The United States of Trump

Townhall.com ^ | February 2, 2016 | Cal Thomas

[Kaslin]

In the beginning there was a combative media. Dating back to Colonial America, as Eric Burns has chronicled in his book, "Infamous Scribblers," politicians and journalists have mostly had a love (for Democrats)-hate (for Republicans) relationship. It is television and the advent of the celebrity culture -- from "TMZ" to "Entertainment Tonight," to now even broadcast news -- that has taken the process to new depths.

The first televised presidential debate in 1960 between Sen. John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard M. Nixon began the shift from substance to the superficial. As numerous journalism students have been taught, people who listened on the radio thought Nixon had won on substance, but those who viewed the debate on TV decided Kennedy was the winner because he looked better than the perspiring, uncomfortable, five o'clock shadow Nixon.

There was a celebrity hiatus when Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater competed in 1964, because neither was telegenic and the Vietnam War topped all concerns. In 1980, Ronald Reagan solidified the necessity of looking good on TV against a mousy Jimmy Carter.

By 1992, when Bill Clinton ran against President George H.W. Bush, the celebrity culture had morphed from prominence to dominance. Clinton played saxophone on a late-night talk show.

In 2008, came the man with something for everyone. He was hip, he was cool, he was made for TV, he was African-American, and he had a multicultural name. For the left, Barack Obama had it all. And the media followed him around like a loyal pet, waiting for him to toss them treats.

Hope and change was all they needed to hear. The fundamental transformation of America sounded good, but lacked specifics. Few seemed to care, including journalists who should have.

What we used to refer to as "morals" have also been transformed in our celebrity culture into the meaningless word "tolerance." Truth has been sacrificed on the altar of tolerance. Everyone is now free to believe anything and everything, as long as it makes them feel good about themselves. Who are we to judge what used to be called "sin"? Character matters very little, as long as I get mine.

There was a time when a divorced man would not think of running for president, much less believe voters would support him. Yes, there were presidents, including Kennedy and Johnson, who had extramarital affairs, but the press mostly ignored or covered up for them. And then in 1992 a known philanderer was elected president. He would have sex with an intern and ultimately be impeached. No matter, his approval rating remained high until recently.

Which brings us to 2016 and Donald Trump. If Ronald Reagan was the "Teflon president," Donald Trump is the man of steel. Is there a substance equal to kryptonite that could bring Trump down? If there is, it has yet to be found. Trump's language, lifestyle, morals, religious vacuum and viciousness against people he doesn't like -- along with numerous other character flaws -- might very well lead to an expansion of the Seven Deadly Sins.

That his rabid followers -- especially and curiously evangelical Christians -- continue to kiss his feet says more about them than about him.

Electing a celebrity/businessman president would be the final verdict on what the scripture Trump claims to love, but apparently doesn't read, calls a "wicked and adulterous generation."

If, as the cliche says, we get the leadership we deserve, the fault lies within us, not him.

Trump is right about one thing. The public is sick of traditional politicians who make promises but don't deliver, while driving up the debt and lining their pockets. But whose fault is that? Ultimately it's the voters' fault, because they are the ones who put them in office, demanding more from government than it can, or should, deliver and demanding too little of themselves.

Welcome to the United States of Trump.

[Rik0Shay]

DItto

[exnavy]

I am not so sure, my UAW local are serious trumpet blowers.

[arl295]

Sounds like the UAW likes the idea of jobs coming back to America.....

Maybe they finally see the writing on the wall

[Yosemitest]

Hey, DUMMY !
"EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE USE" IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL !

Ted Cruz: President Can IGNORE Unconstitutional Supreme Court Decisions
Thursday, 10 December 2015, by  Selwyn Duke

Are we Americans meant to be governed by the rule of law or the rule of lawyers ?
For a long time now we've been under the latter, with the belief that
whatever five unelected judges on the Supreme Court say must go for 320 million citizens.
But presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz (shown) has now challenged this opinion,
siding with no less a figure than Thomas Jefferson,
who long ago warned that such an opinion would make our Constitution a "suicide pact."

Cruz fired his shot across judicial supremacy's bow in a recent appearance on EWTN, a global Catholic network, while being interviewed by Princeton University professor Robert George (video below. Relevant portion begins at 13: 52).

CANDIDATE CONVERSATIONS 2016 WITH ROBERT GEORGE - 2015-11-25 ( 52:05 )
Asking Cruz about "judicial power," George pointed to the Supreme Court's checkered past rulings, mentioning the Dred Scott case, the 1905 case of Lochner v. New York, Roe v. Wade, and this year's Obergefell v. Hodges faux-marriage decision.
The professor then said, as presented by Crisis magazine:

Some people say that a president must always accept the court's interpretation of the Constitution
no matter how dubious that interpretation is;
that we have to treat it as the law of the land,
binding not just on the parties to the case
but on other officials of government, beginning with the president.
Abraham Lincoln though, as you know, vehemently disagreed with that idea of judicial supremacy, saying that
to treat unconstitutional court rulings as binding in all cases,
no matter what,
no matter how usurpative,
no matter how anti-constitutional,
would be for the American people - and I quote now the Great Emancipator -
"to resign their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

George then asked if Lincoln was right and if Cruz would defy the court on Obergefell, to which the senator responded:

I agree with President Lincoln
and courts do not make law. ...
The court interprets the law, applies the law. ...
And, you know, this is an area of really striking divide in this presidential election. ...
They're [sic] quite a few Republicans who, when the gay "marriage" decision came down,
they described it as the settled law of the land.
It's final;
we must accept it,
move on and surrender.

Those are almost word for word Barack Obama's talking points
and I think they are profoundly wrong.
I think the decision was fundamentally illegitimate.
It was lawless.
It was not based on the Constitution.
I agree very much with Justice Scalia, who wrote a powerful dissent saying, this decision is a fundamental threat to our democracy. ...
And indeed, Justice Scalia, in the penultimate paragraph of his dissent
, predicts, harkening back to President Lincoln defying Dred Scott,
that state and local officials will REFUSE TO OBEY this LAWLESS decision.
It is remarkable to see a Supreme Court justice saying that would be the consequence of this.

In point of fact, Justice Scalia issued a stern warning to the Court in his Obergefell dissent, quoting Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78 and writing,
"The Judiciary is the 'LEAST dangerous' of the federal branches because it has
'neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment;
and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm'
and the States,
'even for the efficacy of its judgments.'
With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them -
with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the 'reasoned judgment' of a bare majority of this Court -
we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence."

The reality is that
the judiciary has no men under arms;
it cannot enforce its rulings.
Enforcement is the executive branch's role,
and the Court has no ability to coerce a president into acting on its decisions.

But isn't this just a matter of might makes right?
Doesn't the court have the legal authority of its judicial-review power to nullify or invalidate a legislative or executive action it deems unconstitutional?
Doesn't this give it the moral high ground?

The Constitution is our land's supreme law, above, of course, the Supreme Court;
this is why the Court will rule against a law citing the Constitution's authority and not merely its own.
Yet where does the notion that the Court has judicial-review power -
and that all three branches of government must be constrained by its judgments - come from ?

It is not in the Constitution but was declared by the Court on, in essence, its own authority - in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision.

So the Court gave the Court its oligarchic powers.
And "oligarchic" is not too strong a word, nor a new characterization.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote two centuries ago,
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed,
and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
He further said that if the judicial-supremacy thesis is sound,
"then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se" - a suicide pact.
For judicial supremacy gives to one branch alone, continued Jefferson,
"the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others,
and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation. ...
The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please."

And the twisting continues apace as our Republic twists in the wind
and we are governed by the ruler and not the rule.

Justice Scalia made mention of this in his Obergefell dissent as well, writing,
"It is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage.
It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me.
Today's [marriage] decree says that
my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court."

One of the basic ideas behind our American government is "balance of power," both between the feds and the states and among the three governmental branches.
Judicial supremacy makes a mockery of this,
confusing the Supreme Court with the Supreme Being
and giving one branch -
whose prominent members aren't even elected by the people
and cannot be recalled by them -
complete TRUMP POWER OVER the other two.
To consider it legitimate
is to believe
our Founders FOUGHT ONE TYRANT living overseas
IN THE NAME OF ESTABLISHING A TRIBUNAL OF NINE TYRANTS on our own soil.

But they didn't, which is WHY judicial supremacy was NOT written INTO the Constitution.
To accept it is to yield to circular reasoning:
"The courts have the ultimate say in the meaning of law.
And how do I know?
The COURTS have told me so."

" ... THAT IS FIVE UNELECTED JUDGES DECLARING THEMSELVES AS 'THE RULERS' OVER 320 MILLION AMERICANS ... "
SO ... you can now SEE that

TED CUZ does NOT support "EMINENT DOMAIN" FOR PRIVATE USE !

That video from 13 minutes 50 seconds until 23 minutes 40 seconds REALLY IS WORTH YOUR TIME.
The whole video is worth your time.

[ElainaVer]

“I actually think that YHWH wanted Donald Trump to get a humility check.”

Great comment, SubMareener. I do think God is involved in this election.

[Kenny]

Take your meds, it’s time.

[Yosemitest]

What, no snarky, defensive come-back for your SOCIALIST Trump ?

Definition: Socialism is a political term applied to an economic system in which property is held in common and not individually, and relationships are governed by a political hierarchy.
Common ownership doesn't mean decisions are made collectively, however.
Instead, individuals in positions of authority make decisions in the name of the collective group.
Regardless of the picture painted of socialism by its proponents, it ultimately removes group decision making in favor of the choices of one all-important individual.

Socialism originally involved the replacement of private property with a market exchange, but history has proven this ineffective.
Socialism cannot prevent people from competing for what is scarce.
Socialism as we know it today, most commonly refers to "market socialism,"
which involves individual market exchanges organized by collective planning.

People often confuse "socialism" with the concept of "communism."
While the two ideologies share much in common -- in in fact communism encompasses socialism -- the primary difference between the two is that "socialism" applies to economic systems,
whereas "communism" applies to both economic and political systems.

Another difference between socialism and communism is that communists directly oppose the concept of capitalism, an economic system in which production is controlled by private interests.
Socialists, on the other hand, believe socialism can exist within a capitalist society.

Pronunciation: soeshoolizim

Also Known As: Bolshevism, Fabianism, Leninism, Maoism, Marxism, collective ownership, collectivism, communism, state ownerhsip

Alternate Spellings: none

Common Misspellings: none

Examples: "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality.
But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
-- French historian and political theorist Alexis de Tocqueville

"As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents."
-- author George Orwell

So how would YOU define someone who LOVES and USES "EMINENT DOMAIN" to acquire property to build his Hotels ?

Think about this:

Comparison chart

	Communism	Socialism
Philosophy	From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Free-access to the articles of consumption is made possible by advances in technology that allow for super-abundance.	From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. Emphasis on profit being distributed among the society or workforce to complement individual wages/salaries.
Ideas	All people are the same and therefore classes make no sense. The government should own all means of production and land and also everything else. People should work for the government and the collective output should be redistributed equally.	All individuals should have access to basic articles of consumption and public goods to allow for self-actualization. Large-scale industries are collective efforts and thus the returns from these industries must benefit society as a whole.
Key Proponents	Karl Marx, Fredrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky.	Robert Owen, Pierre Leroux, Karl Marx, Fredrick Engels, John Stuart Mill, Albert Einstein, George Bernard Shaw, Thorstein Veblen, Emma Goldman.
Key Elements	Centralized government, planned economy, dictatorship of the "proletariat", common ownership of the tools of production, no private property. equality between genders and all people, international focus. Usually anti-democratic with a 1-party system.	Economic activity and production especially are adjusted by the State to meet human needs and economic demands. "Production for use": useful goods and services are produced specifically for their usefulness.
Political System	A communist society is stateless, classless and is governed directly by the people. This however has never been practised.	Can coexist with different political systems. Most socialists advocate participatory democracy, some (Social Democrats) advocate parliamentary democracy, and Marxist-Leninists advocate "Democratic centralism."
Political Movements	Leninism, Trotskyism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, Left-Communism, Stalinism.	Democratic socialism, communism, libertarian socialism, social anarchism, and syndicalism.
Private Property	Abolished. The concept of property is negated and replaced with the concept of commons and ownership with "usership".	Two kinds of property: Personal property, such as houses, clothing, etc. owned by the individual. Public property includes factories, and means of production owned by the State but with worker control.
Economic Coordination	Economic planning coordinates all decisions regarding investment, production and resource allocation. Planning is done in terms of physical units instead of money.	Planned-socialism relies principally on planning to determine investment and production decisions. Planning may be centralized or decentralized. Market-socialism relies on markets for allocating capital to different socially-owned enterprises.
Definition	International theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, with actual ownership ascribed to the community or state. Rejection of free markets and extreme distrust of Capitalism in any form.	A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of most property in common, with actual ownership ascribed to the workers.
Religion	Abolished - all religious and metaphysics is rejected.	Freedom of religion, but usually promotes secularism.
Ownership Structure	The means of production are commonly-owned, meaning no entity or individual owns productive property. Importance is ascribed to "usership" over "ownership".	The means of production are socially-owned with the surplus value produced accruing to either all of society (in Public-ownership models) or to all the employee-members of the enterprise (in Cooperative-ownership models).
Social Structure	All class distinctions are eliminated.	Class distinctions are diminished. Status derived more from political distinctions than class distinctions. Some mobility.
Economic System	The means of production are held in common, negating the concept of ownership in capital goods. Production is organized to provide for human needs directly without any use for money. Communism is predicated upon a condition of material abundance.	The means of production are owned by public enterprises or cooperatives, and individuals are compensated based on the principle of individual contribution. Production may variously be coordinated through either economic planning or markets.
Free Choice	Either the collective "vote" or the state's rulers make economic and political decisions for everyone else. In practice, rallies, force, propaganda etc. are used by the rulers to control the populace.	Religion, jobs, & marriage are up to the individual. Compulsory education. Free, equal access to healthcare & education provided through a socialized system funded by taxation. Production decisions driven more by State decision than consumer demand.
Discrimination	In theory, all members of the state are considered equal.	The people are considered equal; laws are made when necessary to protect people from discrimination. Immigration is often tightly controlled.
Way of Change	Government in a Communist-state is the agent of change rather than any market or desire on the part of consumers. Change by government can be swift or slow, depending on change in ideology or even whim.	Workers in a socialist state are the nominal agent of change rather than any market or desire on the part of consumers. Change by the State on behalf of workers can be swift or slow, depending on change in ideology or even whim.
Examples	Ideally, there is no leader; the people govern directly. This has never been actually practiced, and has just used a one-party system. Examples 0f Communist states are the erstwhile Soviet Union, Cuba and North Korea.	Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR): although the actual categorization of the USSR's economic system is in dispute, it is often considered to be a form of centrally-planned socialism.
Earliest Remnants	Theorized by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in the mid-19th century as an alternative to capitalism and feudalism, communism was not tried out until after the revolution in Russia in the early 1910s.	In 1516, Thomas More write in "Utopia" about a society based around common ownership of property. In 1776, Adam Smith advocated the labor theory of value, ignoring the previous Cantillonian view that prices are derived from supply and demand.

[SubMareener]

We are in the Last Days. The Revelation 12:1-2 Great Sign in the Heavens actually, really, literally happens September 23-24, 2017. Israel is back in the Land, and the whole world is gathering against it. The colors of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse, White, Red, Black, and Green are the colors of the Flags of the Islamic countries. Look up! Your redemption draws neigh!

[Kenny]

You can’t change sheeple’s minds.

Vote Rubio when Cruz crashes, he’s your candidate.

[ElainaVer]

Thank you. Needed to hear that today,

[Yosemitest]

Rubio equals AMNESTY !
When Marco "Gang of Eight AMNESTY BILL" Rubio CRASHES, vote TED CRUZ !

[over3Owithabrain]

I do think God is involved in this election.

I guess He sat the last two out also?

[ElainaVer]

“I guess He sat the last two out also?”

Anyone with a brain knows . . God is involved with His people’s lives.

[Rennes Templar]

Trump’s a socialist. Right.

[Yosemitest]

Verify the definition yourself !

Definition: Socialism is a political term applied to an economic system in which property is held in common and not individually, and relationships are governed by a political hierarchy.
Common ownership doesn't mean decisions are made collectively, however.
Instead, individuals in positions of authority make decisions in the name of the collective group.
Regardless of the picture painted of socialism by its proponents, it ultimately removes group decision making in favor of the choices of one all-important individual.

Socialism originally involved the replacement of private property with a market exchange, but history has proven this ineffective.
Socialism cannot prevent people from competing for what is scarce.
Socialism as we know it today, most commonly refers to "market socialism,"
which involves individual market exchanges organized by collective planning.

People often confuse "socialism" with the concept of "communism."
While the two ideologies share much in common -- in in fact communism encompasses socialism -- the primary difference between the two is that "socialism" applies to economic systems,
whereas "communism" applies to both economic and political systems.

Another difference between socialism and communism is that communists directly oppose the concept of capitalism, an economic system in which production is controlled by private interests.
Socialists, on the other hand, believe socialism can exist within a capitalist society.

Pronunciation: soeshoolizim

Also Known As: Bolshevism, Fabianism, Leninism, Maoism, Marxism, collective ownership, collectivism, communism, state ownerhsip

Alternate Spellings: none

Common Misspellings: none

Examples: "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality.
But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
-- French historian and political theorist Alexis de Tocqueville

"As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents."
-- author George Orwell

So how would YOU define someone who LOVES and USES "EMINENT DOMAIN" to acquire property to build his Hotels ?

Think about this:

Comparison chart

	Communism	Socialism
Philosophy	From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Free-access to the articles of consumption is made possible by advances in technology that allow for super-abundance.	From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. Emphasis on profit being distributed among the society or workforce to complement individual wages/salaries.
Ideas	All people are the same and therefore classes make no sense. The government should own all means of production and land and also everything else. People should work for the government and the collective output should be redistributed equally.	All individuals should have access to basic articles of consumption and public goods to allow for self-actualization. Large-scale industries are collective efforts and thus the returns from these industries must benefit society as a whole.
Key Proponents	Karl Marx, Fredrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky.	Robert Owen, Pierre Leroux, Karl Marx, Fredrick Engels, John Stuart Mill, Albert Einstein, George Bernard Shaw, Thorstein Veblen, Emma Goldman.
Key Elements	Centralized government, planned economy, dictatorship of the "proletariat", common ownership of the tools of production, no private property. equality between genders and all people, international focus. Usually anti-democratic with a 1-party system.	Economic activity and production especially are adjusted by the State to meet human needs and economic demands. "Production for use": useful goods and services are produced specifically for their usefulness.
Political System	A communist society is stateless, classless and is governed directly by the people. This however has never been practised.	Can coexist with different political systems. Most socialists advocate participatory democracy, some (Social Democrats) advocate parliamentary democracy, and Marxist-Leninists advocate "Democratic centralism."
Political Movements	Leninism, Trotskyism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, Left-Communism, Stalinism.	Democratic socialism, communism, libertarian socialism, social anarchism, and syndicalism.
Private Property	Abolished. The concept of property is negated and replaced with the concept of commons and ownership with "usership".	Two kinds of property: Personal property, such as houses, clothing, etc. owned by the individual. Public property includes factories, and means of production owned by the State but with worker control.
Economic Coordination	Economic planning coordinates all decisions regarding investment, production and resource allocation. Planning is done in terms of physical units instead of money.	Planned-socialism relies principally on planning to determine investment and production decisions. Planning may be centralized or decentralized. Market-socialism relies on markets for allocating capital to different socially-owned enterprises.
Definition	International theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, with actual ownership ascribed to the community or state. Rejection of free markets and extreme distrust of Capitalism in any form.	A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of most property in common, with actual ownership ascribed to the workers.
Religion	Abolished - all religious and metaphysics is rejected.	Freedom of religion, but usually promotes secularism.
Ownership Structure	The means of production are commonly-owned, meaning no entity or individual owns productive property. Importance is ascribed to "usership" over "ownership".	The means of production are socially-owned with the surplus value produced accruing to either all of society (in Public-ownership models) or to all the employee-members of the enterprise (in Cooperative-ownership models).
Social Structure	All class distinctions are eliminated.	Class distinctions are diminished. Status derived more from political distinctions than class distinctions. Some mobility.
Economic System	The means of production are held in common, negating the concept of ownership in capital goods. Production is organized to provide for human needs directly without any use for money. Communism is predicated upon a condition of material abundance.	The means of production are owned by public enterprises or cooperatives, and individuals are compensated based on the principle of individual contribution. Production may variously be coordinated through either economic planning or markets.
Free Choice	Either the collective "vote" or the state's rulers make economic and political decisions for everyone else. In practice, rallies, force, propaganda etc. are used by the rulers to control the populace.	Religion, jobs, & marriage are up to the individual. Compulsory education. Free, equal access to healthcare & education provided through a socialized system funded by taxation. Production decisions driven more by State decision than consumer demand.
Discrimination	In theory, all members of the state are considered equal.	The people are considered equal; laws are made when necessary to protect people from discrimination. Immigration is often tightly controlled.
Way of Change	Government in a Communist-state is the agent of change rather than any market or desire on the part of consumers. Change by government can be swift or slow, depending on change in ideology or even whim.	Workers in a socialist state are the nominal agent of change rather than any market or desire on the part of consumers. Change by the State on behalf of workers can be swift or slow, depending on change in ideology or even whim.
Examples	Ideally, there is no leader; the people govern directly. This has never been actually practiced, and has just used a one-party system. Examples 0f Communist states are the erstwhile Soviet Union, Cuba and North Korea.	Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR): although the actual categorization of the USSR's economic system is in dispute, it is often considered to be a form of centrally-planned socialism.
Earliest Remnants	Theorized by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in the mid-19th century as an alternative to capitalism and feudalism, communism was not tried out until after the revolution in Russia in the early 1910s.	In 1516, Thomas More write in "Utopia" about a society based around common ownership of property. In 1776, Adam Smith advocated the labor theory of value, ignoring the previous Cantillonian view that prices are derived from supply and demand.

[Kenny]

You need to look closely at Cruz, also for amnesty.

They can’t help it, have to follow the money.

[Georgia Girl 2]

I don’t think Cal is going to ever go for Trump. I like Cal but he doesnt’ seem to realize that all the others on the GOP ticket are pretty much more of what we have had. The very thing he is so frustrated about.

[Yosemitest]

From ConservativeReview.com:

Presidential Candidates Comparison

Policy or Issue
Budget, Spending & Debt
Civil Liberties
Education
Energy & Environment
Foreign Policy & Defense
Free Market
Health Care & Entitlements
Immigration
Moral Issues
Second Amendment
Taxes, Economy & Trade

When it comes to Marco "AMNESTY" Rubio, TED CRUZ WINS hands down.

Rubio stood with Barack Obama and Chuck Schemer and supported a massive amnesty plan.

But TED CRUZ chose to stand with others like Jeff Sessions and Steve King and the American people, to secure the border.

They can't stop CRUZ.

[Yosemitest]

When it comes to Marco "AMNESTY" Rubio, CRUZ WINS hands down.

Rubio stood with Barack Obama and Chuck Schemer and supported a massive amnesty plan.

But TED CRUZ chose to stand with others like Jeff Sessions and Steve King and the American people, to secure the border.

They can't stop CRUZ.
Source:

... Cruz even indicated he would back deporting those who came here illegally -- another proposal he has usually rebuffed.

"I would enforce the law," Cruz said, explaining that he would first deport criminals without proper papers.
"Federal immigration law provides that
if someone is here illegally and is apprehended,
that they should be sent back to their home country."

Cruz has recently begun stressing that he believes the number of undocumented immigrants would decrease with strict border enforcement.
...

"The only people I'm under fire from are reporters who want to throw rocks," Cruz said in Harlan.
"Once we've demonstrated that we can solve the problem, then we can have a conversation about what to do about whatever people remain illegally."

The Rubio campaign ...
"He has attempted to muddy the waters," Cruz said on the stage. "Where there was a battle over amnesty
and some chose, like Sen. Rubio to stand with Barack Obama and Chuck Schemer
and support a massive amnesty plan.
Others chose to stand with Jeff Sessions and Steve King and the American people
and secure the border."

Let's get VERY CLEAR on TED CRUZ and Immigration:

Immigration

As the son of a Cuban immigrant, Sen. Cruz celebrates LEGAL immigration.
He has championed measures
to secure the border,
reform the LEGAL immigration system,
and uphold the rule of law.

Americans, and particularly Texans, have witnessed the harmful effects of an unsecure border,
endangering the lives both of citizens and those who enter illegally.
President Obama's policies have encouraged drug smugglers, child abusers, murderers, and other dangerous criminals to traffick immigrant children into our nation under life-threatening conditions.
In the summer of 2013 we witnessed a humanitarian crisis at our Southern Border, propelled by PROMISES OF AMNESTY FROM THE WHITE HOUSE .
Immigrants deserve a better system in which they will be welcomed to the United States safely and with dignity.

As a critical step to protecting families and inviting more people to enter LEGALLY, in 2014, Sen. Cruz proposed legislation TO PREVENT OBAMA FROM ILLEGALLY EXPANDING AMNESTY .
The House acted to solve the ongoing crisis and passed bills that closely mirrored Sen. Cruz’s proposals,
but regrettably the Senate DemocRATS REFUSED TO ALLOW A VOTE on the measures.

In 2013, Sen. Cruz proposed amendments to the "Gang of 8";bill that would
strengthen border security,
expand green card opportunities,
increase high-skilled 'H1B'visas, PREVENT ILLEGAL ALIENS FROM RECEIVING WELFARE BENEFITS ,
and enforce the rule of law.

ALSO from On The Issues :

Ted Cruz on Immigration

End Obama's illegal amnesty via Congress' checks & balances
Q: How to respond to the split within your party on immigration?
What you're saying is
that the Republicans should vote to fund the governments for all departments except one:
no funding for the Department of Homeland Security,
which handles immigration, rescinding President Obama's executive action,
and if he vetoes that, he's responsible for shutting down the department.
The problem is
that's almost exactly what you did with the government shutdown across the entire government in 2013 with ObamaCare,
and it backfired badly on your party.

CRUZ: All across this country, Republicans campaigned, saying:
if you elect a Republican Senate, we will stop President Obama's illegal amnesty.
We need to HONOR WHAT WE SAID .
We should use the constitutional checks and balances that we have TO REIN IN THE ABUSE OF POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE.
Step #1 is IF the president implements this LAWLESS AMNESTY, that THE SENATE WILL NOT CONFIRM ANY executive or judicial nominees.


Defund amnesty; and refuse any nominees until rescinded

Q: How would you rescind President Obama's executive action on immigration?

CRUZ: We should use the constitutional checks and balances that we have TO REIN IN THE ABUSE OF POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE .
Step #1 that I have called for is the incoming majority leader should announce IF the president implements this LAWLESS AMNESTY, that THE SENATE WILL NOT CONFIRM ANY executive or judicial nominees,
other than VITALl national security positions,
for the next two years,
UNLESS AND UNTIL the president ENDS THIS LAWLESS AMNESTY .
That is AN EXPLICIT AUTHORITY given TO the Senate.

Q: Are you saying the Senate should REFUSE TO CONFIRM the president's new nominee for attorney general?

CRUZ: We have to REIN IN the executive.
And step #2, we've got is THE POWER OF THE PURSE,
and we should FUND ONE AT A TIME the CRITICAL PRIORITIES of the federal government,
but ALSO USE THE POWER OF THE PURSE TO ATTACH RIDERS .


No path to citizenship for 1.65 million illegals in Texas

When discussing what to do about the 1.65 million ILLEGAL immigrants living in Texas, . . . CRUZ again said
HE DID NOT SUPPORT A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP FOR ILLEGAL immigrants living in America, . . .

Give police more power to ask about immigration status

Cruz accused Dewhurst of using his position as head of the Texas Senate to KILL A BILL last year that would have given police more power to ask anyone they detain about their citizenship status--a charge Dewhurst denied.
Both agreed that the US has FAILED TO SECURE ITS BORDER with Mexico,
and said they OPPOSE AMNESTY for ILLEGAL immigrants and the Obama administration's new directive
allowing many young illegal immigrants brought to the US as children to be exempted from deportation.


Boots on the ground, plus a wall

Border wall: James and Leppert OPPOSE A WALL,
Dewhurst and CRUZ tout "boots on the ground" AND A WALL IN SOME PLACES .


Triple the size of the Border Patrol

CRUZ on immigration: Wants to TRIPLE [the]SIZE of Border Patrol.
Says Dewhurst supported in-state tuition for kids of ILLEGAL immigrants.
Dewhurst: I have always been against an amnesty program.
"If they want to be a citizen, they ought to go home and reapply."
Dewhurst says he was against tuition for children of illegal immigrants.


Strengthen border security and increase enforcement

Ted Cruz has worked to STRENGTHEN BORDER SECURITY and help ensure that America remains a nation of laws.
Among other efforts, he has worked on efforts to INCREASE PENALTIES for felons WHO ENTER THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY .
Ted authored a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of 10 states in Lopez v. Gonzales,ILLEGALLY .

Let's take a close look at what TED CRUZ said at that time about his amendment to the "Gang of Eight amnesty/ citizenship bill" :

Cruz In 2013 On Providing Legal Status To Illegal Immigrants ( 2:14 )
Published on Nov 12, 2015

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 5/21/2013:
"And I'd like to make a final point to those advocacy groups that are very engaged in this issue
and rightly concerned about addressing our immigration system
and, in particular, about addressing the situation for the 11 million who are currently in the shadows.
If this amendment is adopted to the current bill, the effect would be that those 11 million under this current bill would still be eligible for RPI status.
They would still be eligible for legal status and indeed, under the terms of the bill, they would be eligible for LPR status as well so that they are out of the shadows,
which the proponents of this bill repeatedly point to as THEIR principal objective to provide a legal status for those who are here illegally to be out of the shadows.
This amendment would allow that happen, ...

"But what it would do, is it would REMOVE the pathway to citizenship, for REAL consequences that RESPECT the RULE OF LAW,
and that treat LEGAL Immigrants with the fairness and respect they deserve,
And a second point to those advocates that are so passionately engaged,
In my view, if this committee rejects this amendment,
and I think everyone here views that it is quite likely that this committee will indeed reject this amendment,

In my view that decision will make it much, much more likely that this entire bill will FAIL in the House of Representatives.

I don't want immigration reform to fail.
I want immigration reform to pass.
And so I would urge people of good faith on both sides of the aisle,
if the objective is to pass common sense immigration reform that SECURES THE BORDERS, that improves LEGAL immigration, and that allows those who are here illegally to come in out of the shadows;
then we should look for areas of bipartisan agreement and compromised to come together.
And this amendment,
I believe, if this amendment were to pass, the chances of this bill passing into law would increase dramatically."

The intent was TO EXPOSE the "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" AND THE DemocRATS for their dishonesty.
THEY were trying to LEGISLATE the ILLEGAL ALIENS a PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP.

TED CRUZ was trying to amend the Bill so as TO STOP THEM,

by REMOVING the pathway to citizenship,
for REAL consequences that RESPECT the RULE OF LAW,
and that treat LEGAL Immigrants with the fairness and respect they deserve.