Roy G. Callahan, USN, Ret.

1529 NW 143rd Street Gainesville, Florida 32606 Tel: (352) 332-9144 Fax: (352) 332-9144 Call6603@Bellsouth.net

Friday, May 31, 2013 Representative Ted Yoho 511 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Yoho: What follows is the result of a family conversation regarding the Constitution. You ran for office as a Constitutional conservative so I have a question I want you to answer. Article 2, 1, paragraph 4 sets the natural citizen requirement for the presidency. However, New World Order advocates, Jewish lawyers with an agenda, ambitious politicians, political hacks and enemies of the Constitution vociferously assert the Supreme Court decision in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649 (1898) altered Article 2, 1. They lie. However, the justices in Won Kim Ark left untouched and did not overrule Minor v. Happersett 88, US 162 (1874) which establishes that a person born in the United States to citizen parents is a natural born citizen. Supreme Court justices choose their words carefully. Court rulings are based on what is said, not what is not said.1 All trees are plants, but not all plants are trees. All citizens are citizens but not all citizens are natural born citizens. The Court precisely said Minor was a natural born citizen because she was born to citizen parents. This is the historic definition of citizen and this definition has never been changed by the court or the required Amendment process approved by of the states and their legislatures. It is a legally binding precedent on every court in this country. The word natural is a statement regarding natural law in legal documents. The Constitution is the foundation for our legal system and governance. The founders identified a citizen by the law of nature as a citizen of a particular nation. The law of nature appears in the Declaration of Independence. It states a natural born citizen is a citizen of a particular nation. It is the law of the nature of things, not a particular custom at a particular time. The law of nature dates back to the formation of nations. The concept of nationhood implies citizenship based upon a father, mother, and a child with the child having the citizenship of the father and the mother. If the father and mother are citizens of a particular nation, the child takes the citizenship from his parents. The natural born citizen requirement applies to the president only because he is the chief constitutional officer and the only person who takes the oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.2 The judiciary, senators, and representatives take an oath to support the Constitution only.

Obama and other enemies of the Constitution falsely claim the court said Minor was a natural born citizen because she was born in this country to citizen parents but the court didnt say a person also born in this country but not born to paren ts who were not citizens was also a natural citizen. 2 ibid

Page 1 of 2

The founders were concerned with dual loyalties.3 Moses prophesized In Deuteronomy chapter 174, the people of Israel would reject God as their direct ruler and want kings like all the other nations. The founders understood the necessity of maintaining the integrity of the nation, thus including the requirement Natural Born Citizen in the Constitution. They did this to insure the President does not have an allegiance divided between one nation and another.5 Both political parties have ignored the Constitution. Congress is largely a criminal organization if the Constitution has meaning. President Obama was allegedly born in Hawaii. His mother was a citizen by birth but his father was Kenyan. If his place of birth is accurate and the Constitution and your oath have meaning you know President Obama is a usurper. Similarly, Senator Rubio was born in Miami. However, his parents became US citizens four years after his birth making him ineligible to run for or assume the presidency. When you returned from your first trip to Washington you wrote, I returned Friday from two days in Washington and asked several Washington staffers what form of government we had? As expected they answered a democracy. We have a lot of work to do for if the people in government do not understand what form of government we have (a Constitutional Republic) how can they lead? This statement denotes leadership and is what I expected from you as my elected representative in Congress. . This being the case, my question is why have you remained silent on this issue? Saying nothing promotes the destruction of the rule of law Americans witness every day. You took the oath to and ran for office as a constitutional conservative. Part of your job is supporting the Constitution. Does that not include protecting it too? Looking forward to your response, I remain, Yours in the Bill of Rights,

Roy G. Callahan Member, Florida Oath Keepers and John Birch Society

3 4

The DREAM Act does not promote E. Pluribus Unum. When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us, 15 be sure to appoint over you a king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite. 5 In a letter to George Washington, John Jay our First Supreme Court Justice, wrote: Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government, and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen".

Page 2 of 2