Ted Cruz: It's Always Sad when the Name is a Misnomer.
In legitimizing Ted Cruz' run for the U.S. presidency, people talk about Romney (born in Mexico) and McCain (Panama Canal Zone) and Barry Goldwater (born in Arizona before it was a state). All lost their presidential bid and that is reason enough for any major party to eschew the candidacy of the foreign born but one must try to understand the intent of the founding fathers and that intent is as clear as a pledge of allegiance. If a candidate is born elsewhere (I, BTW, would have added "and must have had a primary residence in the U.S. for their first 35 years of life and lived there for 9 months out of every one of those 35 years," to Article II), there is a greater chance of bias towards the nation of birth. It is not absolute but you are led to wonder what Germany would have done without the moustachioed Austrian and what France would have done without the Corsican. [Germany has done well especially with such things as Apple Corporation seeing fit to give her the lion's share of each iPhone sale but was this because the Third Reich failed?]
Why this xenophobia on my part? I believe that allegiance to the group is a well-documented phenomenon and a necessary one if the group is to maintain its coherence and when someone is influenced by a foreign culture either directly or through friends and/or family, you can't possibly have the kind of allegiance to the homeland that a presidency requires. Especially because one of the two major duties of a president is to make treaties. Can we be 100% certain that Ted Cruz has zero allegiance to Canada or to the old Cuba? Is it just a coincidence that he co-sponsored the Keystone XL pipeline (which helps Canada more than it helps us)? Is it just a coincidence that both his parents worked in the Alberta, Canada oil fields? He has said that although his father once fought for Castro, the father has since changed his mind. But what if--like President Obama whose Indonesian Step-father imparted Darwinist tendencies on him--Cruz becomes president and with paternal influences and along with fellow Cuban-Americans, Menendez and Rubio, orchestrates another Bay of Pigs which would again be doomed to fail because the people there are generally supportive of the regime? What road would the Castro brothers take?
It's not that the foreign born cannot have proper allegiance. Surely, all those mentioned in the 1st paragraph were patriotic but Goldwater wanted to have a heavy finger on the nukes (did he feel he'd be safe in Arizona?); Romney, who knows how he may have overcompensated with regard to our Southern Neighbor so that he would not be called anything but "Gringo." McCain, I doubt carried any Panamanian registries but if he had, it would have been no different than that of Mr. Obama helping out Hawaii in a generous fashion should the need have occurred, or Kennedy helping out Massachusetts, or Christie the hopeful helping out New Jersey during the next Sandy.
But the most telling black mark is that he renounced his Canadian citizenship (and allegiance?) only recently. Mr. Cruz held his two cards and only dumped one of them when the rules of game called for it. He says, according to a Wikipedia article, that his mother told him she would have to apply for Canadian citizenship on his behalf and that, ipso facto, it meant he wasn't a bona fide Canadian citizen. But if that's the case, why does he now have to renounce? If he never had it, why the necessity to renounce? What say you, Mr. Dershowitz?
Mr. Cruz is well-qualified to run for the presidency. His policies, welcomed by some and bemoaned by others, tend to be libertarian and I would have no qualms about it if only libertarians understood that most of us want to help our less fortunate brethren and feel that only government can do it (with our funds, we know and agree). Unfortunately, I see an element of Batista the dictator in Mr. Cruz, libertarians, and the GOP and to some extent, even the present Dems.
[This quote is from a Wikipedia article on Batista]
"Back in power, Batista suspended the 1940 Constitution and revoked most political liberties, including the right to strike. He then aligned with the wealthiest landowners who owned the largest sugar plantations, and presided over a stagnating economy that widened the gap between rich and poor Cubans.[5] Batista's increasingly corrupt and repressive government then began to systematically profit from the exploitation of Cuba's commercial interests, by negotiating lucrative relationships with the American mafia, who controlled the drug, gambling, and prostitution businesses in Havana, and with large multinational American corporations that had invested considerable amounts of money in Cuba.[5][6] To quell the growing discontent amongst the populace—which was subsequently displayed through frequent student riots and demonstrations—Batista established tighter censorship of the media, while also utilizing his anti-Communist secret police to carry out wide-scale violence, torture and public executions; ultimately killing anywhere from 1,000 to 20,000 people.[7][8] For several years until 1959, the Batista government received financial, military, and logistical support from the United States.[9] "
The Libertarian elements are these: drug, gambling, and prostitution were legal (to be fair, Mr. Cruz is against Marijuana even though the tide of public opinion is against him on this). Also, Batista didn't give a hoot about widening the gap between rich and poor which is typical GOP and libertarian. Hooking up with the wealthy, Batista played the role of every U.S. politician--not just Republicans (we are finding out more and more). The concept of "censorship of the media" is interesting for here in the U.S. we don't exactly censor the media (Democracy Now is still allowed to function) but we merely prevent transparency and jail whistle-blowers (same thing). The exploitation of Cuba's commercial interests through partnerships with large multinational American corporations is the reason why Cruz, Menendez, and Rubio attack Castro and the hapless Cuban population mercilessly. Batista also had a boogeyman--the communists. In a crazy irony, Castro was said to initially disdain communism and may have only embraced it through fear of U.S. policy. We now note that Mr. Cruz signed that letter to Iran and we wonder, what would Iran do if Mr. Obama's peace initiative fails and they feel cornered by the non-diplomacy of Mr. Cruz. [Did anyone notice Batista's revocation of the right to strike vis-a-vis that other Republican candidate, Mr. Walker? Also, his use of torture (Mr. Bush) and public executions (Obama drones)?]
Finally, Mr. Cruz, we, the American Citizenry have learned valuable lessons post Eisenhower and post Carter and any positives you or any other candidate may have will always be suspect. If you want me to be more supportive, lay it out in a brief suitable for the Nine.
Why this xenophobia on my part? I believe that allegiance to the group is a well-documented phenomenon and a necessary one if the group is to maintain its coherence and when someone is influenced by a foreign culture either directly or through friends and/or family, you can't possibly have the kind of allegiance to the homeland that a presidency requires. Especially because one of the two major duties of a president is to make treaties. Can we be 100% certain that Ted Cruz has zero allegiance to Canada or to the old Cuba? Is it just a coincidence that he co-sponsored the Keystone XL pipeline (which helps Canada more than it helps us)? Is it just a coincidence that both his parents worked in the Alberta, Canada oil fields? He has said that although his father once fought for Castro, the father has since changed his mind. But what if--like President Obama whose Indonesian Step-father imparted Darwinist tendencies on him--Cruz becomes president and with paternal influences and along with fellow Cuban-Americans, Menendez and Rubio, orchestrates another Bay of Pigs which would again be doomed to fail because the people there are generally supportive of the regime? What road would the Castro brothers take?
It's not that the foreign born cannot have proper allegiance. Surely, all those mentioned in the 1st paragraph were patriotic but Goldwater wanted to have a heavy finger on the nukes (did he feel he'd be safe in Arizona?); Romney, who knows how he may have overcompensated with regard to our Southern Neighbor so that he would not be called anything but "Gringo." McCain, I doubt carried any Panamanian registries but if he had, it would have been no different than that of Mr. Obama helping out Hawaii in a generous fashion should the need have occurred, or Kennedy helping out Massachusetts, or Christie the hopeful helping out New Jersey during the next Sandy.
But the most telling black mark is that he renounced his Canadian citizenship (and allegiance?) only recently. Mr. Cruz held his two cards and only dumped one of them when the rules of game called for it. He says, according to a Wikipedia article, that his mother told him she would have to apply for Canadian citizenship on his behalf and that, ipso facto, it meant he wasn't a bona fide Canadian citizen. But if that's the case, why does he now have to renounce? If he never had it, why the necessity to renounce? What say you, Mr. Dershowitz?
Mr. Cruz is well-qualified to run for the presidency. His policies, welcomed by some and bemoaned by others, tend to be libertarian and I would have no qualms about it if only libertarians understood that most of us want to help our less fortunate brethren and feel that only government can do it (with our funds, we know and agree). Unfortunately, I see an element of Batista the dictator in Mr. Cruz, libertarians, and the GOP and to some extent, even the present Dems.
[This quote is from a Wikipedia article on Batista]
"Back in power, Batista suspended the 1940 Constitution and revoked most political liberties, including the right to strike. He then aligned with the wealthiest landowners who owned the largest sugar plantations, and presided over a stagnating economy that widened the gap between rich and poor Cubans.[5] Batista's increasingly corrupt and repressive government then began to systematically profit from the exploitation of Cuba's commercial interests, by negotiating lucrative relationships with the American mafia, who controlled the drug, gambling, and prostitution businesses in Havana, and with large multinational American corporations that had invested considerable amounts of money in Cuba.[5][6] To quell the growing discontent amongst the populace—which was subsequently displayed through frequent student riots and demonstrations—Batista established tighter censorship of the media, while also utilizing his anti-Communist secret police to carry out wide-scale violence, torture and public executions; ultimately killing anywhere from 1,000 to 20,000 people.[7][8] For several years until 1959, the Batista government received financial, military, and logistical support from the United States.[9] "
The Libertarian elements are these: drug, gambling, and prostitution were legal (to be fair, Mr. Cruz is against Marijuana even though the tide of public opinion is against him on this). Also, Batista didn't give a hoot about widening the gap between rich and poor which is typical GOP and libertarian. Hooking up with the wealthy, Batista played the role of every U.S. politician--not just Republicans (we are finding out more and more). The concept of "censorship of the media" is interesting for here in the U.S. we don't exactly censor the media (Democracy Now is still allowed to function) but we merely prevent transparency and jail whistle-blowers (same thing). The exploitation of Cuba's commercial interests through partnerships with large multinational American corporations is the reason why Cruz, Menendez, and Rubio attack Castro and the hapless Cuban population mercilessly. Batista also had a boogeyman--the communists. In a crazy irony, Castro was said to initially disdain communism and may have only embraced it through fear of U.S. policy. We now note that Mr. Cruz signed that letter to Iran and we wonder, what would Iran do if Mr. Obama's peace initiative fails and they feel cornered by the non-diplomacy of Mr. Cruz. [Did anyone notice Batista's revocation of the right to strike vis-a-vis that other Republican candidate, Mr. Walker? Also, his use of torture (Mr. Bush) and public executions (Obama drones)?]
Finally, Mr. Cruz, we, the American Citizenry have learned valuable lessons post Eisenhower and post Carter and any positives you or any other candidate may have will always be suspect. If you want me to be more supportive, lay it out in a brief suitable for the Nine.
Comments
Post a Comment