John Jay Did Not Want The Top Offices To Be Open To Foreigners

This question regarding the presidency is a live one today, since McCain is not certainly a natural born citizen by our constitutional requirements for the presidency. Here is the relevant text:
"Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen." (as found here: John Jay to George Washington) [ Images of the letter and its draft are here: 10627, 12782]
A commenter said that the founders were concerned over foreign ties among immigrants; at his site he reasons in this way: http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2008/02/panmanchurian-candidate-mccain.html
"1. The 14th Amendment and matching policy limit citizenship to either natural born or naturalized, but not both.
2. John McCain was born in 1936 in the Canal Zone to citizen parents.
3. 8 USC 1403(a) declares naturalized citizenship in 1952 on persons born in the Canal Zone to citizen parents.
4. Therefore, 8 USC 1403(a) applies to John McCain at age 16.
5. Therefore, John McCain is a naturalized citizen.
6.By treaty, the Canal Zone was not part of the United States.
7. Therefore, John McCain was not born in the United States.
8. Therefore, John McCain is a citizen not born in the United States.
9. Therefore, John McCain is not a natural born citizen.
10. Article II of the Constitution states to be President a person must be a natural born citizen.
11. THEREFORE, John McCain is not eligible to be President of the United States under Article II of the Constitution; he should be decertified and removed from all present and future Presidential ballots; and his past results should be disallowed, including unbinding all of his committed delegates. "
The explanation of the natural born citizen requirement, being that it was desired to forestall damaging foreign influences from coalescing around an immigrant, would sound right if it were taken as referring to immigration after 1789. What about all the foreign-born who were citizens at that point already, and eligible by the specified exception, for the citizens of 1789, though? Wouldn't they be a greater threat than a potential immigration in the future? This is why I bring up the special case of the emigre Tories whose parents were Americans, and whose valuable lands had been taken and later sold to the great Whig families here. If one of them came back, claiming natural born citizenship by parentage if that were allowed in the clause, and became president, he would threaten the upset of those land acquisitions by those most important families, and perhaps more and worse, if trying for recolonization. Jay would not want any such in our military officer's ranks, nor in high office of any kind, much less the presidency. Of the foreigners he sees as most threatening, the hundred thousand Tories on the northern border, with their claims on the great landed fortunes, might appear the most motivated and close-situated, to even cause a lasting disinterest in repeating the experiment in a new kind of government.
Writes John Jay to Lansdown"There are, indeed, certain characters who can never return with safety...", referring to Tory exiles. Referring to British occupation of certain American border
lands, John Jay to Gilbert Du Motier Lafayette writes that: "It is certain that they pay great attention to the Indians, and give great encouragement to emigrants from us. Their expectations from the latter circumstance will fail them. I wish that every acre of ground they hold in America was settled by natives of the United States." Why was Jay taken so seriously on the subject of possible skulduggery by foreigners, and especially regarding the Tory settlers on those borders?

The Life of John Jay With Selections from His Correspondence and Miscellaneous Papers By William Jay, p.202 "...Congress passed a secret act, limited to one year, giving Mr. Jay discretionary power to inspect letters in the post-office..." This intelligence operation was especially concerned with letters to and from Tories around the forts Britain held, inside or near the American borders. This link indicates that the presidential eligibility requirements were aimed at excluding Tories. Madison said 7-20-1787 that: "He might betray his trust to foreign powers. The case of the Executive" being meant. "Jay himself proposed an amendment barring all except 'natural born citizens,' who were freeholders as well (with some specified exceptions) from eligibility as President, Vice President, or as members of either house of Congress, a restriction even more severe than that which he had proposed to Washington in July of 1787." quoted from here: John Jay and the Constitution

Jay's proposal recurs in the first passage of the 12th amendment, before ratification, with fewer features. 12th amendment Natural Born Citizenship: "...nor shall any person be a Senator or Representative in the Congress of the United States, except a natural born citizen, [...] or unless he shall have been a resident in the United States at the time of the declaration of independence, and shall have continued to reside within the same or to be employed in its service from that period to the time of his election." The 'continued to reside' part neatly excludes the tories who emigrated and returned, and the 'natural born' requirement excludes the children of such families, who stayed out. It happens that these requirements were never ratified by the states, but they do reflect the understanding of natural born citizen of the statesmen of that time, following Jay closely. Considering that the illustrious Count Rumford was one of the emigres, who would have been made ineligible by one of these exclusions, it might be seen that the authors of these requirements did have something to fear, specifically of quality people being in that group of tories and their children.

The Naturalization Act of 1795
"...No person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed."

This is another indication that, not only did they not want Tories in the top offices, but they didn't want their children to become citizens, at least not of those who had been 'proscribed'.

U.S. Weaponeers Score Again 5/5 Against Incoming Missiles

Fifth THAAD Missile Test Deemed a Success , but terrorist-friendly candidates want passionately to kill this stunningly successful missile defense program, as hostile China tells them is their duty... uncivilized China, where the same regime which has the blood of over 60 million on its hands, is still in power today, shooting into crowds of MONKS... and these backward inheritors of despotism, tell American progressives, such as Obama the quota place-holder, which military hardware systems are to be considered threats to THEIR idea of 'peace' and 'brotherhood'... yes, China wants you to value openness to their nukes, and they imagine you might trust them, since nihilistic left-wing politicians say you can
More>

Convergence Between Inductive & Deductive Directions Re: The Indispensability Of the Middle

On October 6, 2007's post I said: The Average Conceptual Ability of a Nation is Determinative
According to Linda Gottfredson, on p.8 of the online version of "Accidents and Intelligence":
"No culture can sustain new practices, however, that impose cognitive demands on the general populace that are beyond the capacity of its large cognitive middle."
This is why quality of population is everything or nearly so, and institutions mirror, but do not themselves create to any large proportion, this quality which is indicated by where the broad middle falls. This is the deductive approach leading towards a conclusion, which is most unwelcome, to those who would command us to value openness to diversity, such that quality of population is randomized towards that of the world.
CHAPTER 20 View as HTML Linda S. Gottfredson. The evidence now indicates that we cannot make up for a low median of IQ, by having a small number of innovators lead the way, as it is the spread of new technologies, out into the general population, which raise productivity, which increase per capita income. India might have more brilliant engineers, above a certain level, than France, but they cannot move the great inert mass, because of low median IQ.
From the inductive direction, there arise the very high correlations between national IQ's and per capita income. This is found also as between American state IQ's and incomes and other indicators of well-being. From Audacious Epigone,
Better state IQ estimates ... more references... related to
Prediction of national wealth
Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, IQ and global inequality...
(Added 6-28-08) SFT I-The Smart Fraction Theory of IQ and the Wealth of Nations:
The first result says IQ 108 is the important parameter, then SFT II says "...per capita GDP is directly proportional to the population fraction with verbal IQ equal to or greater than 106."
For countries with means around 100, this means that the upper half of the distribution, approximately, but down almost to the midpoint, is determinative. Without that upper half of the middle of the IQ distribution, productivity doesn't develop from inventions, but those responsible for them move out, to a country with a robust middle range of conceptual abilities.

Intensification Of Aggression Via Openness To Its Spread

As found on VFR , quoting from “American Murder Mystery,” by Hanna Rosin in the Atlantic:
"...the match was near-perfect. On the merged map, dense violent-crime areas are shaded dark blue, and Section 8 addresses are represented by little red dots. All of the dark-blue areas are covered in little red dots, like bursts of gunfire. The rest of the city has almost no dots." &
"...Galster explains. His paper compares two scenarios: a city split into high-poverty and low-poverty areas, and a city dominated by median-poverty ones. The latter arrangement is likely to produce more bad neighborhoods and more total crime, he concludes, based on a computer model of how social dysfunction spreads.
Studies show that recipients of Section 8 vouchers have tended to choose moderately poor neighborhoods that were already on the decline, not low-poverty neighborhoods." &
"In each case, Suresh has now confirmed, the first hot spots were the neighborhoods around huge housing projects, and the later ones were places where people had moved when the projects were torn down. From that, she drew the obvious conclusion: 'Crime is going along with them'."
JB comments:
The use of state power to enhance mobility, tends to increase the predatory/parasitical behavior, which is already elevated in the mobilized population, even when the environment should change the newcomers more than it is changed by them.
Such misbehavior, finds less interested retaliators, and is especially promoted by the mobilized, not having to live with the nest that they have fouled. Change in density of population, before and after, would have to be very steep to overcome this mobilization effect.
Considering how high and evident the correlations mentioned in the quotes are, how may one evaluate the sincerity and good faith of those who ask us to value openness to the influxes of such behavioral and other diversity? The article mentions that it is minority areas which are affected, although there is suggestion as well, that the majority types move out ahead of this influx going past its initial stages.

Openness-Value Vs. National Security Barriers: Both Can't Be Right

As found here: 06/15/08 - Israel Proves Border Fences Work—But Candidates/Congress Don’t Want To Know, by Donald A. Collins , which quotes Israel’s Security Fence by Mitchell Bard as follows...
“Since construction of the fence began, the number of attacks has declined by more than 90%. "
The fence, together with 3% of its length in high anti-sniper walls, is smeared by the dishonest as a Berlin wall. Such deceit is presumably aimed at the unthinking, with hazy concepts of freedom, somewhat like: unconstrained faculty of locomotion. If there were a rational argument for valuing openness to such as the Palestinians, there would be no need for pretending that defense is Berlin wall-building. Keeping hostiles out, is exceedingly different from keeping people in your territory, by ruthless force. When the concept of freedom is equivocated, though, such that freedom-for-aggression is left undistinguished from freedom-from-aggression, distinctions of great importance get deceitfully obscured.
Valuing openness to rocket attacks sounds unreasonable, but when you're looking to develop your own anti-missile system, immediate deployment of someone else's can take away from that.
From Haaretz:
Ballistic expert: Israel ignoring option of U.S. anti-rocket system
"A Phalanx battery includes four 20mm-wide shells and radar that tracks the missile, assesses its trajectory and intercepts it from a range of up to 1.5 km. Unlike any other system, Phalanx is capable of firing up to 6,000 shells per minute, which are twice as fast as a Qassam rocket (with a speed of more than a kilometer per second). As of today, the system is installed in some IDF battleships. Farber claims that five batteries will adequately cover the western Negev, and will not cause environmental damage. 'Because of their exceptionally high speed, the shells that don't hit Qassams will land in the sea,' he said, 'although the chances of a direct hit are high.' "
JB resumes:
Offensive capacities and, quite often, their actual use, are no doubt indispensable.
The defensive capacities are unfairly treated as taking away from offensive ones, though, when there is no necessary relation. A nation which is committed to the upbuilding of defensive capabilities will be found also developing its offensive ones. (cont. in comments section)
Added 6-28-08: "In fact, throughout the "al-Aqsa intifada" that began in 2000, only one such attack originated in Gaza,[...] The IDF had simply erected a fence to surround Gaza, preventing untold numbers of suicide attacks. " Quoted from here: The Mistakes...- Richard A. Baehr
The success of the Gaza fence relative to suicide bombers, resulted in the West Bank fence being argued for several years later. So this is another data point.

Tranzis Humiliated! Ireland Vetoes EU Re-Constitution

One-worlders got a come-uppance today, and a huge one. Internationalists, you have been slapped. Irish voters reject EU power grab »
I posted this on: Thursday, June 12, 2008
Would You Vote To Establish A New Government Which Would Be Against You For Racial Reasons?
This is what the Irish have before them today, and not only that, but the EU referendum, if approved, would tend to destroy national loyalty, and the value of such loyalty. Therefore, it seems unlikely to pass, even if media are overwhelmingly misrepresenting the extent of sovereignty that would be yielded without a fight.
Combined 6-16-08 from: Saturday, June 14, 2008

Vaclav Klaus Speaks The Doom Of The EU Re-Constitution
EU referendum: Czech president says Lisbon Treaty project is over:
"Czech president Vaclav Klaus, who is supported by the country's largest political party, called the Irish referendum vote a 'victory of freedom and reason' and said 'ratification cannot continue'. His view was echoed in the Czech senate.'
Politicians have allowed the citizens to express their opinion only in a single EU country,' Mr Klaus said. "
Added 8-26-08 from: Saturday, August 16, 2008

Tranzi Leaders Freeze When The Imagined Equality & Brotherhood Turns Into War
Like Blair at The Gleneagles conference to hand out billions to the third world, freezing when the third world bit that hand, with the 7-7 subway bombings. Or it could be Bush still reading the goat storybook to a group of children, when the 9-11 news was given to him. A recent example is Bush sitting placidly among the Olympics spectators while the Russians rolled into Georgia. An old example is the captain of the Titanic, frozen and unable to process the information that his unsinkable ship was going to sink. They all freeze, because it is inconceivable that immigrants would bring down one 100-storey building after another, it is unimaginable that a giant giveaway to the poorest in the world would be disrespected with terror-bombings, it is unbelievable that national loyalty could still mean much to a powerful foreign leader, and unsinkable ships don't sink. They're at a loss as to how to react, since they'd have to repudiate the doctrines of the equality and brotherhood of all mankind. Without those doctrines, smearing opponents of the next power-grab will be harder. How will they respond to enemies and unequals correctly as such, while positioning themselves also to vilify those who say that there are lasting enemies and inferiors? How will they pretend that national loyalty is outdated and forgotten, while being updated daily on the invasions of those who didn't get that memo? Maybe this explains why they freeze in just those moments.
Combined from: Friday, August 15, 2008
A Lucid & Concise Statement Of The Far Greater Perils To Civilization
"Europe today does not face a 'fascist' threat but an 'antifascist' danger making way for a hostile Muslim takeover."
The above is quoted from Paul Gottfried on Russia at Taki’s Magazine, as found on VFR
From the far left to the moderate right, and even further rightward, we get warnings of threats of resurgent fascism in civilized countries, while the clear and potent danger is of speech police-statist 'anti-racism' and 'anti-fascism' basely serving the immigrant onslaught of unspeakably backward Islam, which is impossible to show to be compatible with the continuity of the advancement of civilization.

Racial/Ethnic/Gender Quota-Mongering Above National Security In Wartime

From: ...http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/general_sanchez_speaks.html
"So, the war-winning team and our best Middle East expertise are all transferred out of theater in May 2003!
General Sanchez receives two promotions in quick succession. He is promoted to three-star rank and takes over 5th Corps from General Wallace. Within the same month - May 2003 - he is promoted to command the newly named Coalition Joint Task Force 7..."
From the official report as found here: THE REACH OF WAR; Findings on Abu Ghraib ...
"... Lt. Gen. [Ricardo] Sanchez should have taken stronger action in November when he realized the extent of the leadership problems at Abu Ghraib. His attempt to mentor Brig. Gen. [Janis] Karpinski, though well-intended, was insufficient in a combat zone in the midst of a serious and growing insurgency."
That the government is willing to let situations like Abu Ghraib develop, rather than miss an opportunity to fill quotas, demonstrates how serious a threat affirmative action has become. "Diversity" was "mission critical", trumping every other consideration, and that makes our government look a lot like a buffoon's bungling state religion of anti-caucasianism.
From an earlier post, with additions:
Quota Placeholders In High Places In The Military In Wartime: Wherefrom Abu Ghraib?
As found in Affirmative Action and Abu Ghraib, quoting from Heather MacDonald in an NRO article:
"The Abu Ghraib abuse represented an inexcusable breakdown of military control; it had nothing to do with interrogation. Culpability lies with the military chain of command that [...] allowed order within the prison to disintegrate completely. The soldiers working there didn’t know who was in charge — indeed, practically speaking, no one was. Soldiers talked back to their superiors, refused to wear uniforms, operated prostitution and bootlegging rings, engaged in rampant and public sexual misbehavior, covered the facilities with graffiti, and indulged in drinking binges while on duty. The guards’ brutal treatment of the prisoners was just an extension of the chaos.
Gender imperatives undoubtedly played a role in this debacle of leadership, ensuring that Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski was left in charge long after her inability to maintain order had become glaringly apparent."
JB resumes comments: When affirmative action is used to fill sensitive positions of responsibility, and the quotas are set high enough, eventually there occurs the dangerous conjunction, in which one high-level quota placeholder is almost exclusively responsible for supervising another. The danger of quota promotion is not merely additive: it can easily multiply from just such juxtapositions. There is no way that the top people in government could be surprised by this in the least. Therefore, one may infer, that their power-greed interest, in conflict-promotion on a racial, ethnic, and other population-genetic basis, is what they have staked their hopes on, almost to the exclusion of other considerations.
Obama, or even McCain, would entrain this awful conjunction daily, and in many directions at once.
From this older post:
A Severe Strategic Weakness Of The Quota Place-Holding System
For each degree of departure from the merit standard, which is needed for a promotion, the recipient will tend to be more disloyal, to that which needs merit in such a hierarchy. The higher a quota case is promoted, the more his loyalty should come into question. National security needs merit to be maximized in the functional parts of government hierarchies, but racial manipulation of politics does not.
It follows from all this, that each anti-merit promotion event will be associated with weaker loyalty from the recipient, towards national security insofar as it depends on merit. Now we have at least one candidate for nomination, who has been promoted in an anti-merit way at each significant step. His loyalty ought to be considered highly questionable on that basis alone, and the others also must be considered questionable in the same way, if not to the same degree.
Added 7-21-08 from: Saturday, July 19, 2008

The Quota Regime Is Graft & To Excuse It Is Cynically To Excuse Graft
Affirmative acton is graft given on a population-genetic basis. The extent of the corruption implicated in having such graft infest what could otherwise be a merit system, is shown by its widespread use even in the military, when wars are underway. The power-greedy use the population-genetic graft system to set groups in ever-greater conflict domestically, as this allows for the progressive extinguishing of democratic procedures. When the goal is to eliminate democratic procedures completely, as the more power-greedy must always want, the majority becomes, more and more, the enemy. Political advancement is about power and getting more of it. That the left and the moderate right are morally indifferent to the huge and spreading engine of graft, that the quota regime is and must be, demonstrates anew that they are unprincipled and want power because they want it. This is why also they must choose issues, which allow for smearing opponents as motivated entirely by population-genetic hatred; otherwise they'd have to say they want more power because they want it.
Added 7-28-08 from : Thursday, July 24, 2008

May Those Favored For Their Diversity Be Expected To Be There When Loyalty Counts More...
than when you don't have multiple wars on? If diversity is our strength, the expectation would be that doing more to draw from minority populations, should be rewarded with loyalty from them, but especially that they not make themselves scarce when needed more than at other times. From this article:"In 1998, nearly a quarter of all active duty black officers were in various combat fields. As of this month, that had fallen to 20 percent, compared with nearly 40 percent for non-blacks, according to Pentagon data.""Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began, the percentage of blacks coming into the Army has plunged from 22 percent to 13 percent. Also, the percentage of blacks in military overall has dipped in the past 10 years, from more than 20 percent to 17 percent today.[...] positive indicators. Over the past decade, the percentage of black officers has grown slightly"[JB asks why this is to be assumed to be a 'positive indicator', except on a quota-filling racial premise, and how can such priorities reasonably appear even Re: the military in wartime?] From this article: “The lack of diversity in Navy leadership does not allow us to take advantage of varied perspectives, of varied experience. And as a result of that, we are a lesser service,” Adm. Gary Roughead said.This implies racial-genetic determinism of "perspectives", and it implies a quota regime. If only the public would realize the abysmal quality shown by this extreme of quota-mongering: if it is acceptable for military officers' promotions in wartime, then when is it not to be used? Please notice also that they do not give any reason why the black officers' percentage should be expected to be more than 1%; it is assumed without saying that equality of results is to be expected, and such that any deviation from quota is implied to be someone's malfeasance. Since we're not talking about money here, it has to be about trying to raise the prestige of blacks and the power of some government evildoers to equalize at will. Another bit of sleight-of-hand by the powerful to notice here, is the way the switch of emphasis to the navy is done. The blacks are at quota for officers in the army now, since fewer of them will go into the army in the first place today, surprisingly enough, when wars are on. The same drop has not occurred in the navy though, as the two articles specify, so the switch of attention is attempted, to get the public to accept accelerated quota outrages there. The people don't appreciate official anti-caucasianism, though, and it would be monstrous if they were to follow officials in that. Rewarding disloyalty is a grossly impractical course, which itself indicates that officials have other objectives, such as gratification of power-greed, to drive on this sort of process.
Posted by John S. Bolton

What Is Civilization & Why Does It Not Allow For Valuing Openness To Diversity?

Civilization is a species of literacy, from which emerges a society in which there is an attempt to achieve consistency in our accounts of what exists and can exist. It requires also a phonetic alphabet with symbols for the common vowel sounds. There must be a written language of this exact sort, which allows for publication to the multitude, not just to a priesthood, when high-level ideas are articulated. This is why China is not civilized, and even this year has been firing into crowds of monks. Genesis, with its two flood stories in contradiction to each other, illustrates the transition to civilization; they have part but not all of the minimum requirements. The Ionian settlers show the first civilization. The written language, by that point, allows for a kind of publishing that would make accessible to the many, articulated exposition of the most important ideas, and there is an attempt at getting consistency in the accounts of what exists. If we value openness to diversity instead, the attempt at an overall consistency has been abandoned in principle, and civilization falls below its minimum threshold value.

Violent Competition For Lowered Status: The Entitled Ignobilities Of Affirmative Action

"A blockade by thousands of protesters from India’s Gujjar tribe brought Delhi to a standstill today, paralysing trains by squatting on tracks and setting up a ring of burning tyres around the perimeter of the city. " [...]
"The Gujjars, already considered a disadvantaged group, want to be reclassified further down the Hindu hierarchy.
The Indian government runs the world’s largest affirmative action programme, reserving half of government jobs and university places to those socially disadvantaged..."
Found here: Social Downgrading: The Logic Of Affirmative Action »