Hypocrisy of "birther" candidates
After seven or eight years of drama about President Barack Obama's place of birth in the US state of Hawaii, the hypocritical Republicans are now in a position of defending their own birth places. This debate should be funny, but it's ludicrous. "Birtherism" goes alongside "Creationism" as being two of most bizarre attributes of right wing candidates and their followers. (Donald Trump is a circus barker leader of President Obama's "birther" conspiracy theory.)
It makes no sense to post mortem birtherism, when all the evidence supports President Obama's birth being in Honolulu, Hawaii. Likewise, there's no geological or archelological evidence whatsoever about the age of planet earth, having somehow been created in a series of seven days. Obviously, Republicans are ignorant about facts, even when they're unable to produce evidence to the contrary.
It turns out, several Republican candidates for president were born outside of the US. In fact, Senator John McCain was born on an American military base in Panama and Governor Mitt Romney, who was born in Mexico, when his parents were Morman missionaries.
How completely ridiculous it is for voters to be fed a line of constitutional mumbo jumbo about birther qualifications for presidential leadership while our nation needs inspired leadership. Nevertheless, of all the candidates who have an anamolie in their place of birth, it's Senator Ted Cruz who has the least credibility. Although several other candidates have been born outside of the US, the fact is, Senator Cruz "to loose" was born in Canadian soil and only in the last 18 months renounced his Canadian citizenship. Now, honestly, "Cruz to loose" surely doesn't make a convincing case for wanting to be president of the United States, when he only recently made the decision to give up his birth citizenship!
"Birtherism" discussions are a waste of time. Rather, it makes more sense to ask Republicans how they can hypocritically be "anti-immigration reform" or resistant to a path to citizenship for non-citizens, when many in their own ranks were born in another country!
Where a presidential candidate was born points out the Republican hypocrisy of being unable to speak with credibility about immigration reform. Republicans must change their caustic anti-immigration positions. Instead, they should be forthcoming in favor of immiration reforms to create an easier path to citizenship for people born in the US, but who have immigrant parents.
On the other hand, Senator Ted Cruz is unqualified to be president of the United States for reasons other than his Canadian place of birth. When he renounced Canadian citizenship, he should've also stood up to support stronger gun purchase background checks. More importabnt than his birth place, he should speak nobly about his US Senate colleagues, rather than calling them a "cartel". Also, he should offer solutions to international crises (like the North Korean nuclear threat), rather than using corny words like "folly", to describe American foriegn policy.
Birtherism is ludicrious but not important when selecting our leader of the free world.
It turns out, several Republican candidates for president were born outside of the US. In fact, Senator John McCain was born on an American military base in Panama and Governor Mitt Romney, who was born in Mexico, when his parents were Morman missionaries.
How completely ridiculous it is for voters to be fed a line of constitutional mumbo jumbo about birther qualifications for presidential leadership while our nation needs inspired leadership. Nevertheless, of all the candidates who have an anamolie in their place of birth, it's Senator Ted Cruz who has the least credibility. Although several other candidates have been born outside of the US, the fact is, Senator Cruz "to loose" was born in Canadian soil and only in the last 18 months renounced his Canadian citizenship. Now, honestly, "Cruz to loose" surely doesn't make a convincing case for wanting to be president of the United States, when he only recently made the decision to give up his birth citizenship!
"Birtherism" discussions are a waste of time. Rather, it makes more sense to ask Republicans how they can hypocritically be "anti-immigration reform" or resistant to a path to citizenship for non-citizens, when many in their own ranks were born in another country!
Where a presidential candidate was born points out the Republican hypocrisy of being unable to speak with credibility about immigration reform. Republicans must change their caustic anti-immigration positions. Instead, they should be forthcoming in favor of immiration reforms to create an easier path to citizenship for people born in the US, but who have immigrant parents.
On the other hand, Senator Ted Cruz is unqualified to be president of the United States for reasons other than his Canadian place of birth. When he renounced Canadian citizenship, he should've also stood up to support stronger gun purchase background checks. More importabnt than his birth place, he should speak nobly about his US Senate colleagues, rather than calling them a "cartel". Also, he should offer solutions to international crises (like the North Korean nuclear threat), rather than using corny words like "folly", to describe American foriegn policy.
Birtherism is ludicrious but not important when selecting our leader of the free world.
Labels: North Korea, Senator Ted Cruz
posted by Juliana L'Heureux | 5:51 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home