Initial
comment: Later, in this essay, I'll get into why I think Senator
Ted Cruz is a self-hating Hispanic, in much the same way as there are
(to cite a well-known example) such persons as self-hating Jews.
HA v.
RC: The second wants to deny to the first his right to be Iran's
ambassador to the UN. The second is none other than Texas's very own
Senator Ted Cruz, his real name being Rafael Edward Cruz – the
“Ted” not appearing on his recently released birth certificate.
The
man who promotes himself as Ted Cruz, who was listed as Ted Cruz on
the Texas ballot for US Senator, is guilty of fraud. His name was and
is Raphael Cruz, a name which was never legally changed. So why did
the Texas election authorities allow Ted Cruz to be listed on the
ballot and not insist that Raphael Cruz be listed? If Cruz becomes
the GOP presidential nominee in 2016, I hope the feds insist that his
proper and legal name of Raphael Cruz be listed on the ballot.
“Ted”
is bothered by the fact Hamid, when he was 21-years-old, was involved
in the seizure of US diplomats during the Carter administration.
“Ted” didn't bother to note whether Hamid engaged in any other
anti-US activities after the age of 21, though Hamid says he wasn't
directly involved in seizing the hostages back in 1979. He merely
fulfilled some minor role as a translator. But Cruz insists on
settling old scores (which some people never tire of doing over and
over again) and in guilt by association with a group that called
those US diplomats a “nest of spies” - which of course they were.
So
there we have it: “Ted” wants to hold Hamid hostage for something
he did as a young man of 21. Which is ironic given that “Ted”
didn't have any problem holding the entire US Senate (and nation)
hostage (at the far more mature age of 42) when he gave his
narcissistic, fundraising-motivated Green Eggs and Ham speech. Doubly
ironic is that Senate Republicans allowed him to do this, when it was
entirely within their power to stop him. And these very same
Republicans voted to hold hostage the UN seat intended for
Aboutalebi.
The
entire House and Senate – and Barack Obama – acted in a cowardly
manner by passing “Ted the
Cruise Missile”* Cruz's bill, S.2195, which had this
unwieldy title:
To
deny admission to the United States to any representative to the
United Nations who has been found to have been engaged in espionage
activities or a terrorist activity against the United States and
poses a threat to United States national security interests.
Side
note 1: The four words highlighted in yellow in S.2195's title
weren't highlighted by Cruz, but by me. Cruz et al cited only this
one incident in Aboutalebi's life (again, when HA was 21-years-old).
So it can't be reasonably assumed that he still poses
a threat to US national security interests – but who said
reason has anything to do with this whole sordid affair?
Side
note 2: All this bill does is give the US President the power to
deny a visa to such a person, and obviously leaves it up to his
judgment in the final decision of whether to issue a visa. But you
may be very sure of one thing: If Obama were to issue a visa to Hamid
Aboutalebi, the GOP would be crawling all over his ass in fierce,
self-righteous denunciation. And sending letters to the base asking
for their money to help elect a Republican who will surely revoke
that visa after assuming power in 2016.
I
mentioned cowardly manner
in magenta a few paragraphs above. In the case of the House and
Senate, Cruz's bill passed by unanimous consent. That means, no roll
call vote was taken, with the presumption that passage was unanimous.
But...unanimous consent isn't the same as passing a bill unanimously.
The
former allows Congressmen, most likely liberal Democrats, to later
claim, “I never voted for this bill,” which would be literally
true. In a private moment of candor, they could tell Iranian
officials meeting in their offices, “Look, none of us could
possibly have stood up and voted against this bill. Senator Cruz and
the GOP, which are still viciously hostile to anything that might
favor Iran, would have crucified us before a US electorate still
smarting over the 1979 Hostage Crisis. And if I had voted against
this bill and the GOP was able to hound me out of office, we wouldn't
be meeting here today to talk about support for a current trade bill
you favor.”
As
for Obama's cowardly manner,
he didn't have to sign Cruz's bill. He could have taken a “Do the
right thing” kind of stand by saying, “The Iranians are right
when they claim we don't have the right to bar their UN ambassador.
That would be a violation of international law. I
will veto Senator Raphael
Cruz's bill, which of
course the Congress could pass by overriding my veto. But even if
they do, I will use that same bill as the basis for my authority to
issue a visa to Dr. Aboutalebi since he does not pose any threat to
our national security interests. And that is what this bill tries to
address, people who pose such threats. End of story. Have a nice day,
Raphael!”
But
Barack Obama did not have the courage to say such a thing. Instead,
he chose to create yet another example of American Exceptionalism as
a doctrine which really means: “We can do whatever we want because
God thinks we're special and we don't need anyone's stinking rules to
thwart His divine edict.”
A
Brief Comparison: Hamid Aboutalebi and Raphael Cruz
The
following from Wikipedia shows that Dr. Aboutalebi did something with
his life after the tender age of 21, an age when a lot of us did some
really stupid stuff. As you can see, the good doctor has quite an
impressive academic pedigree:
QUOTE:
Aboutalebi
obtained his Ph.D. in historical sociology from Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven in 1999, after having completed master's degrees
in sociology (from Sorbonne Nouvelle University, Paris) and in the
history of Islamic civilization and culture (from Tehran University).
Aboutalebi also earned his bachelor's degree in sociology from
Tehran University.[4]
His
professional publications include Basic Challenges of U.S Foreign
Policy towards Iran (2009),[5] Rocky Mountains of Nuclear Extremism
(2009),[6] Turkey: Modern Diplomacy and New Ottoman Caliphate
(2009),[7] and New Challenges of Iran Foreign Policy towards U.S.
(2010).[8] He published Anthropology of Ethics; First Volume of
Philosophy of Social Ethics in 2013.[4]
:UNQUOTE.
As
for Senator “Ted” Cruz, as I stated at the very beginning, he is
a self-hating Hispanic. My point being: Anyone who hates himself for
any reason will make a career of overcompensating to prove how worthy
of his own love he really is. And such people will find a lot of
other things to hate, thereby making them unworthy to become
President of the United States.
I
offer the following considerations in support of my claim that Cruz
is self-hating:
Nothing
is more important than one's good name. His loving parents named him
Raphael Edward Cruz – and that's the handle he should have proudly
borne his entire life. To have allowed his name to appear on the
Texas ballot for Senate as “Ted,” shows a certain shame and
willingness to pander – the latter quality which only got worse as
time went on.
Maybe
this is what Cruz fears the most: If he were to start – right now –
going by the name Raphael, his Tea Party supporters wouldn't be as
entranced by his words. They'd be squinting to see his face better
and start thinking, “Say, he does look Hispanic, doesn't he? He
sure doesn't look like one of us, the people who count. I wonder
where his loyalty really lies, in spite of what he's saying.” That
kind of thinking bothers Cruz so much, he'd rather deny his own name
and the self-love that goes with it.
Cruz
was a noted debater during his stellar collegiate career. I look upon
debaters with an extremely jaundiced eye as being glorified spin
mesiters who are good at thinking quickly on their feet. Nothing
intrinsically wrong with that, but didn't we have problems with
another accomplished rhetorician – one Barack Obama? You remember
him: The “Change you can believe in” candidate who spoke
eloquently in broad outlines in front of delirious throngs of
supporters desperate to believe.
The
problem with Obama: I was one of the few who actually read and posted
an on-line analysis of his article in Foreign Affairs magazine,
outlining certain policy initiatives. Anyone who read that article
would have concluded as I did, “There's not much difference between
George W. Bush and this guy.” But...nobody read my analysis, and
not many more actually read his essay in more than just a glance.
So
when it comes to the virtues of skillful debaters, I'll tell you this
much: When Cruz gets around to writing down what he'd do if elected
President in 2016, I will cut him down to size. What I've seen of his
writing so far has not impressed me, but no one ever claimed that was
his strong suit. However, as with Obama, I'm afraid no one will read
my Cruz analysis.
The
we come to the issue of faith – Raphael Cruz is a Southern Baptist.
My very strong belief is that no one with a brain could possibly be a
Southern Baptist. Or at least, no one with an engaged brain. I don't
care how intelligent Cruz is supposed to be; if he doesn't direct at
least some of that intelligence toward the crucial area of faith,
then he does himself and all of us (if he'd ever try to lead this
nation as President) a profound disservice.
Cruz's
refusal to direct his inquiring mind into matters of faith speaks
volumes on self-hatred. If he really sufficiently loved himself, he
wouldn't have allowed others to dictate his choice of faith. [Just
what could he have possibly meant when he said, “I'm Cuban, Irish,
and Italian, and yet somehow I ended up Southern Baptist.”?
“Somehow” doesn't quite cut it.] Deep down inside, I'm sure he
knows how bogus is Southern Baptism; just as I'm just as sure Newt
Gingrich knows deep down inside how bogus is the Roman Catholicism
he'd converted to – mostly to please his wife.
But
poor Raphael Cruz could never allow himself the right to choose his
own faith. Since his self-hatred is so profound, he couldn't have
tolerated the loss of love from outsiders he'd gain by “choosing”
as he did. But Cruz's real “choice” was simply to shut his own
brain down and not think this through as capably as he could have.
As
for the issue of Cruz's dual citizenship – of Canada and the United
States. Only after it was brought to his attention that dual
citizenship might prove problematic to any viable candidacy for the
presidency did Cruz make any move to renounce his Canadian
citizenship. Cruz didn't think anything wrong with being a dual
citizen for his entire adult life. [Oh, and he better not try to
claim he didn't know he was dual – that would be like saying, “I
didn't know who I was.” Say, what?]
Citizenship
is a large part of what forms our identity. And if Cruz is willing to
jettison his Canadian self in order to pander for votes, then I am
saddened that he doesn't love that his Canadian enough to fight for
it. By the way, keeping his dual-citizenship would not have created
any Constitutional problem with his right to seek the US Presidency.
Sure, there are people who will claim otherwise, but they are wrong.
A
brief note on “natural born citizen”:
The
Constitution simply says, “No person except a natural born citizen,
or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of
this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President...”
This whole “natural born citizen” business was meant to blunt any
attempt by foreign powers to “invade” the presidency for their
own ends. However, and this gets interesting, the Supreme Court long
ago upheld the “natural born citizen” status of a Chinese child
born in the United States to two Chinese parents who were not US
citizens. It could be argued that the influence of these parents upon
their child could have prejudiced him against US culture and
interests, which would have mattered if that child had ever been
elected president.
It
can't be argued that Cruz suffered from any such negative parental
input.
Some
will try to argue that Cruz has to prove his mother lived in the
United States for 10 years as a citizen in order for her to be able
to convey her citizenship upon her new-born son. That might very well
be how the US statute read at the time of Cruz's birth, but the
Constitution doesn't say anything about a 10 year requirement. Yes,
Democrats might try to make some noise about this, but the law is on
Raphael Cruz's side.
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven
Searle, just another member of the
Virtual
Samgha of the Lotus and
former
candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012,
and,
no, I won't be running again because
I
renounced my US citizenship 3 years ago)
Footnote:
“Ted
the Cruise Missile”* - I call him “the Cruise Missile”
in “honor” of those in our “defense” and “security”
establishments who don't mind sending in cruise missiles to kill the
innocent, just as long as there's a “reasonable” chance of
blowing away some suspected terrorists. “Ted” Cruz seems very
much like a collateral damage kind of guy – with a very broad range
of what he considers acceptable collateral damage.
