Posted on 06/27/2015 3:40:38 PM PDT by ObamahatesPACoal
Cruz the right Hispanic for the job.
Separate but equal and Women’s Suffrage were causes to change the laws.
Some Laws need changing, and some Constitutional right need to be upheld.
Cruz would be 100% correct if he got rid of most H1B visa’s
Americans can do the job and are tired of scum bag foreign workers taking their jobs for half pay.
Gates, Zucker, Ellison are all rich enough already
We are replying to different things. I am replying to the girl who said Cruz has no backbone and should run for “Boner’s job” or the Supreme Court. She doesn’t know what she is talking about.
I wrote to the Cruz campaign this week about the H1-B visa issue. I had not paid a lot of attention to the issue previously, since it has not been a factor in my state, but I asked the Senator to reevaluate his position. Even one job lost is too many.
I have found Cruz to be a very reasonable person. If those who are concerned about this issue would take the time to share those concerns with him, I believe he can be reasoned with on it.
Actually, Ted never singled out Marco Rubio or anyone in particular. The linked article is a bit overwrought.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Yours was one of the silliest comments of the day.
Kennedy wrote the ruling and his previous rulings laid the groundwork. He’s a Republican, so he’s a traitor. We expect Dems to be Dems. Reagan didn’t appoint Kennedy in order to destroy marriage by judicial diktat , but that’s what he has done, making it his life’s project
Put some ice on it, Rubio.
Ironically, Rubio is the very man who many think will lure the Hispanics to the GOP, may be alienating those people, who tend to be antigay, God fearing peoples.
I agree with you. (hecklers gotta heckle, I guess.)
he did not
IMO... he's going about it correctly.
Exclusive — Ted Cruz: Obamatrade Enmeshed in Corrupt, Backroom Dealings
The American people do not trust President Obama. And they do not trust Republican leadership in Congress. And the reason is simple: for far too long, politicians in Washington have not told the truth.
Both President Obama and Republican leadership are pressing trade promotion authority, also known as TPA, or “fast-track.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) both oppose it.
As a general matter, I agree (as did Ronald Reagan) that free trade is good for America; when we open up foreign markets, it helps American farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers.
But TPA in this Congress has become enmeshed in corrupt Washington backroom deal-making, along with serious concerns that it would open up the potential for sweeping changes in our laws that trade agreements typically do not include.
Since the Senate first voted on TPA, there have been two material changes.
First, WikiLeaks subsequently revealed new troubling information regarding the Trade in Services Agreement, or TiSA, one of the trade deals being negotiated by Obama.
Despite the administration’s public assurances that it was not negotiating on immigration, several chapters of the TiSA draft posted online explicitly contained potential changes in federal immigration law. TPA would cover TiSA, and therefore these changes would presumably be subject to fast-track.
When TPA last came up for a vote, both Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and I introduced amendments that would have barred fast-track treatment for any trade agreement that attempted to impact immigration law. Two other Republican senators objected, and we were both denied votes on our amendments. Instead, the House inserted substantially weaker language in related legislation.
At the time that Sessions and I introduced our amendments, many said our fears were unfounded. But now we have far more reason to be concerned.
Second, TPA’s progress through the House and Senate appears to have been made possible by secret deals between Republican Leadership and the Democrats.
When TPA first came up for a vote in the Senate, it was blocked by a group of senators, led by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), both of whom were conditioning their support on the unrelated objective of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank.
The Ex-Im Bank is a classic example of corporate welfare. It is cronyism at its worst, with U.S. taxpayers guaranteeing billions of dollars in loans for sketchy buyers in foreign nations. Ex-Im is scheduled to wind down on June 30. But powerful lobbyists in Washington want to keep the money flowing.
After witnessing several senators huddle on the floor the day of the TPA vote, I suspected that to get their votes on TPA, Republican Leadership had promised supporters of Ex-Im a vote to reauthorize the bank before it winds down.
At lunch that day, I asked Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) what precise deal had been cut to pass TPA. Visibly irritated, he told me and all my Republican colleagues that there was no deal whatsoever; rather, he simply told them they could use the ordinary rules to offer whatever amendments they wanted on future legislation.
Taking McConnell at his word that there was no deal on Ex-Im, I voted yes on TPA because I believe the U.S. generally benefits from free trade, and without TPA historically there have been no free-trade agreements.
But then the vote went to the House. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to the surprise of many, led House Democrats to oppose TPA en masse. (Technically, they voted against TAA, which was wrapped into the deal on TPA.)
At that point a group of House conservatives went to Speaker Boehner and said they could support TPA if Boehner agreed not to cut a deal with Democrats on Ex-Im, and just let the bank expire.
Boehner declined. Instead, it appears he made the deal with Democrats, presumably tossing in the Ex-Im Bank and also increasing tax penalties on businesses.
Moreover, the Speaker punished conservatives, wrongly stripping Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) of his subcommittee chairmanship, and reportedly threatening to strip other conservatives of their chairmanships as well.
Why does Republican Leadership always give in to the Democrats? Why does Leadership always disregard the promises made to the conservative grassroots?
Enough is enough. I cannot vote for TPA unless McConnell and Boehner both commit publicly to allow the Ex-Im Bank to expire—and stay expired. And, Congress must also pass the Cruz-Sessions amendments to TPA to ensure that no trade agreement can try to back-door changes to our immigration laws. Otherwise, I will have no choice but to vote no.
There’s too much corporate welfare, too much cronyism and corrupt dealmaking, by the Washington cartel. For too long, career politicians in both parties have supported government of the lobbyist, by the lobbyist, and for the lobbyist – at the expense of the taxpayers. It’s a time for truth. And a time to honor our commitments to the voters.
And...
Today, the Supreme Court only has the last say for politicians. The people will always have the last say and when the Courts continue to ignore the Constitution, the people will have their say!
Impeach the EVIL, VILE DEMOCRATS on the Court!!
LOL, You know Obama is President right? And that it takes 67 Senators to remove? I bet the rats would vote to convict so they could have Obama appoint someone worse, he’d only need 4 RINO votes to do it.
The courts and the President don't abide by the law, why should I? If were a Governor I'd refuse to allow it, let Barack lead the army in himself to come make me give a marriage license to a couple faggots.
And pray tell who is goona do that Ann? The Lesser evils you screamed bloody murder that we had to elect?
No really. Who do you or anyone think is gonna do the dirty deed here? Mitch and Jonbon? They of the “If elected we well work with Obama” campaign? Rubio? Cochran? Hatch? You think Christie will speak up to support the idea?
How about the FATHER OF GAT MARRIAGE IN AMERICA MITT ROMNEY?
Thing he would have stopped this kangaroo court after he signed it into Mass law once their court passed it? We have already seen some historical rewriting about that one today.
You lesser evil proponents couldn’t see the reality of what your philosophy would bring because you were too busy browbeating conservatives over their hated ‘principles’.
Well you got what you wanted. Now live with the consequence of your yellowbacked actions. Because running from thread all-capping your psuedo-horror of the situation doesn’t go unnoticed by those of us you screamed at.
So is Roberts....he gave us Ocare
“oday, the Supreme Court only has the last say for politicians. The people will always have the last say and when the Courts continue to ignore the Constitution, the people will have their say!
“
It is really up to 38 states.
Read Art V of the Constitution. With 38 states acting together, it has total control. Can remove Supreme Court, Congress, President.
That’s what we need. Ironically, the Confederate flag represented states rights. Think this was not one reason they wanted it to come down?
On Friday, Marxist collaborator Marco Rubio urged Americans to abide by the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional ruling…
“We live in a republic and must abide by the law.”
Then I assume that using this logic he also agreed with the Dred Scott decision. WIMP!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.