Tolerance vs. Intolerance

Depending upon which dictionary you use, tolerance may be defined many different ways; but they all tend to say basically the same thing. For instance, Merriam Webster’s defines it as: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own, while if you simply type in the word tolerance into a search engine you may come up with something like; the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

You hear a lot of people today demanding tolerance for their views, but how many of them reciprocate and show tolerance for the views of those they disagree with? Not very many if you ask me; and that right there is a big part of the problem today; far too many people have closed their minds off to any ideas or beliefs which conflict with their own.

Take for instance all these people running around saying that Trump isn’t their president, and all those pushing forward the, as yet, unsubstantiated and unproven claims of Russian interference in the 2016 election which caused Hillary to lose. If that can be proven, that there was some sort of alliance, or agreement made between the Trump campaign and Russia that the Russians hack into the DNC and then release files that would prove damaging to Hillary, then yes, I would say Trump should either resign, as Nixon did, or be removed from office.

But, it this is only a smear campaign, designed to throw a monkey wrench into Trumps term as president, then those behind it should be held equally accountable, and face possible libel or slander charges.

But where the intolerance comes in, and this is primarily from those on the political left, is when facts can be presented which prove Obama was ineligible to hold the office of president and they ignored them and called those making these claims all manner of insulting names.

Article 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution states; No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.

That right there implies that there is a distinction between a regular citizen of the United States and a Natural Born Citizen. The question then arises, what is a Natural Born Citizen?

Did you know that another word for magic is sleight of hand; the ability of a practitioner to distract what is really happening by subterfuge or obfuscation? What we witnessed during the period when Obama’s citizenship status was under question was a bit of political sleight of hand. While it appeared that those questioning Obama’s eligibility were playing along with those doing the questioning, what they were truly doing was diverting our attention away from the definition of the term Natural Born Citizen to the location of Obama’s birth; be that Kenya or Hawaii.

The issuance of a birth certificate, however fraudulently produced it may have been, seemed to settle the question of Obama’s eligibility and the calls for his resignation, or impeachment, died down; thus allowing an ineligible individual to serve not one, but two terms as president.

So what is a Natural Born Citizen? To answer this we must go back to the proceedings which produced our Constitution…way back in 1787. In attendance at these proceedings was one Ben Franklin, who just happened to have brought with him a copy of the book Law of Nations, by Emer de Vattel, and I find it highly unlikely that Franklin would have brought a book he did not intend to reference during such important proceedings.

So what does Vattel say about the phrase Natural Born Citizen? Well, according to his book Law of Nations, a Natural Born Citizen is defined as follows: The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Therefore, according to Vattel’s definition, and most likely the one intended by those who drafted our Constitution, a Natural Born Citizen is one who is born to two parents who are both citizens of a country. Barack Obama’s, or Barry Sotero if you prefer, mother was Ann Dunham, an American citizen born in Wichita Kansas. His father, on the other hand, was Barack Obama Sr, a Luo Kenyan who was NOT an American citizen at the time Barack Jr was born; making Obama merely a citizen, but not a Natural Born Citizen.

Barack Obama is no more a Natural Born Citizen than is my own son; who was born when my wife still retained her Philippine citizenship. Now had my son been born after the year 2000 when my wife became a naturalized citizen, my son would have been a Natural Born Citizen. But since my wife was still a Philippine National on a Green Card at the time my son was born, he IS NOT a Natural Born Citizen according to the definition found in Vattel’s book; and neither was Barack Obama!

Yet I can hear the moaning now; Neal’s talking this conspiracy theory nonsense again. No, I’m speaking facts I have uncovered from my own research into the intent of our Founders when they wrote our Constitution. Just because people refuse to accept these facts does not mitigate their truthfulness.
I have provided my argument that Obama never was eligible to hold office, yet he did…for 8 years. Yet people refute my argument, but then expect me to accept theirs that there was some kind of agreement made, or collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians to steal the election from Hillary. In short, they expect me to have tolerance for their claims, but show no tolerance for mine.

While this particular point was directed primarily towards those on the political left, the political right is no less guilty of showing a great deal of intolerance towards the truth. I can’t count the arguments I have gotten into, or the friends who have abandoned me, because I staunchly oppose the expansion of our nation’s intelligence gathering apparatus and its intrusions into our right to privacy.

These people give me all manner of justification for what our government is doing, yet when I provide the reasons why the 4th Amendment was included into our Bill of Rights they shrug it off and say that times have changed and that we need to change with them. Fine, if that is the case, why don’t they ratify a Constitutional Amendment revoking the 4th Amendment; Americans did that with Prohibition, they can do it with our right to retire to our homes and be free of prying eyes and ears. Until then, however, our right to privacy is sacred and not to be infringed upon.

Yet when Edward Snowden released to the Guardian the files showing the extent of our government’s spying upon us, he was crucified by the press and forced into exile; being charged with treason. How, if I may ask, is exposing the crimes of your government considered treason?

I could go on for pages with examples of the intolerance of both the political right and the political left; but what good would it do when people have no tolerance for the truth? Either we have a Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land, or we don’t. Either we have a government that uses that Constitution as a guide for what they can and cannot do, or we have something else.

Far too many people in America today align themselves along political party lines, or certain stances on the issues than they do with whether what our government does conforms to the specific powers given them by its creators. In that manner they keep us fighting over the issues, while we ignore the fact that it was never intended that government become involved in a majority of these issues; they were to be left to the States to deal with. (See the 10th Amendment)

I honestly don’t know what I can do or say to convince people that they are being duped; played for fools. When the people’s eyes are so closed to ideas that conflict with their existing beliefs you cannot convince them that they have been lied to, or they believe in things that are untrue.
If the consequences weren’t so high for me I would say to hell with you all, let the country go to shit. But your ignorance, your intolerance affects me too, and therefore I cannot, with clear conscience anyway, sit idly by without attempting to pull your heads out of your asses.

Yeah, that may upset you, but you refusal to look at the facts with an open mind upsets the hell out of me too. And there again we come full circle to the concept of tolerance. You expect me to tolerate your ignorance, but you have no tolerance for the truth.

There may be more of y’all out there than there are those like me, but we have the truth on our side, and eventually we will be vindicated. Where that leaves you is anyone’s guess.

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *