Asking about Obama's citizenship is just racism

After reading Frank Miele’s latest rant in his "Editor's 2 cents" column of Feb. 27, I could not hold myself back any longer and had to add my own two cents’ worth to counter the rubbish he has published the last couple of years.

I do not know where Mr. Miele’s heart lies with regard to the common person, the deprived person, the discriminated-against person, the homeless person, the hard-working person, the struggling person and all of the rest of us who are just trying to make it in this world. It seems to me, after reading countless columns, that Mr. Miele is on the wrong side of most of these people, their issues and their plights.

Mr. Miele’s latest cause, regarding providing proof of citizenship beyond a certified copy of one's birth certificate that states than an individual is a natural-born citizen of the United States in order to qualify to be president of the United States, takes the cake. Tell me sir, would proving one's citizenship beyond this document even be an issue of President Obama were white? Why wasn't this an issue when George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan or any other 100 percent white person was elected as president of the United States?

Isn't this just racism disguised as nationalism or constitutionalism? You and all the rest of those who cling on to this issue should be ashamed of yourselves. You could, of course, look at this from the other side and view President Obama as white, since one of his parents was white. However, it seems to me that those of you who believe the way you do look at race the same way the Nazis did. To them, if someone were part, even a small part, Jewish, they were classified as Jewish, and thus, could be sent to the concentration camps. Therefore, to that way of thinking, President Obama is black by definition and, therefore, should not be "our" president. Again, you should be ashamed of yourself!

With regard to the financial "bailouts" that have been put in place the past couple of years, and which you seem to believe were the wrong approach to cure the ills that existed then, what, may I ask, would you have done instead? Let's go back in history to the New Deal days of FDR. You have criticized this as socialism and not the way our country should have handled the Great Depression. Well, how should we have? There was rampant unemployment after 12 years of Republican presidents. There was the Dust Bowl. The stock market was in the toilet. If it hadn't been for programs such as the TVA, WPA, CCC, the Social Security Act and numerous other programs that FDR implemented, there probably would have been mass starvation, homelessness and possibly mass insurrection such as we are seeing now in the Middle East and North Africa.

The Fat Cats still had their money; it was the common person, the discriminated against person, and the rest of the woebegone who felt the pain. Something had to be done to save these people!

Does this sound familiar to the situation that existed in 2009? If the economic bailouts and funding of jobs programs had not been implemented these last couple of years, millions more of our fellow countrymen would be out on the street right now. The Wall Street and auto industry bailouts saved the jobs of thousands if not millions of workers such as secretaries, maintenance workers, delivery people, assembly line workers, etc., not just those at the top of the food chain such as the stock traders, managers and executives. So, again, I ask you what would you have done differently that would have produced the positive results the bailouts did?

As for states' rights vs. the federal government, again, I believe you are on the wrong side of the argument. When things have been left up to the states, bad things have happened. Jim Crow, age, job and voting discrimination, unequal rights for women and minorities, and segregated housing and schools are just a few of the horrors that have occurred when the states were left to decide these issues for themselves. I wonder where you would stand on this issue if you were one of those who had experienced one or more of these types of discrimination.

It always mystifies me when those of you who disagree with the federal government's helping those who are truly in need or those who are just trying to make it through life with some dignity seem to turn a blind eye to the massive amounts of government subsidies and entitlements that many of the large industries of this country get and seem to always be immune to the budget chopping block.

Large agricultural conglomerates, big oil and the defense industry are just a few examples of industries that receive massive amounts of help. Why don't you call this socialism the same way you call Social Security, Medicare and other federally funded programs socialism? Or don't you, because these programs only help us commoners while those other subsidies help the Fat Cats get even fatter?

Harry Chapin, the late, great folk singer of the 1960s and ’70s, spoke of two kinds of "tired:" "bad" tired and "good" tired. Bad tired is the way you feel after you've fought a battle that you might have even won, but was fought for the wrong reasons; good tired is the way that you might feel after you've fought a battle that you might have lost, but was fought for the right reasons.

Mr Miele, I belive that you go to bed each night feeling BAD TIRED. You are on the wrong side and are fighting for the wrong people. I hope, someday, you will see the error of your ways.

Gaynor is a resident of Whitefish.

(EDITOR’S NOTE: For the record, there have been questions raised about the citizenship of several white candidates for president, including John McCain, George Romney, Barry Goldwater and Chester A. Arthur, our 21st president. The Constitution requires presidents to be natural-born citizens.")