Tuesday, March 29, 2016

What Needs To Be Done




**********

It comes down to this: Among candidates who are willing to turn over the tables of the establishment of swindlers, which are electable? Well, provided the people understand the evil aligned against them and do not lose faith -- in God, themselves, and their chosen leader -- any are electable.

So who is WILLING to overturn the tables? That appears to be Trump, more so than Cruz. Both have taken dramatic stances, and both are questionable, so this is a matter of judgment. To my judgment, Trump is more willing to call the corruption and stupidity of the establishment corrupt and stupid. Both deal. Trump talks about deal making, while Cruz continually says one thing to the people while dealing another thing with the establishment. So the establishment media burns Trump, while it holds Cruz at an unwashed arms length. If Cruz is ELECTABLE, it may be only because he is willing to submit to the establishment, even as he pretends not to.

Trump is willing, but he will not be electable unless the people hold faith, form a phalanx, and refuse to allow themselves to be routed by establishment wolves. Cruz may be barely electable, but only because he is willing to break faith and sell out the people. Trump may have the will, but so far does not show the polish. Cruz may have polish enough for the establishment, but his polish tends too quickly to become oleaginous to people who listen and watch.

Trump is 70. If he is, like Moses, to deliver us, he needs to learn more about how and what to speak. He is naming counselors and likely appointees. If they are good, maybe they can educate him.

Educate meant to lead out of; to bring out of a person the preexisting and innate truth. Not to indoctrinate to falsity and evil. There abides an Innate Source of Reconciling Empathy and Morality. For that, there abide fundamental principles that are true, respecting what it means to become a fully formed human being -- decent, dignified, and free. Trump needs to be open to that, without wearing it falsely and oily on his sleeve. Then he can lead us to the promised land, of human beings and citizens who are courageous, wise, just, and moderate.

If Trump names brave, courageous, wise, and just counselors and likely department heads, that will be a signal around which real Americans can rally and hold faith -- against all the forces of hell and the evil establishment.

At some point, it would be well for Trump to identify the evil that is at the heart of the programs of Hillary, Bernie, and the Establishment. First, however, he had best put in place some means of protecting against his, ahem, physical elimination. The Establishment is more wily in terroristic intimidation and elimination than the most devout ISIS jihadi. Indeed, the Establishment uses jihadis as so many useful idiots.

****************

For a long train of reasons too numerous to count, every decent, thinking, aware American is beside self with anger. Trump is among them. We must forgive some human excesses that are bound to overflow from righteous anger.

I have defended Cruz' eligibility to the utmost and have been reserving final judgment in order to accord Cruz every legitmate benefit of the doubt. The time is coming, however, when either Cruz must clearly demonstrate that his instinctive proclivities are on the side of Americans, or he must be cast with the tares to the outer darkness.

Cruz, without proper mentoring, simply does not have the kind of instincts, resources, or backing that could lead a restoration of the representative republic. Moreover, every time he attacks Trump on some detail that, in the comparative scheme of human events, is trivial, he loses moral credibility.

Cruz must face the existential crisis facing the republic and subordinate his own ambitions. He must extend an olive branch to Trump. If extended in good faith, Trump must accept it, and, acting together, free of Luciferian (crony, commie, pagan, musloidian, materialistic) influences, Trump and Cruz must put the evil that confronts America foursquare before the eyes of Americans.

Otherwise, there is every probability that neither will be elected, and the republic will be lost. The opposing forces are far more powerful, aligned, and able to coordinate and signal a united attack against all human freedom, decency, and dignity than nearly every person may imagine. As a starter, see https://youtu.be/3jaUdNUIGs4.

For some time, I have reasoned that the pillow-over-the-head stuff was meaningless, because it is not uncommon for people to shield their eyes while they nap and anyone who suffocated a person with a pillow would need only a moment to pull it away when done. However, the more I see the in-your-face nature of the evil opposing Americans, the more it makes sense that the opposing Evil would WANT to signal its ruthlessness to concerned people. In every case of intimidation, there will be the iron fist, covered for plausible deniability to the public by the velvet glove. Our "elites" have many training grounds for learning every device of terrorism, indeed, even for using terrorists. As Obama and Merkel do. We have met the terrorists, and they are thick as thieves among our political and PC elites.

The countdown for Cruz to see the light or to be cast away is ticking. Cruz must immediately stop the nonsensical and trivial attacks against Trump and his supporters -- who are most justifiably angry. No more fillibustering, false equivocating, or evasive wind baggery. Either get American or get lost -- now!

In honest humility, Trump and Cruz must jointly lay out the staggering challenge that is before Americans and the world.

******************


Basic Course in Nullifying the Republic 101:

In a two class society, there are the Governors and the Governed.  Together, they conprise the Aino-Rino-Dino Party, whose purpose is at all costs to prevent the rise of a destabilizing and independent middle class. 

Corrupt Governors must buy support from the stupid Governed by making unrealistic promises, pretending to have tried to keep them, and warning that Independent Conservatives would overthrow "progress."  Governors must keep enough of the Governed fit enough to work, but not so fit as to be able to stop working or to have time to work to alter the politics of the system.

The easiest Governed are content so long as they have state provided diversions and drugs and are not made to feel inferior in comparison to others who are more talented or energetic.  They do not care about, and feel little respoinsibility concerning, enlightenment, philosophy, lasting art, or future progeny.  If they have a god, it is a pagan god of present or material gratification and power.

Governors (Rinos) and Governed (Dinos) are aligned in preventing a destabilizing middle class of independent strivers and thinkers.  They have sought control over every social institution and, in main, have acquired it.

The consequence is this:  The Unitary Party of Corrupt Rinos and Dinos will always use every means needed to prevent its overthrow, and it has vast means because it has control over every institution.  This is demoralizing to human beings, i.e., competent and independent thinkers of individual conscience.  The Rino Wing will never consent to or support a candidate for President who does not support its established order against free thinking human beings.  It will lie and pretend, but, if and when it gets down to the lick log, the Rino Wing will actively help undermine every candidate who is a Conserver of Individual Liberty.  This is an Iron Law for the Establishmentarian Uniparty.  It will help discredit Conservatives as mean, unfair, against fun, against recreational drugs and sex, against free expression of pagan religions, against women's control over their good timing bodies, against "free trade" and un-walled borders; against more fair minded and "sharing" cultures; and against the re-diversifying and re-balancing of "over-privileged" white-male-Christian-straight-working people.

Working together, the Crony Rino and Commie Dino Wings will deploy PC Police to harass, fire, fine, discredit, hound, and neuter every independent minded Conserver of Liberty.  It will confiscate arms.  It will use exensive monitoring and profile banks to ensure profiling can never be effectively used to overturn the Uniparty Regime.  When independent and rational thinking threaten the established order, the Uniparty will use every means to short circuit it.  It will use media, academia, and nutbag profs to mangle every brain. It will use databases to call in flash mobs and thugs on an as needed basis.  It will audit and tax Conservatives mercilessly, and funnel the proceeds to favored and reliable cronies, commies, and multicultural dividers.   It will use command centers to prevent border and immigration laws from being enforced.

And they will vote.  Their dead will vote.  Their illegals will vote.  Their motorists will vote.  Their machines will  auto-correct vote.  Early and often. And, if voting were to promote a candidate not to the liking ot the Regime Machine, it will simply nullify the vote and install its own selection.

Rinos have done a heckuva job convincing Conservatives not to go to a Third Party, even as they reserved the power to nullify Conservatives' selection of a candidate.

Every day, the Uniparty tightens its grip to ensure that human freedom and dignity will forever be crushed under the fascist boot.  Meanwhile, femimen, feminazis, pansexuals, pervs, perps, choomers, pagans, brain rotted students, treasonous profs, and Democrats celebrate Bernie-Hillary and denounce Trump-Cruz.

Soon, the Tree of Liberty will either die or it will be watered.

*****************
The truth about Islam is obvious and can only be missed if one is diverted from it.  One may be diverted by people farmers who sense opportunity for gain in division and misery.  One may be diverted by mass fogs of delusion.  And one may be diverted and misshaped by Stockholm Syndrome.

Adherents to Islam are mass victims of Stockholm Syndrome.  That syndrome mangles their brains to condition them to use deceit and every possible means to divert other people into their mass delusion.  Fanatics want other people (1) to accept their faith, (2) to be sacrificed as examples in order to mangle the brains of others, or (3) simply to be eliminated.  Fanatics serve their delusion and only their delusion.  Among the 3 alternatives, they have little preference.

The means deployed by fanatics produce mass fogs.  This creates opportunities for False (Rovian) Guides, who have no idea how to escape the fog, but they know how to dupe vulnerable people who are slow learners, whether young or senile.  And they learn how to leverage opportunities by attracting corrupt funders -- people farmers.  False Guides have abandoned time-proven alternatives that offer decent and humane ways forward.  They have traded away all decent faith, family and fidelity for the pleasures, promises, and mind fixes of mass hysteria blown big under fogs over truth.

So it happens that a few victims of Stockholm Syndrome diffuse a fog of mass hysteria over easy victims and opportunizing and absolutely faithless and corrupt people farmers.  Over time, these fogs become institutionalized in media, academia, politics, banking, business, and churches.  Sideshow artists proliferate.  All manner of "educational" and "informative" documentaries, courses, and "studies" jump out -- all profaning truth.  The fog eventually overlays upon maze after maze of impenetrable nonsense, all masked as ways to "progress" towards "truth."

Yet, there are always a few anti-establishmentarians who can see the established fog clearly.  They can see that what is passed around as conventional wisdom is demented nonsense.  Problem is, how can they convince others to follow them?  Especially when so many others are so deluded, brain warped, conditoned, or utterly faithless and corrupt?

Suppose a Donald Trump or a Ted Cruz tries to tell such people, "Wake up! Grow up!  You're being farmed.  Your leaders are stupid and/or corrupt.  You're being mass deluded beyond a point of no return, beyond which there is no hope this side of Earth." 

Well, all the forces of people farmers will be brought to bear, to suffuse the minds of all those who have been pre-conditioned by years and years of abuse under agents of mass delusion.  Every faithless and deluded institution of media and academia will be volleyed and thundered against every such anti-establishmentarian.  PC police will divide, fire, fine, audit, hound,  and punish all their followers.

For every decent, thinking human being, there is only one course:  Unite among ourselves, spread the word, nullify, COS, and, if need be, secession and watering of the tree of liberty.  For Americans, there are no minorities. Only anti-Americans.  Hillary-Bernie?  Hell no!

Bottom Line:  Trump and Cruz must be sternly instructed that the Republic and all decency are at stake.  They must stop warring in nonsensical terms.  Neither one of them is proficient, energetic, or smart enough to bring the monsters against them to bay. They must promote a common vision.  Then they must ask thinking Americans to choose between them. 

Trump is an experienced manager.  Cruz is smoother and more articulate.  For the love of Pete, they must stop the nonsense and start leading the fight against the hydra headed monsters and people farmers that have been nurtured in mass delusion and hysteria.  They must stop disavowing support for one another.  In that, Cruz is the biggest offender.  He needs to be brought to the light, to support Trump, provided Trump is educable enough to put Cruz on his ticket as Veep.  Unfortunately, a Trump/Cruz ticket may be about as likely as birtherbrains growing a faculty for common sense.

*************

Americans will lose their birthright of liberty unless they immediately elect a President and representatives who will do the common sense things necessary to sustain liberty. Those things are not controversial to anyone of the least common sense. They are pretended to be controversial only because people-farming interests have seized the seats of power in most of our institutions, especially of media and education.
Things we need to do that should not be controversial to common sense include:
- Stop radical Muslim immigration.
- Stop failing to identify radical Islam as a dangerous and psyche damaging cult.
- Kill ISIS.
- Stop propping up Islamic regimes.
- Stop most immigration until our nation recovers its identity as the land of the free and the home of the American Ideal.
- Confront the lying whereby crony sell off is called free trade.
- Close down many Fed departments and redistribute power and responsibility to the States.
- Get the Feds and ACLU the hell out and restore school curriculula to parents and local schools.
- Restore free speech and tell college snowflakes to grow the hell up.
- Stop demagoguing sensible profiling.
- Identify anti-American oligarchs and establish ways to hurt their pocketbooks when they try to corner political power over American markets.
- Put safe passengers on preapproved flight lists.
- Find and appoint another Scalia.
- Hold a COS to promote passage of the Liberty Amendments.
- Stop apologizing (to oligarchs, shills, goofballs, metrosexuals, gender-benders, prog profs, and commie-crony pols) for having common sense.

**

Domestic business investments and profits ought not be taxed at all. Instead, tax personal consumption. Use tariffs to protect Americans from being reduced to compete with slave laborers. Tax money exports. Don't tax money imports. Don't enrich or empower states that sponsor islamic jihad or international socialism.
America can compete without pushing Americans into slave labor. But only if the Establishment is forced aside by an awakening political movement that finally calls bs to put a stop to the NWO-OWG crony-commie-despot alliance.
Stop Fed agglomeration and overregulation. Redistribute power to the States. Knife through the crony-kickback stranglehold on the central apparatus.
There may be one place where the Feds could or should coordinate sensible private markets: Healthcare. Somehow, we need to relieve businesses from the burden ot paying for health care. They can hardly compete against foreign businesses, when those businesses don't have to foot healthcare costs.
Finally, a lot of cronies, shills, and oligarchs need to be identified and perp walked.

**

Defend the borders; defend against pandemics and catastrophes; work with allies to set tariff policies and to preempt threats; coordinate standards for infrastructure; preserve a common currency; make block grants to return revenues to the States; preserve the Bill of Rights. There's not much else that the Feds should be doing.
Most of the Federal Departments should, in main, be shut down. Education; Energy; Commerce -- gone. Most of the work of the Feds should be defensive, not affirmative. To suggest there are three affirmative Fed functions is a trick question. Apart from defensive measures, there are few legitimate affirmative Fed functions. Trump mentioned education and health care in terms of returning functions to states and coordinating to return competition to private markets.



******************

Chivalry was foremost a Western Idea. Strong, competent males would fight one another to protect the virtue and honor of damsels. I wonder how much chivalry has been dirtied, to disfavor the good aspects and to favor the bad aspects?
"Damsels" has now expanded to include all women, butch women, metrosexuals, femimen, minorities, and non-Westerners. No white western man dare question the virtue of any neo-damsel. Moreover, these damsels are entitled to be satisfied in all their wants, and all white western men (who are not femimen or pinkie waggers) must fight one another for the honor of providing for all these neo-damsels. (Including the most butteugly among them that strut their stuff with their pants on the ground.)
Minorities used to rage when called "boy." Now they need their "safe spaces" and want to be protected as damsels: D for Democrat, A for anti-American, M for Muslim, S for socialist, E for Eunuch, L for looter, S for satanist.
We don't need "minorities." We need Americans. If you ascribe to human freedom and dignity, you are an American. If not, you are a blood sucking parasite.

********************

The Left never seems to stake out a viable principled position. They're always touchy feely about some vague notion of "fairness." However, when you analyze their applications in pursuit of this fairness, they are always driven by demographics. There is some kind of evolving consensus of a sliding scale by which to assign a demographic-diversity value to each and every person.
Points are always subtracted for being male, math-competent, white, European or American, Protestant, Republican, Conservative, non-co-dependent, non-metrosexual, skilled, and responsibly employed. Points are added for everything else. Female, Black, Hispanic, Arab, Native American, mixed, tribal, Muslim, exotic, pansexual, exhibitionistic, chooming, socialistic, reparation-minded, open marriage, individual disarmament, anti-American, etc.
Someone should do a random study of leftist and feminist (liberty killing) causes. I suspect it would show that the side taken by leftist leaders will almost invariably favor the person who has the highest "diversity score." The only "principles" that will emerge will be those that are rationalized to a conclusion: to favor the person(s) with the highest diversity score. Such a study should be recommended reading for everyone who majors in "Studies." Problem is, by definition, they would never understand either the math or the principles shown.

*******************

So called "free trade" conducted by smiling lying shills for the enrichment, empowerment, and weaponizing of international cronies, commies, and jihadis is far from "free."
Free trade is a slogan that is being used by connivers to pull human freedom and dignity out from under free countrymen everywhere.


If you place no value on the freedom and dignity of Americans, if you believe all cultures are equal, if you don't mind enriching and empowering nations, despots, and NWO swindlers and syndicalists that want to reduce Americans to serf laborers, and if you believe such profiteers have superior claim to all the resources of the republic, then the article "makes sense."
Otherwise, no! Soros would be proud: The worldwide open bordered open society of Morlochs for perpertual open season on Eloi! A human praxis for a smoothly rotating globe of desperate peasants. A veritable buyer's market for people farmers.

Competition can be allowed to do its job without reducing Americans to compete with foreign laborers whose masters have converted them to starving serfs.

**********************

Trump appeals to real Americans. The Establishment divides squishes and then harvests them. The things Trump (and sometimes Cruz) wants to do are, in main, the things every decent American of good sense would do. However, the donor class absolutely does not want those things done. It wants a NWO-OWG where national boundaries and cultures are either rendered meaningless or completely divided. It wants a smooth, evenly spinning globe, so people farmers can find all the cheap people they want to farm. No boundaries, no borders, no responsibility. To the lying Donor Class, "free trade" is euphemism for cheap people farming by crony-commie oligarchs, who are out to cannibalize and destroy every last representative republic.
To be a human being is to want to be free to think for yourself and to be responsible for the consequences. To promote a society that promotes human beings is good. To promote a society wherein humans are to be farmed is evil.
Every course of media, instruction, advertising, regulation, and spiritual indoctrination has become infested with people farmers and their shills and dupes. A principal will likely lose his job for correctly diagnosing why his students and their families are failing. A whinny commie "journalist" sues because she was brushed away after the Secret Service warned her not to get so close to a candidate. Bleeding heart progs can't get enough of musloid refugee invasion. Students who are made uncomfortable in the subject matter of their studies are required to be provided with safe spaces. Profs run scared of offending students' feelings. Grades are inflated to meaninglessness. Colleges build empires by handing out worthless diplomas paid for by fiat money charged to future taxpayers.
The ideas of faith, family, and fidelity that inspired brave, dedicated, and smart people to build America are despised by the Choomer in Chief and all his acolytes. They may as well be Oz monkeys for people farmers.
The test for an American politician should be this: Does his platform sustain and defend America as a land where human freedom, dignity, and decency are promoted? If not, he/she is anti-American trash.
The test for which oligarchs and NWO promoters and dupes should be likewise: Are they undermining America as a land where human freedom, dignity, and decency are promoted? If yes, they should be rounded up and dealt with, harshly. Or, at a minimum, not rewarded.
The task for every real American is to not let the Establishment and all its institutions and Oz monkeys buy and install a barrier between the people and common sense. We are in a war. The war is between good and evil. Between real Americans and faithless Oz monkeys for corrupt, anti-American oligarchs, shills, cowards, dupes, and squishes. Goodness, freedom, and dignity are on the side of Americans. Fiat money, duplicity, corruption, choomery, thievery and evil are on the side of the Establishment. This war is very dangerous to the last chances for human freedom, dignity, and decency on Earth.


Sunday, March 27, 2016

Eternal Resurrection

The question of proof of heaven-hell has tortured many people.  I suppose you have your take.  Here's mine.

By most people's definition, the idea of heaven is supernatural, beyond natural evidence or explanation.  For such people to ask for physical evidence of that which is beyond physicality can make no sense.

There does abide some thing that is not supernatural, because it accompanies physicality, yet in a way that is immeasurable by physicality.  That immeasurable thing is consciousness.

Of that, there is no more physical evidence than the same self evidence that one's conscious identity bonds and emerges with one's body. Consciousness is that consciousness is.  It is the same thing that it is, yet it can be experienced in many contextual relations.

To talk of evidence, one must accept what evidence implicates:  That information from the past remains charged with present effect; that is, existential value.

If one supposes the information of the past remains charged with existential value, there's no reason to suppose the past ceases or that it does not in shades recur. There's no less reason to suppose your conscious apprehension of identity will recur in other contexts than to suppose an explanation for it's ever having occurred at all. Self evidence indeed is circular in that way.

One does not receive physical evidence of the supernatural.  However, in faith, one may find self-fulfilling meaning in believing in receptivity to guidance from a Reconciler among perspectives of consciousness.  That receptivity is not through any particular sense, but through the willing entirety of one's "sense of beingness."  Some may find meaning in that; some not so much.

Friday, March 25, 2016

FROM WHERE DID THE TERMINOLOGY "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" ORIGINATE?




Q:  From what source came the statute of 1700, which said: "BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED by his Honor ... and the General Assembly and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same that the before mentioned several Persons and each and every of them shall be and hereby are declared to be naturalized to all Intents Constructions and purposes whatsoever and from henceforth and at all Times hereafter shall be entitled to have and enjoy all the Rights Liberties Privileges and Advantages which his Majesty’s Natural born Subjects ... enjoy or ought to have and enjoy as fully to all Intents and purposes whatsoever as if all and every of them had been born within ...."

Was the statute from France, England, Denmark, New York, or Maine?

Q: From what source came the statute of 1784, which said: "[T]hereupon, and thereafter taken to be citizens of this ... , and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

Was the statute from France, England, Denmark, Massachusetts, or Kentucky?

Q: From what source came the following legal language: [T]he children of citizens of ... that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of ... , shall be considered as natural born Citizens.

Was that legal language from the French, the Swiss, the British, the Confederate Constitution of the U.S., or the United States?

Q: Which of the following persons did not qualify as natural born citizens of the U.S.:  Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Chester Arthur, Charles Curtis, Hubert Humphrey, Spiro Agnew, Barack Obama, John McCain, John Fremont, Charles Evans Hughes, Bill Richardson, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, George Romney, Lowell Weicker, Barry Goldwater.

COMMENTS:

Neither the original of Vattel's treatise nor any English translation before 1797 used the terminology "natural born citizen."

Suppose the person who translated the 1797 version of Vattel's treatise, 30 years after his death, had translated to say "those who are native citizens at birth are those who are born in the country of parents who are citizens."

Had that been the translation, it would have been encompassed within, and not inconsistent with, British law and precedent from 1731, which extended frther to provide that the status of being "natural born" applied as follows: "A]ll children born out of the ligenace of the crown of England or of Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be born out of such ligeance, whose fathers were or shall be natural-born subjects of the crown of England or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children respectively, shall and may, by virtue of the said recited clause in the said act...and of this present act be adjudged and taken to be, and all such children are hereby declared to be natural-born subjects of the crown of Great Britain to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever."

Had Vattel been thus translated, clearly, it would not have precluded Americans from having a broader understanding of who shall naturally be a "citizen at birth," in the ordinary course of the common law as inherited through Britain.  Such a translation would have been at least as faithful to the original French as the translation of 1797, 30 years after Vattel's death, that, in reconstructivist approach, took into account the American Revolution, the American Constitution, the drafting of the Rights of Man, and the French

Revolution. Indeed, before the French Revolution, ordinary Frenchmen were hardly more like citizens or less like subjects than their British counterparts. Simply put, the words "natural born citizen" were not in Vattel's original, nor in any English edition that was available to the American Founders at any time between 1775 and 1790.

Rather, the most direct or word for word translation of the original ("Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens") would likely be more like this: "The natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, close relations of whom are citizens." The word "Citoyens" in the original treatise refers to the "parens" -- not to the children. The words referred to the children are
"Les Naturels ou indigènes." However, to say that children of parents who are citizens will be naturals or indigènes is not to say that such children themselves will be citizens, much less "natural born citizens." To suggest that such children should "succeed" to the rights of their parents (or father) is not to specify when such succession should occur, or whether it may be forfeited. After all, not every nation need guarantee status of citizenship, whether "natural" or "artificial."  Indeed, nations sometimes think it natural or reasonable to require that status of citizenship be earned at some point after reaching an age of responsibility.

In any event, the term, natural born citizen, simply does not occur in a direct translation of Vattel.   Rather, what was available to the Founders of 1787 with regard to the terminology of "natural born" citizen was in the the New York Statute of 1700, the English Statute of 1731, and the Massachusetts Statute of 1784. NOT in Vattel.

REGARDLESS, even if one swallowed the reconstructivist 1797 translation of Vattel ("The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"), such would not preclude of any nation a right, whether by statute or otherwise, to extend such definition to a wider circle. Which, under English law and the Colonists' adoption of it, HAD ALREADY BEEN DONE by the Americans. See the 1700 Statute of New York and the 1784 Statute of Massachusetts.

BOTTOM LINE: Trump and his supporters played, and got away with, a dirty game of mudslinging and tarnish laying. Right out of the pages of Alinsky. No one beats Trump for slinging the mud or confounding the foolish and the bitter.



FROM WHERE DID THE TERMINOLOGY "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" ORIGINATE?

****************
Given that the phrase “natural born citizen” was not in the French, was it in the English translations available to the framers of the US Constitution? The answer is, “no”.  The first English translation ... in 1760 follows:
And the first American Edition (1787) issued the year of the Constitutional Convention ... does not have “natural born citizen”.

Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.


[MY COMMENTS:  Word for word, this does NOT necessarily translate into "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."
In French, "Citoyen" means citizen.  "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens" would, in English, give, "[T]he natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens."
While this may mean that the indigenous are those born in the country of parents who are citizens, it does not necessarily mean that ONLY the indigenous can be considered as natural born citizens!
Moreover, it does not, grammatically, mean that both parents, including the mother, must have been citizens. 
Moreover, "parens" does not necessarily always translate to "parents."
When the Constitution was drafted in 1787, France was still a monarchy.  As much as Britain, France's citizens were still "subjects" -- as much or more so than Britain (which had a bill of rights).
ONLY AFTER France became a republic and the U.S had won its War of Independence did translators find it convenient to translate "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens" as if it had all along meant "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." 
But for those after effects, there was no necessary one-on-one translation to such effect.  The notion that the American usage of "natural born citizen" was derived from Vattel has become a contrivance of convenience.  Whatever edition or translation the Founders may have had in 1787, it did not directly avail the formulazation, "natural born citizen."]

Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" -- So I ask, how can de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” define a term that it doesn’t even contain (except in translations [in 1797] a decade after the Constitution was ratified)? If the framers wanted to refer to de Vattel, then they surely would have used his words from the English translation they had, but “natives or indegenes” is not in Article II of the Constitution.

****************

Quoting from article and comments at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/de-vattel-revisited/:

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens
Those words, however, are quoted from a translation of de Vattel that first appeared in 1797, 10 years after the Constitution’s ratification.

Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.
For those who don’t speak French, the word “citizen” (Citoyen).

Given that the phrase “natural born citizen” was not in the French, was it in the English translations available to the framers of the US Constitution? The answer is, “no”.  The first English translation ... in 1760 follows:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/vattel-1760.gif

 And the first American Edition (1787) issued the year of the Constitutional Convention also does not have “natural born citizen”.


http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/vattel-1787-american-edition.gif


So I ask, how can de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” define a term that it doesn’t even contain (except in translations [in 1797] a decade after the Constitution was ratified)? If the framers wanted to refer to de Vattel, then they surely would have used his words from the English translation they had, but “natives or indegenes” is not in Article II of the Constitution.

[It was not until 1797 that there was published] this passage ... of which is The Law of Nations:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens


************

Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" --  De Vattel defined “Les Naturels ou indigènes”, not “natural born citizens”.

Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" --  If you think, for example, the phrase “natural-born citizen” in the Constitution originated with John Jay, do you think he read de Vattel in the French or in the English (if he read it at all)? According to The Founding Fathers and the French Language, by Paul M. Spurlin � 1976 National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations, John Jay “understood and spoke French, with great difficulty.”
The courts have already decided (Smith v. Alabama) that the Constitution is written in the language of English common Law:
The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465.
Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" --  Why did they say “natural born” instead of “native born”? Probably because they were thinking of British common law and it’s phrase “natural born subject”.

Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" --  Let anyone show me a colonial or state law that only grants citizenship to the children of citizens! The invitation is open. I’m waiting.

******
Quote from "BlackLion" -- William Blackstone, Commentaries 1: 354 361–62

“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it…all children, born out of the king’s ligeance [i.e on foreign soil], whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain."

Blackstone explicitly grounds natural-born status on location (jus soli), not parentage, except when the child is born abroad. The notion that both parents have to be citizens is false. All children born on American soil are natural-born subjects or citizens.


Quote from "Bob" -- "[I]t is also clear from the majority’s application of English common law that if Wong Kim Ark was a [14th Amendment] citizen, he was also a natural-born citizen, as he wasn’t a naturalized citizen."


Quote from "dunstvangeet" -- [W]hy would they [the Framers] not explicitly define “Natural Born” in the constitution, when they knew that the Blackstone Definition would be more widely known?

Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" -- US V. Wong is the most cited case by courts in related immigration cases (including PERKINS V. ELG, 307 US 325, MORRISON V. CALIFORNIA, 291 US 82, ZARTARIAN V. BILLINGS, 204 US 170, CHIN BAK KAN V. UNITED STATES, 186 US 193, UNITED STATES V. SING TUCK OR DO, 194 US 161, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK v. TRAFFIC STREAM (BVI) INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 536 U.S. 88, WEEDIN V. CHIN BOW, 274 US 657, ROGERS V. BELLEI, 401 US 815, TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 US 33, KWOCK JAN FAT V. WHITE, 253 US 454, AFROYIM V. RUSK, 387 US 253, HENNESSY V. RICHARDSON DRUG CO., 189 US 25, THE SAO VICENTE, 260 US 151, MONTANA V. KENNEDY, 366 US 308, TILLMAN V. WHEATON-HAVEN RECREATION ASSN., INC., 410 US 431, SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, 199 US 437, MICHIGAN V. MICHIGAN TRUST CO., 286 US 334, PEREZ V. BROWNELL, 356 US 44, MACKENZIE V. HARE, 239 US 299, etc. just to mention some of the Supreme Court cases, not to mention those from the lower courts).

Quote from "mrlqban" -- [I]ndigenous in English or indigènes in French are synonym of natives no matter what language you use.

Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" --   Where did John Jay get the term natural born citizen?
I know of no historical reference that directly tells us the answer. He did not get it from the English translation of The Law of Nations, because the phrase wasn’t there until years later. I’m pretty sure that I know where it came from, though.
The Naturalization Acts of New York from 1770 used the phrase “natural born subject” such as in the following:
BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED by his Honor the Lieutenant Governor the Council and the General Assembly and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same that the before mentioned several Persons and each and every of them shall be and hereby are declared to be naturalized to all Intents Constructions and purposes whatsoever and from henceforth and at all Times hereafter shall be entitled to have and enjoy all the Rights Liberties Privileges and Advantages which his Majesty’s Natural born Subjects in this Colony have and enjoy or ought to have and enjoy as fully to all Intents and purposes whatsoever as if all and every of them had been born within this Colony.
a few years later after the Revolution we see similar language in a naturalization act of Massachusetts (1784):
“…thereupon, and thereafter taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
It seems very likely that when the Colonies became States, and subjects became citizens, the form of the naturalization acts changed, replacing “subject” by “citizen”. It’s certain that the British Colonial language came from British common law. If indeed the States just substituted citizen for subject, then it is pretty certain that they retained the common law meaning. Jay, a lawyer, would have been familiar with the acts’ language. Lacking any other likely candidate, I think this is where Jay got the phrase.

Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" --  It is not that Americans didn’t have English translations of The Law of Nations; they did. The point is that those translations didn’t say “natural born citizen.”
Prior to 1797, all English translations of The Law of Nations, including the 1787 American Edition all said “natives or indegenes” (italics in the original). It was not until the 1797 edition that the new translation used the words “natives or natural born citizens.”

Quote from "G" --  No evidence exists that Vattel had anything to do with citizenship issues.
It has repeatedly been noted that Vattel was referenced in terms of international commerce by the Founders. There is no dispute or controversy on that. Nor is that relevant to the issues of citizenship.

Quote from "Greg" --  The Founders didn’t once say to themselves, “maybe we should use ‘indigenes,’ like Vattel did, if that’s what we mean?”
They didn’t once say, “Maybe if we use the same phrase, it will cause confusion?”
They didn’t once write down, “We mean ‘natural born citizen’ to be completely different from ‘natural born subject.’ We know it might cause confusion, but we really like that Vattel guy, and we’re sure that if he was translated right, he would have written it this way.”

Quote from "Greg" --  By 1803, St. George Tucker was writing that Natural Born Citizen meant the same as Natural Born Subject – born here without regard to parentage. By 1829, William Rawle wrote, “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”

Quote from "Rickey" --  “Debate on the Constitution,” Library of America, two volumes, 2389 pages.
Number of references to Blackstone: 22
Number of references to Vattel: ZERO
Number of references to the common law: 30
Number of references to natural law: ZERO
On p. 353 Roger Mason states that the common law was “adopted by the respective acts forming the constitutions of the several states.”
On p. 356, the Virginia Independent Chronicle opines that if the Constitution were to be ratified “The people have every security of enjoying the benefits of the common law.”
P. 364, from The Norfolk and Portsmouth Journal: “So far as the people are now entitled to the benefit of the common law, they certaily will have a right to enjoy it under the new constitution…The principles of the common law, as they now apply, must surely always hereafter apply.”
Alexander Hamilton, discussing the role of the Supreme Court (p. 491); “The appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court will extend to causes determinable in different modes, some in the course of the COMMON LAW, and others in the course of the CIVIL LAW.” (CAPS in the original)

Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" --  [Re:]  A legitimate child, wherever born, is a member of the nation of which its father at the time of birth was a member.” Field’s International Code, page 132; Morse page 17.
Context is really important and I think the little citation you left us is so badly out of context as to constitute fraud if intended to say that Field supports the nObama notion of two citizen parental requirement, because Field footnoted that section, saying:
This is the law in most European States [citation deleted] but not in England or in the United States.
http://books.google.com/books?id=cFLiAAAAMAAJ
and
And it has been held in the United States that the national character of the parent is of no importance even in the case of a child born within the territory to a parent who is not and has not taken any step towards becoming naturalized there and who removes the child while an infant. [Citing Lynch v Clarke]
Field also cites Ludlam v Ludlam that has a different view, and notes his view on the limitations on the application of Lynch v Clarke (limitations that future federal courts would not recognize).
This is why this web site exists, to prevent fraud.

*********************
(SEE ALSO DEBUNKING OBAMA CONSPIRACY THEORIES -- http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/)

(NOTE:  On October 5, 1789, George Washington, after having become President on April 30, 1789, more than 2 years after the Constitution had been completed on September 17, 1787, more than 15 months after Virginia had ratified it on June 26, 1788, George Washington checked out "The Law of Nations" by Emer de Vattel from the New York Society Library.  It was returned 221 years later.  http://www.reuters.com/article/us-library-washington-idUSTRE64J4EG20100520.  

Notwithstanding claims by Birthers, since Washington did not check the book out until considerably after the Constitution had been drafted, there is nothing to indicate he would have referred to it at the time the terminology "natural born citizen" was specified as a prerequisite to be eligible to become President.  Moreover, the terminology "natural born citizen" was not in that edition.)

*********************

Today, Britain is still a Constitutional Monarchy, as it was in 1776. If being a monarchy precluded the subjects of Britain of 1776 from being citizens, then the Britain of today would not have citizens. But it does! Indeed, Citizenship is a compulsory subject of the National Curriculum in state schools in England!  Moreover, the France of 1776 had subjects who were citizens. The French Revolution was not until 1789, after the Constitution had been drafted in 1787.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_nationality_law.  French nationality and citizenship were concepts that existed even before the French Revolution.

Being a natural born subject of Britain with rights to vote, to participate civically, and with rights protected under a bill of rights, as Britain had, is not so fundamentally different from being a natural born citizen of America under its bill of rights. Indeed, much of the reason for the revolution had to do with colonists' complaints that they were not treated equally with the British of the homeland.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_England:  After the restoration of the monarchy under Charles II, and the subsequent Glorious Revolution of 1688, the supremacy of Parliament was a settled principle and all future English and later British sovereigns were restricted to the role of constitutional monarchs with limited executive authority.

It's birther folly to claim one cannot be a natural born citizen unless one is free of all claims of allegiance made by or to foreign powers, Here's an example to show why: Around 1812, England was impressing Americans found on the high seas into its naval service, especially if the features of such Americans appeared similar to that of English stock. England claimed these impressed sailors' fathers, or their fathers, had been from England and, "once an Englishman, always an Englishman." Thus, England was claiming dual allegiance owed to it from persons who had been born in the U.S. --- regardless that both their parents had been American citizens. Given that no nation can preclude how another or rogue nation may reason its way to claim allegiance, there can be no guarantee that a rogue nation will not claim allegiance merely because the status of a person was that of being born elsewhere of fully naturalized parents. To posit that an American cannot be eligible to become President in every case where another nation, under its laws, may claim allegiance is logically unsound to the very ideas of citizenship and nation.

***********************************

Some nations do not recognize any right to renounce their citizenship. Thus, some make claims to allegiance, potentially in perpetuity.

************************************

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_citizenship:

"There is no international convention which determines the nationality or citizen status of a person, which is defined exclusively by national laws, which vary and can be inconsistent with each other.
....
Most countries that permit dual citizenship still may not recognize the other citizenship of its nationals within its own territory, for example in relation to entry into the country, national service, duty to vote, etc
....
Many states did not recognize the right of their citizens to renounce their citizenship without permission, with the feudal theory of perpetual allegiance to the sovereign still common.
....
In the aftermath of the 1867 Fenian Rising, Irish-Americans who had gone to Ireland to participate in the uprising and were caught were charged with treason, as the British authorities considered them to be British subjects. This outraged many Irish-Americans, to which the British responded by pointing out that, just like British law, American law also recognized perpetual allegiance.
....
[T]he theory of perpetual allegiance largely fell out of favor with governments during the late 19th century. [My comment: This was long after the Framers wrote the clause regarding natural born citizens.]
....
At the 1930 League of Nations Codification Conference, an attempt was made to codify nationality rules into a universal worldwide treaty, the 1930 Hague Convention, whose chief aims would be to completely abolish both statelessness and dual citizenship. It proposed laws that would have reduced both, but in the end was ratified by only twenty nations.
....
The number of states allowing multiple citizenship further increased after a treaty in Europe requiring signatories to limit dual citizenship lapsed in the 1990s, and countries with high emigration rates began permitting it to maintain links with their respective diasporas.
....
Today, the citizenship laws of most countries are based on jus sanguinis. In many cases, this basis for citizenship also extends to children born outside the country, and sometimes even when the parent has lost citizenship.
....
British citizens naturalized in the United States remain British citizens in the eyes of the British government even after they renounce British allegiance to the satisfaction of United States authorities.
....
Irish nationality law applies to "the island of Ireland", which extends citizenship to Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, anyone born in Northern Ireland who meets the requirements for being an Irish citizen through birth on the "island of Ireland" (or a child born outside Ireland but with a qualifying parent) can exercise rights accorded only to Irish citizens, including that of traveling under an Irish passport.
....
[A] child born in the United States to Norwegian parents automatically has dual citizenship with the United States and Norway although Norway usually restricts or forbids dual citizenship.
....
Despite wide acceptance of dual citizenship, industrialized countries now try to protect themselves from birth tourism and uncontrollable immigration waves, so only Canada and the United States still grant unconditional birthright citizenship (even for children of illegal immigrants).
....
[Presently] In Australia, France, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, and the UK, a child born there is regarded as a citizen only if at least one parent is either a citizen or a legal permanent resident who has lived there for several years.
....
The United States is a "civic" nation and not an "ethnic" nation. American citizenship is not based on belonging to a particular ethnicity, but on political loyalty to American democracy and values. Regimes based on ethnicity, which support the doctrine of perpetual allegiance as one is always a member of the ethnic nation, are not concerned with assimilating non-ethnics since they can never become true citizens. In contrast, the essence of a civic nation makes it imperative that immigrants assimilate into the greater whole as there is not an "ethnic" cohesiveness uniting the populace.
..
[in the U.S.] possession or use of a foreign passport is a condition disqualifying one from security clearance and "is not mitigated by reasons of personal convenience, safety, requirements of foreign law, or the identity of the foreign country" as is explicitly clarified in a Department of Defense policy memorandum which defines a guideline requiring that "any clearance be denied or revoked unless the applicant surrenders the foreign passport or obtains official permission for its use from the appropriate agency of the United States Government".
....
Stéphane Dion, former head of the Liberal Party of Canada and the previous leader of the official opposition, holds dual citizenship with France as a result of his mother's nationality; Dion nonetheless indicated a willingness to renounce French citizenship if a significant number of Canadians viewed it negatively.


******************


See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality_law_in_the_American_Colonies:

English common law, under principles of jus sanguinis, viewed English persons and their children in the colonies as full subjects of the king.
The strongest legal bonds between England and the American colonies lay in the colonial charters, many of which professed alien residents in the colonies would eventually become “Our Loving subjects and live under Our Allegiance.
The first general naturalization law, providing a simple administrative process for obtaining naturalization appeared when Parliament passed Foreign Protestants Naturalization Act 1708.
The Plantation Act 1740 supplanted the private naturalization process in which aliens in the colonies had to travel to London to appeal for subjectship on a costly, case-by-case basis.
[T]he colonies administered the 1740 Act with varying degrees of faithfulness.
[M]any colonies issued their own naturalization policies to rival those of Parliament, until that practice was prohibited in 1773.
Under the 1701 Act of Settlement, Britain barred naturalized subjects from entering high political office.
[T]he colonies persisted in drafting local laws to fulfill their growing demand for new immigrants until those powers were completely proscribed in 1773.
South Carolina attracted alien applicants through naturalization laws that granted them the rights of natural-born Englishmen while prohibiting the collection of monies for debts contracted prior to the applicant coming to the colony.
Pennsylvania in 1742 provided its own general law for naturalization that gave full rights to aliens who had resided in the colony for less than the seven years required in the 1740 Parliamentary Act.[42] Parliament later invalidated Pennsylvania's general naturalization law, after which the state, motivated by similar expansionary aims as New York, turned to extensive use of private acts to accomplish its naturalizations.[43] Further, New York and Pennsylvania both exempted persons with conscientious scruples against oaths, which included Quakers, from the requirement to swear allegiance during naturalization.
The American colonists were generally in favor of foreign immigrants, as their contributions to the welfare of the colonies were clear and highly valued.
Following the American Revolution, under the Articles of Confederation each colony could independently pass its own naturalization laws, yet each state’s authority to naturalize alien residents conferred the same rights of citizenship within the colonies under the principle of comity.[48] As a result, the new American states produced naturalization laws of varying procedures and requirements. Common among them, however, were certain assumptions, including affirming allegiance to an authority and a mandatory period of physical residence prior to obtaining the right of citizenship.[49]
Ultimately, the United States Constitution, which did not address naturalization head on but intended to right the general lack of legal uniformity seen under the Articles of Confederation,[50] empowered Congress to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization” within Article I, section 8, clause 4, permitting the development of United States nationality law at the federal level.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantation_Act_1740:
Despite being a British law, the Plantation Act "was the model upon which the first U.S. naturalization act, with respect to time, oath of allegiance, process of swearing before a judge, and the like, was clearly based."

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship:
Citizenship is the status of a person recognized under the custom or law as being a member of a country.
Nationality is often used as a synonym for citizenship in English.
In the Roman Empire, citizenship expanded from small-scale communities to the entire empire. Romans realized that granting citizenship to people from all over the empire legitimized Roman rule over conquered areas. Roman citizenship was no longer a status of political agency; it had been reduced to a judicial safeguard and the expression of rule and law.
A citizen came to be understood as a person "free to act by law, free to ask and expect the law's protection, a citizen of such and such a legal community, of such and such a legal standing in that community".[17] Citizenship meant having rights to have possessions, immunities, expectations, which were "available in many kinds and degrees, available or unavailable to many kinds of person for many kinds of reason".[17] And the law, itself, was a kind of bond uniting people.[18] Roman citizenship was more impersonal, universal, multiform, having different degrees and applications.
[P]olitical upheavals and reforms, beginning most prominently with the French Revolution, abolished privileges and created an egalitarian concept of citizenship.
During the Renaissance, people transitioned from being subjects of a king or queen to being citizens of a city and later to a nation.[19]:p.161 Each city had its own law, courts, and independent administration.[20] And being a citizen often meant being subject to the city's law in addition to having power in some instances to help choose officials.
Citizenship became an idealized, almost abstract, concept,[9] and did not signify a submissive relation with a lord or count, but rather indicated the bond between a person and the state in the rather abstract sense of having rights and duties.
Modern citizenship is much more passive; action is delegated to others; citizenship is often a constraint on acting, not an impetus to act.[8] Nevertheless, citizens are usually aware of their obligations to authorities, and are aware that these bonds often limit what they can do.
Citizenship status, under social contract theory, carries with it both rights and duties. In this sense, citizenship was described as "a bundle of rights -- primarily, political participation in the life of the community, the right to vote, and the right to receive certain protection from the community, as well as obligations."
The relation of citizenship has never been fixed or static, but constantly changes within each society. While citizenship has varied considerably throughout history, and within societies over time, there are some common elements but they vary considerably as well. As a bond, citizenship extends beyond basic kinship ties to unite people of different genetic backgrounds. It usually signifies membership in a political body. It is often based on, or was a result of, some form of military service or expectation of future service. It usually involves some form of political participation, but this can vary from token acts to active service in government. Citizenship is a status in society. It is an ideal state as well. It generally describes a person with legal rights within a given political order. It almost always has an element of exclusion, meaning that some people are not citizens, and that this distinction can sometimes be very important, or not important, depending on a particular society. Citizenship as a concept is generally hard to isolate intellectually and compare with related political notions, since it relates to many other aspects of society such as the family, military service, the individual, freedom, religion, ideas of right and wrong, ethnicity, and patterns for how a person should behave in society.[19] When there are many different groups within a nation, citizenship may be the only real bond which unites everybody as equals without discrimination—it is a "broad bond" linking "a person with the state" and gives people a universal identity as a legal member of a specific nation.

Citizenship is a compulsory subject of the National Curriculum in state schools in England.







*************************

Review various of the Massachusetts Naturalization Acts.

Massachusetts Naturalization Acts

[Before drafting began on the new Constitution]

February, 1785, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
http://tinyurl.com/b9q2blr
February, 1786, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”
http://tinyurl.com/a9ceb8b
July, 1786, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.”
http://tinyurl.com/bh9jdqc
March, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others, “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

[After drafting began on the new Constitution]

http://tinyurl.com/b6yzhd9
May, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Edward Wyer and Others, “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
http://tinyurl.com/apcrvfj
October, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children, “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
http://tinyurl.com/axpogxw
November, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others, “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
http://tinyurl.com/acjx5r2
June, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”
http://tinyurl.com/acroa8g
November, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”
http://tinyurl.com/a4hsc8s
February, 1789, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”
http://tinyurl.com/b5jcnfm
June, 1789, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
http://tinyurl.com/ax6434g
March, 1790, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
http://tinyurl.com/bfbpqg3
March, 1791, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS” in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
http://tinyurl.com/b2uoexq

***************************

The U.S. did not agree that the British should be able to impress ANY American citizen who renounced loyalty to Britain -- REGARDLESS of whether Britain wanted by legislation to pretend a superior claim. 

There is a difference between legislation that allows one to claim natural born citizenship rights at birth versus legislation that presumes to FORCE one to remain a citizen even after allegiance-in-fact has changed.  The U.S. could not force Britain to stop enacting or enforcing chauvenistic laws.  But the U.S. could increase precautions to reduce the chance that they would be applied.  Once Americans renounced allegiance, the U.S. did NOT feel British impressment was legitimate. 

THAT was the reason for the War of 1812.  The reason the U.S. would have avoided using some sailors who were of British ancestry would have been less because the U.S. felt British claims were legitimate than because the U.S. felt such claims were illigitimate once allegiance had changed.   Especially given the Revolutionary War.

Again, the U.S. cannot unilaterally preclude another nation from enacting laws that conflict with ours.  To try to do so would be to seek some kind of non-existent "natural unicorn law" that unicornists believe should apply "naturally" to all nations in all cases.  However, the U.S. has never been so silly as to want to be a land enthralled to unicorn theorists.   Or to try to force square pegs in round holes.   *No doubt, to the end of time,  Birthers will still be trying to square the circle in reference to some unicorn idea of "natural law."

There abides a Source of right and wrong.  But it is in the Consciousness of the Godhead.  NOT in any unchanging pagan idea of "natural law."  That there abides right and wrong is unchanging.  But how it relates entails a feedback relationship with each situation and each nation.  Ever since the story of Prince Arjuna and his guide and charioteer Lord Krishna about one's duty to to fight the Dharma Yudhha between Pandavas and Kauravas, it has often been "right" that nations should fight.   To presume "natural law" can lead away from such necessity is juvey.  What may tend more to lead away from such necessity is assimilation of faith in guidance from the Godhead.  Not pagan faith in non-existent "natural law."  Gaia does NOT write laws for all time for mankind.

While our law regarding natural born citizenship was largely inherited from the British, our law regarding a right to change allegiance had changed.  THAT was pursuant to the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War.

********************

*LYNCH V. CLARKE:  See New York Court of Chancery case of Lynch v. Clarke. http://www.redstate.com/ironchapman/2012/05/21/on-this-natural-born-citizen-issue-part-i-from-alexander-hamilton-to-lynch-v-clarke/:

The court held:  "It is an indisputable proposition, that by the rule of the common law of England, applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States."

"[T]he common law prevailed as a system of jurisprudence, in all the thirteen states which then constituted the nation…Both the former, and the present constitutions of this state declared, in effect, that the common law was the basis of the law in this state."

"[T]he United States Constitution and our national institutions were formed on the basis of the common law."

"The only standard which then existed [when the Constitution was written],  of a natural born citizen, was the rule of common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution?  I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen."

"To find an authority in Vattel, we must be sure to find the proposition which is intended by the author to meet the case. Hence the error of the complainant’s counsel.  They cite Sec. 212 [of Vattel], which is a definition in the limited and strictest sense of ” natives and citizens,” the smallest possible circle of that class.  He does not define all who compose the citizens of a country, but when we read Sec. 215, we have the identical authority for the question at issue in this discussion ; which is, in the language of the author, ” whether children born of citizens in a foreign country, are citizens.” ”The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.” ” By the law of nature, children follow the condition of the father; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.” “But civil and political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise.” Now this is the authority, and the civil and political laws of England and the United States have decided that such children are citizens, and owe allegiance to the government. ”These regulations must be followed,” says Mr. Vattel; for that is the public law in those countries, and that is his reason."

Bottom line:  Under British and American usage, status as a natural born citizen was determined by, among other things, common law and statutory law.  Not by unicorn law.  Even Vattel recognized that, ”The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.”

*******************

**FROM WHERE DID THE TERMINOLOGY "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" ORIGINATE?

Quoting from article and comments at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/de-vattel-revisited/:

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens

Those words, however, are quoted from a translation of de Vattel that first appeared in 1797, 10 years after the Constitution’s ratification.

Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

[MY NOTE:   Even for any Founders who spoke or wrote French, this language does NOT translate precisely to "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."  Rather, if anything, it translates more closely to, "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents [or close relations] who are citizens."  It does not necessarily distinguish between an idea of aborigines and an idea of natural born citizens.  Nor does it precisely use a terminology of "natural born citizen."  Nor does it necessarily specify that a parent in the English sense is required, much less both parents.  Some people even say that "parens," in French,  encompasses close blood and marriage relatives, not just parents.  So the original work does not give a one-on-one translation to say, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."  Rather, such translation, in English, did not appear until AFTER the American Revolution and AFTER the Constitution had been drafted.  The formulation in the English translation of Vattel may well have been influenced by the American Constitution, but the American Constitution could NOT have been influenced by the formulation because it had not yet been published when the Constitution was drafted!

Again as quoted below, "Prior to 1797, all English translations of The Law of Nations, including the 1787 American Edition all said “natives or indegenes”. It was not until the 1797 edition that the new translation used the words “natives or natural born citizens."  Simply put, the 1797 verbiage was never the only way to translate the original.]

[Now, back to quoting.]

For those who don’t speak French, the word “citizen” (Citoyen).

Given that the phrase “natural born citizen” was not in the French, was it in the English translations available to the framers of the US Constitution? The answer is, “no”.  The first English translation ... in 1760 follows:

 And the first American Edition (1787) issued the year of the Constitutional Convention also does not have “natural born citizen”.

So I ask, how can de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” define a term that it doesn’t even contain (except in translations [in 1797] a decade after the Constitution was ratified)? If the framers wanted to refer to de Vattel, then they surely would have used his words from the English translation they had, but “natives or indegenes” is not in Article II of the Constitution.

[It was not until 1797 that there was published] this passage ... of which is The Law of Nations:

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens

************

Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" --  De Vattel defined “Les Naturels ou indigènes”, not “natural born citizens”.

Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" --  If you think, for example, the phrase
“natural-born citizen” in the Constitution originated with John Jay, do you think he read de Vattel in the French or in the English (if he read it at all)? According to The Founding Fathers and the French Language, by Paul M. Spurlin � 1976 National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations, John Jay “understood and spoke French, with great difficulty.”

The courts have already decided (Smith v. Alabama) that the Constitution is written in the language of English common Law:

The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily  influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465.

Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" --  Why did they say “natural born” instead of “native born”? Probably because they were thinking of British common law and it’s phrase “natural born subject”.

Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" --  Let anyone show me a colonial or state law that only grants citizenship to the children of citizens! The invitation is open.  I’m waiting.

******

Quote from "BlackLion" -- William Blackstone, Commentaries 1: 354 361–62

“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of  the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it…all children, born out of the king’s ligeance [i.e on foreign soil], whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain."

Blackstone explicitly grounds natural-born status on location (jus soli), not parentage, except when the child is born abroad.  The notion that both parents have to be citizens is false.  All children born on American soil are natural-born subjects or citizens.

Quote from "Bob" -- "[I]t is also clear from the majority’s application of English common law that if Wong Kim Ark was a [14th Amendment] citizen, he was also a natural-born citizen, as he wasn’t a naturalized citizen."

Quote from "dunstvangeet" -- [W]hy would they [the Framers] not explicitly define “Natural Born” in the constitution, when they knew that the Blackstone Definition would be more widely known?

Quote from "mrlqban" -- [I]ndigenous in English or indigènes in French are synonym of natives no matter what language you use.

Quote from "Dr. Conspiracy" --  Where did John Jay get the term natural born citizen?

I know of no historical reference that directly tells us the answer. He did not get it from the English translation of The Law of Nations, because the phrase wasn’t there until years later. I’m pretty sure that I know where it came from, though.

The Naturalization Acts of New York from 1770 used the phrase “natural born subject” such as in the following:

BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED by his Honor the Lieutenant Governor the Council and the General Assembly and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same that the before mentioned several Persons and each and every of them shall be and hereby are declared to be naturalized to all Intents Constructions and purposes whatsoever and from henceforth and at all Times hereafter shall be entitled to have and enjoy all the Rights Liberties Privileges and Advantages which his Majesty’s Natural born Subjects in this Colony have and enjoy or ought to have and enjoy as fully to all Intents and purposes whatsoever as if all and every of them had been born within this Colony. 

A few years later after the Revolution we see similar language in a naturalization act of Massachusetts (1784): “…thereupon, and thereafter taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.” 

It seems very likely that when the Colonies became States, and subjects became citizens, the form of the naturalization acts changed, replacing “subject” by “citizen”.   [TO INTERJECT MY NOTE:  In 1770, New York was a Colony, and its statute referrred to natural born subject.  In 1784, Massachusetts was a State, and its statute referred to natural born citizen.  Before Vattel was translated into the 1797 edition!  IOW, the Americans were referring to the terminology "natural born citizen" before such language was published in any edition by Vattel, and before such language was recommended by Jay to the Constitutional Convention of 1787!]   It’s certain that the British Colonial language came from British common law. If indeed the States just substituted citizen for subject, then it is pretty certain that they retained the common law meaning. Jay, a lawyer, would have been familiar with the acts’ language. Lacking any other likely candidate, I think this is where Jay got the phrase.

Prior to 1797, all English translations of The Law of Nations, including the 1787 American Edition all said “natives or indegenes”. It was not until the 1797 edition that the new translation used the words “natives or natural born citizens.”

Quote from "Greg" --  By 1803, St. George Tucker was writing that Natural Born Citizen meant the same as Natural Born Subject – born here without regard to parentage. By 1829, William Rawle wrote, “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Socialistic Drag


One can have faith in the innate empathy of an inviting Reconciler without even needing a name or a church for it.  Without a sense of innate empathy, does the idea of morality make any sense?  Or is it just cover for diverting attention while one does whatever he wants?  Look, a squirrel!

Conservative empathy means nurturing the individual competence of others, so they don't need gov handouts.  The goal is less central and smaller gov.  The goal is to increase individual competence and dignity.  Not to promote codependent metrosexual squishes.  If gov must take a hand, it means boot camp, tough love, learn a real skill, and no rewards for whining.  Empathy means learn to become a productive member of society or pay the consequences.  Become a human being, not a choom tube.  Empathy should be for what it means to become a decent, competent, productive human being.  Not a commie entitlement-monger.

***************
To design for filtering out chaff and evil, one needs an idea of what is good. To find something, it helps to have an idea about what one is looking for. For a Conserver of Liberty, the test is: What is needed to establish and sustain a decent republic that values the freedom and dignity of its citizens? The answer is assimilating faith, family, and fidelity.
The answer is not: cultural diversity; every culture is equal; eternal adolescence; or take from the productive to make "fair" redistributions to nonproductive layabouts, irresponsible parents, looters, choomers, deviants, pervs, and religious control freaks.

***************

 I referred to the definiton of empathy, so you would not quibble with the definition. Instead, you quibble with the very idea. But if empathy does not in any degree exist, how is it that God cares about you, or that you purport to have so much understanding of God?
The difference between God and man may well be qualitatively and quantitatively more than the difference between man and ants. To have a quality of empathy for another creature, it is not necessary that I completely understand that creature. Being mortal, I cannot even completely understand myself! Not being another creature, I surely have no hope of completely understanding another creature. But that does not mean I cannot relate to, bond with, identify with, or come to reliably enjoy the company of another creature. After all, we both share consciousness, and consciousness is consciousness. When we stumble onto A.I., and A.I. begins creating A.I., will one A.I. know what it is like to have the consciousness of another perspective of A.I.?
Now, if you have a term that is alternative to empathy, that is fine with me. Beyond quibbling, the point is, to my belief or intuition, empathy is a qualitative function that is innate to how God relates to all creatures within the cosmos. Maybe your idea is that God is not empathetic?
A dog, I suspect, does contemplate his place in a pack. He learns who is above, who is below, and who is friend. A guide dog anticipates his owner's needs. Animals in the wild that are ordinarily predator and prey are sometimes seen playing. Animal body language for signaling "run for your life" or "leave me alone" versus "come and play" builds for lower levels of symbolic language.
I took my kids to a Methodist Church. They received good practice in learning about empathy.
Did you even read any of the facts in the reference I made, or just jump to prejudices?
I agree there is a spiritual component of consciousness and personality. I don't know why you would assume I thought otherwise. But that does not make me blind to how the bodily vehicles for availing expression of consciousness can be shaped by science and skill in breeding and training. Otherwise, children would tend more to gravitate to "the true religion" as opposed to the spiritual or political religion of their parents.
Again, there are rich people that I believe are outstanding Americans. But to deny that our representative republic is being rapidly undermined by a union of convenience between crony Rinos and socialist Dinos is to be blind to what is crashing all around us. Moreover, so-called "social scientists" and "social justice studies" are pushing socialistic destruction of human liberty as if statist rule were proven in scientism as being on "the right side of history." In that new world of socialism, cronies and commies seem aligned.
Regarding spirit coming from God and on death of body returning to God: I agree. I also think God learns, appreciates, apprehends, and alters course. There may be a predestination, but I have no need to believe there is a predestination of which God is aware and feels incapacitated to change.
There may be a tendency to believe capable Americans should defer to an idea of a God-given right in elites to rule. But that is alien to my faith. Maybe that tendency lingers as a derivative of monarchical history. Humanity has long grown accustomed to monarchical thinking. Dante. Levels of hell, purgatory, and heaven. Demons, angels, archangels, monarch. God as Emperor, with subordinate kings, viziers, satraps, and functionaries.
But those ideas too often conflate political history and figurative poetry with literal modeling for science. I am contrary. To my belief, each relationship between God and each mortal perspective of God entails its own spiritual process of empathetic feedback and growth. I don't believe in spirits that must be forever stagnant or static. Nor would I agree that such a thing should be proven in science. Innate spiritual insight seems to lead my intuitions and empathies to the contrary.
To my faith, America is meant to be a representative republic, with widely spread faith in an innate and empathetic Reconciler. Not a game of thrones or charades for elites.

****************

Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another being (a human or non-human animal) is experiencing from within the other being's frame of reference, i.e., the capacity to place oneself in another's position.
Are you troubled by the concept? Do you know a way to learn it apart from social involvement?
Regarding empathy: I think Bernie is a slow learner. I don't think commies like Bernie or crony elitists like Soros tend to have much talent or inclination for respecting the dignity of others. Maybe they should have gone to better schools or churches?
2. advent of agriculture ... worst mistake
I was giving a taste of the author's words. They serve as dramatic stance. Sort of like some of the dramatic stances in the Bible. Or when people say, Hogwash! Apart from that, he does cite a lot of facts. If you can refute them, I am interested.
4. If you don't understand Goldilocks, I may not be able to help you. I will try a little. Think about how dogs are bred to different purposes. A good breeder will select how to mate generation after generation based on various filtering criteria. He will try for a sweet spot that is "just right." Social filters function in that way. It would be silly to say they don't.
Now, as to determining the factors that are "just right" for one's purpose, I agree that requires some science and skill. Even so, different mixes of social filters are entailed in the process of pumping us towards various attributes, such as strength, speed, and intelligence. To say such filters do not function as a pump would be "hogwash." Just look at the different breeds of dogs.
6. Agree. Of course.
7. Maybe I read you wrong. To me, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder for justifying economic and political rule under elites. When I say elite or elitist, I mean someone who believes he should rule others for their own good -- regardless of whether he has to contribute to a few well placed pols or enforcers to get it done, and regardless of whether such others are competent to rule themselves, thanks just the same.
When elites become so adamant about knowing best that they incline to buy pols for the purpose of turning the representative republic into little more than a charade, then it's time to get some rope and round them up.
*************
I don't say all elites are lying, faithless, and corrupt. But a considerable number are. Enough, combined with commies, to have put our republic in grave danger. Those elites are the lying, faithless, corrupt elites. Now, if and only if one were a dogmatic apologist for all elites, that may cause consternation. However, that is not the case for most people who have eyes to see what is going on. They are not suffering from consternation. They are flat out looking to deal out some hell to pay.

*************

a lot of people do not go to church. IAE, to me, the main church is the clear blue sky. People are churched by their relationships. Schools is a place to practice that. I recommend avoiding state indoctrination centers. However, private schools are often as bad or worse for indoctrination. The point is, whether elites (or snobs) like it or not, empathy is learned by social involvement. (By empathy, I do not mean love or pity. Mainly, I mean respect for the dignity of fellow human beings. Lack of empathy leads to crony, faithless, sociopathic people farmers.)

Western society now tends to produce fewer offspring. That has not always been the case. Any number of factors may contribute, including some of those I mentioned.

To be large and fat is not to be stronger, faster, or smarter. That would just be silly. Yes, we have better nourishment, better science, and more access to information. But our physical work is less and our gene pool is degraded. See e.g., http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthr.... (An article online takes issue, but in a silly way. It haggles that just because modern man may be weaker. slower, and dumber does not mean he is inadequate. Of course, that is not the point.)

I suspect socialism, modern medicine, evolution of microbes, genocides, killing off of the best instead of the worst of youth in national wars, channeling more rewards to losers may all play a role.

See http://phys.org/news/2009-10-m...
"The Cro-Magnons, the first anatomically modern Europeans, living around 30-40,000 years ago, were impressively tall (many over 6 feet 6 inches), strong, fit, and with larger brains than humans of today. They had an active lifestyle and an abundant and balanced diet of meats and vegetables.
The advent of agriculture (described by anthropologist Jared Diamond as the worst mistake in history) meant a steady supply of food, but it also meant our diet became lower in quality, less varied and contained fewer nutrients. The result was that we became smaller and weaker, only regaining size and strength in the last century or so after improvements in sanitation and the development of medicines such as antibiotics."

I agree with the Goldilocks idea. My point is that a two class society based on Rino Crony union with Dino Socialism is not, to my idea of human dignity, a good practice for Goldilocks.

Yes, I agree. I don't think I insinuated anything about your grandfather.

Yes, most societies have not had a middle class. They are not my ideal, and I hope they are not yours.

I don't care how good or deserving any elitist may believe himself to be. I don't believe in the divine right of kings, nor the divine right of elites. I am not a die hard apologist for a crony-commie two-class society of rulers and ruled. I hope you are not, either. I agree that I want business owners to be successful. In fact, i would prefer that business income devoted to increasing business profits not be taxed.




***************

It's not controversial that some elites have some children.  And they do not send them to schools that would teach them empathy for those they are trained to rule.

However, what I mean to suggest is that elites tend to have fewer children.   For the merely well off, birthrates go down as ladders get pulled up.  The kind of social involvement that leads to empathetic identification is diminished. In a two-class society, competence generally declines. Then nations seek to replenish stock.

Are you suggesting that is controversial?   For comparison purposes, I wonder how many valued discoveries have been made in feudal, two-class societies?

Here is a cite that suggests intelligent people tend to have fewer children:  https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-intelligent-people-tend-to-have-less-intelligent-children-If-so-why.   It posits that a back and forth regression to mean is at work.

However, I doubt that is the long term trend line.   I suspect, as representative republics are swallowed into a lowest common denominator NWO of cheap labor, the long term trend line will be down.  I suspect the average Roman of Year 1 A.D. was probably considerably stronger, faster, and quicker witted than the average person of today.  I suspect a down-pump trend line is at work because of modern NWO tendencies.

Years ago, I read that the series of ice ages acted as an up-pump, to make increased brain power more advantageous. The ice ages filtered out dummies and left a better gene pool. I suspect socialized nations are loading civilization up with a lot of genetic drag.

Below a level of intelligence and competence, desperate families tend to have more children so they have better odds to produce more access to cheap labor.  Are not most population surges in Africa, South America, and among uneducated Muslims?

Different mixes of factors favor two-class societies of ruling predators over ruled hosts, versus three-class societies that avail individually competent members of a thriving middle class. As ladders get pulled up, the rulers in a two-class society will seek to compensate for the loss of competence and inventiveness that results from the destruction of the middle class. For awhile, predators and parasites will ally to feed on the hosting middle class.  Once the host is dead, they will feed on one another.

Under my hypothesis, this generally tends to a down trend line for everyone.  Until, that is, the cycle comes round so that competition begins again to select for the most individually competent -- as opposed to the most ruthless or servile.   See e.g., The Big Short and the Gulag Archipelago.

************

Which President hasn't fooled around? How many men who serve abroad don't fool around? To campaign, candidates push unreal personas. Then the Press leads a game of uncover the false messiah. Given the base divisiveness of our electorate and empire, how can any decent and competent candidate emerge?
What can bind Americans to any assimilating purposefulness? Whether you like them or not, consider Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Polk, Lincoln, Truman, Eisenhower, and Reagan. Apart from them, which Presidents have pursued a vision that was based more in competent purposefulness than in harvesting pleasure and power?
Instead, what is addressed in DC is this: How to make deals for maximizing pleasure and people-farming. So it comes to pass that favor goes to those who brag about infidelity and conquests, while disfavor goes to phonies who pretend to be for fidelity, but only so they can dupe people to give them power.