Skip to content

Dimwits Unite

September 18, 2015

So, during a Republican presidential “debate,” a Donald Trump supporter claimed chief executive Barack Obama was not an American, and that he was Muslim. Trump made no effort to correct this. This has made news like all the other carnival stunts he’s pulled lately. This is why I use the term “debate” loosely—it hardly performs the necessary function, given who we’re allowed to choose from notwithstanding these publicity events.

I’ll be honest, I don’t watch TV and I don’t really have time to keep up with the campaigns. I don’t think it would matter since we don’t really get a choice of people running for office who would do better for us anyway. Look at what happened with Ron Paul. But this issue has an underlying problem I think we should address.

I have done my best to ignore Trump because I know what he is. He’s not a presidential candidate in any serious intent—or he is and God help us—but more than anything, he’s the distraction from potential candidates who may actually benefit the electorate, as well as a distraction from those who are even worse if they are actually in power and we aren’t encouraged to anticipate that before we vote for them. Why risk having a candidate who may improve our lot at the expense of the plutocracy (perhaps one like Bernie Sanders?) when we could be so easily amused and misled by a misogynist, bigoted blowhard instead? Or, why risk preventing a terrible candidate from being elected when he or she could facilitate this corrupt system just fine: one who would be a horrible leader like, for example, a woman whose poor leadership cost lives in the foreign diplomatic services, for whom she has no concern?

It’s simpler to distract us. “Something shiny and with a bad haircut! Look over here!”

That’s why Trump gets so much attention and only those in the nascent monarchy, Bush and Clinton stock, are given the tacit approval for their campaigns. Everyone else is marginalized or little more than a bad joke. Meanwhile, the media panders to the iron triangle (a. k. a. the military-industrial complex), we purport to be a republic when we behave like fascists or an empire outright across the world more often than not, and our government functions as an oligarchy with the elected legislatures so corrupt or inept the important matters are not decided by voters. They are settled by suits living off wages at least three times that of the working class, the moot electoral majority.

All of this is off-topic, however. The Trump supporter who did, in fact, slander the duplicitous dumbass, the Dronemaster himself, was not necessarily wrong in full. If he was factually right to any degree, it would be wrong to consider that information inherently insulting. I’ll explain.

  1. Firstly, saying Obama is not American is subjective if not in a legal context, and not a point anyone can necessarily contest however biased the judgment is. Any one of us could think another was un-American in a cultural or political sense. It would be an opinion, even if it is an inflammatory one. It is only legally wrong if it starts a riot or rebellion, and while it may be incorrect, people think what they want regardless of outside input in many cases. We all know this. The Dronemaster and unworthy recipient of a Nobel peace prize, though, is a legal American citizen. Even if he wasn’t initially and every document saying so was falsified (which is well in his power to do, as the chief executive and leader of all naturalization agencies of the United States, so you know), as far as documentation is concerned, Obama is legal.

The Trump supporter may still have a point about the chief executive being no American, but that would be a subjective statement and not necessarily something one can prove. The bare minimum involves how he forced through the Affordable Care Act—and an act it is—that is federal statute in direct conflict with the enumerated powers doctrine and in obvious violation of the First Article of the Bill of Rights, which makes him a traitor to the U. S. Constitution. This back birth law is enough to say Obama is only an American if one qualifies the supposition with his equal status as a traitor, as well. But that is (evidently) a minority opinion. Even the Supreme Court didn’t see it this way, which is an appalling failure of the most fundamental Constitutional interpretation. But what can you do?

  1. Secondly, the main point I wanted to make here: calling Obama a Muslim should not be considered an insult to him. If anything, it should be considered an insult to Muslims. We simply don’t know if he is Muslim, Christian, or atheist at heart. He’s a politician and as such he is of a category generally without faith or morals in any meaningful way. He swore in on the Qur’an as a Congressman in Illinois to sate his voter base out of Chicago, then pretended to be the all-American boy so he could be elected to the Oval Office. Now he implies, or says directly, he’s Christian so it meshes with the acceptable social norm better. Clearly he says what works and religion has little relative value. This should surprise no one.

The reason I focus on the “Muslim” statement of the Trump supporter is because the man intended the—what, accusation?—it to be a detraction. It isn’t and that is really why Trump was wrong in not correcting the statement, at least to clarify the fact we can’t be sure what religion Obama is. It doesn’t matter what Obama considers himself if it has no negative effect on how he does the job. If he is Islamic, Muslim, or whatever (I don’t actually know what term would be more precise and true) and he has no consequent sympathies for enemies of the state or threats to our culture, so what? He is a liar and an idiot, but he’s entitled to whatever faith he wants to practice. If that interferes with the job he’s taken, that matters. Otherwise it doesn’t have any bearing. Therefore, we shouldn’t tolerate implicit superiority of one culture or religion over another in our political discourse. That’s why the comment was wrong. It weakens us and opens doors for those who use our system against the people. That constitutes a threat to all of us.

But are we going to play into the Trump charade and, at the same time, act surprised when he doesn’t display an equitable demeanor about the leader of an opposing political party? Give me a break.

Inherently, no one religion is superior to another, and we can safely presume this Trump supporter believes Islam or cultures related to its strongest region are fundamentally suspect or insufficient somehow. He seemed to think being Muslim, or having sympathy for Muslims, makes one automatically suspect with regards to organizations like ISIS. This Trump supporter also likely thinks Christianity is intrinsically better, and Obama is wrong or dangerous for not being one. It’s an invalid, close-minded point to make.

I don’t like Trump because he’s either a moron or a grandstander, if not both, and I think the political system we have here is a farce. But part of that pretense involves sociocultural arrogance over the East, Muslim culture, and over any number of other civilizations with at least as many accomplishments or rights to be expressed in a republic, like the United States of America is supposed to be. This is not something we should overlook, even when other issues are highlighted by biased questions of a nitwit.

Leave a Comment

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: