Where did Rubio, Cruz and Trump stand on amnesty before running for President?

Marco Rubio with his allies: Democrat Churck Schumer and RINO John McCain
Marco Rubio with his allies: Democrat Churck Schumer and RINO John McCain

Here is an article from the non-partisan Roll Call, from way back in April 22, 2013. The title is “Rubio Targets Fellow Conservatives on Immigration”.

Excerpt:

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., is running a campaign-style press operation to push an immigration overhaul, a fitting move for a politician who needs it to bolster a rumored 2016 presidential bid.

[…]According to multiple sources tracking the immigration debate, Rubio is perhaps the most important senator in lending the group’s effort enough conservative credibility to result in a final bill. Because Rubio’s future political aspirations will certainly be affected by the fate of the looming legislation, the proactive approach his team is taking is helping him take matters into his own hands.

[…]Of course, with each email, Rubio’s commitment to the bill grows stronger. And in a town where perception is almost everything, a daily record of his defense of the bill and attacks on the conservatives trying to kill it is certainly building a perception.

Who were the “conservatives trying to kill it” mentioned in the linked article? Jeff Sessions, Chuck Grassley, Mike Lee and Ted Cruz. And now Rubio has the nerve to accuse Cruz of supporting amnesty, after Cruz led the fight against it.

So let’s see what Ted Cruz did to fight amnesty.

 

Ted Cruz and Mike Lee go to war against amnesty
Ted Cruz and Mike Lee go to war against amnesty

Ted Cruz

Listen to Senator Jeff Sessions, a hawk on immigration, explain where Ted Cruz was when amnesty was being proposed by Rubio and his Democrat allies:

Legal Insurrection describes what Sessions says:

Sessions states:  “One of the things you’ve been hearing about somehow is a criticism of Ted and how he and what he did with regard to this massive [immigration bill] that they tried to ram through in 2013,” Sessions said. “Let me tell you, I was there. Every step of the way, Ted Cruz was on my side and fought this legislation all the way through.”

Sessions makes an important point during this speech:  “This presidential election is going to decide who runs the White House: the crowd that pushed this legislation or the crowd that opposed it.”

And that, I think, is the crux of this issue . . . and, at least in part, of this election.

And what about Donald Trump? Does he have a record of opposing amnesty?

Donald Trump

Trump was for amnesty back in August of 2013 – according to his own tweet:

Donald Trump tweets about illegal immigration, circa August 2013
Donald Trump tweets about illegal immigration, circa August 2013

If illegal immigration and border security are important to you, then your candidate is Ted Cruz. He is the only one running with the record of fighting against illegal immigration, as well as taking in refugees from countries that are dominated by radical Islam.

What did Goldman Sachs get in exchange for paying Hillary Clinton $200,000 an hour?

Hillary Clinton look bored about the deaths of 4 Americans who asked for her help
Hillary Clinton look bored about the deaths of 4 Americans who asked for her help

This article is from the Washington Free Beacon.

It says:

Hillary Clinton could not help but laugh Friday when a reporter asked her to release the transcripts from her high-priced Goldman Sachs speeches at a rope line in New Hampshire.

“Will you release the transcript of your paid speeches at Goldman Sachs?” a reporter from the Intercept asked Clinton at a campaign event, referring to the $675,000 she has earned in speaking fees from the bank.

Clinton looked directly at the reporter, and after a pause, laughed in his face. She then carried on greeting supporters.

“There’s a lot of controversy over those speeches,” the reporter said. “Secretary?”

Clinton continued to speak over the reporter, drowning him out.

“Hi! So glad to see you!” Clinton said.

“Is that a no?” the reporter persisted.

Clinton ignored his question and repeated a greeting to another supporter.

“I am so happy to see you,” Clinton said.

“Secretary Clinton, will you release the transcript of your Goldman Sachs speeches?” the reporter said again. Clinton ignored him.

Clinton has come under scrutiny for giving high-priced speeches, averaging $225,000 per gig, at big banks such as Goldman Sachs, all the while preaching about income inequality on the campaign trail. She and her husband have made more than $125 million in speaking fees since 2001.

Here is the video where she laughs at the questioner, and then ignores him, even after repeated attempts to get her to be accountable:

You might remember that Clinton often talks about how she is “dead broke”. Is she really “dead broke”?

$300,000 an hour for a speech
$300,000 an hour for a speech

Hillary Clinton’s speech fees

The Weekly Standard reports:

Disclosure forms filed with the Federal Election Commission by Hillary Clinton provide fascinating details of the remarkable money-making machine that is the once-and-possibly-future first couple. Between January 2014 and the filing of the forms on May 15, 2015 (up to and including a speech by Bill Clinton to the American Institute of Architects the day before the filing), the Clintons made about $30 million, approximately $25 million from speeches alone.

Both of the Clintons have given speeches regularly in the 16-month period covered in the filing with rarely more than a few weeks off in between engagements. Often events are crowded together during a period of several days, sometimes with more than one speech on the same day. On a single day last October, Bill and Hillary delivered a total of four speeches, taking home over $1 million. Those four speeches fell in the middle of a three-day blitz that brought in a total of $1,511,000. (Mrs. Clinton edged out her husband $786,000 to $725,000.)

[…]Although the audiences for the Clintons vary widely, the actual content and duration of the speeches is not always revealed. However, a YouTube video of Bill Clinton’s recent speech to the American Institute of Architects, apparently recorded by an attendee, shows that the $250,000 fee paid to Mr. Clinton purchased the group a 23 minute speech, an hourly rate of about $652,000.

On a per-hour basis, she makes more than all of the CEOs of the largest companies. Well, maybe not more than Donald Trump, though. New York values. Actually, Donald Trump donated at least $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, so maybe he can tell us what people get for giving the Clinton’s exorbitant sums of money.

Donald Trump and his friends, the Clintons
Donald Trump and his friends, the Clintons

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz had to liquidate assets and take out loans against his investments in order to run for Senate. Which of these people is more like you and I?

William Lane Craig lectures on naturalism at the University of St. Andrews

Lets take a closer look at a puzzle
Lets take a closer look at a puzzle

Note: even if you have heard Dr. Craig’s arguments before, I recommend jumping to the 48 minutes of Q&A time, which starts 72 minutes in.

About Dr. William Lane Craig:

William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an American analytic philosopher, philosophical theologian, and Christian apologist. He is known for his work on the philosophy of time and the philosophy of religion, specifically the existence of God and the defense of Christian theism. He has authored or edited over 30 books including The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology(co-authored with Quentin Smith, 1993), Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship to Time (2001), and Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (co-edited with Quentin Smith, 2007).

Craig received a Bachelor of Arts degree in communications from Wheaton College, Illinois, in 1971 and two summa cum laudemaster’s degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, in 1975, in philosophy of religion and ecclesiastical history. He earned a Ph.D. in philosophy under John Hick at the University of Birmingham, England in 1977 and a Th.D. underWolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich, Germany in 1984.

Dr. Craig was in Scotland to lecture at a physics conference, but a local church organized this public lecture at the University of St. Andrews.

Here is the full lecture with Q&A: (2 hours)

Summary:

  • Naturalism defined: the physical world (matter, space and time) is all that exists
  • Dr. Craig will present 7 reasons why naturalism is false
  • 1) the contingency argument
  • 2) the kalam cosmological argument
  • 3) the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life
  • 4) the moral argument
  • 5) the ontological argument
  • 6) the resurrection of Jesus
  • 7) religious experience

Dr. Craig does mention an 8th argument early in the Q&A – the argument from the non-physicality of mental states (substance dualism), which is an argument that I find convincing, because a materialist conception of mind is not compatible with rationality, consciousness and moral agency.

Questions and Answers

He gets a couple of questions on the moral argument early on – one of them tries to put forward an evolutionary explanation for “moral” behaviors. There’s another question the definition of naturalism. There is a bonehead question about the non-existence of Jesus based on a Youtube movie he saw – which Craig responds to with agnostic historian Bart Ehrman’s book on that topic. There’s a question about God as the ground for morality – does morality come from his will or nature.

Then there is a question about the multiverse, which came up at the physics conference Dr. Craig attended the day before. There is a good question about the Big Bang theory and the initial singularity at time t=0. Another good question about transfinite arithmetic, cardinality and set theory. One questioner asks about the resurrection argument. The questioner asks if we can use the origin of the disciples belief as an argument when other religions have people who are willing to die for their claims. One of the questioners asks about whether the laws of nature break down at 10^-43 after the beginning of the universe. There is a question about the religious experience argument, and Craig has the opportunity to give his testimony.

I thought that the questions from the Scottish students and faculty were a lot more thoughtful and respectful than at American colleges and universities. Highly recommended.