoral College votes on December 15, Congress would then certify the EC votes. Unfortunately, there is little reason to believe Congress has the “intestinal fortitude” to evaluate this properly before January 20 – they have NOT up to this point.

Sir, I know this is a sensitive situation, not lightly undertaken. It flirts with unconscionable topics like “political activity,” “chain of command,” and other deemed scandalous by opponents. However, overriding such concerns must be the issues of the “Rule of Law,” and specifically to us as military leaders, the “US Uniformed Services Oath of Office.”

It is neither unpatriotic nor insubordinate to ask of our civilian authorities: “If Barack Obama’s father was a British Citizen at the time of Barack Obama’s birth, is Barack Obama a “Natural Born Citizen” as the Constitution requires for the office of President?”

It will not be up to the US Military to decide the road for us ahead. However, if we don’t act IMMEDIATELY, I fear the officials who have the power to have the ability to stop this probable infraction of the US Constitution will not exercise the political courage to act.

COURAGE is a quality of which those in the US Military possess in abundance. NOW is the time to exercise that courage.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at XXX-XXX-XXXX.

Respectfully,

Any and all politcal participation by soldiers of any rank, will be prosecuted under The Hatch Act.

Sorry, don't see anything in the Hatch Act or DoD DIRECTIVE 1344.10 that would prohibit this. As long as it's nonpartisan, after the election, and doesn't intimidate a voter, you're safe.

The Hatch Act: Applicability to U.S. military personnel

Although the Hatch Act applies to Department of Defense civil servants, as well as Department of Homeland Security civil servants in direct support of the U.S. Coast Guard, it does not apply to actively serving uniformed members of the U.S. armed forces. However, uniformed personnel are subject to Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 (DoDD 1344.10), Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces, and the spirit and intent of this directive is effectively synonymous with the Hatch Act for Federal civil servants.

....

DoD DIRECTIVE 1344.10

C. EXAMPLES OF PROHIBITED POLITICAL ACTIVITIES

In accordance with the statutory restrictions in 10 U.S.C. 973(b) (reference (b)) and references (g) and (h), and the policies established in section D., above, of this Directive, a member on AD shall not:

1. Use official authority or influence to interfere with an election, affect the course or outcome of an election, solicit votes for a particular candidate or issue, or require or solicit political contributions from others.

2. Be a candidate for civil office in Federal, State, or local government, except as authorized in section D., above, of this Directive, or engage in public or organized soliciting of others to become partisan candidates for nomination or election to civil office.

3. Participate in partisan political management or campaigns, or make public speeches in the course thereof.

4. Make a campaign contribution to another member of the Armed Forces or to a civilian officer or employee of the United States for promoting a political objective or cause.

5. Solicit or receive a campaign contribution from another member of the Armed Forces or from a civilian officer or employee of the United States for promoting a political objective or cause.

6. Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles signed or written by the member that solicit votes for or against a partisan political party or candidate.

7. Serve in any official capacity or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan political club.

8. Speak before a partisan political gathering of any kind for promoting a partisan political party or candidate.

9. Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate of a partisan political party or candidate.

10. Conduct a political opinion survey under the auspices of a partisan political group or distribute partisan political literature.

11. Use contemptuous words against the officeholders described in 10 U.S.C. 888 (reference (b)), or participate in activities proscribed by DOD Directives 5200.2 and 1325-6 (references (c) and (d)).

12. Perform clerical or other duties for a partisan political committee during a campaign or on an election day.

13. Solicit or otherwise engage in fundraising activities in Federal offices or facilities, including military reservations, for a partisan political cause or candidate.

14. March or ride in a partisan political parade.

15. Display a large political sign, banner, or poster (as distinguished from a bumper sticker) on the top or side of a private vehicle.

16. Participate in any organized effort to provide voters with transportation to the polls if the effort is organized by, or associated with, a partisan political party or candidate.

17. Sell tickets for, or otherwise actively promote, political dinners and similar fundraising events.

18. Attend partisan political events as an official representative of the Armed Forces.

D. POLITICAL ACTIVITIES NOT EXPRESSLY PERMITTED OR PROHIBITED

Some activities not expressly prohibited may be contrary to the spirit and intent of section D. of the Directive or section C. of this enclosure. In determining whether an activity violates the traditional concept that Service members should not engage in partisan political activity, rules of reason and common sense shall apply. Any activity that may be viewed as associating the Department of Defense or the Department of Transportation, in the case of the Coast Guard, or any components of such Departments directly or indirectly with a partisan political cause or candidate shall be avoided.

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.

But sacrifice from our Forefathers is why we have freedom today.

"Wars are not fought only by childless men. A man must weigh his personal responsibilities against his principles." -- The Patriot

Sorry, don't see anything in the Hatch Act or DoD DIRECTIVE 1344.10 that would prohibit this. As long as it's nonpartisan, after the election, and doesn't intimidate a voter, you're safe.

There's a BIG difference between Clinton who most military did not respect, and Obama who's ineligible to hold the office of President.