Cruz Missiles 02: Syrian Refugees

Part of a series on the attacks on Ted Cruz by blogger Stefan Molyneux in the video “The Truth About Ted Cruz.”  This one deals with the issue of Syrian refugees.

Ted Cruz and Syrian Refugees

Here is the video portion of interest, at about 16:50 in. You may wish to back up a couple of minutes and listen to his commentary as he develops the points on the screen:

Molyneaux_Cruz_3_01650

This is entirely consistent. We should vet and admit refugees actually seeking asylum, as has been our practice for a very long time. As Ted is quoted here as saying, “we have to be vigilant.”

But, when the Obama administration stated flatly that it would not be able to vet these immigrant applicants, that made a difference. We know that ISIS and al Qaida and others are using the influx of refugees to bring terrorists into target nations, and we are the largest target. Attacks from these refugees have already taken place, most notably in Paris. So, without being able to vet them, Cruz’s position makes sense.

By contrast, the Obama administration rejects the asylum requests of most Christians, but recently decided that terrorist connections would not preclude a Muslim seeking asylum in the US.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

 

  • The quotation from yesterday’s Word of the Day seems appropriate:

    In the cellars of the night, when the mind starts moving around old trunks
    of bad times, the pain of this and the shame of that, the memory of a small
    boldness is a hand to hold. -John Leonard, critic (25 Feb 1939-2008)

    Of course, the mindset you describe would make “the memory of a small boldness” hard to find.

    I imagine a sort of Maxwell’s Daemon of perception, admitting what fits and rejecting what does not, building a monument of unconsciously selected small facts and thinking of it as a complete truth.

    Such people are hard to convince. I have debated many, as no doubt you have as well. They are nearly impossible to get to see a contrary fact, and often have a website cut-and-paste response to those that they do acknowledge. But I expect that Mr. Molyneux’s level of thinking allows him to be aware of the contrary facts, and chooses to present a subset as an intentional misleading of his viewers. A pity, I think, as it means that all else from this man must be viewed as suspect.

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  • JeffR

    This point of Molyneux’s is ridiculously nitpicky. In his verbal delivery, all he really criticizes Cruz for is that in Nov 2015, he didn’t say that he was changing his mind from something he said 21 months earlier. I agree with you that Cruz was consistent. He was cautious in his optimism in Feb 2014, encouraging vigilance, but at that time there was no information from the FBI that they couldn’t do a decent vetting of the refugees. Last summer/fall when the Obama administration let the floodgates open — simultaneous with the FBI director publicly throwing up his hands in futility, Cruz joined with MANY other congressmen in hollering for a moratorium on admitting of refugees. It’s not like Cruz was sticking out ALONE in his change from cautious optimism to alarmed concern…..so why would he feel he needed to stipulate that this represented a change in his position?

    This Molyneux guy, in the unhurried calm of his home office, is slowly & meticulously cherry-picking from years-worth of hours & hours of video/audio/transcripts, and using a conspiracy theorist’s 20/20 hindsight to craft a narrative of apparent deceit. This is straight out of the Michael Moore or Frack-nation playbook.

    I may have shared this with you before, Keith….but here is something I wrote a few years ago about the mindset of these cherry-picking conspiracy theorists and how their minds work:

    There is a certain kind of people called conspiracy theorists whose brains operate in a way that obsesses on details and intrigue. They also tend to be people who don’t trust some element or another of society.

    These people exist on the left and the right, and off to the side (where libertarians reside politically). Any time there’s a tragic or disastrous public event in the news, they simply cannot accept any simple explanation. Imagination is an amazing thing in a hyperactive & suspicious mind. Especially when looking backwards in time (after events have already happened), these people believe they spot patterns interconnecting events and circumstances, and they can work themselves backwards from the culminating & disastrous event through an endlessly complicated chain of events, to portray any story they wish. Why? Because they connect the dots in private, and if the trail dries up, they simply backtrack a ways and take another path until they can string together a series of facts that (“oh my goodness!”) simply can’t be coincidence. Well, they’re not coincidence, but they’re not truly connected facts either – they’re things that were cherry-picked by process of elimination of non-useful facts.

    It’s like a person who walks down the beach looking for pretty seashells, picking up ones that suit their fancy and putting them in a bag. When they get home and empty the bag on the kitchen table, they notice how all the shells kinda look similar. Well, duh! They weren’t randomly scooped up with a shovel…they were hand picked one by one according to the subconscious sense of “fitting in” to the person’s tastes and preferences.

    In other words, if a particular fact is inconvenient and doesn’t fit the pattern, they simply ignore it and find other facts that fit the pattern. They keep going until they “uncannily” have an amazing string of facts that seem to prove an elaborate scheme has occurred.

    I have heard interviews of authors that have analyzed this mental hobby practiced by these overthinking, overzealous people. Their minds just won’t accept the obvious answer, especially if they also have a particular antagonism towards somebody or some group. Their subconscious just keeps driving them to bridge the gap between their desired conspiracy and reality, and they don’t stop until they’ve found all the seashells they need to claim that an inarguable trail exists. Trouble is, they constructed it backwards, and they discarded anything that didn’t fit. There are plenty of things that didn’t fit, but they don’t see those as evidence refuting their conclusions. They instead see those as unrelated & insignificant trivia.

    Cheers,
    – Jeff

Categories