Jorge Ramos - Question from Megan K

Dear CAC:

Jorge Ramos says that everything America does to stop illegal immigration, and to stop immigrant crime, is unfair to Mexico and Mexicans.  Is that true?

Thanks,
Megan K

_________________

Dear Megan K:

Jorge Ramos is unbalanced.  I suggest you and yours stay far from him.  The best cure for a sore is to not pick at it, and the best cure for a virus is to not feed it.

Now, since Jorge is a human being, you might feel inclined to be upset comparing him to a microbe.  That's fine.  Think of him as an insane person, and, as we know, you cannot reason with insane people or drunks.  If you think about it, Jorge is compulsive, obsessive, irrational, and double-minded, all symptoms of someone impaired.

Remember, the more you try to reason with insane people, the more likely you are to go insane yourself.

As for Mexico and Mexicans, every right-thinking Mexican wants America to be a land of opportunity and freedom, not a land of laziness and slavery.  If the United States border means nothing, then every criminal and layabout shall enter, taking opportunity and freedom away from Mexicans!

But let's not stop there.  The cartels, gangs, and mafias in America ALSO need to be cleaned out.  Not for utopia, but for the same freedom and opportunity that Mexicans desire. 

I hope this helps your relationship with Jorge, and your understanding of the situation.

Voter Fraud Question by Mitt From Mass

Dear CAC:

How can we stop voter fraud?

Signed,
Mitt from Mass

_________________

Dear Mitt from Mass:

I'm assuming you've had a bad experience with voter fraud?

The problem lies in two areas, government and the people.

Government seems to collude with voter fraud, embracing it.  Let's say you run for President.  Let's say your opponent commits flagrant voter fraud in, say, Pennsylvania.  Let's say your opponent's voter fraud in Pennsylvania involves "dumping" voters from outside precincts into precincts where such dumping is not going to be challenged.  That is, no authority is going to stop the dumping.  Let's say such dumping in one such precinct results in voter "turnout" of 110% in that precinct.  This is impossible, is it not?  100% is the max for any precinct, correct?  Why wouldn't you, then, as candidate for President, not challenge such impossible percentage and result? Considering the Presidency is on the line, and the campaign has dragged you through the mud, one might rightly think you would fight like the dickens for truth and justice.

In real life, however, such results are hardly ever, or never, challenged.  Whoever challenges is immediately called a "sore loser" and fricasseed.  But even so, if such obvious fraud goes unchallenged, more obvious fraud is sure to follow, for the simple reason that they can get away with it.

Ultimately, if the candidate defrauded does not challenge, maybe that candidate didn't REALLY want to be President after all.  Do you agree?

The people are another issue.  They DO believe there is voter fraud, but if the candidate defrauded is not going to challenge the results, what motivation has the ordinary citizen to challenge the result?  Furthermore, if the citizen's concern is not only ignored, but also pooh-poohed, by the very candidate defrauded, where else can the citizen go?  If the defrauded candidate won't stand up for himself, how can the citizen make the case without the defrauded candidate? 

Ultimately, if the candidate defrauded does not help the citizen to challenge voter fraud, maybe that candidate is OK with voter fraud.  Do you agree?

Thanks for the question!

Vet from Toledo Wants to Know Why ISIS is Not Yet Destroyed

Dear CAC:

I'm confused.  I thought ISIS was our mortal enemy but we never seem to attack them when they parade or are otherwise out in the open, sitting ducks.  I feel like we can defeat ISIS easily if we tried!  Is there some protocol of war I'm missing?

Signed,
Vet from Toledo
_________________

Dear Vet from Toledo:

You're not missing a thing.  In fact, you have pinpointed something very important.  Unfortunately, it goes even deeper.

For decades America has tolerated Muslim extremist strongholds in Dearborn, Michigan, in Virginia, in upstate New York, and elsewhere.  All this while under a supposed zero-tolerance policy for anyone who aids and abets terrorism.  Why?

The United States government boasts of killing Osama bin Laden yet makes devilish deals with his homeland, Saudi Arabia.  Obviously, this is for oil, but America has more oil, coal, natural gas, and atomic energy brainpower than Saudi Arabia could possibly provide.  Yet, the government limits domestic production and even usage, as if these resources don't exist.  Why?

Arabs train for jihadi war at camps in the American Southwest, and in the American Southeast, and, to be clear, all over America.  The authorities do nothing.  The media reports nothing.  Those who discover these camps are shut down, shut out, and who-knows-what.  Why?

The Palestianian "people" who Israel tolerate on their soil constantly hurl rocks, insults, mortars, grenades, and rockets at Israeli targets, and the United States government and media are virtually silent, but if Israel retaliates there is a news-cyle of verbal mayhem towards Israel, as if defending oneself against Arabs is a crime against humanity.  Why?

Islamic "soldiers" gun down our citizens at military camps, embassies, malls, and attempt bombings in planes, cabs, and trains, yet the governments and media of the world STILL refuse to irrefutably lay down the truth that the world is at war with Islam.  Why?

The answer to all of these questions is not complicated or multiple.  It is simple and a single answer.  There is fear.

It's easy to understand why individuals would fear radicals and terrorists but why is government and media afraid?  Here are some theories:

(1) The communist nations have the West in their sights, are using the jihadis as cannon fodder, and retaliation equals world war.  To this I say - poppycock!  If that's the case, better to fight now while the fragments are fragmented.

(2) The jihadis are better armed than we think, and if we push back too hard they will unleash a dirty bomb in a big city.  To this I say - bosh!  If they had the means and the opportunity, I think the Muslim terrorists would not hesitate to use a dirty bomb.

(3) The Western governments are in collusion with the jihadis.  What's that you say?  Impossible?  Would it not best explain why the greatest nations in the world tolerate attacks from these very small armies and cells?  Would it not explain how our utmost technology fails to ferret out every single one of these centipedes?  Would it not explain media silence and cover-up for ISLAMIC RADICALS?

Why would the Western governments be in collusion with the jihadis?  Are the members of these governments turned Muslim?  Or is there something even MORE nefarious?  And what could be more nefarious than to join with those you call "enemy" while pretending to have not?

I'm sorry if my reply has been traumatic or disorienting, but it's better to live in reality if it's true.  The sooner one faces a problem that exists, the sooner one can get to work on a solution.

Thank you for your service, and for your question.

Libertarian Rand Wonders About the Border and E-Verify

Dear CAC:

I'm a libertarian at heart but I'm also a Republican and a law-abiding citizen.  How can I resolve being for a limited federal government when I am also for a strong border and an E-Verify system?

Rand in Kentucky

_____________________

Dear Rand:

Libertarianism requires a strong government to protect the rights of individuals who are citizens.  Now, if you include non-citizens as individuals with citizen right, you certainly have a dilemma, both ideological and emotional.

A strong border is BETTER for libertarianism because it settles certain questions of culture.  A settled question of culture is BETTER for the libertarian because a weak border leads to changing culture.  The libertarian is not interested in changing culture but settled culture.  Naturally, this interest is self-interest because libertarianism is, after all, a very strong individualism.  So if you are a libertarian, you ought to desire a strong border so that the rights you secure for yourself as a citizen are not upended by an invading culture. 

E-Verify, for our readers, is a method by which government checks whether employees are citizens or otherwise legally working in America, as by visa, for example.  If you are a libertarian, you ought to be concerned for the rights of CITIZENS, not random non-citizens, no matter how many there are in your country.  So if the workforce is populated by illegal immigrants, the libertarian ought not throw his hands in the air and surrender his principles because "we can't do anything about it now, and anyway there's just too many of them to dismiss and deport, and anyway who will pick the apples and clean the toilets?"  Those are not libertarian arguments in the least.

Instead, the libertarian should protect the citizen from the non-citizen with the same fervor the libertarian seeks to protect the citizen from an overreaching or overbearing ( read "illegal") government.  Think of the non-citizen as a rogue government trying to take away the rights of citizens by changing the argument and the rules.  If the non-citizen sets the pace, the citizen is abandoned and oppressed by his own government.  That should light your libertarian fire! 

Thanks for the great question!

Typical Question on Gun Control

Dear CAC:

After the latest horrendous mass shooting, isn't it time we limit the availability of guns?

Signed,
Typical

_________________

Dear Typical:

I realize that horrendous things are horrendous, but removing an item which has the possibility to cause damage won't stop the root cause.  The root cause of horrendous things are human emotions.

If you limit availability to guns, human emotion, that is, hurt feelings, frustration, anger, jealousy, and hatred, will find another avenue to cause harm.  Did you know more murders are committed each year by knife than by gun?  And more murders by hammer than by gun? 

You are at this moment on the other end of the spectrum, reacting to human emotion with human emotion.  Perhaps you feel compassion?  There are living beings who can benefit from this emotion.  Why not sponsor a child in Africa, or become a Big Brother/Big Sister, or do some charity work down at the orphanage or shelter?  Perhaps you feel angry?  Work on that.

Mostly, however, there is a feeling of helplessness after witnessing a horrendous act, and often this motivates someone emotionally to "do something."  Unfortunately, those fleeting intense feelings often do more harm than good.  Limiting access to guns does nothing to remove the tens of millions of guns on the street.  Limiting access to bullets creates a giant black market which history proves cannot be stopped.  Simply put, your emotions are not strong enough to prevent human desires from coming about.  People will get guns and bullets.  You can't un-invent the gun or the bullet.

The right of a person to bear arms cannot be ignored either.  You might think this right to be for sport or hunting but it is not.  It is for self-defense, first against horrendous invididuals, then against horrendous bodies, even up to horrendous government bodies.

Another thing to consider is to widen your focus.  The horrendous act you witnessed is repeated many times per day in many towns, states, and countries throughout the world.  Acts of savagery, crime, corruption, false imprisonment, execution, and depravity such as you cannot imagine are always happening.  If you are truly motivated to be a power for good, get involved with something constructive.  Disarming the American public is not constructive.  Destroying ISIS, and other enemies of America, is constructive.  The gun is not the enemy.

Thanks for writing in, and Godspeed.

Jeb in Florida Asks About Anchor Babies

Dear CAC:

Why do they call it an "anchor baby" and why is that bad.. or good?

Jeb in Florida

_____________________

Dear Jeb:

"Anchor" refers to the action made in mountain-climbing when you set the pitons (anchors) and everyone climbing behind you is able to follow.  Regarding immigration philosophy, an anchor baby "anchors" the mother "legally" (so they say) to the country where her baby was born.  This anchoring then permits the father, and sometimes other relatives as well, to follow, to enter that country "legally" (so they say).

Anchor babies are not good.  First, in the United States, it breaks the intent of the 14th Amendment.  This is clear from reading that framer's extant writings. 

Second, there is no common sense to it.  No other country permits it because it is detrimental to that country.  Take a country like Mexico, for example, with many poor.  Mexico does not permit illegal immigration nor anchor babies.  Illegals are arrested. Why?  Because immigrants worth their salt don't come in illegally but rather go through the legal steps and pay the assigned fees.  For the USA, the lesson has been clear.  Illegal immigration is not a sign of compassion but of weakness.  Those who come illegally (and many times legally) milk the system in one way or another, either taking government handouts, paid for by depressed and overtaxed taxpayers, or sending much of their paycheck home to mamasita, who then is extorted by the cartels (OK, who then builds a home in Mexico).  How does any of that help America?

Third, anchor babies tend to become radicals for more anchor babies. This is because anchor babies are raised defensively, to be paranoid and angry at the very country in which they live, and to have contempt for the culture, not assimilating or agreeing with it. The anchor babies from 15 years ago are now marching in the streets of the United States as if they have any moral, civil, or legal grounds to protest the laws or attitudes of the USA.  They do not.  Neither do they really care.  It's all choreographed for the sake of gaining power.  Can a reality where illegal immigrants vote really be called "good"?

Thanks for your question, and I hope this helps you to understand this non-complicated issue.

Scott Walker's Sleeves

Dear CAC:

Whenever I do a town hall meeting, I feel like my message isn't getting through.  What should I do?

Scott Walker

_________________

Dear Scott Walker:

First, stop rolling up your sleeves.  You are not getting ready to dig a ditch, tame lions, or wash your hands.  The idea that you are connecting with people by "rolling up your sleeves" is ridiculous.  Everyone knows what you're doing, and the few who fall for it aren't worth your time.  Just because everyone else is rolling up their sleeves, why should you?  Does Donald Trump roll up his sleeves?  No, he makes everything look effortless. When you roll up your sleeves, you make it seem like speaking to people at a town hall is just so hard, and that is a psychological turn-off.

Second, you kind of look and sound like Rick Moranis in Ghostbusters.  Try to speak without a nasal monotone and see if you can reach a wider audience that way.  Nothing too affected or gruff, just more natural.

Third, you're a governor.  When Trump talks about Trump, it's a worldwide phenomenon.  When a governor speaks about his State, it doesn't resonate.  People in New Hampshire are not really interested in what's going on in Wisconsin, success or not.  Make the transition to speaking about America, not Wisconsin.  Study Reagan tapes, not Romney tapes.

Thanks for the question, and keep in touch!