(I’m A Stickler For Facts)
The year was 1770 and for the last two years British Regulars had been sent to maintain order and enforce the Kings law upon the unruly Colonists in Boston. In early March a single sentry was guarding his post when an angry crowd assembled and began verbally and physically harassing him.
Eight other soldiers came to his aid and they too were subjected to the same treatment; being verbally assaulted and hit with clubs, rocks and snowballs. Whether they were justified or not, shots were fired and when the musket smoke cleared 3 people laid dead in the streets with others injured.
The Bostonians, particularly Samuel Adams and John Hancock, used this ‘massacre’ to further fan the flames of discord between the Colonists and the Crown. A trial was to be held and 8 soldiers, 1 officer, and 4 civilians faced charges of murder in what had quickly become known as the Boston Massacre.
At the time John Adams, cousin to the firebrand Samuel Adams, was an average lawyer with a wife and children who also lived in Boston. Having repeatedly sought council from other lawyers, who refused to represent them, the defendants sought out Adams to represent them in court. Adams may have had strong feelings about what happened, but above all he valued justice and the examination of facts. Even though he may have had strong feelings about the British occupation of his city, he could not allow innocent men to be sent to the gallows; so he chose to represent them, to the ire of his fellow Bostonians I might add.
On December 4, 1770 Adams stood before the court and uttered a phrase that I have oft repeated in my articles, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
You can call me whatever you want, political author, patriot, or rabble rouser if you wish; but above all else I am a lover of the truth. One of my biggest gripes with so many people is that they refuse to accept, or even acknowledge the truth when it conflicts with their existing beliefs.
In a perfect world facts would be the foundation upon which our opinions are built. But this isn’t a perfect world and people often develop opinions without any facts to support them. Then, to make matters worse, they become incensed when someone has the unmitigated gall to use facts against their argument. As they typically have no facts of their own to support their position, they are left only with catch phrases, slogans and insults to defend their position.
It saddens me to admit it, but there simply is no winning a discussion of any kind when one side refuses to deal solely with facts and evidence; it simply cannot be done. I have learned this valuable lesson the hard way; with years of arguing with people who refuse to provide facts in support of their positions under my belt.
How can you argue over who is best qualified to be president of the United States when the sole reason many choose to vote for a particular candidate is that they are better than the other one? How can you argue over whether the government is doing a good job when the standards by which a government should be measured, (the Constitution) is not even allowed into the discussion, or you are told that it is no longer relevant?
A perfect example of this lack of using facts, or of people not fully grasping the meaning of words can be found in the argument over whether Barack Obama ever should have been allowed to become President of the United States.
Obama supporters call those of us who question his eligibility birthers, but in fact we should be called truthers, because all we ask is that you consider the facts regarding his eligibility; and the facts prove that he WAS NOT eligible to become President; and therefore every law he signed could very well be considered null and void; including his precious Affordable Care Act.
Let the facts be heard…
Article 2 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…” If you’ll note, it does not say citizen, it says Natural Born Citizen. There is a difference.
When the delegates to the convention which would produce our Constitution arrived in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin did so in possession of a book sent to him by his Dutch friend, Charles W.F. Dumas. That book was The Law of Nations, by Emer de Vattel. During their deliberations Franklin is said to have repeatedly referred to Vattel’s thoughts on the subjects under debate. Therefore it would be prudent to at least consider what Vattel has to say about what defines a Natural Born Citizen.
In Section 212, Citizens and Natives, Vattel writes, “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.” (My emphasis)
Now that we know what is meant by the phrase Natural Born Citizen, let us see whether Barack Obama met those qualifications. Barack Obama’s mother was Stanley Ann Dunham, a US citizen from Wichita Kansas; so far so good. However, Obama’s father was Barack Obama Sr. a Kenyan citizen. OOOPS!!! So, although Obama’s mother was a citizen, his father wasn’t; which makes Barack Obama Jr a citizen, but NOT a Natural Born Citizen.
A great deal of fuss, even by not yet president Donald Trump, was made over the location of Obama’s birth; whether it was in Kenya or in a hospital in Hawaii as Obama claimed. This was an intentional game of sleight of hand to divert attention away from the question of whether he met the qualification of being a Natural Born Citizen. The obviously fake birth certificate Obama provided appeared to be enough to appease most, but the fact remains that Obama was NEVER eligible to hold the office of president.
Sorry, facts do not lie…
I have been asked if I honestly believe the Republicans would allow an unqualified Democrat to become president. My answer to them is yes, if it would call into the question the eligibility of one of their own who was also running for president. Ted Cruz is an American citizen, of that there is no doubt. But how can he be a Natural Born Citizen when, at the time of his birth, his father was not a U.S. citizen? Cruz’s father, Rafael, did not become a Naturalized American citizen until 2008, thirty five years AFTER Ted Cruz was born. So had the GOP raised the question of Obama’s eligibility, it would also have shined a spotlight on Ted Cruz’s ineligibility as well.
Another, more recent reason why I say that facts no longer matter is the ruckus over the tearing down of monuments dedicated to Confederate icons because they represent slavery and injustice. Again, let the facts be heard…
You are taught that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves and that the North were the liberators, and the South the cruel oppressors who held these poor unfortunate human beings in a state of bondage.
Yes, slavery did exist, and yes it may have been more widely practiced during the years immediately following the Civil War; but it was not the cause for which either side fought!
Why would the South choose to remain apart from the Union and risk war against the North just to keep their slaves if all they had to do to accomplish that was agree to ratify an amendment to the Constitution which would have made slavery permanent and irrevocable in America?
In 1861, after the secession of Southern States had begun, an amendment was proposed and passed by both Houses of Congress to entice the Southern States back into the Union and avoid a war between the North and the South. This amendment is known as the Corwin Amendment, and ironically, had it been ratified it would have become the 13th Amendment, not the one we know now which ended slavery.
The text of this Corwin Amendment is as follows: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
In his Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln not only referenced this proposed amendment, he gave his support for it, “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service … holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
If the war was truly fought by the South to keep their slaves, and by the North to free them, why would the South choose war over the less hazardous choice of amendment the Constitution to make slavery permanent, and why would Lincoln offer his support for an amendment that made permanent the very thing he was about to start to put an end to?
C’mon, something just doesn’t sound right with the argument that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves when this alone proves that simply was not so.
But if that wasn’t enough, what about what Lincoln wrote to his friend Horace Greeley, stating his real reasons for engaging in war against the South, “I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”
Hell, in his Inaugural Address Lincoln stated, “I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” And you’re still going to sit there and argue that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves? I’d love to see how you support that position other than the argument that this is what you were taught in school.
If you want the truth, Lincoln didn’t even care about the Union, not per se. What he did care about was the revenue that was being generated for the operation of his government at the expense of the Southern States. On April 15, 1861 Lincoln issued a proclamation against the Confederate States which says, “Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein.”
In his first message to Congress, also written in 1861, Lincoln states, “My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861).”
The decision to secede, much like the decision of our Founders to declare their independence from England, was not one that they came to hastily or without concern for the consequences. But as the Declaration of Independence states, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Who is government to deny the States this fundamental right? Hell, even Lincoln endorsed such a position years earlier, when he made the following comments to the House of Representatives in 1848, “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, most sacred right- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to excercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize and make their own, of so much territory as the inhabit.”
While slavery was mentioned in many of the declarations of secession, it was not the only cause mentioned. When South Carolina became the first state to secede they issued their own declaration which stated, “The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths (75%) of them are expended at the North (to subsidize Wall Street industries that elected Lincoln).”
The Civil War was not about slavery, it was about unfair taxation and the oppression of a segment of our country by its government. It was, in fact, a second war for independence. And because you have been ‘taught’ that it was about slavery you believe it.
However, once again, the facts prove otherwise…
I could go on and on, and on with this; even delving into what you would most likely say were wild tin foil hat conspiracy theories. But the fact is that the truth is out there, and it is readily awaiting that you seek it out and apply it to your thinking.
Unfortunately I don’t see that happening anytime soon. I think people are not only content with their ignorance, they actually fear the truth. I think that deep down people realize that if they were to seek out the truth it would impose upon them the obligation of acting upon that and, not only changing their beliefs, but standing up for the truth against an out of control oppressive tyrant, (the United States government).
I think that’s simply too much to ask of most people. Yet on March 20, 1775 Patrick Henry stood before his fellow Virginians and said, “… it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.“
So I suppose the only remaining question is; do you have the courage to face the truth, or are you among those who will continue to believe the lies you have been, and continue to be told?
~ The Author ~
Neal Ross, Student of history, politics, patriot and staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Send all comments to: email@example.com.
If you liked Neal’s latest column, maybe you’ll like his latest booklet: The Civil War: (The Truth You Have Not Been Told) AND don’t forget to pick up your copy of ROSS: Unmasked – An Angry American Speaks Out – and stay tuned – Neal has a new, greatly expanded book coming soon dealing with the harsh truths about the so-called American Civil War of 1861-1865. Life continues to expand for this prolific writer and guardian of TRUE American history.