Foaming at the Mouth

Ted Cruz is announcing his candidacy for the U.S. presidency today, the anniversary of the passing of Obamacare, and much of the media and the looney left are foaming at the mouth with hatred. This morning on the MSNBC show, Morning Joe, both Mika Brzezinski and Donnie ("often wrong but never in doubt") Deutsch could not come up with enough derisive adjectives to express their disdain for this Texas senator. I had to switch channels.

Despite his legacy of media pans and even some Republican critics, Ted Cruz will be a formidable candidate for his perspicacity and combativeness. He is a very good debater and is well versed on all the critical issues facing our nation. Beyond his mediocre polls and the vitriol likely to come his way from many talking heads in the days ahead, I would not count him out. I personally would prefer the somewhat softer-edged Hispanic, Marco Rubio, as the Republican candidate ... but, like the surprising comment from John McCann, if Cruz becomes his party's candidate, I would support him.

It may be that, given how our current Emperor is doing his damnedest to diminish this country, by the time the next election comes around, we may have the appetite for a little more militancy on the part of the Republican candidate. If Hillary Clinton or some other female is the Democrat candidate, then it may well be another election pitting the head against the heart ... a contest that, this time, could well favor the head ... someone like the " courageous conservative" Cruz.

Open Borders

A self-described “super liberal” friend said yesterday that he believed in open borders … no constraints whatsoever on who might enter the United States. This attitude stems, I believe, from equating today’s situation with the waves of immigrants that have historically populated this country and, obviously, made it stronger. To me this is a false equivalence for a number of reasons:

1)     Past legal immigration was closely monitored to keep out aliens that had contagious diseases. Our former federal processing centers on the east and west coast would send such individuals back home or quarantine them until they were deemed safe to be released into the general population. Even illegal immigrants, once caught, would be so processed. Today the Obama administration is threatening doctors who raise the specter of such a public health crises as a result of this new wave of unprocessed illegal immigrants … see: Fox News Story.

If we were to have open borders, not only would we surely suffer a number of such epidemics, but we also would be inundated with dangerous plant, animal and insect invaders brought into our country under such uncontrolled circumstances. Imagine the Asian jumping carp or the winter moth times a thousand!

2)     In past times, immigrants of all stripes were expected to be self reliant and not go on the public dole. In fact existing U.S. citizens were required to guarantee in writing that this would not occur. Today, given the monumental growth of the welfare state, no such checks exist. The pull of free money and free high-quality health care is what draws many illegal and legal immigrants to this country… see: Breitbart Story.

If our Social Security System is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, how will it pay for millions more foreigners who never contributed a penny, yet are or will be receiving its benefits? And, if we don’t have enough doctors to treat our returning veterans, how in heaven’s name are we going to minister to the influx of all of the world’s infirmed who can make it to our shores?

3)     The United States has awoken, as a result of the 9/11 World Trade Center heinous attack, to the dangers of international terrorism, particularly that of radical Islam. Open borders would virtually guarantee that we would be inundated with such bad apples wishing to establish a caliphate here … and lop off the head of anyone who objects. I guess my liberal friend thinks that, he, being of an age, would escape unharmed … but I doubt if his progeny would.

4)     In the past, America was a "melting pot" for the millions of our immigrants. Today, this country is not assimilating immigrants to the same degree that it once did. There are now many communities of transnationals which have established themselves as microcosms of their native land. Newer Internet and television technology has enabled them to never learn English nor adapt to the American culture … even after multiple generations. (Islamic honor killings still occur in this country on a regular basis.) Yes, this diversity can enrich American culture, but the reverse is also true … if it were allowed or even forced to happen.

5)     Last point … a tsunami of immigrants into the U.S. would have an incalculable impact on the economics of both this country and the countries from which they emigrated.  Open U.S. borders would most likely draw people from both ends of the bell curve … the affluent and the impoverished of the world. Yes, Silicone Valley would get all the engineers it wants (at cheaper rates than today), but also the trade unions would be annulated by the availability of building-trade workers at well below today’s wage rates.

We see this already happening. Would these people be visible to the IRS and local governments?  Probably not.  Therefore, the only solution to the ability of governments to survive would be to impose a value-added (national sales) tax.  And of course, this would very likely be on top of existing taxes which would squeeze the middle class in this country to the point of near extinction.

Even the European Union is considering re-establishing internal border controls as a result of problems occurring there due to illegal immigrants … see: Notre-Europe Story. No, I am quite sure that open borders in the United States would be horrendously distorting and a disaster of monumental proportions. We need a lot more head and much less heart in this debate (and in our administration).

Mr. Cool

The then Senator Obama once told Harry Reid that his "gift" was being able to read from a teleprompter so easily.  That certainly is true, but he has a much larger asset ... and that is his "coolness".  Marshall McLuhan once prophetically observed that television is a cool medium.  And President Obama fits this medium like a chamois glove.  He even strides "cool."  I seldom can watch him perform on television without singing to myself that old 1959 Coasters' song Charlie Brown:

Who walks in the classroom, cool and slow
Who calls the English teacher, Daddy-O      (see: All Lyrics)

So, in the upcoming Presidential election, Obama (I like to call him The Barry to reprise that other cool media character, The Donald), has the natural advantage in the upcoming debates.  Neither Rick Santorum nor Mitt Romney nor Newt Gingrich are particularly cool personalities ... Romney is cooler than the other two, but still boiling hot compared to The Barry.  What does this suggest?  To me, it implies that, if the election is determined on emotion (as it was in 2008), Obama will win in a walk.  However, if the U.S. electorate chooses to view things this fall with a preponderance of logic, then Obama will loose in a landslide.  It should turn out to be a classic battle between the head and the heart.

And what will determine the mood of electorate then?  My guess would be the degree of angst (created by the world situation) that is roiling the voters ... the hotter things are, the less well "coolness" will play.