More maneuvering on taxes, spending, and immigration ?

art credit: crooksandliars.com

What Is Little Marco Up to?

Sen. Marco Rubio was interviewed yesterday evening on Fox’s Ingraham Angle. Sundance @ ConservativeTreehouse explains why his alarm bells went off:

There’s a big con job just over the horizon.  All of the elements are there.  The timing, the platform, the personalities, the discussion topics, etc., it’s a familiar script.  CTH would like to direct attention to this interview which took place last night on Laura Ingraham’s new Fox News show.  Listen carefully to three elements:

·         On Tax Reform – on one side of Rubio’s ‘full-throated‘ mouth he wants higher taxes on corporations 22% -vs- 20%. In the almost the same breath, inside the same argument, he says “it’s not their (the government’s) money”.  Try to reconcile that.

·         On DACA – [Remember, three months ago President Trump gave congress six months to fix DACA]  Rubio says the “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA) program is not the “Dreamers”.  What? Yes it is. The childhood arrivals ARE the so-called ‘dreamers’.

·         However, much more importantly, listen to what is said on “chain migration“.  Ingraham asks if Rubio supports “chain migration”.   Rubio says no, then immediately says: “I’ve always agreed to limiting chain migration to immediate family members”. WHAT? That is chain migration.

. . .

Something is going on in DC that precipitated this interview.

The rest of Sundance’s analysis is here (includes video).

Here is what may be “going on in DC that precipitated this interview.” NumbersUSA, an immigration & amnesty legislation watchdog, sent out an alert today. It includes the following:

Congress loves to add unpopular provisions to must-pass spending bills, and that's why we're on high alert.

As most of you know, the Trump administration stopped accepting new applications for Pres. Obama's unconstitutional executive amnesty for young illegal aliens (DACA) in September. Since then, both Democrats and Republicans have introduced several proposals that would give a permanent amnesty to DACA recipients. The must-pass December spending bill provides the vehicle to do so.

We've seen this play out before. Congress has used massive spending bills to hide unpopular immigration provisions or tried to pass amnesty when voters were less engaged during the holiday season.

. . .

A handful of high-profile Democratic Senators have announced that they'll withhold support for the spending bill if it doesn't include an amnesty for DACA recipients. To support their efforts, the open-borders lobbying group Partnership for a New American Economy is investing heavily in grassroots lobbying efforts over the next few weeks.

So far, both Pres. Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan have said that they don't want DACA to be included in the December bill.

Which side wins could depend on how much opposition to adding a DACA amnesty to the spending bill lawmakers in Washington hear from their constituents.

And here is a NumbersUSA Action Alert:

Over the next several weeks, Members of Congress need to hear a constant beat of opposition to adding an amnesty for DACA illegal aliens to the must-pass spending bill. Here are two actions you can take to get you started:

1) Call Senate GOP Leaders

While Speaker Ryan has been vocal about his opposition to DACA's inclusion in the spending bill, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been quiet. However, the third ranking Senate Republican, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) did say over the weekend that he doesn't think DACA should be part of the spending deal, but fell short of saying it won't be part of the final package.

Please call the following GOP Leaders in the Senate and tell them that you oppose adding the DACA amnesty to any must-pass spending bill.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell -- (202) 224-2541

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn -- (202) 224-2934

Senate GOP Caucus Chair John Thune -- (202) 224-2321

The NumbersUSA website is here. I expect more Alerts over the next couple of weeks.

# # #

 

Michelle Malkin at CPAC: GOP Sold Out Movement Conservatives

Michelle Malkin at Occupy the Truth Rally in Cleveland, 2012

Photo credit: Pat J Dooley

Michelle Malkin at CPAC: GOP Sold Out Movement Conservatives

Legal Insurrection reports on Michelle Malkin’s explosive speech at CPAC:

Many speeches were given at CPAC this weekend, but one stood out from the rest.

Conservative author, activist and entrepreneur Michelle Malkin gave a fiery speech in which she reminded movement conservatives that they have been repeatedly betrayed by the Republican Party.

Malkin began her speech by saying:

“It’s not people outside the party that have thrown the conservative grassroots base under the bus. It’s the people who have paid lip-service to limited government while gorging on it.”

She was only getting started. In the course of her seventeen minute speech, she went after Republicans for the Gang of Eight, Common Core, cronyism, immigration and more.

She slammed the party elites who smear and sneer at the conservative grassroots as fringe while pretending to support causes they care about at election time.

When it came to Common Core she named names, singling out John Kasich for claiming he believed in local control of education. About Bush, she said:

“There are three reasons why Jeb Bush failed. His last name, his support for amnesty and his cheer-leading and cashing in on Common Core.”

This was the first time Malkin has spoken at CPAC in 13 years and it was well worth the wait. Once you start watching this, you won’t be able to stop.

The video is on the same page here.

# # #

GOP debate and Fox “moderators”: Unfair and Unbalanced

cartoon credit: thethinkinggaill.com

Cleveland Tea Party does not endorse any of the four remaining candidates for the GOP nomination, but whether you support Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, or Trump, you were probably appalled at the conduct of the Fox News moderators at last Thursday’s debate. Even if you can’t stand Trump, the bias against him was obvious. If you thought the 2012 Candy Crowley-Mitt Romney moment was bad, take a look at John Nolte’s analysis of the debacle over at Breitbart: 

Another Fox News debate, another two hours of proof that the “fair and balanced” network is nothing more than a super PAC for

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who, by the way, had a terrible night. In their naked pursuit of Donald Trump’s scalp, moderators Chris Wallace, Bret Baier, and Megyn Kelly used every cheap trick in the book.

None of the other candidates faced dramatic graphics. Trump did.

None of the other candidates faced video of past statements.* Trump did.

Trump was never asked to attack his rivals. On at least three occasions, Trump’s rivals were invited to attack him.

. . .

On a number of occasions, Wallace and Kelly tossed off their roles as moderators to actually debate Trump, in the hopes of tripping him up or cornering him. As bad as the mainstream media has been to Republican presidential candidates over the years, I have never seen anything like this.

. . .

There were two unbelievable moments even lower than that. The first came from Kelly, who used leaked reports and unsubstantiated rumors surrounding an off-the-record interview Trump supposedly had with the left-wing New York Times. 

Apparently, the Times leaked information about the off-the-record interview to the left-wing BuzzFeed, who in turn, without hearing the audio, launched a McCarthy-ite attack against Trump, accusing him of saying one thing to the Times and another to the voters regarding immigration.

BuzzFeed then demanded Trump prove he’s not a communist liar.

There is nothing more sacred in journalism than an off-the-record situation. This is supposed to be inviolable. To see the New York Times and BuzzFeed behave in this way is one thing. To see Megyn Kelly and Fox News use a sacred off-the-record conversation to launch a relentless McCarthy-ite attack, was beyond disgraceful.

. . .

This is Fox News going way beyond anything we’ve seen in the past from CNBC’s John Harwood or ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.

In the future, any Republican stupid enough to talk to the New York Times, BuzzFeed, or Fox News in an off-the-record capacity, deserves whatever knife he or she gets in the back.

. . .

Fox News’s brand and reputation is already in freefall. Thursday night, in service to Marco Rubio and the Republican Establishment, Fox News stooped lower than NBC News or CNN — something many of us never thought possible.

*To justify singling Trump out with graphics and videos, Fox News announced at the beginning that the other candidates had faced these in the debate Trump boycotted.

Read the rest (including transcripts of some of the more egregious set-ups) here.  

# # #

“Rubio trounces Trump in the GOP debate” ???

Art credit: therightscoop.com

Today’s message from the Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund PAC opened with its endorsement of Ted Cruz, followed by this:

Rubio routs Trump in Thursday’s debate.

After last month’s weak (devastating, really) debate performance in New Hampshire, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio desperately needed a win at this week’s debate. And on Thursday, he certainly got the win his campaign wanted.

Sen. Rubio’s winning strategy centered heavily on attacking Donald Trump’s record. For many of the past debates, Trump’s opponents have given him a pass, choosing instead to attack one another – they figured (wrongly, it turns out) that rather than challenging Trump directly, the better strategy was to attempt to knock each other out in hopes of being the Last Man Standing against Trump (at which point they believe the 65-70% of the anti-Trump voters in the GOP would rally to their cause). But with Trump’s latest victory in Nevada, the other candidates are quickly realizing the short-sightedness of that strategy. And Sen. Rubio, for one, decided it was time for Trump to account for his record on everything from founding a “fake university” that defrauded people, to his history of hiring undocumented immigrants.

During the debate, Trump – who long ago became accustomed to being unchallenged in the debates – seemed unable to regain his footing after several of Sen. Rubio’s zingers. . . .

But here are some key polls, h/t Conservative Treehouse:

Drudge Report  

Political Opinion 

Right Scoop  

Telegraph  

Wall Street Journal 

The Blaze (click on the list of names to see results)

TimeDotCom  (click on the list of names to see results) 

Slate

All these polls showed Trump the winner. The Blaze poll is especially telling, since everyone knows that Glenn Beck has endorsed Cruz and loathes Trump. The Telegraph didn’t much like the poll results, either. But regardless of where you stand on the candidates, it’s unfortunate that Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund claims that Marco Rubio the winner of the debate, that he trounced Trump, when the above polls show otherwise. Where was at least a qualifier?

# # #

And then there were five.

carton credit: thefederalistpapers.com

Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, and Carson

AP: The ninth Republican debate of the presidential campaign will take place just a few days before 11 states hold GOP elections that will either cement Trump's dominance — or let his rivals slow his march to his party's presidential nomination.

Tonight on CNN (Cleveland area Time Warner ch. 34) at 8:30 pm.

# # #

Unresolved: eligibility to run for President

cartoon credit: Clay Bennett, Chattanooga Times Free Press

Unresolved: natural born citizenship and eligibility to run for President

The 9th GOP debate was not much fun to watch, nor did we learn anything about the eligibility of two candidates with Hispanic pedigrees (no, not Jeb!, who defined himself as “Hispanic” on his voter registration form), those two being Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

Last month, CNN declared that

Cruz was conferred American citizenship at birth because his mother is an American citizen, and legal experts have largely agreed that would qualify him for natural-born citizenship. The Texas Republican was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and also had Canadian citizenship until he renounced it in 2014.

Is that correct? If so, what’s all the fuss about?

Gateway Pundit posted a more detailed and sourced analysis of the controversy over Ted Cruz’s eligibility as a natural born citizen of the U.S.:

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. a retired colonel with 29 years of experience in the US Army Reserve, argues that Senator Ted Cruz entered the United States illegally as a child in 1974. His parents failed to file a CRBA form which is required by US law. Ted’s parents did not fill out the required form until 1986.

It would be nice if the Cruz camp cleared this up for Republican voters.

Via Family Security Matters:

Exactly how and when did Ted Cruz obtain U.S. citizenship?

The fact that it is still an open question at this stage of the Presidential campaign is a testament either to the galactic ignorance of our political-media elite or their willingness to place political expediency ahead of the Constitution and the law.

There is no third alternative.

Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada on December 22, 1970 and remained a Canadian citizen until he officially renounced it on May 14, 2014, eighteen months after taking the oath of office as a U.S. Senator. At the time of his birth, Cruz’s father was a citizen of Canada and his mother was a U.S. citizen.

Legally, Cruz could have obtained US citizenship through his mother consistent with Public Law 414, June 27, 1952, An Act: To revise the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality and for other purposes [H.R. 5678], Title III Nationality and Naturalization, Chapter 1 – Nationality at Birth and by Collective naturalization; Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth; the relevant section being 301 (a) (7):

“a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.”

In that case, Cruz’s mother should have filed a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) with the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate after the birth to document that the child was a U.S. citizen.

According to Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier, Cruz’s mother did register his birth with the U.S. consulate and Cruz received a U.S. passport in 1986 ahead of a high school trip to England.

There are two apparent contradictions regarding how and when Ted Cruz obtained US citizenship.

First, according to the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946, also referred to as the “Act of 1947,”Canada did not allow dual citizenship in 1970. The parents would have had to choose at that time between U.S. and Canadian citizenship. Ted Cruz did not renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2014. Was that the choice originally made?

Second, no CRBA has been released that would verify that Ted Cruz was registered as a U.S. citizen at birth.

It has been reported that the then nearly four-year-old Ted Cruz flew to the U.S. from Calgary, Alberta, Canada in 1974.

Ted Cruz could not have entered the U.S. legally without a CRBA or a U.S. passport, the latter of which was not obtained until 1986.

If Ted Cruz was registered as a U.S. citizen at birth, as his spokeswoman claims, then the CRBA must be released. Otherwise, one could conclude that Cruz came to the U.S. as a Canadian citizen, perhaps on a tourist visa or, possibly, remained in the U.S. as an illegal immigrant.

It is the responsibility of the candidate for the Presidency, not ordinary citizens, to prove that he or she is eligible for the highest office in the land. Voters deserve clarification.

What about Marco Rubio? AOL summarizes: 

The issue at hand -- as Ted Cruz has learned well -- is over whether Rubio can be considered a "natural born citizen."

Rubio's lawyers are in court this week fighting claims he's not eligible because his parents weren't U.S. citizens until four years after his birth. The lawsuit claims that means he is ineligible to run under Article 2 of the Constitution.

Rubio's citizenship has been contested before, when the question popped up in the 2012 election after rumors swirled that Republican candidate Mitt Romney might tap Rubio as a potential running mate.

The argument over what a "natural born citizen" actually means has been going on for years, and the only group who could actually define it, the Supreme Court, has never done so.

The issue has been going on for years. President Obama’s eligibility was never decided in the court. Will Mr. Trump or some of his supporters force the question into court?

# # #

Special interests, SuperPACS, and the presidential candidates

photo credit: natcom.org

The OpenSecrets website lists contributors to candidates, and also tracks the SuperPACS:

Super PACs are a relatively new type of committee that arose following the July 2010 federal court decision in a case known as SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission.

Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Unlike traditional PACs, super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates, and their spending must not be coordinated with that of the candidates they benefit. Super PACs are required to report their donors to the Federal Election Commission on a monthly or semiannual basis – the super PAC's choice – in off-years, and monthly in the year of an election.

As of February 03, 2016, 2,194 groups organized as super PACs have reported total receipts of $353,533,929 and total independent expenditures of $144,551,790 in the 2016 cycle.

The website further reports that

Super PACs allowed the [securities and investment] industry to gain an outsize share of the pie in 2015 as Wall Street gravitated to some candidates and utterly abandoned others. With billionaire investors giving right and left, total contributions from the industry to presidential super PACs rose to $81.2 million.

. . .

Investors made up the top donor industry to six of the current candidates when their campaign committees and super PACs are combined; the exceptions were retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, businesswoman Carly Fiorina, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

All four of those candidates nevertheless benefit from SuperPACS, including those receiving Wall Street money. Recently, the securities and investment industry donors are shifting to new favorites:

Despite huge contributions to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in the first six months of 2015, securities and investment firms appear to have picked their favorite candidate on the Republican side: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).

. . .

despite Rubio’s rise among securities and investment types, Iowa caucus winner Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) again showed evidence he has perhaps the strongest mix of funding sources in the race. Four of the top overall industries giving money were in the top five donors to Cruz super PACs and his campaign account: securities and investment, real estate (buoyed by huge contributions from the Texan Wilks brothers), oil and gas and retired individuals.

The leading five candidates in the GOP race, as of today via Real Clear Politics, are Bush, Carson, Cruz, Rubio, and Trump. (And as most patriots know, Rick Santorum,  Rand Paul, and Mike Huckabee  just suspended their campaigns.)

# # #

GOP campaign financing: Part 4

Photo credit: brandchannel.com

GOP campaign financing: Part 4 ~ Marco Rubio

  

The money behind Marco Rubio’s campaign is easy to track, thanks to the extensive digging already done by Michelle Malkin. For those of us who find Rubio a fresh face, good in front of the cameras and microphones, but troubled by his campaign pledge to oppose amnesty, only to co-sponsor the infamous Gang of Eight legislation, Malkin’s title “Open borders money backs Marco Rubio” says it all. From the article:

Here’s what you need to know:

Facebook, Microsoft and Silicon Valley back Marco Rubio. Mark Zuckerberg is a social justice CEO who panders to Hispanics with his pro-amnesty, anti-deportation advocacy; Facebook is an H-1B visa dependent company working hard to obliterate hurdles to hiring an unlimited stream of cheap foreign tech workers. It’s no coincidence that Facebook’s lobbying outfit, FWD.us, was waging war on Sen. Cruz online this week in parallel with Sen. Rubio’s disingenuous onstage attack.

The D.C. front group, which Zuckerberg seeded in 2013 with nearly $40 million during the Gang of Eight fight, has consistently provided political protection for Rubio as he carried their legislative water.

FWD.us’s GOP subsidiary, “Americans for a Conservative Direction,” showered Rubio and pro-illegal alien amnesty Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., with millions of dollars in media ad buys. The group also funded a deceptive, $150,000 ad campaign for immigration sellout Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., which falsely claimed she opposed amnesty to help her fend off a primary challenge. In all, FWD.us spent an estimated $5 million on TV and radio spots in more than 100 GOP districts before the Senate passed the Gang of Eight bill in June 2013.

Zuckerberg personally donated to Rubio, as have pro-H-1B expansionist Silicon Valley CEOs from Oracle, Cisco and Seagate. Microsoft, founded by leading H-1B/amnesty cheerleader Bill Gates, has been Rubio’s No. 2 corporate donor the past five years.

Paul Singer backs Marco Rubio. The hedge fund billionaire announced his support for Rubio in October. Amnesty is and always has been a top agenda item for Singer, who helped fund the National Immigration Forum along with fellow hedge fund billionaire George Soros. NIF propped up a faux “grass-roots” initiative of religious conservatives, dubbed the Evangelical Immigration Table, to lobby for the Gang of Eight.

Read the rest here.  

For background on Chris Christie’s fund-raising, posted earlier on this blogsite, go here.

For background on Dr. Ben Carson’s fund-raising, posted earlier on this blogsite, go here.

For background on Jeb Bush’s fund-raising, posted earlier on this blogsite, go here.

# # #

A specific plan to defeat ISIS?

Photo credit: GettyImages

As a Cleveland Tea Party Patriot, I receive regular emails from Tea Party Patriots’ national office and also their PAC, Tea Party Patriot Citizen Fund. Today, the email from the Citizen Fund reported on Ted Cruz’s efforts to win support from evangelicals; Jeb Bush’s message on national security; and Rubio's plan to defeat ISIL [ISIS]. The section refers the reader to Senator Rubio’s plan, published on the Politico blog here. 

I would also refer the reader to Ed Straker’s take on Sen. Rubio’s plan over at American Thinker here. Its title is “Marco Rubio wants to defeat ISIS by arming ISIS and fighting its enemies,” and here is an extract (Rubio's words appear in gray highlight):

Marco Rubio has a plan for defeating ISIS.  . . .

As president, I would demand that Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government grant greater autonomy to Sunnis, and would provide direct military support to Sunnis and the Kurds if Baghdad fails to support them.

Guess who is currently supporting ISIS, lock, stock, and barrel: the Sunnis!  Rubio would arm them directly.

Cutting off oxygen to ISIL also requires defeating Assad in Syria. I would declare no-fly zones to ground Assad’s air force and coalition-controlled “safe zones” in the country to stop his military

If Assad is defeated, can you guess who will move in and take over his territory?  I'll give you a hint: the group's name begins with the letter "I."

. . .

Marco Rubio is not a brilliant foreign policy strategist.  . . .  When Politico starts publishing his press releases, you know you're reading the words of an establishment Republican.

Cleveland Tea Party Patriots is nonpartisan and does not endorse or contribute to any candidate, but it does want to contribute to debates on major issues, in this case, a strategy to defeat ISIS. 

# # #

Report cards on immigration

Photo credit: www.wnd.com

Ever since Donald Trump announced his candidacy and identified illegal immigration as a major issue, the media – and other candidates – have been forced to address the problem. So far, most of the candidates, whether running as Democrats or Republicans, are given a pretty poor grade for their positions over at NumbersUSA here. Most patriots who are closely following the campaigns so far may be surprised at the low ratings for, e.g., Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina, and John Kasich.

Stay tuned. 

# # #