Tag Archives: Marco Rubio

Ted Cruz, Rick Perry and Carly Fiorina discuss the 2016 election with Sean Hannity

Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz appear on Fox News with Sean Hannity
Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz appear on Fox News with Sean Hannity

Ted Cruz was on Fox News yesterday for a one-hour townhall meeting in Arizona with Sean Hannity, a Trump supporter.

I noted that the Republican National Committee posted that video on Youtube. Is that a sign the establishment is coming over to support the rebel candidate?

Summary:

  • Should Ohio Governor John Kasich drop out of the race?
  • What will happen if no one gets 1,237 delegates before the GOP convention to choose the nominee?
  • What is a brokered convention?
  • What is a contested convention?
  • Is Donald Trump going to get to 1,237 delegates before the GOP convention?
  • Is Ted Cruz going to get to 1,237 delegates before the GOP convention?
  • Why does the establishment refuse to get behind candidates who are strong on legal immigration and border security?
  • What did Ted Cruz see on the border with Mexico?
  • Why aren’t Republicans concerned about border security?
  • What would Ted Cruz do about sanctuary cities?
  • What would Ted Cruz do about e-verify?
  • What would Ted Cruz do about tracking entry / exit of people who are given visas?
  • What would Ted Cruz do about welfare benefits given to illegal immigrants?
  • If Donald Trump is tough on border security, then why did he donate so much money to open borders / pro-amnesty Democrats?
  • Has Donald Trump released the New York Times tape where he explained that his real views on border security are much more moderate than he tells the public?
  • What would Ted Cruz do to encourage job creators to create more jobs, and rein in government spending?
  • What would Ted Cruz do to fix the regulations that are stifling small businesses?
  • What would Ted Cruz do to make health care more affordable?
  • Surprise guest: why does former CEO of Hewlett-Packard Carly Fiorina support Ted Cruz for President?
  • Surprise guest: why does former Governor of Texas Rick Perry support Ted Cruz for President?

Leftist Politico reports that the Cruz Campaign is not wasting any time going after Marco Rubio supporters:

In Utah, his leadership team moved to lock down the Florida senator’s lengthy list of legislative endorsements before next Tuesday’s caucus. Cruz is planning to meet with Gov. Gary Herbert Saturday at a campaign kickoff event for Utah Sen. Mike Lee, another Cruz ally. In Washington, several of Rubio’s national security advisers signed on with Cruz — after, in part, courting from [Victoria] Coates. And nationally, Cruz’s money team is making the case to Rubio’s former donors that Cruz’s time has come.

Their message: The party is running out of time to stop Donald Trump — and Cruz is the only one who can do it.

[…]The broad-based, national effort comes as Cruz seeks to consolidate the anti-Trump wing of the GOP behind his campaign. He lags well behind Trump in delegates, but his team is hopeful that with a united party behind him, he’ll turn that deficit into a lead by the time the he heads to the Republican National Convention in July. They insist he could do even better: assemble enough delegates to score an outright win — though that’s a path that has narrowed dramatically and remains a long-shot for Cruz.

A win in Utah on Tuesday, however, would be a significant first step toward catching up in the delegate count, and Cruz enjoyed a boost toward that goal Friday when former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney—whom Cruz has frequently criticized– said he would vote for Cruz in Utah over Trump and over Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

“A vote for Governor Kasich in future contests makes it extremely likely that Trumpism would prevail,” Romney wrote in a Facebook post, echoing Cruz’s argument. “I will vote for Senator Cruz and I encourage others to do so as well, so that we can have an open convention and nominate a Republican.”

Leftist USA Today reports that Marco Rubio effectively endorsed Ted Cruz earlier this week:

Marco Rubio hasn’t endorsed Ted Cruz, but he seemed to come awfully close during a conference call with supporters this week.

Cruz is “the only conservative left in the race,” Rubio told supporters in Minnesota, according to a tape obtained by the Twin Cities Pioneer Press.

Meanwhile, leftist CNN reports that even liberal RINO Lindsey Graham is throwing his support behind Ted Cruz:

In a sign of just how much the Republican presidential primary has turned the party on its head, Sen. Lindsey Graham will headline a fundraiser on Monday in support of Ted Cruz.

[…]Support for Cruz is an about-face for the South Carolina senator, who compared nominating GOP front-runner Donald Trump or Cruz to being shot or poisoned. He recently mocked Cruz’s unpopularity among his colleagues, saying earlier this month: “If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.”

“He’s certainly not my preference, but he’s a reliable Republican, conservative, which I’ve had many differences with,” the South Carolina Republican said.

When asked about his dramatic change in stance toward Cruz, Graham admitted that his Senate colleague is “not well liked,” but said, “I have doubts about Mr. Trump, I don’t think he’s a Republican, I don’t think he’s a conservative, I think his campaign’s built on xenophobia, race-baiting and religious bigotry, I think he’d be a disaster for our party and as Senator Cruz would not be my first choice, I think he is a Republican conservative who I could support.”

On specific issues, Graham said he believes Cruz would be a reliable partner for Israel, would build the Keystone XL pipeline extension, would repeal and replace Obamacare and would nominate a true conservative to be on the Supreme Court.

Still, Graham said he believes that the third remaining Republican candidate for president, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, would be “the most viable general election candidate,” but that he does not see how Kasich can win the primary.

The move is also a sign that Cruz might be starting to gain traction with his colleagues in the Senate.

Cruz picked up his first Senate endorsement from Utah Sen. Mike Lee last week.

I think it’s amazing that Ted Cruz has actually gotten the liberal Republican establishment to come over and support him, and all without compromising a thing. In my lifetime, I’ve witnessed the slide of the Republican party to the moderate middle. I never thought I would see the day when the moderate middle had to come over to the conservative right. And yet here we are! I pray it’s not too late.

Who won the debate last night? Winners and losers from the Fox News debate

Ted Cruz explains policy to little girl who wants to be President

Ted Cruz explains public policy to little girl who wants to be President

The Weekly Standard, which I think favors Rubio slightly over Ted Cruz, posted this:

What Cruz did at the debate was make three parallel cases:

  1. Trump is a fraud who can’t be trusted to keep his word.
  2. Trump is not either conservative or Republican in any meaningful way.
  3. Trump actually is the corruption that he decries.

He advanced these arguments not one at a time, but by interweaving them with specific attacks:

* He positively crushed Trump on the use of foreign labor at Mar-a-Lago. He didn’t just bring up the fact that hundreds of applicants applied for these jobs but that Trump prefers to hire foreigners instead, but included Trump’s line from the last post-debate interview where he claimed that these were jobs American workers couldn’t and wouldn’t do.

* He thoroughly prosecuted Trump on the question of Trump’s off-the-record New York Times interview, which Trump steadfastly refuses to release.

* At the end of the segment on Trump University—where Trump’s best defense was telling voters that they should “wait a few years” to see whether or not he committed fraud, Cruz flashed in with a rapier: “Megyn, let me ask the voters at home, is this the debate you want playing out in the general election?” It was brutal.

* When Trump went to his poll numbers—as he always does—Cruz was ready. Trump touted a terrible CNN poll showing him at 49 percent support. Cruz waited for Trump to double down and defend the integrity of the poll. And then he noted that this same poll also showed Trump losing to Clinton and Cruz beating her.

* When the Second Amendment came up, Trump made a gauzy statement of general support. Cruz then dropped the hammer:

It is easy for political candidates to have rhetoric and say, “I support the Second Amendment.” But you cannot say that and at the same time say what Donald just said, which is that on the question of Supreme Court nominees he wants to compromise and reach a middle ground with Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer. That’s what he said in the last debate. . . . And I would point out, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer are both Democrats that Mr. Trump has written checks to repeatedly. Any justice that those two sign off on is going to be a left-wing judicial activist who will undermine religious liberty, and we are one vote away from the Heller decision being overturned, which would effectively erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights. Amendment rights, but when you say you’d compromise with Harry Reid, you put that in jeopardy.

* Cruz’s most devastating line was probably this summation:

I understand the folks who are supporting Donald right now. You’re angry. You’re angry at Washington, and he uses angry rhetoric. But for 40 years, Donald has been part of the corruption in Washington that you’re angry about. And you’re not going to stop the corruption in Washington by supporting someone who has supported liberal Democrats for four decades, from Jimmy Carter to John Kerry to Hillary Clinton. You’re not going to stop the corruption and the cronyism by supporting someone who has used government power for private gain.

The question is what Cruz’s performance gets him. Maybe nothing. The terrain ahead could simply be too tough. But maybe not.

Watch this:

Someone has been teaching Cruz how to speak more concisely. Ted and Marco didn’t attack each other much last night, just like in the last debate. And it worked!

Red State, which is a grassroots conservative web site whose contributors back all different candidates, said:

WINNERS

Senator Ted Cruz: Tonight’s big winner was clearly and indisputably Ted Cruz. Cruz showed the most substance and had the strongest answers. His line about charging Snowden with treason, like his answers on ethanol before the Iowa caucus, showed he’s able to give tough, definitive answers to questions that are controversial even within the party. His touting of his Supreme Court credentials was not only a great case but a timely one.

And when Megyn Kelly eviscerated Trump over his disastrous Trump University failure, it seemed the smoking corpse couldn’t possibly suffer more abuse. But Ted Cruz stepped in and in a few sentences buried that corpse, salted the earth, and wiped the name and location from this history books. Utterly. Destroyed.

But best of all was that Cruz masterfully avoided being in the line of fire, and above the fray in Trump and Rubio’s heated exchanges. Sometimes that doesn’t play well. Sometimes it makes you the winner. This is one of the latter times.

Senator Marco Rubio: Rubio was also a winner tonight. He has proved beyond the shadow of doubt how weak Donald Trump is before attacks on his tremendous, yuge vanity. He crumples. He falls apart. He talks about his ding dong. The extent to which Marco can easily send Trump into a panic by mentioning his hands or tan is just a shadow of how easily the Democrats will handle him. They won’t have to mention policy. Just his hair. Or his stump fingers. He’ll fall apart.

Marco also crushed Trump’s lack of substance on foreign policy, asking him if he would ever offer any policy details in answer to a foreign policy question. Predictably, Trump responded by taking a petty swipe at Rubio. Yet another point for Marco and against Donald.

LOSERS

Donald Trump: Trump is the obvious, clear loser tonight. It wasn’t even close. He was clownish, he changed his mind over the course of the debate, he had his butt handed to him over and over by both Marco and Ted. He was found to be making false statements, his economic policy was proved not only to be a disaster, but it was shown that he himself couldn’t even articulate it, much less a defense of it. He couldn’t even muster a strong response to the Romney question. On the scale of fail he hit a solid ten: total dumpster fire.

Except for one thing. Donald promised to support the nominee of the party no matter who it is. That was a good line for him, even if he doesn’t mean it, and will play well for him.

And Erick Erickson, another grassroots conservative, says at The Resurgent that Cruz was the clear winner of the debate:

Wow. That was one heck of a debate performance by Ted Cruz. That was just amazing. He ran circles around Trump. Trump looked like he was worn out. He was low energy. He was a loser.

In the last debate, Rubio was assisted by Cruz. In this debate, Cruz was assisted by Rubio. It shows what a unity ticket between the two could do.

It was a remarkable performance that had Cruz and Rubio shaking hands during commercial break.

Tonight was Ted Cruz’s night and it was a nearly flawless debate on his part.

PJ Media listed out 5 of Cruz’s best moments in the debate.

Here’s one of them:

5. Detroit…Has Been Utterly Decimated By Failed Left-Wing Policies Although most of Cruz’s standout moments came in opposition to Trump, one of his finest successes centered around discussing the city of Detroit. “Detroit is a great city, with a magnificent legacy, that has been utterly decimated by 60 years of failed left-wing policies,” Cruz declared. He praised Detroit for “funding the arsenals of democracy” in World War II, and added that “in the 1960s, Detroit was the Silicon Valley of America — it had the highest per capita income in the country.” Then the kicker: “And then for 50 years, left-wing Democrats have pursued destructive tax policies, weak crime policies, and have driven the citizens out.” Cruz then detailed how he would bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. and Detroit specifically. This strong answer bolstered Cruz in the eyes of Luntz’s focus group, scoring a 96 percent.

Trump tried to get Marco and Ted off his chest by citing GOP primary poll numbers, but Cruz had an answer for that, too. Trump cited a poll from CNN showing him in the lead. Cruz responded by pointing out that the CNN poll also shows Trump losing to Hillary Clinton by 8 POINTS. The same poll shows Cruz beating Hillary Clinton head-to-head. I have never met a Trump supporter who was aware of these head-to-head polls that show Trump losing to Clinton. But the liberal media is well aware of them, and that’s why they are so supportive of Trump – they want the weakest candidate to be the Republican nominee.

One of the differences between Trump and Cruz is that Trump talks about himself and makes promises without providing details. He oversimplifies problems, and has more confidence than experience. Cruz talks about specific policies and the results of those policies in different times and places. He actually knows what works and what doesn’t work, and has a record of solving actual problems.

After a poor Super Tuesday showing, is it time for Marco Rubio to drop out?

GOP primary delegate count after Super Tuesday
GOP primary delegate count after Super Tuesday

I actually thought that grassroots conservative leader Erick Erickson was a supporter of Rubio for the longest time, but I guess he did pretty badly in the Super Tuesday primaries, because now Erickson is calling for him to drop out, and accept the Vice Presidency.

Erickson writes:

I have tried very hard to be neutral in the race between Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. They are both friends. But reality dawns. Rubio has won only a single state (Minnesota), and even then not all the delegates, and tells us we must wait until Florida on March 15th. Cruz is already winning states more solidly and leads in delegates.

In 1980, as the nation was falling apart, Ronald Reagan as the outsider and George H. W. Bush as the insider were willing to set aside personal and policy differences to unite for the good of the country. Reagan had attacked Bush on his illegal immigration position. Bush had coined the term “voodoo economics” to describe Reagan’s economic policies. But they overcame that, they united, and they not only beat Jimmy Carter, but a third party bid by John Anderson.

It is time for Rubio to accept he will not be the nominee. He keeps telling us he will pay the bill tomorrow, but tomorrow has not yet come and he is behind by double digits in his home state.

It is time for Ted Cruz to accept we need a unity ticket and for Rubio to agree to be Cruz’s Vice Presidential pick, uniting the outsider and insider factions of the party and stopping Trump in the process.

Cruz has won three states. Rubio won Minnesota with split delegates. The non-Trump faction has the delegates to stop Trump. But now there must be unity.

It is time to divide the map, combine the campaigns, and fight Trump state by state all the way to the convention as if a single ticket.

True, Rubio will say the map moving forward is more favorable to him. But that excludes voter expectations and perceptions. The reality is that Cruz is winning states, Rubio is not, and together they could dominate. Outside groups should concentrate all fire on Trump while Cruz and Rubio show the country that they can pull America from the brink.

Ted Cruz has stopped Trump in three states. It is time for Team Rubio to acknowledge that.

Actually, Ted Cruz has stopped Trump in FOUR states. Alaska also went for Cruz, but those results came out after Erickson’s post was already posted. That’s 4 states to Rubio’s 1.

I used to blog a lot about Marco Rubio, before he championed the 2013 amnesty. I remember the moment I discovered that he was one of the Gang of Eight like most people remember where they were on 9/11. I remember the story, and the picture of Rubio standing in with radical leftists Republican moderates like John McCain and Lindsay Graham. People who had stabbed us in the back so many times before on important things like Supreme Court judicial nominations. I remember thinking: “what is Marco doing with them?”

That was the end of my interest in Marco Rubio. And he’s not going to win this election, given his record on amnesty and so many other liberal policies and priorities. If Donald Trump stands for anything, he stands for border security. And Marco Rubio is the opposite of that. There is just no way that Marco Rubio would be able to get the support of the Republican electorate. He’s even down 20 points in his home state of Florida. Trump’s popularity is due in large part because of the betrayal of moderate, establishment Republicans like Marco Rubio.  The Washington elites need to realize that this time it is their turn to fall in line with Cruz, even if they can’t fall in love with Cruz.

When Rubio was elected to political office, he authored an amnesty bill, he supported the failed Libya invasion, he gave in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, he weakened border security, he authored a bill to remove the due process rights of men falsely accused of rape on campus, he skipped votes to defund Planned Parenthood, he has a billionaire pro-gay-marriage donor, and is very friendly with gay activists who are opposed to religious liberty and conscience protections for Christians, and so on. We can’t have the Republican nominee be a liberal moderate in the mold of Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney. The establishment has had a good long run at ignoring the base and now it’s come to an end. We need a real conservative this time: Ted Cruz.

Which candidate is best at working with Democrats to get things done?

The Jesus Seminar and their pre-suppositions
Republican voters need to go beyond the surface level in assessing candidates

I have a few friends who I know are supporting either Donald Trump or Marco Rubio in the election. I have asked them specifically what policies, accomplishments and past battles they like best about their candidate.

Donald Trump supporters say this:

  • he’s leading in the polls (vs Republicans)
  • he tells it like it is
  • he’s going to build a fence  and make Mexico pay for it
  • he’s a businessman

Marco Rubio supporters say this:

  • he’s leading in the polls (vs Democrats)
  • he’s handsome
  • I like the way he talks
  • his wife was a Miami Dolphins cheerleader, so she is prettier and funner than nerdy workaholic Harvard MBA Heidi Cruz

My candidate is Ted Cruz, and the Trump supporters tend to have no problem with him. But the Rubio supporters don’t like Cruz. So I made a list of their objections to Cruz.

The Rubio supporters say this:

  • (quoting Donald Trump) not one of his colleagues in the Senate has endorsed him
  • he won’t be able to convince other people to get things done
  • I don’t like the way he talks
  • he has a pickle nose
  • he said he wanted to make Marco Rubio’s amnesty bill “better” but  his amendment actually killed the amnesty bill – that means he’s a liar because his amendment didn’t make the bill better

Regarding the point about Ted Cruz not being able to get along with his colleagues in the Senate, that’s actually false. First, Cruz and Rubio came into the Senate at the same time, and Cruz has passed more legislation than Rubio. That might be because Rubio has the worst attendance record in the Senate.

When Rubio works together with people, he authors an amnesty bill, he supports the failed Libya invasion, he gives in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, he weakens border security, he authors a bill to remove the due process rights of men falsely accused of rape on campus, he skips votes to defund Planned Parenthood, he is liberal on the issue of gay marriage, his deputy campaign manager is a gay activist, and so on. In short, he works with liberals on liberal priorities – that’s why he is likable to them.

Ted Cruz gets into trouble with his colleagues, because he tries to stop the spending, stop amnesty, stop the military interventions in Syria, Libya and Egypt, etc. That’s why he is not likable to them.

What about the point that Cruz would not be persuasive to Democrats, and so would not be able to get anything done? Well, we already saw that Cruz has passed more legislation than Rubio, despite having a pickle nose. But he’s also shown the ability to pull Democrats towards his point of view.

Here’s an article from PJ Media to explain:

Now that Cruz regularly polls toward the top of an ever-shrinking field, his early tenure bears closer scrutiny. Cruz has gained fame as a social conservative and an unwavering opponent of Obamacare. In his first major leadership role, however, he developed economic policy as the director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Office of Policy Planning.

At the FTC, Cruz’s agenda could have been written by Milton Friedman.

Cruz promoted economic liberty and fought government efforts to rig the marketplace in favor of special interests. Most notably, Cruz launched an initiative to study the government’s role in conspiring with established businesses to suppress e-commerce. This initiative ultimately led the U.S. Supreme Court to open up an entire industry to small e-tailers. Based on his early support of disruptive online companies, Cruz has some grounds to call himself the “Uber of American politics.”

Moreover, and perhaps surprising to some, Cruz sought and secured a broad, bipartisan consensus for his agenda. Almost all of Cruz’s initiatives received unanimous support among both Republicans and Democrats.

Ted Cruz a consensus-builder? He was, at the FTC.

[…]Beyond the e-commerce initiative, Cruz also reoriented the FTC’s use of antitrust laws.

[…]Cruz also sent dozens of letters to states to fight new efforts to enshrine crony capitalism.

[…]Perhaps surprisingly, Cruz secured a high degree of consensus in pursuing his agenda.

As an independent agency, the FTC has five commissioners, and during Cruz’s tenure, two of them had served in President Clinton’s administration. All five commissioners voted to support almost all of Cruz’s proposals.

Cruz achieved this consensus by listening to policy experts and political opponents. He listened to the FTC’s economic experts and marshaled empirical economic analysis to support his policy objectives. He solicited input from prominent Democrats, including the late Senator Howard Metzenbaum, who spoke at the e-commerce conference. In addition, Cruz worked to develop personal relationships across the aisle. He regularly met with Democratic commissioners and incorporated their ideas into his policy proposals.

The article explains Cruz’s conservative agenda in detail; increasing competition, protecting consumers, and so on. But he wasn’t likable in the way that Marco Rubio was likable – by pushing a Democrat agenda. He was likable by convincing Democrats to push a conservative agenda. He did it by gathering evidence and making his case. And that’s what you expect from a lawyer who wins cases for conservatives at the Supreme  Court.

Marco Rubio: skipped NDAA votes, supported Libya intervention, weak on border security

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

Former Georgia Congressman has seen something in Marco Rubio’s record that causes him concern, and he’s written about it over at the grassroots conservative web site Red State.

There are three problems:

  • Rubio has been absent for National Defense Authorization Act votes
  • Rubio was supportive of Hillary Clinton’s failed intervention in Libya
  • Rubio is not serious about border security and other immigration-related risks

He says:

On the campaign trail, Senator Marco Rubio has been pushing a media narrative that he is the most “serious” foreign policy candidate. It’s an odd position since he missed all but one of the 19 votes connected to the National Defense Authorization Act last year! But far more damaging than his missed votes is his inability to learn from our past national security mistakes. Whether it’s Libya, border security, or major security gaps in our visa and refugee programs, when he has voted, it’s often on the side of misplaced liberal ideals and illegal immigrants instead of America’s safety.

One disturbing example is Rubio’s support for the Obama-Clinton intervention in Libya in 2011. As a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I traveled to Sigonella Navy base to meet with our military commanders who were conducting our military intervention. Our briefings were shocking. It was clear we had no end game or definition of success. That is to say the decisions and confused strategy was the product of Obama’s misunderstanding of the middle east. Yet in a speech at the Brookings Institution in 2012, after complaining that Republicans were so bad on foreign policy that he was forced to work on his policies with Democrats, Senator Rubio said the Libya regime change “turned out fine.”  Senator Rubio had been in the Senate for two years at the time, and should have had some understanding of the conditions on the ground. In fact, our people were already being attacked in the region. In a month, Ambassador Chris Stevens would be pleading with Secretary Clinton for more security.  And in less than five months, Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans would stop complaining – because they were killed in the utter disaster that was the radical Islamic terrorist attack on Benghazi.

I blogged before about how the failed Libya intervention has resulted in an Islamic State caliphate starting up in Libya, not to mention much violence and atrocities. New Clinton e-mails confirm that this was Hillary Clinton’s war, and Marco Rubio sided with Hillary.

More:

Even today, Senator Rubio refuses to learn the lesson of Libya.  For most Americans, the situation in Iraq and Syria—as Benghazi tragically showed us—is proof that the enemies of our enemies are not necessarily our friends. The result of not properly scrutinizing such movements is often more chaos, and the death toll, like our enemies, often multiplies. Just ask the ISIS brigades rolling around in our tanks and Humvees—and read about their victims.

That Marco Rubio still thinks we should fight both Bashir al Assad and ISIS, while supporting some nebulous factions that he’s confident will never turn on us but will turn Syria into a democratic utopia, demonstrates the depth of his naiveté when it comes to military adventurism.

And while fighting both sides of a civil war is bad enough, these mistakes are doubly harmful when we don’t carefully watch who is coming into our own country.

Too often, immigration is considered a solely domestic issue. But border security is the first and necessary step to securing our nation against the jihadists who are not content to kill each other abroad—they want to kill Americans here at home. And when politicians insist on intervening around the world while voting to grant amnesty, expand refugee admittance – all the while not securing the border — we get the worst of both worlds: thousands of people coming to America from war-torn countries, and no system to tell the innocent from the terrorists. This why a major campaign issue has become the Rubio-Schumer Gang of 8 amnesty bill which prioritizes illegals over the safety of Americans.  This isn’t a new problem – we need look no further than the evil perpetrators of 9/11. The lesson should have been learned more than a decade ago.

Even as Europe reaped the bloody consequences of a borderless welcome-mat policy that led to the Paris atrocity, Sen. Rubio refused to stop the flood of un-vetted Syrian refugees. When Senators like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul called to stop waving in thousands from Syria and other countries with murderous jihadist movements, Rubio did not join them.

There’s an astonishing article up at Breitbart News which talks about how Rubio misled the law enforcement leaders from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) regarding his amnesty bill.

Excerpt:

BNN: What happened in the meeting? Did Sen. Rubio make any promises to you? Did he keep them?

CRANE: To start, even though I had requested to bring someone with me, Sen. Rubio denied the request and demanded that I come alone, which I still believe was highly peculiar and inappropriate.

He, of course, had what appeared to be his entire staff in his office with me. Most of his staff stood behind me as there was no place for them to sit. I raised a series of strong concerns with the bill, and as I raised each issue, Sen. Rubio would look to his staff and ask if that was what the bill said. Each time his staff agreed with my interpretation, and Sen. Rubio would shake his head in disbelief and indicate the bill had to be changed.

Sen. Rubio talked very specifically and very directly to me and his staff saying that the changes I suggested had to be made and specifically said that other Gang of Eight members wouldn’t be happy, but “Oh well.” Obviously the changes I suggested were all serious enforcement related issues, such as establishing a biometric entry-exit system, and cracking down on sex offenders, gang members, violent criminals and other criminal aliens.

When I walked out of his office that night I definitely thought the bill would undergo significant changes, but of course absolutely no changes were made.

BNN: Almost immediately after you met with Sen. Rubio, he introduced bill. Did it include any of the changes you asked for?

CRANE: Not one of the changes we suggested was made to the bill before Sen. Rubio introduced it.

All of his strong statements during our meeting about making the changes we suggested were apparently all just a dodge to get rid of me. It quickly became obvious why he didn’t permit me to take anyone with me to the meeting— he didn’t want any witnesses.

So, there are two problems with Marco Rubio that surface here. First, he is young, and he has romantic notions about the use of force. He supported Libya and it failed. He thinks it succeeded, but actually it failed. Second, he is easily influenced by peer approval to get caught up in liberal priorities. We’ve seen that with his support for amnesty, his support for Libya, his support for removing due process rights for students accused with little or no evidence on campus (think University of Virginia hoax), and so on. He is just not mature enough to be President, and his lack of maturity could really hurt us.

Here’s the full list of Rubio errors: