Friday, April 2, 2010

Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789

Founder and Historian David Ramsay
Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789

by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen. ” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.”

David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). “During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task….” http://www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay/. In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay's History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. “The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,'' Professor Smith concluded, “are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.”

In his 1789 essay, while not using the phrase “natural born Citizen,” Ramsay described the original citizens that existed during the Founding and what it meant to acquire citizenship by birthright after the Founding. The Constitution itself shows that the Framers called the original citizens “Citizens of the United States” and those that followed them “natural born Citizens.” He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. Ramsay did not use the clause “natural born Citizen.” Rather, he referred to citizenship as a birthright which he said was a natural right. But there is little doubt that how he defined birthright citizenship meant the same as "natural born Citizen," "native," and "indigenous," all terms that were then used interchangeably.

Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a “natural born citizen.” Noah Webster, 1828, in explaining how an American dictionary of the English language was necessary because American words took on different meanings than the same word in England, placed David Ramsay among great Founders such as “Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jay, Madison, Marshall, Ramsay, Dwight, Smith, Trumbull...” Given his position of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined “natural born Citizen.” Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time would have known how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and he told us that definition was one where the child was born of citizen parents. In giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined a “natural-born citizen” the same as did Ramsay in his highly acclaimed and influential, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English). We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a “natural born Citizen” the same way the Ramsay did, for being a meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that existed at the time. Ramsay’s dissertation presents valuable evidence of how the Founding generation defined the original citizens and the future generation of citizens which the Framers called “natural born Citizens.” It is valuable because it is evidence of the public meaning of these terms at the time they were framed and ratified.

Ramsay’s article and explication are further evidence of the influence that Vattel had on the Founders in how they defined the new national citizenship. This article by Ramsay is one of the most important pieces of evidence recently found (provided to us by an anonymous source) which provides direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and that there is little doubt that they defined one as a child born to citizen parents. While Ramsay did not require that the child be born in the country, the Framers, with the exception of children born abroad to parents who were serving in the armies of the state or were engaged in other government service (see Vattel, Sec. 217), did as is evidenced by the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795. This time-honored definition of a "natural born Citizen" has been confirmed by subsequent United States Supreme Court and lower court cases such as The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States;” Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (“the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations” are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted from the same definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, 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. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)).

The two-citizen-parent requirement would have followed from the common law that provided that a woman upon marriage took the citizenship of her husband. In other words, the Framers required both (1) birth on United States soil (or its equivalent) and (2) birth to two United States citizen parents as necessary conditions of being granted that special status which under our Constitution only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military (and also the Vice President under the Twelfth Amendment) must have at the time of his or her birth. Given the necessary conditions that must be satisfied to be granted the status, all "natural born Citizens" are "Citizens of the United States" but not all "Citizens of the United States" are "natural born Citizens." It was only through both parents being citizens that the child was born with unity of citizenship and allegiance to the United States which the Framers required the President and Commander in Chief to have.

Obama fails to meet this “natural born Citizen” eligibility test because when he was born in 1961 (wherever that may be), he was not born to a United States citizen mother and father. At his birth, his mother was a United States citizen. But under the British Nationality Act 1948, his father, who was born in the British colony of Kenya, was born a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) which by descent made Obama himself a CUKC. Prior to Obama’s birth, Obama’s father neither intended to nor did he become a United States citizen. Being temporarily in the United States only for purpose of study and with the intent to return to Kenya, his father did not intend to nor did he even become a legal resident or immigrant to the United States.

Obama may be a plain born “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment or a Congressional Act (if he was born in Hawaii). But as we can see from David Ramsay’s clear presentation, citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. Hence, Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," for upon Obama's birth his father was a British subject and Obama himself by descent was also the same. Hence, Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Obama lacks the birth status of natural sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States which only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military and Vice President must have at the time of birth. Being born subject to a foreign power, he lacks Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance to the United States from the time of birth which assures that required degree of natural sole and absolute birth allegiance and loyalty to the United States, a trait that is constitutionally indispensable in a President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Like a naturalized citizen, who despite taking an oath later in life to having sole allegiance to the United States cannot be President because of being born subject to a foreign power, Obama too cannot be President.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 2, 2010
Updated May 18, 2010
Updated February 21, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

32 comments:

jayjay said...

Mario:

Thanks for the essay about David Ramsay and his importance. He was VERY well-known among the Founders and indeed played an important part in helping all of us find about our history anbd heritage.

Good stuff!!

Robert said...

If, in our early history, a foreign woman's US citizenship was established through marriage to a US citizen husband did the marriage laws of England, Kenya, or Indonesia have any impact on the citizenship status of Stanley Ann Dunham?

A pen said...

All well and good but will it ever see the inside of a court to be heard on merit? I think the courts would rather lie openly than admit to the usurpation their fellow high and mighty roosters have invested in.

cfkerchner said...

Another excellent essay Mario.

The people asking questions about Obama’s eligibility are not a fringe percentage despite that the media is trying to portray them as such. Somewhere between 1/3 to 2/3 of Americans in the various states have questions about Obama’s hidden records and why he is hiding them and are asking questions about his Constitutional eligibility to be the President and Commander in Chief of our military. These people just do not trust Obama since he is hiding so much of his life from the public.

Disgracefully, the main stream media continues the cover-up they have conducted since 2008 about the most important constitutional issue since the Civil War. The 4th Estate of our system of government is as corrupt as those in elected power in Washington DC. Instead of investigating the charges using the media’s Freedom of Information Act powers to obtain copies of original documents that Obama has sealed and hidden, the main stream runs cover for Obama and belittles and ridicules those seeking to support Article II of the U.S. Constitution. The truth will come out eventually. It is time the media started doing its job and really dig into the hidden records of Obama and expose the original records and with them the truth. It is time for the media to change sides from being a protector of the powers to be in Washington DC and get on the side of the Constitution and the people. It is time the main stream media got on board with We the People and stopping running interference for Obama and bring this matter to a close by conducting a serious investigation and having free and open debate on TV without ridicule and exposing the facts, all the facts. And then let the chips fall where they may. The truth and the Constitution will win out in the end. We the People will demand it. This issue is NOT going away.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/01/i-believe-fix-was-in-for-2008-election.html


Charles Kerchner
Commander USNR (Retired)
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Incredulous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht1qeK3roU0
Michelle Obama speaks of their trip to Obama's "home country of Kenya" to an LGBT group.

The commies are pulling off their masks and now Michelle seems to not care if you know Barack was Born in Kenya, in the Kenyan parliament they referred to him as "son of soil", meaning jus soli KENYA.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2370744/posts?page=201

Dixhistory said...

Charles, states "this issue is NOT going away."

Thanks, to men like you Charles.

In my letter to POTUS George W. Bush in Jan., 2009.

I stated if nothing else history will record those that did nothing and those that stood up for Liberty and our U.S. Constitution.

I told them all I will make an effort to record these facts for history.

I understand that history can be written not using any facts. I also know a person that cares and understands what a source record is can obtain the facts.

I know right now that Obama is not a NBC, that is a fact. They do get in the way. Only God might have a chance of changing my mind.

In less than 75 years all that care will know the facts no matter what happens now.

DixHistory

medical said...

"True, This! —
Beneath the rule of men entirely great,
The pen is mightier than the sword. Behold
The arch-enchanters wand! — itself a nothing! —
But taking sorcery from the master-hand
To paralyse the C├Žsars, and to strike
The loud earth breathless! — Take away the sword —
States can be saved without it!" - Edward Bulwer-Lytton... "The pen is mightier than the sword" is also inscribed upon a wall inside the Jefferson Building of the Library of Congress. I'm certain that within the 141,847,810 items stored in their collections is information that will prove invaluable to proving the lack of eligibility of the Usurper. http://www.loc.gov/about/

Benaiah said...

Thank you Charles & Mario..

Happy Easter!

Incredulous said...

Mr. Apuzzo, when we have democrats like Phil Hare who say "I don't worry about the Constitution"
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=135553
and Hank Johnson (D) thinks Guam will capsize
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/03/hank-johnson-guam-.html
Yet Obama wants to give a brain scan to LTC Lakin and Obama fired Gerald Walpin and questioned his mental capablities.

This reminds me of the movie Idiocracy, where compared to the Democrats, including slow-witted Obama, Dan Quayle looks like a rocket scientist/brain surgeon Einstein.

Really, how do you deal with apathy fueled by stupidity and perpetuated by thuggery?

medical said...

@ Incredulous : Should you have occasion to perform an examination of the Usurper, please place an examination light against the back of his head while viewing his face. I would be interested in knowing whether or not he appears to develop a pair of headlights. Happy Easter.

Brianroy said...

In the Letter of John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

"The moral or natural law was given by the Sovereign of the universe to all mankind; with them it was co-eval, and with them it will be co-existent. Being rounded by infinite wisdom and goodness on essential right, which never varies, it can require no amendment or alteration."

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=64

John Jay states that natural law, as given by G-D, and in Nature itself, cannot be altered by man.

In the 1814 Sermon by Jesse Appleton, D.D., President of Bowdoin College, before the Governor, The Honorable Council, And the Legislature of Massachusetts.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=4128

"Every family is a nation in embryo. Civil society originally consisted of families; and so it does still. By forming habits of obedience, intercourse, and beneficence, while under parental government, young persons become qualified to move in a more enlarged sphere, and to discharge duties of more extensive importance."

Natural Law dictated for mankind that the Father was the head of the family...and this was only altered by the rise of modern civilized society, which the US only unlearned this natural law as a society well after Obama was born, even after he had been adopted, called Barry Soetoro by adoption to an Indonesian Army geologist loyal to that nation's dictator, and moved to Indonesia. In effect, even if we disclude the presumption of Barack's self-government upon himself, by Natural Law, Barack (via even the title of his book, "Dreams From My Father") describe his multi-legiences based upon Natural Law, where he essentially describes how he feels he owed loyalty to his biological Communist father and his country, and to his Indonesian adoptive father and his country.

Barack is multi-national in his immediate nuclear family from which he sprung, he is divided in his life's national loyalties (pledging obeisance to Indonesia as a school-child, as well as to the US via the pledge of allegiance here), he is divided in his personal structure and in his ideals of Communist-Socialism, which he promotes via his Cabinet and Czar picks under him. No matter what layer we peel back upon the man, he is not a United States Natural Born Citizen, but a Citizen of the World living in a geological location called the United States of America, with reckless disregard and disdain to the US Constitution (as one of his first appointments, Hillary Clinton, showed us).

medical said...

To have someone sitting in the White House who has said, "So let me say this as clearly as I can -- the United States is not and will never be at war with Islam." and the Usurper also said: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction" is horrible. Iran poses a direct threat to Israel AND the United States. The range of a nuclear warhead equipped missile becomes much less relevant when the missiles are launched from submarines near our shores. Please don't assume the only missiles a submarine is capable of transporting and launching is limited to those pre-loaded into the launching mechanisms. I'll not disclose exact details, but one large submarine possesses capabilities far beyond the comprehension of most civilians. We have some very serious enemies making preparations for war at this moment. Among them are China, North Korea, and Iran. Nations which are preparing for war require very large supplies of strategic materials, such as financing, minerals, and metals. Think about that before you sell an old automobile to a scrap metal dealer or purchase products grown or manufactured in any of the aforementioned nations. China is NOT a friend of the United States. Read about just a few of the projects Iran is working on at the following link. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2009/06/01/Iran-commissions-stealth-submarine/UPI-14511243879812/

James said...

From the mouth of Michelle Obama - Obama was born in Kenya!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBJihJBePcs

medical said...

Have YOU registered to vote?! Members of the Usurper's family have repeatedly stated that he was born in Kenya. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4FqVRWgrNw........Kenyan ambassador publicly states the Usurper was born in Kenya. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH4GX3Otf14......The Usurper and his supporters dare to brand all white people "racists", even though there exists not one piece of evidence in support of such an outrageous claim. On the other hand, there exists ample evidence to prove the Usurper, his wife, many of his supporters, and his "minister" DESPISE white people and America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qaHZ39R3A4&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qaHZ39R3A4&feature=related.........The Usurper telling French television viewers America is a Muslim nation (79% of Americans are Christians, 2.2% are Jewish, and around 1% are actually Muslims). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHgXK_6fWLQ&feature=related

8by8 said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht1qeK3roU0&feature=player_embedded

Michelle Obama in 2004 giving a speech saying Obama was born in Kenya. Important early evidence.

cfkerchner said...

Got some ink today on the issue and one of Mario essays via a press release. If you all did not see it, here is a link to one site that printed it:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/04/commander-kerchner-is-state-of-hawaii.html

CDR Kerchner
www.protectourliberty.org

Bill Cutting said...

Hi Mario
Interesting article

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/05/obama-not-the-first-to-have-presidential-eligibility-questioned/

“Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ within the Meaning of the Constitution?” Published in the “Chicago Legal News,” Vol. 146, p. 220 in 1916, the article begins:

Whether Mr. Hughes is, or is not, a “natural born” citizen within the meaning of the Constitution, so as to make him eligible, or ineligible, to assume the office of President, presents an interesting inquiry.

He was born in this country and is beyond question “native born.” But is there not a distinction “native born” and “natural born”? At the time he was born his father and mother were subjects of England. His father had not then been naturalized.

cfkerchner said...

To Mr. Bill Cutting:

I might suggest that you read this paper by Atty Apuzzo which will answer your question. If Mr. Charles Hughes parents were NOT naturalized citizens of the USA and were still British Subjects, then clearly he cannot be a "natural born Citizen" of the USA to constitutional standards. Mr. Hughes was born a British Subject via his parents and thus had dual allegiance at birth. He did not have unity of Citizenship and sole allegiance at birth which the facts of nature grant at birth and "natural born Citizenship" provides. There is no way that a person born with multiple allegiances to two or more countries can be a natural born Citizen of any of them. That is natural law. Read Vattel for more on natural law and "natural born Citizenship". Read this essay and the others linked to by Atty Apuzzo in the right frame of his blog.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html

CDR Kerchner
www.protectourliberty.org

Bill Cutting said...

Thanks Commander

I have read them all, and am in full agreement. Just passing the PostEmail info along.
The Long paper written almost 100 years ago is on point with everything Mario has written.

Regards

cfkerchner said...

Hi Bill,

Universal truth based on natural law does not change. What was true when our founders and framers put that term in Article II of our Constitution was true 100 years ago and it is true today. Only the progressives with there trying to redefine words such as what does "is" mean are confused and/or deliberately confusing people to weaken the fundamental law of our nation, the Constitution.

Natural law, truth, and the Constitution will win the day in the end.

CDR Kerchner

Puzo1 said...

Bill Cutting,

The Post & Email article by Sharon Rondeau is great. The 1916 article by Breckenridge Long confirms exactly what we have been arguing all along. What is important about the article is that it was written in 1916, well after the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868. As you will note, there is no mention of the 14th Amendment in what Sharon Rondeau has reported concerning the Long article. We have been arguing this point from day one, that the 14th Amendment, which only defines what a "citizen of the United States" is, in no way changed the meaning of an Article II "natural born Citizen."

The Long article also further confirms my point that 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, which only addressed the question of whether Wong was a "citizen of the United States" under the 14th Amendment, is no precedent and is not controlling on the question of what is a "natural born Citizen."

Robert said...

Mr. Kerchner,
The "Progressives" by their very nature are deception personified. Even the name that they've chosen for themselves is completely opposite of who and what they are.

The most "Progressive" act in political history was and is The Constitution of the United States of America". This document completely rerouted the lines of authority of political power.

Previously all authority, property, and personal rights were invested in the government which or who was often considered empowered by or a manifestation of God. The heads of these governments, whether they be individuals or groups, decide what blessings are to be distributed to the folks and under what conditions, and for how long. They are known as dictatorships, monarchies, communists, Marxist, Leninist, liberals, fascists, etc. Their primary argument is that God (who, in their mind, probably doesn't exist)favors some more than others. These are selfish people who see only the scarcities of what they have and bathe in their envies of others. To progressives people are only valuable as long as they are useful. Otherwise, they are expendable.

The Constitution rerouted the lines of authority and power from God - the source of all power, truth and life - through the people. Then, through/from the people, government receives the conditional loan of the Peoples blessings, rights, and powers. This encoded in law the ideas of individual and personal liberties and responsibilities that we have long enjoyed. The primary argument here is that all men are created equal. These people are generous and grateful. They enjoy the abundance of God and wish to share it with all. Life is a gift from God - appreciated in itself. Usefulness, found through self-determination and hard work is a bonus, a blessing to be encouraged and celebrated.

Any political movement the wishes to be truly "Progressive" would be working towards increased personal liberties and responsibilities and a closer relationship with God.

Individuals or groups working towards more government ownership and control are clearly "Regressive" and are, more often than not, working to separate God from man.

It's time to shine the light of truth on these deceivers.

Edward said...

The word's of John Kennedy, and Dwight Eisenhower. Do they seem to be speaking of the secrecy of the Obama adminstration?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces

Eisenhower Warns of the Future

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd8wwMFmCeE&feature=related

Maybe someone should listen.

James said...

Here is an excellent current media interview regarding Col. Terry Lakin: http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/images/stories/mp3/ampt20100406truenewsradio.mp3

medical said...

PART ONE : I know that political corruption and "behind the scenes" power brokers in America have been common for many years, my own father was a quiet, very secretive, and extremely powerful "power broker" in Georgia from the late 1940's to the early 1960's. Dad's automobile had a red light and siren mounted on the driver's side front fender and a shortwave radio tuned to the Georgia State Patrol's main frequency mounted below the dashboard. Above his license plate was a small state issued addition that said "GOVERNOR'S STAFF". In our home, there were hidden filing cabinets with pieces of angle iron and high security padlocks to keep the drawers securely closed, the only document I was ever allowed to see was a copy of a "personal relief bill" from The United States Senate, which granted my father payment for "certain services" (it had been introduced by Senator Russell). Dad carried the finest German made professional photography equipment, plus he maintained two darkrooms for processing "important film" and prints. One darkroom was in a building in our back yard, the other, along with a studio, was housed inside the Georgia State Capitol. When anyone asked dad what he did in the governor's office, he would say, "Oh, I'm just the governor's personal photographer". Dad and his friends hired beautiful "secretaries", which were housed in a building in metro Atlanta (their salaries and housing were paid for with state funds), while the legislature was in session. Those fifty or more "secretaries" shared one typewriter, so it's very obvious what their actual "skills" consisted of. During Governor Marvin Griffin's term in office (1955 to 1959), "Readers Digest" reported, "never in Georgia history had so many stolen so much". After the election, when asked what he planned to do as governor, Marvin Griffin replied, "I plan to fire the hell out of my enemies and take care of my friends". In order to maintain complete control, dad's group ordered Griffin and his brother to "fire the secretaries", then silently wait for the legislators to come crawling to Griffin about their "girlfriends" (dad was the only person in possession of hundreds of "compromising" photographs of the legislators and their girlfriends together - "do you want your wife to see what you've been doing"). When the legislators agreed to certain conditions, the "secretaries" were rehired. About the middle of Griffin's term, dad's oldest brother called early one morning and told me that I was going to caddy a golf game for him "to see how politics really works, and you'll not speak a word unless spoken to". "Meet me at 'Hangar One' and wear a dark Hickey Freeman suit, this is going to be an important game." We climbed aboard his professionally crewed Beechcraft 18, a slow, vibrating, terribly loud twin engine, eight passenger airplane that I despised. That airplane scared me half to death - I just knew it would shake itself to pieces or someone would sabotage the landing gear. I asked my uncle, "how long until we reach Charlotte?" (the h.q. location of one of the family businesses). He said, "noooo, we're not going to Charlotte, we're headed to WASHINGTON today". I closed my eyes and thought, "WASHINGTON?! Oh, NO!". A big black car met us on the tarmac and we were driven to an office building to pick up my uncle's golf partner.

medical said...

PERT TWO : Senator Richard B. Russell's office was brimming with people patiently waiting to see him, but when my uncle arrived, Senator Russell lied to those folks, he said, "I'm sorry, I've been called away to a very important meeting". As the two chatted and played golf, Senator Russell said, "Red, I'd appreciate it if you could see to it that my niece's husband, Ernest Vandiver, is elected governor - you'll be well compensated". As children, Russell and my uncle had both attended the Seventh District Agricultural and Mechanical School in Powder Springs. When we arrived back in Atlanta, I silently pondered what I had witnessed on that golf course and all those security men that followed us around. My dad said, "well son, do you want to be the ocean or the boat?". I already knew the answer, but I never answered him. Inside, I felt sick. There was no way that I could corrupt the lawmaking and election processes the way dad and his little group had done, it simply wasn't in me. Later in life, I ran for office one time, but I had no intention of being elected, I ran for the sole purpose of publicly exposing the corruption a mayor was involved in. The mayor and his friends had "borrowed" seven million dollars of city money to form a bank for their personal benefit. They were doing "favors" for many persons. There was a "no bid" contract let for household garbage collection services. I just couldn't take any more, so I announced my candidacy. I accepted no contributions and I had one "staff member", my seven year old son. Together, we visited the homes of over eight hundred residents and explained the corruption. No, I didn't win (thank You, God!), but I provided another candidate with plenty of video footage of the mayor stealing city owned computers and loading them into his automobile, then taking them home. The television stations "ate it up". Even taking into consideration all that I witnessed when I was young, never in my life have I seen such open and pervasive corruption as we now have in Washington. THE CORRUPT POLITICIANS in WASHINGTON and THEIR OWNERS MUST BE EXPOSED and REMOVED! "We the People" must take a personal interest in saving this nation and our Constitution!

medical said...

The Usurper poses a hazard to much more than our Constitution, he is fully compromised and 100% owned by persons and groups which intend to rob us blind and destroy our nation. I know some may take this analogy the wrong way, but he reminds me of an organ grinder's trained monkey on a chain. He looks friendly flitting to and fro with his little cup, fez, and vest begging for change and saying "thank you" by tipping his fez, but if you dare to tease him, you're likely to be physically attacked.

Brianroy said...

In October 1856, John G. Clayton said: "...just as the twig is bent the oak inclines, and so you find that you cannot put the American brain into the foreigner's head, for he will not forget his old allegiance, even though he forswears it."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29625535/The-Brooklyn-Daily-Eagle-October-9-1856-p-2-Col-2

When Barack Obama wrote Dreams from My Father with Bill Ayers in the 1990s, he proves this very point made by a TEA PARTY "like" Third Party, American Party movement in 1856, that could just as well as have been in our current headlines or viral video quotes (hypothetically) used in regard to describing and exposing Barack Obama the Presidential Usurper.

Jon said...

I am having difficulty finding the complete "A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen" by David Ramsay (1789). We should be able to read the original document online. If you have it, not online, send it to jon.roland@constitution.org and I put it on line as a webpage.

puzo1moderator said...

Hi Jon,

Here is a link to David Ramsay's 1789 dissertation at Mario Apuzzo's SCRIBD.com account:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33807636/A-Dissertation-on-Manner-of-Acquiring-Character-Privileges-of-Citizen-of-U-S-by-David-Ramsay-1789

Jon said...

It is now at http://constitution.org/cmt/dramsay/citizen-of-u-s.pdf

I may have an HTML version by and by.

betuadollarucant said...

The paragraph on two parent citizenry is blatantly false: women born of the natural born were citizens - such status did not require marriage - and children born to them were also citizens whether born in wedlock of not; the bastard child was a citizen. The point it this: those born of an American mother, i.e., "natural born," anywhere in the world are citizens. The problem is that the Founders failed to define this word: "citizen."