On February 18, 2009, a blog on WordPress was published after being moved from it’s original location entited “Obama Knew He Wasn’t Eligible For POTUS“.  It was written by a think-tank and the project was dubbed ZAPEM as an idiom for that specific thesis.  That blog is now housed at this location for reasons not made public until now.  It’s our hope that being candid about those reasons reveals the underpinnings of a strategy that contains relentless threats, corrupt power, intimidation, lies and more.

When the ZAPEM project ended, one of the girls who participated to its research carried it over to Twitter, adopting it as her moniker.  In an interview I originally had with Michelle, she told me:

I became disenchanted with what became of the issue.  The ZAPEM project simply asked the question that if the Constitution says that only a natural born citizen can become President, why did we witness politicians attempting to legislate candidates into acquiring that status?   That status happens at birth, not on the congressional floor.  These same politicians intimidate a fair media at best and plot with a bad media at worst.  The media knew but they were afraid to touch it.  They told us that this piece was ‘too toxic’, so we decided to blog it ourselves under the project name.  After doing so, we saw ZAPEM reincarnated and interjected into so many interlaced issues across the Internet, many of us felt that our energies would be best served looking into this talk about a Tea Party that Rick Santelli was raving about.  It seemed more productive than watching the .gov hits the blog was taking while .gov pretended they didn’t see it.  We wanted to be where the pretense wasn’t possible.

Rick Santelli calls for Tea party on Floor of Chicago Board of Trade

Michelle joined the Morristown NJ Tea Party group and later joined Twitter on March 13, 2009 in preparation for the first Tax Day Tea Party appropriately scheduled for April 15th.  She shared personal doubts during our talk:

I had no experience at activism.  The very sound of the word was not me.  But Michelle Malkin had the description right when she said that most were average working people, up until 2am on April 14th coloring and pasting print-outs on poster boards because they were that concerned with the direction the country was taking.  It’s the truth and I was one of many at the dining room table at 2am.

Within the social-medium known as Twitter however, the Tea Party experience held a whole new dimension of debate.

People went there to meet up with like-minded individuals, especially those from our own neighborhoods and get the latest information from all sources fast.  Most were new to Twitter like myself.  I don’t think anyone expected the devious plans being made behind our backs.  I watched people try to dismantle the Tea Party through lies and deception that the media was too eager to lap up as true.  The media didn’t just report these lies, but actually joined in and fomented the tale that we were nothing but ‘racists’.  I saw a full force of the most vile attacks on conservatives.  They provoked them just waiting for an angry response they could then feed to this website called The Tea Party Tracker, hosted by Blue State Digital, who just happened to be the same social media campaign creators of

Pro-active researchers began to document the events.  Some wrote blogs, others engaged in talk radio about the events and some, like Michelle, wrote confidential reports to be later sent to the MSM, most of which proved not to know how to handle.  Twitter, Inc. itself, ignored the complaints.

I saw a Christian man being ordered to take down his blog or they would buy an abortion in his name.  When he refused, they not only did so, they put the abortion in the man’s name, hosting the receipt on the web and also sending it to his parish.  They sent pornographic links to the Tea Party, threatened to rape their children, told war moms their sons who had died were in hell and put Sarah Palin up on a cross as a visual crucifixion.  They put our pictures up on Enemies of the Government Hit List and threatened us with their lawyers for protesting out of control spending.  All the while, the political folks behind it were laughing and threatening to drag Tea Party individuals into court with “treason” charges that didn’t exist just to intimidate them.  They said they had lawyers and politicians.  They would rip into a person’s background while hiding behind their own anonymity and deplorable histories.  You have no idea how political this was and continues to be.

Despite the lack of attention from the main-stream media, the accounting became known as “Twittergate” and exploded across the Internet.  Numerous blogs, news articles, personal accountings and videos attest to events now known as “Twittergate – Democrats Hire Twitter Thugs”.

Get yourselves familiar with these video tapes, articles and blogs.  Take particular close attention to the names.  Read the source information below.  You’ll need them later to understand the network behind the thuggery that went on then and that is going on now.   This is where it began.

It was an organized effort and we proved it to the public as collective citizens with rights.  Now we’re going to prove it in court.  The harassment since has been non-stop and has bled into everything from Weinergate to Occupy Wall Street to Anonymous and beyond.  When you expose it, they claim it was a ‘joke‘ and enlist journalists to cover it as a ‘hoax‘.  That’s an interesting story too, because we caught Gawker stealing the evidence while filing complaints against the evidence citing music copyright violations on YouTube.  Yet they don’t seem to have a problem with hanging your picture up alongside Ted Nugent’s and calling you a terrorist for going to a Tea Party event.  The current idea is to threaten citizen journalists who make truthful documentaries of these events, but they have bigger targets such as Rush Limbaugh and Clarence Thomas in their cross-hairs.  They falsely claim libel they can’t prove because the truth is,  these citizen journalists did no such thing.  It’s an intimidation ploy to control people and scare them into submission.  When these thugs don’t obtain that control, they engage in illegal stalking, threats, slandering, swatting and hunting down their families to this day.  We can definitively prove who is responsible and who engaged in that activity.  We opted to move ZAPEM here because we’re dealing with hackers who want personal information that was contained on that blog.  Considering two people were swatted already and libelous character assassinations have occurred, that’s our decision until law enforcement completes their criminal investigations.

This is a story about how the Democrats hired a Twitter-Thug to run their social-media campaign and to smear the Tea Party.  The evidence submitted demonstrates the systematic and deliberate provocation towards people in an attempt to elicit unfavorable responses after a series of malicious and vile attacks.  The idea was to antagonize, collect and present selected responses as proof of “extremism” within the Tea Party.  What you are about to see is the documented account of how this system was implemented, who these people are and who hired them.

Some of the collected material is vulgar and profane. Viewer discretion is advised.
There is a follow-up by Dana Loesch over at PJTV:




I’ll preface this by saying this has probably been the longest two years of our lives, but definitely the most fulfilling.  The friendships that we’ve made along the way shine out the darkness of any enemy, which have been quite a few.  You can’t see it on this blog, but behind the curtain of it were happenings that led to so many doors swinging in different directions that often times we felt the expectations to be too high.  What started out as a group of friends engaged in a completely unrelated activity was the surreal realization that we were thrust into a political battle (often egotistical) of which no one agreed.

We had barely become comfortable with our own skill sets, it seemed impossible to cater to the requests pouring in from people we never imagined we’d ever be later introduced to.  We’re going to tell you about those encounters in the coming posts and share what’s been going on and if you’re still here by then, we have decided upon the road we’re going to travel should you care to join us.

Leo Donofrio -




They say all things happen for a reason.  Who would have thought that a strange man, who hung up his law license to play poker could come on the Internet and have such a profound effect that an equally strange group such as ours would grow and learn out of what he had to say?  What’s more is who would have ever thought that we’d wind up speaking to lawyers, government officials, politicians and taking on the plights of everyday citizens?  And if you ever told us that Andrew Breitbart would have connected to our VoIP channel, we would have told you that you were dreaming too.

Our research was never about finding answers people wanted to hear, but finding answers that were within the research that we had yet to even know existed.  We agree with Leo that a birth certificate is nothing more than a piece of paper, but the meaning behind it can make or break a nation.  To those who are of the mind that finding a piece of paper is the single-minded goal, your quest was not ours.  Ours was to wake the dead and let them speak again – those that wove the laws that built this great nation.  The quest was to find those voices and let them speak and we know they did.  Through the words of George Washington, David Ramsay, George D. Collins, Henry C. Ide and so on, it’s all there, one need only look and put their agendas aside.  The Constitution is not ambiguous as they would have you believe, but let that proof rise where they don’t have time to taint it again as the dissenters have with everything else you’ve spoken to date.  Our time will come…

Until then, this post and this song is dedicated to Leo Donofrio.  Thanks, brother!  You had more impact than you ever knew and we’re sure you still will in the future in whatever form you choose to return, we know you will.


Did you ever think
That we could be so close, like brothers
The future’s in the air
I can feel it everywhere
Blowing with the wind of change
Take me to the magic of the moment
On a glory night
Where the children of tomorrow dream away
in the wind of change

Wind of Change – SCORPIONS

“Wind of Change” was the soundtrack for the end of Communism and the bringing down of the Berlin Wall. We saw that rock music had a huge effect on the younger generation of Russians. They were tired of the whole Communist system. They were tired of being behind the Iron Curtain. We were breaking through the Iron Curtain with Scorpions’ music. We talked to young people back then and they told us that the time of the Cold War would be over soon. As a generation they didn’t want it anymore. I am not saying rock music did that but it was a part of it.Klaus Meine, Vocalist – SCORPIONS

The following segments to come will tell a story that will take much courage and separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.  Rile up your Tea Party.  We’ve got work to do.  If you don’t like getting dirty, the chaff bin is over there.





This space is reserved until closer to the elections.

Where we’ve been. What we’ve been up to.

We’re back as of tonight. Post to follow after our 9pm meeting.


Published in: on March 23, 2012 at 12:06 am  Leave a Comment  


Please Note:  This blog has been moved to our site due to a certain stalker trying to obtain the identity of a person for illegal purposes.  We gladly have accommodated our friends.  (This is the original 2008 research by ZAPEM reposted here with permission)

Dated:  January 10, 2009 at 10:23 pm (Revised WordPress Edition)


If one were to look at the activity on Capitol Hill during the campaign, there would be no question in their minds that both McCain and Obama were sweating the “natural born citizen” issue.

How do we arrive at that conclusion? We take McCain’s ingrained, glib advice and “Look at the record, my friends“.

Doing just that, we find that back on February 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a bill to the Senate for consideration.  That bill was known as S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act.   The bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK).

Bill S. 2678 attempted to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the requirements of being a “natural born citizen” and hence; the entitlement to run for President of the United States.  This bill met the same fate that similar attempts to change the Constitution have in the past.  Attempts such as The Natural Born Citizen Act were known to have failed and the text scrubbed from the internet, with only a shadow-cached copy left, that only the most curious public can find.

Sen. McCaskill, her co-sponsors, fellow colleagues and legal counsel, contend that the Constitution is ambiguous in article II, section 1 and requires clarification.  But does it?  According to the framers and such drafters as John Bingham, we find the definition to be quite clear:

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], 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 Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866

From the days of James Madison to the present, the courts have held that the amendment process be justiciable in accordance with its constitutionality and not self-serving or political. But is that what happened here?  Again, we must go to the record.

Within only five short weeks after Senate Bill 2678 faded from the floor, we find Sen. Claire McCaskill back again, making another attempt with Senate Resolution 511.  On April 10, 2008, she introduced a secondary proposal in the form of a non-binding resolution, recognizing John McCain as a “natural born citizen” in defiance of the Constitution. Curiously, it contained the same identical co-sponsors, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. reported:

“With questions – however serious – about whether Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is eligible to run for president since he was born outside U.S. borders on an American Naval base, Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. today introduced a non-binding resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that McCain qualifies as a “natural born Citizen,” as specified in the Constitution and eligible for the highest office in the land.

Co-sponsors include Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barack Obama, D-Illinois; Leahy said he anticipates it will pass unanimously.”

One has to wonder — what dire urgency could there possibly have been in persisting with trying to legislate a candidate into being a “natural born citizen”?  Certainly providing a birth certificate and reading the Constitution would be more than sufficient.  Why did these candidates and their wishful nominees go to such lengths in the Senate when obviously, they had more pressing matters to attend to?  And why were there two Senators co-sponsoring such an issue, twice, who were in direct competition with John McCain in the  2008 election?

One answer is that looking at John McCain’s long-form birth certificate reveals he was not a natural born citizen and Barack Obama hasn’t submitted his long-form at all.  John McCain was born in an “unincorporated territory”, held by the courts to be not part of the United States for constitutional purposes.  Barack Obama has submitted only a Certification of Live Birth, but Hawaii law will certify a live birth using that document for births that occurred even outside of the country.  Furthermore, Barack Obama’s father was Kenyan and never an American citizen.  Since the status of citizenship occurs at birth, this makes Barack Obama a citizen if born in Hawaii, but not a natural born citizen.  One must have two citizen parents, at the time of birth, and be born on U.S. soil, to be deemed a natural born citizen and be declared eligible for the presidency.  The Senate, for all their trouble, cannot legislate a person’s born status.  It happens at birth, according to the law.

While Senate Bill 2678 fell to the wayside, Senate Resolution 511 was passed on April 30, 2008 as a non-binding resolution. However, S.R. 511 is not a law, but rather, a unanimous opinion. Technically, it means absolutely nothing what they’ve written as it’s not a law, nor did the matter reach the House for review. It’s a stepping-stone in the larger scheme of things that haven’t happened yet; the push to change our Constitution.

World Net Daily reported on November 13, 2008:

More than a half-dozen legal challenges have been filed in federal and state courts demanding President-elect Barack Obama’s decertification from ballots or seeking to halt elector meetings, claiming he has failed to prove his U.S. citizenship status.

An Obama campaign spokeswoman told WND the complaints are unfounded.

“All I can tell you is that it is just pure garbage,” she said. “There have been several lawsuits, but they have been dismissed.”

Perhaps someone should have informed Obama’s spokeswoman that many of these cases have not been dismissed at all, rather they are mounting, and her statements are in fact, pure “garbage”.

Then perhaps someone may prompt an answer from the Obama spokespeople as to why they were entertaining the thought of fiddling with the United States Constitution back in February and April of THIS YEAR? Perhaps because it was in the best interest of Sen. Obama.

Then what of Sen. Claire McCaskill?  What possible interest could she have had in these proceedings and leading the charge with her proposals?  Was it a bonafide Constitutional issue of judicial importance, or rather a political one?

Digging further into the record we find that according to Wikki and subsequent footnotes therein:

“In January 2008, Claire McCaskill decided to endorse Senator Barack Obama in his campaign for the Democratic nomination for the presidential elections of 2008, making her one of the first senators to do so. She has been one of the most visible faces for his campaign.[14] McCaskill’s support was crucial to Obama’s narrow victory in the Missouri primary in February, 2008. She had been frequently mentioned as a possible vice presidential choice of Senator Obama in the 2008 run for the White House…”

So what we see is a definite political motive being dragged into the Senate for the purposes of legitimizing the 2008 candidates.  But if these candidates were legitimate already, there would obviously be no reason for these proceedings.

So political was the motive of McCaskill, even Missouri’s Governor, Matt Blunt revealed that Sen. McCaskill was involved in the “abusive use of Missouri Law Enforcement“.  This was dubbed as the “Truth Squad” during the election campaign by the media.  The Truth Squad was comprised of Missouri officials and attorneys who set up shop on the streets of Missouri and threatened the public with criminal penalties and lawsuits if they engaged in critical speech against Sen. Obama.  The Obama campaign also issued cease and desist letters to media station managers who carried advertisers who were unfriendly towards Barack Obama, namely, the NRA.  Citizen outrage prompted this response from Governor Blunt:

“Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.”

Considering these facts and the judicial record, there is every reason to believe that Sen. McCaskill had no interest in resolving Sen. McCain’s eligibility, but Sen. Obama’s long-term. She manipulated the Senate and then threatened the media and the public thereafter, politically motivated at the prospect of becoming Obama’s Vice-Presidential pick.  But it didn’t stop there.

Chairman Patrick J. Leahy entered into the Senate record a legal analysis of two high-powered attorneys hired by Sen. McCain – Theodore Olson and Laurence Tribe – both of whom are extremely politically active and biased, and attached that opinion to S.R. 511.

So controversial was that legal opinion, that it prompted a rebuttal by Professor Gabriel J. Chin of The University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law, in a discussion paper #08-14 entitled, Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President.  Professor Chin points out clearly where Tribe-Olson sought to draw out implied theories in the law, which in reality, are simply not there and in fact have been decided by the courts already, in opposition to the suggestions offered by Tribe-Olson.  Simply put, the attorneys hired by Sen. McCain attempt to fit the law into their agenda with contrived implications.  Professor Chin brings the law back into focus, requiring no implied theories.

Legalities aside, in anticipation of the feared “Fairness Doctrine”, the whole of the main stream media has since acquiesced to the intimidation tactics of the Obama campaign and paraded the non-binding resolution known as S.R. 511 to the public with unfactual foolishness.  S.R. 511 is neither a constitutional amendment nor legally binding in any way.  Yet the media caved to political pressure and reported it to the public as Chairman Leahy dictated, giving the illusion to the pubic that said resolution was binding to the 2008 election. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The public responded, initially by way of lawsuits contesting the eligiblity of not only John McCain, but Barack Obama and Roger Calero as well, citing them all, with equal disqualifying merit, as being constitutionally ineligible to run for President of the United States.  Later, netizens of the internet caught wind of the court actions and responded with their own explosion of blogs, forums, websites, chatrooms, emails, etc.  In an attempt to quell the discord, the main stream media offered personalities such as Thomas Goldstein which only served to infuriate the public further.  The public saw such maneuvers as deceitful and an attempt to embarrass the now educated public.

However, the greater proof is in the activity which originated in the Senate in early 2008 which was hidden from the public, that sought to change what our representatives knew to be unconstitutional from the start.  The public really needs to look no further than this activity, for it speaks to the heart of the deals that went on beyond the Senate doors.  Rather than trust the preservation model our founding forefathers wrote into our Constitution, these respresentatives, beholden of the public trust, saw fit to manipulate the clauses contained therein, for the sole benefit of their own political self-interests.

Perhaps our representatives, the United States Supreme Court and the main stream media would be interested in reflecting on these records and then start answering truthfully the questions which have so far been ignored.  The public has been promised transparency, but to date has only been dealt scoffing, deceitful rhetoric, if they choose to address it at all.

While the public has been patient and eduring, the questions remain and refuse to be dismissed.  We expect them to be answered, preferrably prior to January 20, 2009.

We the people, deserve an answer!


Listing of 9 articles from the 110th Congress as entered.


2 . REPORTS OF COMMITTEES — Senate – April 24, 2008


4 . JOHN S. McCAIN, III CITIZENSHIP — Senate – April 30, 2008

5 . MEETINGS SCHEDULED — Extensions of Remarks – April 21, 2008

6 . Daily Digest – Friday, April 18, 2008

7 . Daily Digest – Thursday, April 24, 2008

8 . Daily Digest – Wednesday, April 30, 2008

9 . Daily Digest – Wednesday, April 23, 2008

←→Calendar No. 715
2d Session
S. RES. 511
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Published in: on December 14, 2011 at 10:59 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , , , ,

The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen

The time may ere long arrive when the minds of men will be prepared to make an effort to recover the Constitution, but the many cannot now be brought to make a stand for its preservation. We must wait a while.
N.Y. Historical Society’s Collections (Lee Papers), vol. III, 1873

I have the Honor to be with great respect Sir, Your Most Humble and Obedient Servant. - George Washington

I have the Honor to be with great respect Sir, Your Most Humble and Obedient Servant. – George Washington


There were three types of citizens at the time of the signing of the Constitution:

1. Those who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to the Declaration of Independence.  On that day, July 4, 1776, millions of former British subjects became citizens of a sovereign America.

2. The children, their heirs, born of those pledged citizens, were the first natural-born citizens of the new nation.

3. A person naturalized into citizenship through an act of law requiring an oath and and renunciation to any former allegiance.

We are either a United people, or we are not. If the former, let us, in all matters of general concern act as a nation, which have national objects to promote, and a national character to support. If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending to it.

George Washington, letter to James Madison, November 30, 1785


The scope of this writing is to focus on the intent of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States as it pertains to the clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

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.

This study explores the historical, legislative and judicial areas for factual evidence that defines the intent behind the clause. While it by no means gives the bulk of the research justice, for that would require a book, it should provide a sufficient template that destroys the theory that the definition was allegedly an ambiguous or an otherwise unanswerable question. Breaking it down into the three aforementioned parts, we are able to see a contiguous pattern that is easily digestable using the credibility of those who were living and present during those eras. It is crucial to set the stage during the American Revolution, for we find that it was the experience drawn from this event that provides the foundation from which everything else is drawn that embodies the spirit of the Constitution itself.

In GULF, C. & S. F. R. CO. v. ELLIS, 165 U.S. 150 (1897), the court advocated, as well as over 100 other courts who similarly advised, to look to this period for direction when applicable:

“… and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter [The Constitution] is but the body and the letter of which the former [The Declaration of Independence] is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.”

So we start at this point in history and provide a historical review of the events that shed light on the intellect that manifests itself later into the Constitution and subsequent legislation and jurisprudence.


We pick up events after the French and Indian War1 where King George III attempted to tax the colonists in an effort to recoup his losses incurred by the war. This event also gave the king the excuse he needed to gain control over the now flourishing and prosperous States. America was no longer a band of menial pioneers who struggled through long winters and devastating plagues with little to no help from the distant Crown. It was now a fully functional, vast community of largely, self-sufficient States, rich in resources with the potential of becoming more powerful and independent by the day. The king seized the post-war opportunity to call for reining in that power and wealth for the benefit of the mother country. The colonists objected, having no representation in Parliament; a violation of the often ignored, yet existing, constitution2 between them. By 1775, the conflict from a series of levies by Parliament and resistance by the colonists had come to a head. Shocking intelligence revealed that the king was actually intending to utilize the Hessians (Germans) as mercenaries in conjunction with his own army to crush the Americans by force. The plan threatened imminent doom for America as they knew it. Despite the colonists hopes, the long-awaited resolution was not to come and an Act was passed by Parliament throwing them out of the king’s protection. Dr. David Ramsay3, notable historian, physician, one in service to the Continental Congress and president in the Senate, wrote:

Though new weight was daily thrown into the scale, in which the advantages of independence were weighed, yet it did not preponderate till about that time in 1776, when intelligence reached the colonists of the act of parliament passed in December 1775, for throwing them out of British protection, and of hiring foreign troops to assist in effecting their conquest. 4

The colonists were now faced with the prospect of seeking aid themselves or facing up to the possibility of being crushed by an onslaught that was stacked in Great Britain’s favor. Where that aid might materialize from was not evident. What was clear was that the colonial States together with England, had just gotten over participating against the French in a seven-year long conflict that spanned throughout Europe. While tensions with France weren’t as nearly as bad as that of England, it certainly wasn’t optimal or trusting. In addition, there were many other obstacles to overcome. Word of the king’s plan needed to be conveyed to the people. They needed to arrive at a decision for independence and then declare it. This was so that, in the eyes of the law of nations, their sovereignty would demand recognition. Otherwise, they would be viewed as a people engaged in a civil war that other nations would be loathe to get involved in. Dr. Ramsay further explains,

While the public mind was balancing on this eventful subject, several writers placed the advantages of independence in various points of view. Among these Thomas Paine in a pamphlet, under the signature of Common Sense, held the most distinguished rank. 5

An important impact from Thomas Paine’s Common Sense was the suggestion that no government could be instituted with the blessing from Heaven, that revealed,

… convincing proof, that Great-Britain had thrown them out of her protection, had engaged foreign mercenaries to make war upon them, and seriously designed to compel their unconditional submission to her unlimited power. It found the colonists most thoroughly alarmed for their liberties, and disposed to do and suffer any thing that promised their establishment. 6

With the realization of Great Britain’s plan against the people and pondering the oppressive ramifications of subjugating themselves to it, the colonists declared their independence. On that day, July 4, 1776, millions pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for the sake of liberty and freedom and rejected “lusting after kings” to rule and provide over them; embracing republican ideas instead. These millions of former British subjects became the first citizens of a sovereign America and are included in the Constitution as being a party to it at the time of its execution. This was the cornerstone ideology of the new nation to come and deserves clarification in the history books; that what was on the line was far more serious than just taxation without representation. It was about a power grab at its core.

However the conviction of the colonists may be measured, it was still no match for the sheer logistical numbers of the British troops and their mercenaries. France was keenly aware that it was in her best interests to support the independence of the United States rather than have England continue to dominate. Dr. Ramsay records the pivotal events:

The news of the capitulation of Saratoga reached France, very early in December, 1777. The American deputies took that opportunity to press for an acceptance of the treaty, which had been under consideration for the preceding twelve months. The capture of Burgoyne’s army convinced the French, that the opposition of the Americans to Great Britain was not the work of a few men who had got power in their hands, but of the great body of the people, and was like to be finally successful.7

It was therefore determined to take them by the hand, and publicly to espouse their cause. The commissioners of Congress were informed by Mr. Gerard one of the secretaries of the King’s council of State, that it was decided to acknowledge the independence of the United States and to make a treaty with them. That in the treaty no advantage would be taken of their situation to obtain terms which, otherwise, it would not be convenient for them to agree to.

That his most Christian Majesty was fixed in his determination not only to acknowledge, but to support, their independence. That in doing this he might probably soon be engaged in a war, yet he should not expect any compensation from the United States on that account, nor was it pretended that he acted wholly for their sakes, since besides his real good will to them, it was manifestly the interest of France, that the power of England should be diminished, by the separation of the colonies from its government.

Marquis de la Fayette8, a French soldier who was enamored with the American cause and despite the order for his arrest on account of it, had already joined the Revolution in June of 1777 of his own accord. He was among the first to receive news of a treaty and alliance between France and America signed on February 6, 1778. However, the caliber of dedication in comparison to de la Fayette’s character was striking. These French counterparts to the cause varied from obliged volunteers, to demanding stipulations for pay, then advanced pay and ultimately rank within Washington’s army. When the latter was assumed, a morale disturbance and upset was felt among the American troops. The situation was summed up best by George Washington’s numerous letters addressing the subject directly:

“You are not to enlist any person who is not an American born, unless such person has a wife and family, and is a settled resident of this country.” George Washington, Given at headquarters, at Cambridge, this 10 July, 1775.

Here we see the first seeds of nativity, connections to the country and residency as being the fundamental criteria of fidelity. Then later, adding to the list, Washington’s preference for natives who own property. In a letter from Gen. Washington to Col. Spotswood, dated in 1777, in a publication entitled “Maxims of Washington,” p. 192, the following passage occurs: —

“You will therefore send me none but natives, and men of some property, if you have them. I must insist that in making this choice you give no intimation of my preference for natives, as I do not want to create any individual distinction between them and foreigners.”

The same is promulgated in Washington’s subsequent General Orders, where we see Washington raise the bar again to include verification. In Commander Washington’s General Orders of July 7, 1775 given at Head Quarters, Cambridge by Horatio Gates, Adj. General to Parole-Dorchester, Countersign-Exeter:

“The General has great Reason; and is highly displeased, with the Negligence and Inattention of those Officers, who have placed as Centries at the out-posts, Men with whose Character they are not acquainted. He therefore orders, that for the future, no Man shall be appointed to those important Stations, who is not a Native of this Country, or has a Wife, or Family in it, to whom he is known to be attached. This Order is to be consider’d as a standing one and the Officers are to pay obedience to it at their peril.” – 11 Fox, Adj. Gen. of the day. 9

Sound reasoning existed behind what may seem a harsh edict at first glance to those without any military experience. However, the explanation is contained in Washington’s many pleas to Congress expressing what was being experienced on the battlefield as justification for his actions. There was a morale problem and there was an abuse problem affecting the operations of Washington’s military. The problem was so severe, the tone was reflected in literally hundreds of letters, speeches and essays, all the way through to his infamous Farewell Address.10 Some of his direct misgivings are noted in the following examples.

Regarding the morale problem noted on May 7th, 1777 at Morristown:

“Dear Sir: I take the liberty to ask you what Congress expects I am to do with the many foreigners that have at different times been promoted to the rank of field-officers, and by their last resolve two of that of colonels? These men have no attachment for the country further than interest binds them. Our officers think it exceedingly hard, after they have toiled in the service and have sustained many losses, to have strangers put over them, whose merit perhaps is not equal to their own, but who effrontery will take no denial. It is by the zeal and activity of our own people that the cause must be supported, and not by the few hungry adventurers. I am, &c., GEO. WASHINGTON.”

Regarding the frustration, future reflections and regret; a letter to Gouverneur Morris, Esq., White Plains, July 24th, 1778:

“Dear Sir: The design of this is to touch cursorily upon a subject of very great importance to the well-being of these states, much more so than will appear at first sight – I mean the appointment of so many foreigners to offices of high rank and trust in our service.

The lavish manner in which rank has hitherto be bestowed on these gentlemen, will certainly be productive of one or the other of these two evils, either to make us despicable in the eyes of Europe, or become a means of pouring them in upon us like a torrent, and adding to our present burden. But it is neither the expense nor the trouble of them I most dread; there is an evil more extensive in its nature and fatal in its consequence to be apprehended, and that is, the driving of all our officers out of the service, and throwing not only our own army, but our military councils, entirely into the hands of foreigners. …

The expediency and policy of the measure remains to be considered, and whether it is consistent with justice or prudence to promote these military fortune-hunters at the hazard of our army. Baron Steuben, I now find, is also wanting to quit his inspectorship for a command in the line. This will be productive of much discontent. In a word, although I think the Baron an excellent officer, I do most devoutly wish – that we had not a single foreigner amongst us, except the Marquis de Lafayette, who acts upon very different principles from those which govern the rest.

Adieu. I am, most sincerely yours, GEORGE WASHINGTON.”

Regarding the abusive greed fostered by a lack of personal resolve. A letter of George Washington to Gouverneur Morris. White Plains, 24th July, 1778

“… The officers, my dear sir, on whom you most depend for the defence of this cause, distinguished by length of service, their connections, property, and, in behalf of many, I may add, military merit, will not submit, much if any longer, to the unnatural promotion of men over them, who have nothing more than a little plausibility, unbounded pride and amibition, and a perseverance in application not to be resisted but by uncommon firmness, to support their pretensions; men, who, in the first instance, tell you they wish for nothing more than the honor of serving in so glorious a cause as volunteers, the next day solicit rank without pay, the day following want money advanced to them, and in the course of a week want further promotion, and are not satisfied with any thing you can do for them.” 11

With the success and security of the country in mind, it became incumbent and necessary to review this portion of history that lays down the initial rules and conditions required from the direction of the first Commanding Officer. It encapsulates how fidelity was identified, measured and enforced in order to secure the objectives of liberty and freedom. The evidence begins with the Revolution as it illustrates the evolved requirements in leadership that take shape as a matter of course and experience. It illuminates the criteria set in choosing those worthy and trusting of rank; that being: A native-born American, who has verifiable connections and family who reside and hold property within the country.

This sets the stage for the legislative review of the second section which further developes this criteria in the same vein as George Washington, the “father genius” of the Revolution and framer of the Constitution of the United States of America.

“His last scene comported with the whole tenor of his life. Although in extreme pain, not a sigh, not a groan escaped him; and with undisturbed serenity he closed his well-spent’life. Such was the man America has lost — such was the man for whom our nation mourns.

‘Cease, sons of America, lamenting our separation. Go on and confirm, by your wisdom, the fruits of our joint councils, joint efforts, and common dangers; reverence religion; diffuse knowledge throughout your lands; patronize the arts and sciences; let liberty and order be inseparable companions. Control party spirit, the bane of free government; observe good faith to, and cultivate peace with, all nations; shut up every avenue to foreign influence; contract rather than extend national connections; rely on yourselves only; be Americans in thought, word and deed. Thus will you give immortality to that union which was the constant object of my terrestrial labors; thus will you preserve undisturbed, to the latest posterity, the felicity of a people to me most dear; and thus will you supply (if my happiness is now ought to you) the only vacancy in the round of pure bliss high Heaven bestows’.

Methinks I see his august image, and hear falling from his venerable lips these deep-sinking words“; —

Recollections of George Washington by Henry Lee in Washington’s funeral oration before the House of Congress on December 26, 1799.

… to be continued

-Undead Revolution


1. The French and Indian War (Summary) –

2. The Magna Carta –

3. Dr. David Ramsay – Princeton Short-Biography

4. Dr. David Ramsay, The History of the American
Revolution, vol. 1 [1789] pg. 237

5. Thomas Paine, Common Sense, February 14, 1776, Philadelphia: W. & T. BRADFORD, 1776; and New York:, 1999 –

6. Dr. David Ramsay, The History of the American Revolution, vol. 1 [1789] pg. 237

7. Dr. David Ramsay, The History of the American Revolution, vol. 2 [1789] pgs. 44-45

8. Marquis De Lafayette –

9. Image – Commander Washington’s General Orders dated July 7, 1775:

10. Washington’s Farewell Address –

11. The Rover, Vol. 3, Edited by Seba Smith, New York, S.B. Dean & Co. 1844, pg. 364