Trump and Cruz Call Rubio Out on his Gang of Eight Amnesty Push

As the Republican presidential primary heats up, illegal immigration is again taking center stage.  While this is nothing new (as we know President Reagan attempted to address it in the ’80s, John McCain made it a priority in ’08, and on), the discussion has taken an interesting turn this election cycle.

At issue, of course, are Obama’s executive amnesty, the recent influx of illegal immigrants (including huge numbers of children), the vast number of illegals currently living and working in the U.S., border security (such as it is), and a host of related issues including the burden of illegal immigration on tax payers in terms of jobs, health care, schooling, police and judicial involvement, and various entitlement costs.

Marco Rubio’s involvement with the Gang of Eight, particularly his subservience to bipartisan efforts with Chuck Schumer, has not gone unnoticed by either the conservative base nor by the other presidential hopefuls.

When Rubio ran for the Senate in 2010, he was claimed to be an adamant opponent of amnesty, and only once elected did he jump at the chance to work on a massive “comprehensive” amnesty plan.  At the time, Professor Jacobson noted that Rubio was “played” by both Schumer and the GOP pro-amnesty McCain-Graham tag team (and he was right).

Since then, Rubio has tried to distance himself from his own choices (while raking in money from pro-amnesty supporters behind closed doors), but it’s worth noting that his mentor Jeb Bush probably played a role in decisions that Rubio now seems to regret.  For example, like Jeb, Rubio was very quick to distance himself from the TEA Party that was instrumental in electing him to his current seat in the Senate; this is not unlike Jeb’s negative assessment of the conservative base when he dismissed us as unnecessary to his presidential ambitions.

To me, it seems that Rubio’s amnesty lies are, er flip-flop is, more rooted in his being a campaign conservative who says one thing to get elected and does the opposite once in office.  That’s not a rare thing in American politics, so it’s somewhat amusing to me when Donald Trump now claims that Rubio’s support for amnesty is “because he’s Hispanic.”

Watch:

This seems to be an off-the-cuff remark and not his campaign’s message; he also does not reject the idea of Rubio as his VP running mate should he win the GOP nomination.  However, even if a comment made in passing, this seems a simplistic and somewhat specious argument.

Beyond the points made above, not only are the majority of GOP establishment (i.e. supporters of amnesty) white, but one of the staunchest opponents of amnesty is himself Hispanic.

Watch:

Ted Cruz has stated that he literally laughed out loud at Rubio’s bizarre claim that his position on illegal immigration is the same as Cruz’s.

Politico reports:

[Cruz] told reporters after, “In the “Gang of Eight” fight Marco chose to stand with Chuck Schumer and to lead the fight tooth and nail for a massive amnesty plan. I chose to stand with [Alabama Sen.] Jeff Sessions and to lead the fight to defeat amnesty.”

Cruz’s broadside was the latest in an escalating feud between the two senators that blew up in the wake of Tuesday’s fourth GOP debate, during which both had strong performances. Rubio over the past couple of days has tried to equate Cruz’s record on immigration which his own more relatively conciliatory one, while Cruz has pushed back hard on those efforts.

“I have to admit that I laughed out loud at that,” Cruz said earlier Friday on Mike Gallagher’s radio show, in response to Rubio’s assertion on Thursday that they held similar views on immigration reform. He went on to add, “that statement was truly stunning. That’s like Obama saying my position is the same as his on Obamacare. That’s like Ayatollah Khamenei saying my position is the same as his on the Iranian nuclear deal.”

Cruz, you may recall, led the fight against the Rubio-Schumer Gang of Eight amnesty bill.  Watch:

And the bill was stopped in its tracks.

Like Trump, Cruz has released his own illegal immigration plan summary in which he focuses on three key elements:  securing the border, restoring the rule of law, and reforming legal immigration to protect Americans.  See link for discussion of each point.

SECURE THE BORDER

A Cruz Administration’s first priority for immigration reform will be to secure the U.S.-Mexico border. We will:

  • Build a wall that works.
  • Triple the number of Border Patrol agents.
  • Increase vital aerial surveillance and other technology along the border.
  • Finish the biometric tracking system at our nation’s ports of entry.

RESTORE THE RULE OF LAW

We need a President who will follow the law, hold those who break it accountable, and take seriously the duty to protect Americans. To restore the Rule of Law, a Cruz Administration will:

  • End President Obama’s illegal amnesty.
  • Increase deportations and end catch-and-release.
  • End sanctuary policies, sign Kate’s Law, and deport criminal immigrants.
  • Prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving financial benefits and strengthen E-Verify.

REFORM LEGAL IMMIGRATION TO PROTECT AMERICANS

In order to strengthen our immigration system, protect national security, and better serve American workers, we must:

  • Suspend the issuance of all H-1B visas for 180 days to complete a comprehensive investigation and audit of pervasive allegations of abuse of the program.
  • Halt any increases in legal immigration so long as American unemployment remains unacceptably high.
  • Enforce the public-charge doctrine.
  • End birthright citizenship.

Cruz makes his point via Twitter:

The question facing Republican primary voters is: Has Rubio learned his lesson?  Perhaps an even more pertinent additional question is: Have we, as we watched Rubio go from TEA Party hero to GOP establishment zero, learned our lesson?

Fuzzy Rant: GOP Traitors, Snowden, AGW Hoax

It is so time for a rant here at Fuzzy Central; I can feel it coming, so grab some popcorn and stand well away from your computer monitor.

Amnesty and the Traitorous GOP Who Support It

Seriously?  I am spitting mad about this, and my anger is directed not so much at McCain the Regressive Clown or Graham the Closet Case but at Ayotte and Rubio.  Those two ran on, courted, and were accepted by the TEA Party . . . the same TEA Party they are now pledging–behind closed doors, of course–to destroy.  I don’t know diddly about Ayotte, and after this, I don’t really care if she can cure cancer with the mere bat of her eyelashes.

As for Rubio . . . I haven’t trusted him since I found out that he was charging his own personal expenses to the state GOP credit card, of particular, damning interest was that he only paid it back years later–after he was caught.  Really, that was it for me with him.  Notice how after I posted about that, I just kind of shut up about him? He was a disaster in the making, but he seemed a better deal than Crist and that other guy, and conservatives seemed determined to see in him what they waned to see, so . . . I shut up.  No more.  Never forget that the one and only reason Rubio is in the United States’ Senate is the support he got from the TEA Party, the same TEA Party that he snubbed by refusing to join the Senate TEA Party Caucus.  The same TEA Party that he lied to–repeatedly–about his views on illegal immigration and amnesty.

Do not, DO. NOT. let the GOP sneaky snakes who voted for cloture and then voted against amnesty get away with their treachery.  They KNOW that a cloture vote ensures the bill goes forward–just as they did on ObamaCare, and they do it anyway.  Yes, they really believe we’re that stupid.  Enough!

et tu Paul Ryan?  I have no words.  Just lots of sad.  I carry it in a big suitcase with wheels now.

Snowden, the ManBearPig er, TraitorHeroWhackJob

Dude, I’m not sure what Snowden is; his “tyranny tour” is not helping his case with anyone who might be inclined to land on the “hero” side.  He exposed illegal government activity. That’s whistleblower stuff, but . . . *shrug* what the heck ever.  Like he really matters in the grand scheme of America’s destruction.

More on the ManBearPig as Deluded and Frightened Obama Pivots to Global Warming Climate Change (or whatever)

Poverty is skyrocketing, electricity bills are to follow that skyrocketing trajectory (as Obama promised), the number of people collecting welfare and food stamps is fast quadrupling.  Millions upon millions of Americans either have no job at all or are working only part-time (which, thanks to the ObamaCareTax monstrosity is now less than 30 hours per week, further crippling the hourly-wage-earning lower and lower-middle classes).

So what does Obama deem–the very week that the world learns that the earth has not warmed in at least 15 years–the key, most imperative item on his agenda?  Yep, killing U. S. coal.  And along with it, still more jobs, and pushing people who are barely hanging on to their lower and lower-middle class status into the poverty/government-dependent classes.  Oh joy!

It’s not enough that we all actually know now that the whole AGW hysteria is utter and complete bullcrap–oh no, now we need the Divider in Chief pontificating on how he’ll heal the planet.  Again.  Or something.  Sick-making.  I love how he and his horrendous nightmare of a wife flew off–in separate planes, Air Force One AND Two–to the same place and essentially, give or take a couple hours, at the same time.  Yeah, that’s a man who is really worried about his carbon footprint.

Typical commie regressive: laws and rules and government-dictated morals are for thee, not for me.

Sick. Of. It.

So what, you may ask, of the recent Supreme Court rulings, of the ongoing assault on Obama’s “political enemies” while he courts America’s enemies in our White House, of the blatant military and arms support of al Qaeda, of the embarrassing place that America now holds in the world with Putin laughing in Obama’s face and Afghanistan, etc. dictating terms to him, of the Common Core nightmare, the impending amnesty’s effects on America and her people, of the major scandals that reveal a third-world mentality in this country’s president . . . of a million other things that this administration is doing, has done, intends to do.  What of all of it, you ask?

I have no words.

For Leftists: Thinking, Hard.

I’m not sure whom I find more despicable, the leftist pols who spin the most amazingly absurd narratives or the leftist morons who gobble them up as Gospel, infuse them with their own special brand of hate, and spew forth bile and vitriol like an overactive, over-reactive volcano.  Yes, I’m kind of talking about what’s going on as the left struggles to defend their Dear Leader and “messiah” on Benghazi.  Note that the last link was to a British news site; oddly, apart from Fox News, the only coverage of this massive story is being conducted overseas (oh, and it’s the leftist Guardian, not the rightish-but-still-faaar-left-of-me Telegraph, but you know how those Brits are just RAAAACIST Republicans who hate Obama.  Or something.). Note, too, that some tabloid television networks, like NBC, are willing to admit that Obama is incompetent or “sloppy.”  That’s huge.  He’s been the bestest best thing since best things were first found to be best, but now suddenly he’s incompetent? That’s one hell of an admission from the salivating, slavish media.  And we know why they’ll throw out that bone.

And, frankly, I–at least–don’t care.  We’re talking about “news” organizations that failed to cover the Gosnell trial because it was “local” but spent hours and hours on some crazy, murdering biotch’s guilty verdict . . . while the Benghazi hearings are the actual news–national and international news–of the day.  Indeed, the hearings are being covered not only in Britain but in Germany, even in Russia and in the Middle East.  Our “media”?  Dancing around like puppies for scraps from their master’s table.  Massive fail.

But I’m not really talking about that, per se, others are covering it amazingly; instead, I am mostly talking about . . . well, just generally. I was just reading through some articles and a couple illustrate my point magnificently: one talked about how the majority of Americans accept gay people and the other was about the Traitor in Chief’s comments about immigration.  Oh, and let’s not forget the bogus stat that 90% of Americans support background checks. Dude, 90% of Americans can’t agree that the sky is blue, but the myriad lies–outrageous, in-your-face-ridiculous, “not one dime” lies–this president tells are not really my point.

Here’s the thing, the point, if you will.  A poll shows that the majority of Americans accept gay people, and that’s probably true.  I do.  And I know that my conservative friends and relatives do.  But here’s where everything gets murky for sophomoric leftist brains: I can accept gay people without *gasp* supporting gay “marriage.”  Yes, it’s true!  I can also accept that Obama is president without wanting to make him dictator for life.  Imagine that!

Nuance.

Nuance that is, of course, totally lost on the all or nothing, my way or the highway left.  You can’t just accept gay people, you can’t just accept that the government should recognize gay relationships as they do those of heterosexuals.  Oh no!  That’s not good enough, not “tolerant” enough for the most intolerant people on the planet.  You must accept that God is wrong, that your religion, your faith, your beliefs are all wrong.  You must embrace something that you might accept but not endorse; if you’re not ready to don a pink tutu or a suit and tie and march in the gay pride parade, then you’re not tolerant enough.  Actually, well, you’re just a toothless troglodyte teabagging troll.

Uh huh.

It’s sad, isn’t it that our wanna-be intellectual and emotional superiors on the left are incapable of reason, of compassion, of understanding, of anything remotely resembling human feeling?

Sad, and I used to find it perplexing, but it’s really not.  They just have simple, childlike thought processes that literally jump from “you accept gay people” to “therefore, you must accept gay ‘marriage'” and with that the utter destruction of religion and of religious freedom in this country.  And if you don’t, well, everyone knows you can’t accept gay people without supporting gay “marriage”; therefore, you must HATE gay people!  Again, uh huh.  The lack of logic, of critical thought, is mind-numbing.  But not unexpected.

The left does this on purpose and urges its mindless sheeple to not think, to be “tolerant” and to think that tolerance somehow means acceptance, even submission.  It does not.  I can tolerate something without accepting it, much less submitting to it.  There’s a huge difference, actually, but the English language seems to be a bit problematic for shallow, unthinking leftists (probably why they feel the need to “revise” and “adapt” it so often).

And we see this knee-jerking, conclusion-jumping, skipping over major points and differences, ignoring of language and its meaning again in Obama’s statement that “unless you’re a Native American, you came from someplace else.”  Well, no . . . poop, Sherlock.  (omg, is that an awesome show or what? Anyway,) yes, Dear Leader, we–well, okay, maybe not me, personally.  Or my parents.  But sure, somewhere down the line, some of my relatives–came to the United States from someplace else.  But here’s the thing, they didn’t come here illegally.  They came here within and abiding the law, respecting their new home and hoping to succeed in the land of the free and home of the brave.  They didn’t sneak in, they didn’t “overstay their visas,” they didn’t come as “birth tourists,” they came as legal aliens who acquired citizenship and paid their own way, often against great odds.

But conflating all immigration with illegal immigration, all immigrants with illegal immigrants, is par for the regressive course.  Now, do you really think that Obama himself doesn’t understand the difference?  Of course he does.  Do you really think that Obama doesn’t know the difference between accepting gays and demanding that gay “marriage” be the law of the land?  Of course he does.  As in all things from the economy to foreign policy, he just plays his mindless minions like a fiddle.  Rome may burn . . . but his disciples won’t notice.  Until it’s too late.

Terms I Put In Scare Quotes . . . And Why

When I was writing my dissertation, my dissertation chair complained (seemingly) endlessly about my use, misuse, and (too often, flagrant) abuse of scare quotes.  As it happens, she was right: dissertations are not really the place for the challenging of accepted ideas with such a simple device–actually, as it turned out, dissertations are not the place to challenge ideas accepted by leftist loons at all (but that’s another story for another day).  However, snapping on some scare quotes is fun for the snarky and, as far as I’m concerned, mandatory for tweeters (particularly snarky tweeters like me).  While I can’t seem to write complete blog posts at the moment (several half-started, half-hearted drafts languish in my Drafts folder), I am rather active on Twitter where expressions must be succinct (140 characters or less) and still make sense.

This is actually a wonderful exercise for me because I tend to be verbose to the point of rambling incoherence.  Okay, maybe not incoherent, but I can rock a simple stance into several pages with little effort.  Scare quotes are my saving grace on Twitter because I can say so much with only two additional characters: “”.  Hard not to love that . . . even as it makes me think of that Friends episode in which Joey tried so hard, and with hilarious results, to understand “sc-air” quotes (when you wave your fingers on both hands in the “quotation” gesture to undermine, question, or otherwise lampoon the word, term, or phrase being “sc-aired”).

“Gun control”–It’s never ever about controlling crime; it’s always about controlling people.  Leftists create gun-free zones and then are shocked (shocked, I say) that lunatics hell-bent on mass casualties “hit” these gun-free zones.  That makes sense how?

“Palestine”–D’oh.

“Marriage” (when used in conjunction with the word “gay”)–there is no such thing as “gay marriage.”  Marriage is what it is, and government plays exactly no role in its definition.  As long-time readers of this blog know, I was not always opposed to “gay marriage”; however, once it became clear that this was not about equality (civil rights–a term that never worked on me in this context) but about undermining religion, I realized just how wrong I was.

“Religion” (when used in conjunction with Islam)–Islam is not and never was “simply”  a religion (woot at the scare quotes).  It is, and always has been, a complete economic, political, religious, and socio-cultural dictate.  And it is, and always has been, a vehicle for barbarism, even evil.

“Compassionate Conservatism”–this one is SO annoying.  It means being a great big big-government leftist in faux-conservative clothing.  And yes, I do mean George W. Bush (his dad was, arguably, even worse because he was responsible for Agenda 21 in America).

“Progressive”–I always mean “regressive” because that’s what they are.  They anchor themselves in a destructive, regressive past that is fantastical (and/or evil: segregation, slavery, prohibition, eugenics, etc.).  For example, in the midst of the Great Depression, lunatic regressive FDR paid farmers NOT to farm.  People are starving, particularly in the South, and the government limits farmers’ crops or flat-out bars them from growing much-needed food.  This is not evil how?  FDR has earned his place among the worst presidents this country has ever had the misfortune of electing, and it’s no accident that the Constitution was amended (22nd Amendment) upon his death (he was barely cold in his grave before Americans ensured that two terms as president was quite enough).

“Conservative”–as expected, when I use scare quotes on this term, I mean establishment GOP (the big government “compassionate” conservatives–the “c” in “compassionate” more aptly stands for “communist”).  When I speak of Rubio, Christie, and/or Ben Carson, I use scare quotes.  These men are not conservatives.  Rubio is a corrupt little toad who used the state campaign credit card for his own personal use (yes, he repaid it, but not until he was caught . . . two years later), who claims that conservatives who oppose his amnesty idiocy are not “true conservatives,” and who refused to join the Senate TEA Party caucus (keeping in mind that he would have lost his race in FL if it weren’t for the TEA Party).  Christie, omg where do I even start?  He’s pro-Islamist (calls anyone who questions anything about Islamfascists “ignorant fools”), pro-big government “solutions,” and pro-Obama on far too many issues for my liking.  As for Carson, I love love loved him because of the prayer breakfast beat-down of 0, but he’s said that he thinks that the Second Amendment should only apply to people in rural areas.  Sorry, he’s lost the plot by too much for my comfort (or support).

“Feminist”–Okay, back to my dissertation director (she was a renowned “women’s and LGBT” scholar.  And, in case you were wondering, that’s worth exactly crap.).  She would get near-hysterical and down-right eye-bulgingly irate if I dared to mention anything that even remotely evoked what she sneeringly called “’80’s feminism.”  This was the so-called third wave of feminism, and as far as she was concerned was too pedestrian and intellectually barren for the would-be progressive academic she was intent in building (i.e. me).

I didn’t get it then.  But I do now.  “Feminism” had to change (to regress) to accommodate the new view that things like burqas and female genital mutilation (and honor killings, etc.) were actually–somehow–suddenly–okie dokey.  That being “tolerant” about these things was somehow more sophisticated, more intellectual.  You know, somehow.

I type that, and I see how insane it is, but these loons who still have the audacity to call themselves “feminists” (all the while actually hating women as women) actually defend such practices on the grounds of “tolerance.”  So feminists who once denounced female genital mutilation (as but one example) now look the other way when stats tell us it’s on the rise right here in America. A few of these faux feminists have even defended the practice.  All of this was anathema to me as an academic, a feminist, an American, and a woman.

So I’m bumbling along in my grad “training” to be a consummate Marxist; this just means that I wrote what was expected:  Marxist crap painted willy-nilly on every thought, word, and deed.  It was so easy, so mindless, that I didn’t even bother with it too much and would slap out a 25-page Marxist lunatic “analysis” in two hours . . . to rave reviews. (Yes, it was really that pathetic.).  It’s hard not to be good at manufacturing/ferreting out “inequality” in even the simplest prose; once you learn the basic premise, you see it everywhere . . . even though it exists exactly nowhere.   It’s like the hypochondriac who reads about the symptoms of a disease and immediately becomes convinced s/he has “it.”

“Mainstream”–let’s face it, “mainstream” actually means the 8-10% of Americans who are Obots (including, of course, the “mainstream” media).  What is actually mainstream is dismissed as “extremist” and lately as the behavior/thoughts of a “potential terrorist.”

“Racism”–One of the great travesties, I think, of leftism is the crazed notion that race is the root of any dissent.  This does nothing to advance debate and serves only, purposefully, to silence anyone who doesn’t agree with 0’s job-killing, middle-class-robbing tactics.

I used to feel insulted when some leftie accused me of racism for the simple act of verbalizing my dissent.   “You just hate him because he’s black,” was the accusation.  Um, well, I hated the same policies under Carter and some (NCLB) under Republican presidents.  Does this mean that I’m a sometimes racist? That I hate all white, Southern men?  It’s nuts; conservatives have nothing to prove here.  We’ve already lost the trenches; we’re evil, hate people, want them to die, blah, blah, blah.  If we don’t have “enough” black republicans, we’re racist.  If we have too many, we’re racist and only pandering.  The truth, of course, is harder for them to grasp.  Conservative values and principles actually empower people; less government intervention is GOOD for people of all races.

As I noted, I’ve actually felt guilty in the past for my views on 0’s destructive, disastrous policies.  He’s killing our economy, and he’s doing it on purpose.  This has zero to do with race and everything to do with policy (I hate what Reid and Pelosi are doing, too. Does that make me a hater of white men or women?  Of course not.).  But for scrambling, fearful leftists, it’s always–always–about race.  Even when it isn’t.  Even when the people don’t think about or care about race.

Pre-SOTU Ponderings

Tonight the big 0 will be delivering yet another State of the Union address.  Sigh.  When at all possible, I avoid listening to this man.  He’s a despicable, horrible, tiny little person in whom I vest no admiration and for whom I have even less respect.  Despite this, I do have a morbid curiosity about what he’ll say this year.  This curiosity is rooted in the strange and troubling transformation he’s undergone since his reelection; the real him is becoming more and more clear to everyone but his most die-hard salivating Obots.  And it’s not pretty.

Besides, I’ve posted on each of his previous SOTU’s (he didn’t deliver one in ’09):

2010: POS BO’s SOTU: WTH?

2011: The SOTU In A Nutshell

2012: BO’s Subterfuge of the Union Address

What do I expect from tonight?  I’m not entirely sure because I’m not sure how much of his hand he’s confident enough to reveal, but based on his inauguration speech, I do expect it to be even more transparently leftist than any previous such speech.  And I expect it to be loaded with buzz words that are designed to unruffle the feathers of center-right Americans.

He loves to toss out things that sound like he “gets” America but that actually have nothing to do with true American sentiment or our foundational beliefs.  So he’ll talk about guns as if they are only for sport hunting or shooting skeet in mom jeans, saying things like hunting is an American tradition or some such nonsense.  And he’ll talk about rugged individualism . . . in the context of the “federal family” he seeks to impose (it’s very like Hilary’s “village,” by the way, as you’d expect from a collectivist loon).  He’ll talk about “who we are as a people,” and most of us won’t have any idea what he’s talking about because he not only has no idea who we, the people, are, but he doesn’t even understand that he doesn’t understand.

His speech will cover a laundry list of things that are anathema to the majority of American people:

Amnesty, gay marriage, forcing religious institutions and individuals to act against their conscience, global warming (or climate change, whatever the newest catch phrase is for this hoax), raising taxes, fair shares, infrastructure, teachers, guns, and our individual responsibility . . . to the government (i.e. 0 himself) and to a lesser degree to the collective.

Things he won’t mention:

His kill list, his drone attacks on American citizens, Benghazi and our raped and murdered ambassador, the fact that there has not been a federal budget during his entire presidency, the fact that war deaths have sharply increased under his “leadership,” the amassing of ammo by his administration, the numerous unConstitutional executive orders he’s signed and intends to sign, drone activity in the U. S., the fraud that it took to “win” the election, the fact that death panels are indeed a prominent feature of “cost-savings” in the 0CareTax, or the fact that Gitmo is still open and that he not only extended President Bush’s warrantless wiretaps but added to their scope and intrusiveness.

Things he may mention but shouldn’t:  his new healthy housing initiative whereby the federal government imposes requirements on homeowners to meet as yet unclear “healthy” standards (this is in compliance with, added to, and/or justified by the 0CareTax monstrosity), his nuclear disarmament plans (whereby the only country who currently has nukes and won’t in the near future is the United States; all other countries, of course, will keep theirs), the fiscal benefits of the 0CareTax (there are none, so far it’s a complete failure in every way–“not one dime” was a lie; “illegal immigrants won’t be covered” was a lie; “if you like your health insurance, you can keep it” was a lie; “abortion won’t be covered” was a lie; and on and on) except that it does seem it will fulfill its goal of shutting down private health insurers), and his “cyber-security” plans (i.e. a kill switch).

But who knows, maybe he’ll surprise us all and actually tell us the real state of the union:  we’re broke, divided, pissed off (on both sides of the aisle), and teetering on the brink of at least two (more) wars.  Three if you count the civil war he seems intent on creating.  Naw, he’s not got an honest bone in his body.  Add that to the fact that he’s a coward, and we can expect more happy BS that sounds right but isn’t.