For the future: a 2017 anti-amnesty Conservative; A whimsical essay on politics—and time-travel
There's a funny line in the original “Back to the Future” (1985) movie where teenager Marty McFly uses an altered DeLorean to time-travel back to 1955 to the creator of the time machine, Emmett Brown. The inventor inquires who is president in Marty's future. When told, Brown's incredulous reaction: “Ronald Reagan? The actor? Then who's the vice-president? Jerry Lewis?”
That was always the unfair knock of Democrats on Reagan: he was really just an actor “playing at” being commander-in-chief. But the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the Cold War and the economic collapse of the Soviet Union, then, proved Reagan very much the genuine article. Reagan symbolized the unbreakable American spirit of positive expectation, self-determination and self-reliance. He knew: America can accomplish anything—even the inconceivable—which he achieved in large measure.
What is required is simply the will to do a thing, steered by Christian morality and informed ultimately by kindness and charity. Indeed, his very American political philosophy of “peace through strength” put the Soviets, among others, rightfully on their backsides. Unlike today, his word was backed up by the big stick of unparalleled American military might as well as the carrot of authentic friendship. History bears out the truth: when Reagan spoke, enemies and naysayers alike listened—and in most cases—capitulated. To him, America was a “shining city on a hill;” a light that has dimmed considerably in recent years due to less clear thinking—and less capable leadership.
Contrast that to the anti-Reagan we have in office now: a chronically responsibility-phobic, “lead from behind,” weak-kneed, politically tone-deaf apologist of Western values; a rabble-rousing wholesale disregarder of law, precedent and the Constitution itself; a golf-obsessed Jerry Lewis fop on the world stage emboldening America's enemies and geopolitical foes while simultaneously alienating traditional allies like Israel. Indeed, 7 years of Mr. Obama's tirelessly schoolmarmish “teachable moment” finger-pointing—and equally feckless “red line” pronouncements—are completely ignored by bad actors like Vladimir Putin and ISIS who have flourished in the vacuum where American dominance used to be.
What we have, unfortunately, is an inflexible ideologue of scant ability whose every decision hobbles American strength at home and abroad. To draw a parallel to Chicago—the community Mr. Obama “organized” whose homicide rate (like Baltimore's) is skyrocketing—other “Chicagos” are popping up all over the globe: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and North Africa. The specter of ISIS has metastasized, destabilizing the Middle East causing the record-breaking torrent of 60 million migrants disrupting Europe to a greater degree than the terrorism that killed 129 innocents in Paris.
Paris proves that it only takes a handful of radicalized, armed militants. Yet, Mr. Obama can't wait to throw open the doors to a potential small army of 10,000 migrants from Syria; interestingly 96% Islamic versus only 3% Christian. However, given the logic that the terrorist acts are directly tied to religious fervor—and since there is no government to vouch for this group or other practical way to vet them—a litmus test (at minimum) makes sense to someone like Ted Cruz who actually cares about the future safety of the American people.
As commander-in-chief, Mr. Obama has the implicit responsibility to protect us from all enemies foreign and domestic. As with porous borders, Mr. Obama has the welcome mat already laid out. To him, any other policy is “... not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.” I, for one, would very much like to know when Mr. Obama's compassion for home-grown Americans is going to start.
This same brand of “compassion” has contributed mightily to the accumulation of 11 million non-Americans within our country or is it 12? Nobody knows the exact number of faceless de facto squatters, hence the logistical problem. Yet, each and every one of them shares a universal label: flagrant flouter of our laws (á la Mr. Obama). Like the president, the current House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) is wrong about the practicality and success of forced relocations. The powers-that-be in government don't like it—frankly neither do I—but mass deportations are called for.
There is precedent: the 1950s “Operation Wetback” expelled 1.5 million Mexicans. No doubt, the process will be ugly. Yet, none of the displaced is a victim as illegal aliens (not squishy, nonsensical politically correct terms like “undocumented immigrants”) chose to come here by their own means rather than honoring our in-place immigration system. In any case, a society is only “fair” when all abide equally to democratically-created laws. Under Democrats—for all the reasons articulated above—is it any wonder why our society is so polarized, fragmented and dysfunctional?
Since we can't time travel to 1980 or 1860, it will take a leader both with Reagan's fortitude and Lincoln's vision (in ending slavery for future, unborn generations) to do that which is difficult and necessary—rather than the 'go-along-get-along' political expediency that has gotten us into these colossal messes in the first place. That's not the Democrats who manipulate America into “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome” so long as they can use the influx of new voters to hold political power in perpetuity. Similarly, of the contenders across the aisle, that's also not establishment Republicans (Bush), those soft on immigration (Rubio) or inclined to further compromise (Carson; Trump).
That's my litmus test for president in 2017 and the list is maddeningly short: Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina (withdrawn). Like Marty McFly, I dearly wish I had that time-traveling DeLorean idling in the driveway, ready to bring the perfect candidate “Back to the Future” for Inauguration Day in 2017.