An Air Force Officer Speaks Out: Day 14 – Feb 2, 2009

From: Dr. David A. Earl- Graef LtCol. USAFRDate: 1 Feb 2009,

Dear Senator Warner,

I am in receipt of your letter of 26 Jan 2009. While I thank you for taking the time to respond I can’t express in words my disappointment in your response. I have given much thought to this issue and take offense in so much as you would apparently dismiss my concerns without a thorough investigation into the validity of my questions. So it is that I am again compelled to write to you and ask your re-consideration. Please do not dismiss prima fasciae, as if this has already been addressed, but read what I have to say.

The requirement to be a “Natural Born” citizen is very specific as you point out in Article II, Section 1, and Clause 5 as it applies to the office of the POTUS. The Framers in their construct recognize there IS a difference between a Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen. The requirement was instituted to provide a safeguard that the POTUS would have undivided loyalty to the United States. I share the opinion of Attorneys Orly Taitz and Phil Berg who are among the Constitutional Attorneys bringing these cases to the State, Federal and Supreme Court that Natural Born status also requires that BOTH parents be citizens; a condition we know is NOT the instance in the case. This is not a trivial question left for Legal Academics to debate, it is about our Constitution and a matter for Congress and our Supreme Court.

To date, no case challenging the qualifications of President Obama to hold that Office has been heard on its merits…. I have pleaded with Chief Justice Roberts to answer on the merits of the case and will continue barring action by the Congress to address my concerns. Most of the lawsuits are brought by concerned Citizens rightfully questioning if our Constitution is being followed and have been dismissed on lack of standing allowing questions to remain. The same lawsuits President Obama or those speaking for President Obama have referred to as Garbage!

I ask you now; is this the response you would also give the citizens addressing their concerns? Would you tell us our concerns are Garbage? I will trust in your integrity and believe it is not how you yourself would respond, if informed, as evidenced by your response to me to date. I believe you would simply give us what we need to reassure us. Given this could be put to rest by easily producing the supporting documents President Obama has sealed, do you think this is an appropriate response for a person in a position of public trust ?

There is much misinformation in the media. Even during the Inauguration, I heard it stated by Rick Warren that President Obama’s father was an “immigrant” from Kenya, yet it is known he was NOT an “immigrant “ and never had U.S. Citizenship at any time of his life. There are many other legitimate questions regarding the Constitutional qualifications of the POTUS. This is being aggravated by the President spending hundreds of thousands of dollars by reasonable estimates and using teams of attorneys to block the release of documents to support his qualifications. This includes the vault copy of the Official Birth Certificate held by the State of Hawaii you mentioned in your letter.

While I believe you answered my inquiry in good faith, I believe you misstate the facts in your letter. To my knowledge, at no point has the Hawaii Department of Health stated that he was actually BORN there. They stated they have his official Hawaii Birth Certificate on file and nothing more. Are you aware that Hawaii Statute allows one to obtain a Certificate of Live Birth ( i.e. the one Mr. Obama submitted as his ONLY “proof” to us on HIS web site ) on the unsubstantiated information provided by a single parent ? Are you aware that one may obtain this for a specified period of time even if born outside the US? Are you aware that if President Obama was born in Kenya, as some assert , his mother did not meet the legal requirements to even confer US citizenship on her son? Who was it that provided the information for the Hawaii certificate? Is there a Physicians signature on the original or not ? What was the Hospital where he was born? Not what his SISTER says but what is on the official document.

Does it not stand to reason President Obama should make it public so that competent authority can verify its authenticity? Does it not stand to reason that if everything is in order and there is nothing to hide this would have been done long before the election when this became a question rather than fight in the courts? Do you yourself not want to know the answers to these questions? Does the Constitution still matter ?

This situation by analogy would be like me giving a Hospital my Medical School Diploma and when they ask for my transcripts as a source document, I hire teams of attorneys to block the Hospital from getting it and start taking care of patients anyway. Then to make matters worse I tell them their efforts to require me to produce my transcripts are Garbage. How much more important is it that the person who has control of our military to produce supporting documents when asked ? This is absolutely absurd and an outrage to those of us who are informed, place our very lives at the feet of Liberty and are simply asking to have this issue settled. There are many other questions that remain unanswered which my attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz, would be happy to discuss with you.

I can’t imagine the demands currently placed upon your time and I am sympathetic to you. Nevertheless, you must also realize the potential catastrophic consequences to our Country if indeed we are already into a Constitutional crisis. This is a National disgrace if we allow our Constitution to be ignored simply because someone, perhaps in the DNC , did not do their job in properly vetting the candidates in this last election.

Please understand, I do not intend to convey any disrespect to you in any way, but I can’t contain my sense of betrayal that to date elected officials seem willing to let this pass without reasonable due process. It is also disappointing to me that you do not seem to appreciate the tremendous difficulty that this issue places upon each and every American soldier. Although I have over 15 years of credible military service I am at this moment struggling to decide if I must resign my commission as I can’t reconcile my Oath to defend the Constitution while being in doubt that those above me have respected it in word and deed. I know that I am only one Officer but there must be more, as they learn of this and they will, they will be faced with the same impossible decision. This is a classic Hobson’s choice for which the only hope of redemption is to know the truth.

Our History is replete with the memoirs of American soldiers and Statesman who have, due to the failure of their leaders or at the hand of destiny itself faced similar difficult decisions. One such soldier was Robert E. Lee who found himself divided between family loyalties to the South and loyalty to his Oath of Office. He then under extreme duress resigned his commission so that he would not be conflicted. As you know he chose his FAMILY heritage for which to take a stand.

Make no mistake, while the particular situation facing Gen. Lee was different in circumstance, in essence it is the same as we now face in the military and the same as is at the heart of the Natural Born Citizen requirement . I do not believe abandoning our Constitution is our destiny to forward the interests of a partisan Government but instead the failed actions of our leaders to address a legitimate issue regarding our Constitution.

My loyalty to the Constitution of the United States as per my Oath is and has been un-wavering. I have to this point and will continue to act in good faith as a United States Air Force Officer. I am only asking that this Constitutional issue be resolved, so that I may be able to continue in my service to my country and my President freely, without doubt or reservation.

If there is no problem with the qualifications of the POTUS this can be discovered very quickly by a full investigation by the Congress and we can all go about the business of daily life. Furthermore, the decisions you must make regarding the problems we face will actually have meaning and will not have to be redressed. They are difficult enough, I should think you would not what to have do make them again.

I continue to trust and it is my hope, as is the case with most Americans, you have a trusting heart and nature and that you have simply been misled. I implore you to bring this before the Congress. You have the right and I believe the responsibility to do this as I watched the proceedings on 8 Jan 2009 and as a Point of Order the Constitution was not followed for the opportunity to voice objections to the Electoral College was not given. This is too important to ignore and hope it will go away because it will NOT. If for any reason our concerns have merit with each stroke of the pen we get deeper and deeper as none of the actions of POTUS will have the force of law. Have you read some of the foreign press who are aware of this and may question the validity of treaties that may be signed? I have seen it myself. The potential harmful implications are staggering.

I do not believe you want in any way to have not acted and to make absolutely certain beyond any doubt we are not in the very midst of a Constitutional crisis. I do not believe you would want this, if the worst is true, to be the legacy of YOUR service to our Country. As difficult as this may be for you to bring to the attention of the Congress, it also is nothing less than the opportunity for you to take a stand and be counted among the Great Leaders of our Nation who have come before and risked their fortunes and their lives for the sake of Liberty and our sacred Constitution.

I heard it said many times during the long Campaign to the Presidency that if ever in our History we needed leadership it is now ! I am convinced that this is true. We need our Leaders to possess not only the wisdom of our Founding Fathers but the strength of conviction to see the challenges through in the face of daunting opposition if we are to survive as a sovereign Nation . Please investigate this more. I am confident that when you do you will appreciate the gravity of the situation and be compelled to act in defense of our Constitution.

Very Respectfully,

Dr. David A. Earl-Graef USAFR MC

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “An Air Force Officer Speaks Out: Day 14 – Feb 2, 2009”

  1. Ted Says:

    STEP ONE TO REMOVING THE USURPER:

    The Joint Chiefs of Staff HAVE AN ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to stand behind Guantanamo Military Judge James Pohl UNTIL OBAMA OVERCOMES “RES IPSA LOQUITUR” BY SUPPLYING HIS LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND PROVING HIS ELIGIBILITY TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE US CONSTITUTION.

  2. smrstrauss Says:

    Re: “I share the opinion of Attorneys Orly Taitz and Phil Berg who are among the Constitutional Attorneys bringing these cases to the State, Federal and Supreme Court that Natural Born status also requires that BOTH parents be citizens; a condition we know is NOT the instance in the case.”

    I disagree with you and hold that a Natural Born Citizen is merely a person born in the USA (excepting the children of foreign diplomats)—and Hawaii is certainly the USA.

    IF opponents can prove that Obama was NOT born in Hawaii that is entirely a different matter. But the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

    The theory that a Natural Born citizen requires more than merely birth in a country stems from the early 18th century Swiss theorist Vattel, who held: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    However, Vattel also wrote: “Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”

    So, clearly Vattel recognized that British law was different from the laws of other countries with regard to the birth of citizens. He thought that British law “naturalized” the children of non-British persons if they were born in Britain. But British common law was less complex than that.

    It did NOT consider that the children of non-British parents were “naturalized.” It considered EVERY CHILD born in the realm (with minor exceptions such as the children of diplomats) to be “Natural Born Subjects.” And our law stems from the British Common Law. Our definition of “Natural Born Citizen” is the same thing as “Natural Born Subject” except that we are not subjects of a king.

    And, according to the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” That cannot mean that a child born in America with parents who are citizens has the right to be president and a child born in America who has only one or even no parents who are American citizens does NOT have the right to be president. In the eyes of the Declaration they are, and should be, equal under the law.

    Would it be a good thing that we have two categories of citizens born in the USA, those that are the children of citizens and those that are not the children of citizens? If so, then how can they both be created equal? Why should a child whose parents were naturalized before her birth have any more rights than a child whose parents were naturalized after her birth?

    Also, there is the strict constructionist argument. IF the writers of the Constitution had wanted to bar someone with allegiance to any other country, they would have said precisely that. They would have said: “no one with allegiance to another country,” Or they would have said: ” No dual nationals” Or they would have said: “A Natural born citizen is one who is born in the USA of parents BOTH of whom were citizens.” But they left Natural Born Citizen just as ordinary language—implying that it is the same thing as “Natural Born Subject.”

    Also, it is likely that Article II was amended to some extent by the 14th Amendment which says: “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. “

    Critics of this meaning that Natural Born means simply that someone was born in the USA say that this merely refers to the large category of ordinary citizens and not specifically to the requirements to be president. Quite true.

    But the 14th Amendment sets up two categories of citizens, those that are naturalized and those that are born in the United States. It is difficult to see why those that are born in the USA are not Natural Born Citizens. Meaning why shouldn’t an interpretation of Article II use the 14th Amendment as guidance as to citizenship? At the very least, the 14th Amendment gives guidance to the definition of Natural Born Citizens, tending to confirm that Natural Born Citizen means the same thing as Natural Born Subject under British Common law.

    A final point is the question whether my parents’ nationality at the time of birth affects my real allegiance in any way. This is like saying that because my father was a Baptist at the time I was born, I must be a Baptist all my life. Nobody believes that today, and it is just as hard to believe that the writers of the Constitution believed that absurdity in the 18th Century.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: