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 Shorts: Individual Market, Regressive FAIL, Obama’s Latest Lie, and 2016

Not Just the Individual Market. D’oh

Everyone is focused on the current massive (in the tens of millions) cancellations of health insurance policies–that people liked and wanted to keep–in the individual market.  I guess that makes sense as these are the ones that are being sent out . . . now.  But it won’t be long before that Obama delay of the employer mandate kicks in, and pretty much everyone with employer-based insurance will find themselves in the exact same boat.  Or actually, without a boat.  Or a paddle.

I cannot wait to see how the leftists who are currently ridiculing, bullying, and otherwise being their usual holier-than-thou selves will react when it’s they who are hit with losing the plan they like and being forced into the 0care exchanges at not only higher monthly rates but with higher co-pays and deductibles.  That’s mean.  I shouldn’t be eagerly anticipating that . . . ugh.  But I kind of am (bad Fuzzy!).

Of course, as I predicted in 2009, the blame will go to the companies who are doing exactly what the law demands: paying the slight fine rather than subsidizing ridiculously expensive “comprehensive” plans that few want and no one needs.  This is the same scheme built into 0Care that rewards the young and healthy for NOT buying a plan (who wouldn’t pay the comparatively small tax-fine-abomination instead of being hit with insane costs for coverage they neither want nor need?).  The law was designed to fail in this way, and anyone who has employer-based insurance now . . . get a clue, you won’t have it in two years.  Period.  So get over your “but I’m not on the individual market” so I’m not speaking up nonsense.  Soon, they are coming for you.

Regressive’s Whining Introspection Provides Food for Thought for TEA Partiers

This is pretty “old” now, but obviously, I feel it’s worth mentioning.  Absolutely ages and ages ago (in today’s “if it was said yesterday, it doesn’t matter” blog cycle), some regressive blogger I’d never heard of bemoaned the failure of the “progressive blog movement.”  It’s a lot of belly-button gazing, myopic, unintelligent drivel for the most part (gee, we had so much POWER! We were meeting IMPORTANT people! We MATTERED!), but there was one part that really caught my attention:

Unlike the Tea Party, most left wingers don’t really believe their own ideology.  They put partisanship first, or they put the color of a candidate’s skin or the shape of their genitals over the candidate’s policy.  Identity is more important to them than how many brown children that politician is killing.

So progressives have no power, because they have no principles: they cannot be expected to actually vote for the most progressive candidate, to successfully primary candidates, to care about policy first and identity second, to not take scraps from the table and sell out other progressive’s interests.

The Tea Party, say what you will about them, gets a great deal of obeisance from Republicans for one simple reason: they will primary you if they don’t like how you’ve been voting, and they’ll probably win that primary.  They are feared.  Progressives are not feared, because they do not believe enough in their ostensible principles to act on them in an effective fashion.

I, of course, have been saying this for years.  The real legacy of this century’s “new” progressive movement (that would take us back to the 1930’s, not exactly a banner decade for America) will be not only utter failure but loss of any and all credibility (how seriously will ANYONE take regressives when a Republican is elected and he or she chooses to continue Obama’s policy of continuing Bush’s policies?  Not. At. All. They–everyone from the remarkably silent during Obama’s reign Code Pink to the not-quite-as-silent-but-still-complicit at sites like the Daily Kos and Firedoglake–will be laughingstocks and ridiculous jokes to one and all.).

This regressive blogger guy is exactly right: their lack of principles is what failed them, what will always fail them.

The Sorry President and His Sorry Acolytes

Poor old Ron Fournier, devout Obot, worshiper at the Styrofoam columns of a Styrofoam president.  Fournier bemoans the Liar in Chief’s latest lie, and he actually gets some things right:

I’m sorry you couldn’t finesse a single Republican vote for health insurance reform in 2010.

[snip]

I’m sorry you campaigned for reelection on the famous false promise: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan. Period.”

I’m sorry your aides debated whether to tell the full truth (that people could keep their insurance only if it hadn’t changed and if it met your standards) and decided instead to institutionalize the lie.

I’m sorry that when Americans recognized the deception you tried to reinvent history: “What we said was you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed.” No, no, no, no, no—that’s not what you guys said.

I’m sorry you didn’t trust Americans with the truth.

Heh. It’s hard not to laugh, isn’t it?  Poor, sad, pathetic Fournier, still pinning his “hope” for “change” in a liar and a charlatan.

Dear Ron: Obama cannot trust Americans with the truth because the truth is not, and will never be, acceptable to us.  Period.  You live in a crazy utopian dream world that has nothing to do with actual American values, and if you think that Obama can stand up and just say, woot!  I wanna be king of the world, and that anyone will do anything but laugh. Long and loud. You are delusional.  But then, we already know you’re delusional because we read your columns.

Brief Note on 2016

I’m pretty much done with the crazy.  I voted for McCain in 2008.  I voted for Romney in 2012.  Neither man I really liked for the job, they were just better than the alternative (well, in McCain’s case, perhaps, not so much).  This time, it looks like we’ll get another nonentity, regressive Obot (Christie seems to be the main one at the moment, and I can’t even begin to tell you how much I loathe the man.).

Next time . . . I’m all for swinging this crazy pendulum far far far right.  We need a frothing-at-the-mouth, rightwing nutjob, and we need him or her now.  Sadly, we don’t really have one, so I’m looking at Ted Cruz . . . and I’m looking at Rand Paul.  I’m not thrilled with Rand because he’s been too cautious lately, too . . . calculating.  I distrust that.  A lot.

And I want someone like Allen West on either ticket because he GETS it with regards to the Islamofascist threat and will know how to undo the immense damage that Obama has done to our military.  If West can’t or won’t run for president or VP, he simply has to be involved in fixing the military mess that Obama and his traitorous horde have created.

Establishment GOP As Clueless As Ever

I was watching this clip of Mitt Romney being interviewed on Hannity, and I sighed. A lot. I shook my head with disbelief and not a little sorrow.  Here it is, watch it, see how you respond:

 

Although I definitely believe that we’d be in much better shape right now as a country if Mitt Romney had won last November, I (almost) can’t believe how . . . seriously, truly, deeply stupid he is about the “mistakes” he claims to have made.  Hispanics.  Really?  That’s why he lost?

This is a deep and serious problem with establishment GOP: they honestly believe that their own big spending, big government solutions are way better than leftists’ big spending, big government solutions, and because they are so invested in this big spending, big government ideology, two major things happen (neither good for either the GOP or our republic):  one, they compete for Democrat voters on Democrat turf, and two, they do so at the expense of their own base . . . failing to care that the base is deserting them in record, wacko bird numbers. They seem to think that GOP numbers are tanking because of the left; that’s only half right–they’re also tanking because conservatives are fed up with them and have been for years.  What they don’t seem to understand is that they will never ever win by running as Democrats against actual Democrats.

Sure, if Mitt could have turned out Hispanics in the numbers (both real and fraudulent) that turned out for Obama, he’d have won.  He didn’t lose by all that much, after all, but the people who didn’t turn out, who didn’t vote for him weren’t only the Democrat and Obama’s base; they were prominently, in large numbers conservative voters (seriously, this is what Mitt worries he did so wrong: he didn’t win over enough Obama voters. Yet if the GOP had run an actual conservative, conservatives would have turned out in huge numbers as we did in 2010).  Instead of worrying that he, amazingly, turned out fewer conservatives than that national disgrace John McCain, Romney is worried that he didn’t turn out enough of Obama’s voters.  You can’t make this stuff up, you really can’t.

It’s insane.

Yet this is what the GOP elite are thinking, planning for, and worrying about.  How, they fret, will they ever convince Obama voters to vote for their big government instead of Obama’s big government?  Gee, they wonder, what can we do to show that we’ll hand out just as many phones and other freebies as Obama?  That they’ll grant amnesty without secure borders (ahem Rubio and Paul Ryan) just like Obama?  How can they convince Obama voters that their big government solutions to “national” health care, “national” education, and a myriad other issues they want to solve via the federal government and increased tyranny are better than the Democrats’ federal programs, regulations, and general tyranny?  If only they could solve that problem, they are certain, they’d win a presidential election.

Never mind that Americans are sick of, don’t want, and actively reject all that big spending, big government nonsense that does nothing for the American people (except enslave them and whittle away at that their God-given rights) and does everything for the political class and their cronies.  Who cares what Americans want?  Not the Dems.  Not Obama.  And no, not the GOP establishment who are trying to compete on regressive turf with regressive policies for regressive votes.  They think that’s a winning strategy, and they think that even as the American public declares that it wants less government spending and fewer federal programs.

Never you mind that it doesn’t work, that an election that Obama never should have won was not won by Obama but lost by these regressive GOP establishment types who really, truly, deeply believe that their key to success is to out-regressive the regressives, to win over regressive voters with their bigger, better, more policies, programs, regulations, laws, mandates, and dictates.  They just keep churning out unacceptable candidates that the conservative base of the GOP continuously rejects in hopes that they’ll finally hit on one who will appeal to not only indies but to a good portion of the Obama base.  That’s the plan.

And they think it’s a good one.

They see headlines like Ted Cruz now leads GOP presidential pack and The conservative shift in public opinion has happened in all 50 states, and they conclude, as Mitt Romney does in the above video, that . . . Hispanics!

You can’t fix stupid.  You can only vote it out of office, out of power, sweeping it out of the way.

Of Ted Cruz, the Obamacare fiasco, and America

Okay, I started this post after getting no sleep (having been up all night watching the Ted Cruz not-a-filibuster), but I thought I’d pick it up and run with it (the first bit from a comment I left on a Telegraph article by the ever-insightful Nile Gardner), so here goes:

Ted Cruz’s Efforts to Shine Much-Needed Light on ObamaCare

The reason that I haven’t slept is that one senator (two, actually, because Mike King matters hugely in this) stood up in Jimmy Stewart fashion and told the truth.  Americans aren’t used to hearing the truth (and haven’t been in decades, so this isn’t a swipe at anyone in particular–yet), so I watched it all (well, I was a bit late getting to the party, but only by about an hour or so). I literally stayed up all night to support Senator Cruz in my own inconsequential way: I thought if he can stand there on the Senate floor in suit and tie to speak for the American people, the very least I can do is to sit in my jammies on the couch for every minute of it (bonus: I got to take “bio” breaks, he didn’t).

Here’s the thing, I listened to all 20+ hours of that not-a-filibuster, and while I cringed a tad at some of the stuff (the Darth Vader impression was . . . weird), I can’t say that anything he said or read of substance was off-key, off-base, or in any other way off.

People forget how the Obamacare monstrosity was forged and then passed, but it really does matter because even the Dems would never have made this thing law if they could help it.  What happened was the law was written, passed through committees (with this, that, and the other tacked on . . . because they can), and then . . .

Boom.

Scott Brown got elected to the Senate.  He ran as the 41st vote against ObamaCare, and he won Ted Kennedy’s seat (as we all remember, Teddy was a progressive, single-payer fanatic).  That was supposed to send, should have sent, a message to Washington that we, the people, didn’t want ObamaCare.  Even uber-regressive Massachusetts was willing to send a (faux) conservative, running primarily on voting against ObamaCare, to the Senate.  And not just to the Senate, but in Teddy’s seat.

It mattered.

But it didn’t change a thing:  Dems saw it, understood fully that the people rejected ObamaCare, shrugged, and moved on with ramming this national disaster down our throats.

That special election meant that the haphazard, crazy, tacked-on, willy-nilly nature of that bill had to be either: a.) voted on as is (with Reid pulling a fast one and going with a”budget” vote that required only a majority vote), or b.) given the ideological divide, pretty much it being trashed and started over.  Reid, as majority leader in the Senate decided to pass a major piece of legislation, one that directly affects every American’s life–mostly for the worse–with an up-down vote on budget rules (it all passes or fails and does so by a majority rule).

Laws in the U. S. are supposed to be passed by a 2/3 majority, a thing Reid didn’t have when Massachusetts elected Scott Brown to the 41st seat. So he fudged it, used a budgetary gimmick, and slammed ObamaCare through with exactly zero input from Republicans and without a single Republican vote.

Americans don’t like, don’t trust, and generally ensure there is no one-party “rule.”  No major piece of legislation has ever been passed without votes from the loyal opposition.  This was shocking to us all, left and right.

We like our Dem presidents to have Republican houses of Congress and vice versa.  Some split is also desirable to we Americans, and generally-speaking, we avoid like the plague any one-party rule–one party’s control of the executive and both legislative branches of government.

Americans were–and, importantly, are–angry.  In America, our representatives are supposed to (oh, with the crazy!) represent us, our voice, our wishes to DC.  What happened with ObamaCare was that DC decided what was best for us and then tried to represent that to the people.

That’s completely backwards.

America is just not a nation of sovereign rule, Americans are not subjects of some ruler, and we don’t take kindly to being treated like subjects who must bend to the will of some centralized power that is far removed from us.  That’s how revolutions–all revolutions–start.

So what Ted Cruz tapped into was almost primal, it’s in an American’s DNA, soul, collective unconscious (whatever you want to deem it) that we are a free people, that liberty comes first, that our government and its elected officials represent us; they do not rule us, they are not our “boss,” and they damned sure aren’t our “masters,” and we are not their “servants.” Indeed, they are “public servants,” and if anyone is “master,” it is we, the people.

And that, ultimately, is what Cruz’s not-a-filibuster was about: America, our republic.  What it means to be an American, what it means when your American-ness is stripped away against your will, and that is what the fight for the soul of the republican party is ultimately about: do we continue to support weak-willed, self-serving GOP elites who are big government, big spending pawns of the Washington machine that sees us as servants and ATM machines for their largess, or do we enforce our will, that of the people of these United States, and reject that tried-and-failed socialist-communist-fascist rubric?

My vote is for the latter.