Marco Rubio with his allies: Democrat Chuck Schumer and RINO John McCain
I’m taking a look at three elements of Rubio’s record on illegal immigration:
Rubio co-authored a bill to give 20 million illegal immigrants a path to citizenship: voting and access to welfare payments
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
I’ll do the first one on Tuesday morning, and the second one on Wednesday morning, and the third one on Thursday morning.
Here’s the story from the radically leftist Huffington Post.
They say:
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is standing by a bill he co-sponsored during his time in the Florida Statehouse that provided in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants
The 2004 law, Rubio told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, was specifically tailored to only allow undocumented immigrants with a certain GPA and who graduated from a Florida high school to benefit from in-state tuition. They also had to have lived in the U.S. for a long time.
Rubio said he “absolutely” stood by his support of the bill, which was passed after he left the statehouse.
“It was very narrowly tailored to high-performing students who found themselves in a situation where they were brought here by their parents when they were 5, didn’t even speak another language except English and therefore couldn’t attend college because they were being charged like they were from out of state,” Rubio said.
The decision to provide in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants became an issuefor then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry during the 2012 Republican presidential primary.
So, Rubio doesn’t want natural born Americans to get the in-state tuition discount. Rubio doesn’t want law-abiding skilled immigrants who went through the long, arduous process of legal immigration to get the in-state tuition discount. No! Rubio wants illegal immigrants to get a break on their tuition costs, and let the taxpayers of Florida pick up the bill for the difference.
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.
Richard is very thorough and works only with minimal facts that skeptical scholars will agree with. James Crossley is an excellent atheist, knowledgeable and respectful.
The debate goes for 80 minutes. I wrote a summary so you can follow along as you listen. This summary is rated “N” for Not Snarky.
Summary
Main topic:
– was belief in Jesus’ divinity develop late, or was it there from the beginning?
– how did the early Jewish community reconcile the idea of Jesus’ divinity with monotheism?
Moderator:
– was the the worship of Jesus as God a late development in history
– was it accepted by converts from the Jewish community
Bauckham:
– high Christology was not a result of pagan influences
– Jews reconciled Jesus’ divinity with their Jewish monotheism
Moderator:
– is the degree of Christology a historian is willing to accept just the result of bias?
Crossley:
– bias is always a factor in what individual people think
– but in a public discussion, what matters is the evidence
Moderator:
– High-Christology is used by Christians as an argument for the resurrection
– Christians ask: what cause could account for the effect of early high Christology?
Crossley:
– we agree that the first Christians witnessed something after Jesus’ death
– what they witnessed had a role in their forming their high opinion of Jesus
– the high opinion was because they believed he had been resurrected (1 Cor 15)
– whether he was or not is a separate question
Moderator:
– is a high Christology a good argument for inferring the resurrection?
Bauckham:
– the resurrection makes people think Jesus is unique, but not necessarily divine
– it was really the belief in the exaltation of Jesus to God’s right hand that did it
– what God does in Judaism is to create the universe and rule over the universe
– if Jesus is seated at God’s right hand, then is participating in ruling creation
– so Jesus is being identified with God very early
– the exaltation might have been caused by post-mortem visions of Jesus, e.g. – Stephen
Moderator:
– how were early monotheistic Jews able to reconcile the divinity of Jesus with monotheism?
Crossley:
– the high Christology may not be early because disputes about it are going on in John
– there were other figures in Judaism like the Word of God and Wisdom that were very high
– maybe Paul’s Christology is not as high and he is thinking something high but not deity
– and in John the Christology is being pushed higher to deity, and then there are disputes
Moderator:
– Phillipians and 1 Corinthians are the first evidences of what people thought about Jesus
– John is actually much later
Crossley:
– it may be that Paul’s Christology is high and that he just never got into any disputes
Bauckham:
– in Phillipians, Paul incorporates Jesus into the shema, the core of Jewish monotheism
– in 1 Corinthians, he does the same thing
Moderator:
– is this evidence consistent with the idea that Jesus is more like Wisdom or the Word of God
Crossley:
– in Paul’s letters, there are no conflicts about Jesus’ divinity, they appear later in John
– if Paul’s letters taught a divine Jesus, there would be conflicts in the letters
– so there is possibly an evolving Christology from very high to divine
Bauckham:
– the Word and Wisdom of God are different from exalted figures – they are separate
– the Word and Wisdom of God are intrinsic to God’s own identity
– and so Word and Wisdom are divine in the sense that they below to God’s identity
Moderator:
– is Jesus an exalted human figure or someone identified with God?
– is the identification of Jesus with divinity compatible with Jewish monotheism?
– or was this concept developed later in a pagan context where one more God would not matter?
Bauckham:
– NT scholars typically separate functional Christology and ontic Christology
– but I say that there is no such disctinction
– if Jesus does the functions of God (like ruling), then it means he is identified with God
– there is a distinction between who God is (identity) and what God is (nature)
– Jews were not as concerned with the identification of a man with the God
– Jews were disturbed by the idea that THIS shamed and crucified man would be identified with God
Moderator:
– is this high Christology too much of a sharp break with Jewish monotheism to have been early?
Crossley:
– the Phillipians passage is a strong early passage for Richard’s view
– definitely the crucifixion is a major problem for the early Jewish monotheists
– but the deification of a human being is also a strong problem in spite of what Richard says
– both Jews and Muslims will have objections to identifying Jesus with the divine
Moderator:
– How can Paul write something like this when he was such a high-ranking Jew?
Bauckham:
– Jewish monotheism could accomodate something surprising like this without surrendering anything
– John starts his gospel at the creation of the universe to say Jesus was there as “the Word”
Moderator:
– was the early church thinking of Jesus the same way that the church today does?
Crossley:
– it’s hard to say because the language today reflects a lot of development
– in the early church people were still thinking about what to make of Jesus
Moderator:
– what about in the other gospels, do they indicate a strong notion of Jesus as divine?
Crossley:
– nothing as strong as Paul’s letters and John, especiall the disputes with the Jews
Moderator:
– so did the writers of the other gospels have different views of Jesus’ divinity than Paul and John?
Crossley:
– well the same claims are not there in the text, the claims are not as grand as in Paul and John
Bauckham:
– but in Mark, the earliest gospel, Jesus forgives sins and calms storm – acting as God acts
– Jesus also asks “why do call me good, only God is good”
– the “seated at the right hand of God” and “coming on the clouds” passages
Crossley:
– I don’t think those claims are as high as John, because Moses controls nature as well
– the other actions may be more that Jesus has authority to do these things
Moderator:
– but the author of Mark writes that the disciples are catching on that Jesus was more than a man
Bauckham:
– Jews were not as concerned with the unitary nature of God, but there is only one God (being)
– there can’t really be any evolution from Jesus as a created being to Jesus as divine
– in paganism, there are lower divinities, but that is not the case in Jewish monotheism
Moderator:
– the fact that Jesus was worshiped by Jews means he was already viewed as divine
Crossley:
– that point is debatable, but can be sustained with a careful exegesis like Richard does
– there is some room there for an evolving Christology – the gap may not be as big as Richard says
Moderator:
– do you think that the worship of Jesus was the result of increasing Christology over time?
Crossley:
– it may not have been conscious, but John is the clearest statement and it is the latest gospel
– it may be that a dispute with Jews was required to spell it out even if it was present before
Moderator:
– what about idea that the early church worshiped him because they just though it was a new revelation?
Bauckham:
– the early Christians worshiped as Jews and then met separately afterward to worship Jesus
– worship is about distinguishing God from the created world
– you wouldn’t worship Jesus without some idea of what you were doing
Crossley:
– other things that set Jesus apart were the exorcisms and the vision to Paul that converted him
Marco Rubio with his allies: Democrat Chuck Schumer and RINO John McCain
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.
He writes:
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.
Look:
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.
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.
WINTERY KNIGHT 