I write specifically about Joe Montgomery and his "birther" crusade. For those who don't know, Joe Montgomery works for Kansas State University, which might want to reconsider allowing this man to so brazenly call himself the "voice" of the people and a representative of KSU. But I digress.
Around a year about, Montgomery took to the Kansas state electoral board a petition to remove Obama from the balloting come November 2012, citing what Montgomery referred to as evidence that shows Obama is "not a full naturalized citizen" because "his father is from Kenya and lived in the UK, and US citizenship is conferred primarily through the father." I'll pause while you slightly turn your head in confusion and reread that.
Surprisingly, and regrettably, the state of Kansas upheld his petition and had come very close (50% approval) to allowing this blatant rigging tactic to pass several votes. It seemed somewhat likely that in just two short months Obama would need to have his supporters manually write in his name on the ballot if they wished to vote for him (clearly a ploy detailing Montgomery's (and others') belief that Obama supporters/potential voters would either be too ignorant or stupid to realize he was missing and would be unable to spell his name correctly).
BUT, during a Q&A session, an 8-year-old boy raised a point to a Kansas electoral board representative--wasn't Mitt Romney's father, George, born in Mexico? And wasn't this foreign-born politician employed in Nixon's cabinet without a single person questioning if he should be allowed to be appointed considering his Mexican heritage?
The message quickly trickled down to Montgomery who abruptly rescinded his application (though he did not cite his reasoning for doing so...).
Now, I could take the obvious route and explicate the faulty logic and reasoning from Montgomery's idea's inception, or I could point out that while the "birther" debate was in full gear and McCain was campaigning in complete support of it, no one brought up that McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which at the time was a US base, but is no longer a US territory, making him, through semantics, a real "foreign-born" citizen.
But instead I'll assert a sweeping generalization: the GOP count on the gullibility and naivety of many of their voters, and on the omission of specific details and facts in order to spin an issue in their favor, and then reprimand anyone who questions it and labels that person as a "traitor" to the party or "unAmerican."
They have tried to rig election times in several states, most notably Ohio, in order to eliminate votes for "the enemy." They also focus on intimidation factors. If you, like me, turned into the two political conventions, you saw a vastly different rhetoric from one camp to the other. The democrats chose a "we can do this" attitude, and a "how can the GOP possibly fix American when they did this to America" theme, while asserting with facts and proof that Clinton created some of the most prosperous years in recent American history, from both a Democratic and Republican perspective. The GOP, on the other hand, took a belligerent, accusatory and violent approach in which they likened the president to a domestic terrorist, and supporter of those who wish to destroy America. Furthermore, they linked him to several recent atrocities: the Aurora movie theater shooting, and the deaths of US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
They are using bully tactics, fact manipulation and just plain lies in their approach to oust Obama. The above example is clearly a metaphor, meant to make you, the reader, reconsider what is "truth," and who is manipulating the facts and for whose benefit? Does a multi-millionaire really care what happens to poor citizens he will never see, or does he care more about an image, a crusade and a defense of policies that are decades behind our current world.
Our world is not one in which we can build a fence to keep Mexicans out, and it is not a world in which we can bully every country we don't like into halting their nuclear programs. It is not a world in which we can tell two people they are not allowed to be in love, nor is it a world in which we can pretend the plights of those in other countries will not affect us, nor is it a world in which we can pretend we are loved, and mandated with a purpose to police, bully and choose for others their lives. We are America and should stand as a beacon, not a wall. We should help not hurt, hinder or harass. We lead by example and strive for peace not war, for transparency not lies, and for a better future for all our children and fellow humans, not just the privileged, protected and primped.
No comments:
Post a Comment