Shane Vander Hart who blogs at Caffeinated Thoughts wrote a post about how Marco Rubio is taking up his previously-discredited attack on Cruz’s votes on NDAA defense appropriations.
South Carolina is a major military state with two Air Force bases, an Army base, two Marine bases, a Navy weapons station and two naval hospitals located in the state. U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) gave a policy speech today in Charleston, SC that unveiled his plan to invest in rebuilding the armed forces.
His opponents, mainly U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), have tried to discredit Cruz’s resolve in this issue. One of the chief ways they have attempted to do this is by pointing out his no votes on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
He found articles by Rubio supporters in National Review and Weekly Standard that echo Rubio’s charge.
Shane explains the truth:
Ok here are some pertinent facts that the Rubio camp has withheld. First it is a policy bill,not an appropriations bill. What the Rubio camp doesn’t tell you is that he voted against it because certain language in the bill was unconstitutional. Namely, it authorized indefinite detention of American citizens accused of terrorism. That is a clear violation of the 5th Amendment.
Cruz promised his constituents that if he was elected to the U.S. Senate he would vote against any bill that violated the Constitution. He keeps his campaign promise and establishment Republicans criticize him for it. They should learn from his example instead of taking pot shots at him for it. This is one of the reasons he is so popular among grassroots conservatives and Republicans in his state. Apparently Rubio is in favor of violating the Constitution by detaining American citizens accused of terrorism indefinitely without due process. Which law school did Rubio attend again? He should ask for a tuition refund.
Second in regards to criticism that he supported cuts in defense spending the Rubio camp has neglected to share another pertinent fact to his supporters and the media. Cruz voted for the last defense appropriations bill and Rubio was a no show.
The saying those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones comes to mind.
Rubio couldn’t bother showing up to vote for the appropriations bill he claims (and I agree) is vitally important.
Lindsay found an article in the Washington Free Beacon that explains how Cruz introduced an amendment to the NDAA defense spending bill to remove the part about indefinite detention, so that he could go ahead and vote for the rest of the bill.
Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), both of whom are running for president, have joined up with other senators to introduce an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), currently before the Senate, that would ban indefinite detention of U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents, without being charged or given a trial, unless authorized by Congress.
Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) also put their names on the provision.
“The Constitution does not allow President Obama, or any President, to apprehend an American citizen, arrested on U.S. soil, and detain these citizens indefinitely without a trial,” Cruz said in a statement. “While we must vigorously protect national security by pursuing violent terrorists and preventing acts of terror, we must also ensure our most basic rights as American citizens are protected.”
Cruz’s amendment had bi-partisan support, but it did not pass – that’s why Cruz voted against the bill. He wanted to vote for it, he tried to get the issue he was concerned about addressed, but he would not go against what he promised his constituents. Marco Rubio, and his supporters, conveniently leave that part out, so that they can can accuse Cruz of being weak on foreign policy.
How many times do we have to catch Marco Rubio behaving dishonestly before he is disqualified as a Republican candidate? The man has low moral character, and he’s proven it again and again. He promised his supporters in 2010 that he would be strongly opposed to amnesty, then when he got to Washington, he introduced a bill to give 20 million illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. We cannot, therefore, trust a word that comes out of his mouth about what he would and would not do if elected. Rubio doesn’t have the moral character to be President.
Here’s the full list of Rubio errors:
- Rubio got a D rating from pro-marriage activist Maggie Gallagher regarding his response to the Obergefell decision, which redefined marriage for all 50 states.
- Rubio supports sugar subsidies and ethanol subsidies, which is just crony capitalism
- Rubio takes money from a billionaire gay-marriage activist who donates to the Human Rights Campaign group – a group which wants government to persecute Christians who dissent from celebrating gay marriage
- Rubio skipped votes on de-funding Planned Parenthood in order to go to campaign fundraising events
- Rubio voted for a gun ban in Florida public parks
- Rubio introduced a bill to strip accused students of due process rights in university trials
- Rubio supported the disastrous Obama/Clinton Libya intervention which created an Islamic State caliphate in Libya
- Rubio led the effort to pass amnesty – a path to citizenship for 20 million illegal immigrants – so they can vote to expand government
- Rubio promised a Spanish-speaking audience that he would not rescind Obama’s executive action amnesty if elected President
- Rubio co-sponsored a bill to give illegal immigrants in-state tuition in Florida, to be paid for by Florida taxpayers