The Palace at Versailles Analogy

in PDF format Here: The Palace at Versailles Analogy

Royals are sovereign over commoners
Natives are sovereign over aliens.

The situation of the sumptuously wealthy estates of monarchs like the French king at Versailles is analogous to that of the relationships that exists within a nation. In both situations, we see different types of people. Some are of the ownership class (the royals) while others are of the supporting class (the commoners living on the grounds).

The royal family owns the palace and estate (as a nation is owned by its members) and can allow whomever it wishes to visit and reside either within its boundaries or within its walls. Those who maintain the grounds live in cottages within the estate boundaries. They are members of the estate family. They are not members of the Palace family since they are not of the group that maintains and lives in the palace.
Those grounds keepers are analogous to U.S. citizens who are not citizens of any State of the Union, as are Puerto Ricans, Guamians, and Virgin Islanders. They have a peculiar relationship to the natives of the States because they are distant and unrelated peoples. They are not members of the family of the States of America. They are outside, but not treated as outsiders because the sovereign owns the property on which they live, and he (The United States) has granted them citizenship status.
Those who live and work inside the palace are analogous to immigrants to a nation that is not their own. They have no ownership rights and are not of the same blood as the owners of the estate/ nation where they live and work. They are members of the palace family but not members of the Royal family.
Since the palace is their home, they can be and will be called upon to protect it from fire and attack. If they were to be involved in setting fires or assisting an attack, they would be shot as traitors to their own home even though it is not the home of their birth and up-bringing. They are expected to be loyal to the owners and their shared home and palace family.
Similarly, immigrants can be conscripted into the American military, and charged with treason for disloyalty to their adopted country even though they are not citizens.

Who are the Royals analogous to? To the Americans. They own America, its lands (estate) and its cities and treasures (the Palace and all of its wealth) They are the natives of the nation, -not because they were native-born, but because they were born of natives, -just as the Royals are not royal because they were born within the Royal palace, but because they were born of Royal blood.
Members of the Palace family eventually have children, born under its roof. That does not make them, nor their children, members of the royal family. They are still non-royal, but their children are something more than just outsiders allowed to work in the palace. The palace is their one and only home. They can be expected to be even more devoted to it than their parents who have other attachments from their previous life situation.
As they grow up, they may be entrusted with responsibilities that those insiders from the outside, such as their parents, would not be entrusted with. One of those responsibilities would not be commander of the Royal Guard. Only one of noble blood will be entrusted with that crucial position. But one could serve directly under the commander as his executive officer.

Those who live and work as members of the palace family have carte blanche permission to leave and reenter the palace at will, and if they are found worthy, may be granted a lifetime appointment with full job security. Then they are truly insiders and enjoy a status that is akin to quasi-adoption by the royals (naturalization), and will be included in consultations about how best to manage the estate.

They are then in a position analogous to naturalized citizens. They are not royal by blood but their opinion may carry as much weight as those of bickering children of royal blood. The palace-born children of non-permanent staff (immigrants) will also enjoy a similar importance when they are adults even though they also are not of royal blood.

The analogy ends at this point because in regard to citizenship, fiction enters the picture, legal fiction. By the fundamental American fiction of citizenship equality, all citizens are the equivalent of the natives, the royals, the sovereigns of the nation, with there being no higher nor lower class of citizenship. All citizens are equal regardless of the origin of their citizenship, -except in regard to one single solitary position; that being the position of Command in Chief of American military and nuclear force. He must be a real American royal, born of Americans, the child of natives, the natural off-spring of sovereign citizens of the nation, -a citizen by American blood, and not American legal fiction.

Only such a citizen can be entrusted with command of the Palace Guard equivalency. Neither original outsiders nor their children can be so entrusted because the stakes are too high to trust those whose loyalty might be divided by attachments to other places, and peoples, and governments, and rulers. The commander of American power must have no possibility of attachments to any foreign power.
He must have a singular allegiance to America and America alone. Such allegiance cannot be taken for granted as being ascribable to non-Americans or their children even if born within the estate boundaries of American borders.

For both better and worse, that is what the framers of the Constitution mandated for the office of President. That means that in order to be faithful to the Constitution, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and Ted Cruz would have to acknowledge their ineligibility to serve as President since they were not born of American couples.
The problem is that the Constitution has already been grossly violated twice by Barack Obama, and the damage he and his kind have inflicted is massive and in dire need of repair. And who do the conservatives have on hand as potential repairman? The list is pathetically short because most American politicians are men who have never served in the military, much less in war, and have little grasp of reality nor what real leadership is.
The men and women of American politics do not rise above their peers and stand out as definite quality leadership material but some of those with closer connections to third-world nations have a much greater appreciation for America and her Constitution. It is their familiarity with foreign realities that makes them even more pro-American than their native-born citizen brethren.
So we are left with a choice; do we decide to chose what is best for us, or what is best for constitutional fidelity? One can preclude one or the other to our detriment but there’s no one who can tell how great the down-side of either choice would be. Welcome to the American existential political conundrum. By being true to the Constitution, conservatives could win the constitutional eligibility battle and lose the war to secure constitutional values underneath the policies of the White House. Pick your poison.

We are about at the point where conservatives may have to ask themselves what they value more; full fidelity to the Constitution or survival? Their enemy is not about winning ideological points but about winning raw power by any means. They bring a gun to the fight. Do conservatives think it is just fine to only bring a wooden shield and a Billy-club?

Just how wise is it to play by the rules when the enemy plays by no rules? They pretty much already own all of the major institutions in America. Isn’t it about time that conservatives armed themselves for a war that might be already lost being as it may be impossible to stop the eventual consequences of the ongoing fiscal irresponsibility that has been egregiously perpetrated by both parties for decades?
And in addition to that there is the well-planned and stealth-executed deliberate gradual “browning” of America via the allowed influx of peoples with socialistic sentiments about government and who will always vote for Democrats. And in addition to that there is the socialist-Marxist take-over of the Democrat Party by atheists, corrupt unionists, recipients of government’s distribution of massive amounts of “borrowed” money, radical environmental devotees who desire major reductions in population numbers and the accessories of modernity, extremist homosexuals, unlimited abortion-rights adherents, elite corporations that are in bed with the big-spending agenda of the Democrat Party, and wealthy statist utopian-idealists who all only live for today and condemn the future to oblivion by total neglect of consideration for where the path they are paving is leading for new American businesses and (non)-workers who can’t find a decent job to save their life.

Read the fable of the Grasshopper & the Ant. It contains a lesson that America is going to learn the very hard and painful way in the not very distant future if we remain on the path that we are on. It is not a conservative path, and the “opposition party” offers little opposition to the ever-greater enlargement of national power over the citizenry.

That is evidenced by the fact that over five times as many Republican Representatives should have signed on to the lawsuit by a private citizen which challenged the health care monstrosity on the grounds that it imposes massive new taxes but originated in the Senate, in violation of the Constitution. Only 40 out of 234 signed to show their resistance to the total usurpation of their constitutional authority by the socialist Democrats in the Senate. I want to say that the pendulum will swing the other way any day now, but with such non-devotion to American values and constitutional fidelity like that, I can’t see that day anywhere on the horizon. Can you?

Exodus 32 New International Version (NIV)

The Golden Calf

32 When the people saw that Moses (constitutional & fiscal conservatism) was so long in coming down from  mount Sinai, they gathered around Aaron (RINOs, -the Republican establishment) and said, “This fellow Moses who brought us out of Egypt, we don’t know what has happened to him.  Come, make us gods who will go before us.”

Aaron answered them, “Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me.” So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf. Then people said, “These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.”

When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, “Tomorrow there will be a festival to the Lord.” So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it (massive, unlimited federal spending).’

15 Moses turned and went down the mountain with the two tablets of the covenant law in his hands. 19 When Moses approached the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, his anger burned… 20 And he took the calf the people had made and burned it in the fire; then he ground it to powder, scattered it on the water and made the Israelites drink it.21 He said to RINO Aaron, “What did these people do to you, that you led them into such great sin?”

Moses took action against the profligate, hedonistic worshipers of the golden calf of government b0rrowing and printing  and spending of money we do not have, and in that regard he represents fiscal reality which cannot be nullified, and whose consequences cannot be postponed forever.  So, like the inevitable San Andreas quake, the question is only regarding when they will arrive, and we, and the world, will be forced to drink the bitter waters containing the dissolved ashes of our excess.


by Adrien Nash August, 2014 obama–


About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

2 Responses to The Palace at Versailles Analogy

  1. David Farrar says:

    Just a heads up. Are you familiar with Prof. John Yinger’s 2000 essay on “The Origins and Interpretation of the Presidential Eligibility Clause in the U.S. Constitution: Why Did the Founding Fathers Want the President To Be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ and What Does this Clause Mean for Foreign-Born Adoptees?”

    I, myself, have just stumbled upon on this material which, of course, pretty clearly lays out the foundation for two US citizen parents to be required for an Art. II §1 cl. 5 natural born Citizen. He is a scholar who specializes in civil rights, particularly discrimination in housing, and in American federalism, particularly education finance. He is also the proud father of two adoptive children, one of whom, even when old enough, will not be eligible to be President, at least not under current law.

    Actually, I am getting more interested in Prof. Yinger’s point of view for two reasons; one: he writes directly on point before any possible distortion could have been caused by the influence of Obama’s future political career on this subject, and two: he is, in fact, an ‘opponent’ of his own definition of an Art. II §1 cl. 5 natural born Citizen.* Prof Yinger is the closest objective witness to a historically accurate definition of an Art. II §1 cl. 5 natural born Citizen I have found to date.

    ex animo

    106th Congress -2nd Session on H.J.Res. 88

    JULY 24, 2000

    Serial No. 108

    ex animo

    • arnash says:

      I don’t recall his name but I’m sure that I read what he wrote also, about 2-3 years back but didn’t learn anything of significance that I hadn’t already learned previously. I remember that the author of what I read was deeply immersed in the issue of adoption of foreign children, so it must have been him, plus he pre-dated Obama’s appearance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: