By Javier Manjarres

Senator Marco Rubio recently delivered a compelling and emotional speech on illegal immigration at the annual Hispanic Leadership Network meeting, but Rubio may have left many in the room, and perhaps across the country wondering if this speech marked the beginning of a ‘softening’ by Rubio on this important issue.

At the very beginning of his speech, Rubio was heckeled by pro-Dream Act activists, who were there in protest of the Senators hard-line views on immigration, making the case for his continued anti-amnesty position.

During the course of his remarks, Rubio stated that there is “broad bi-partisan support for a notion that we should somehow figure a way to accommadate them (Dream Act Kids).”

While Rubio has come out in opposition to the Dream Act, Rubio has always questioned what is to happen to the children who were brought here to this country illegally by their parents.

Rubio campaigned on a pro-legal immigration platform and thus far he has been staunchly against any form of amnesty for illegal immigrants, but he has hit a couple of bumps along that road that give immigration hawks cause for concern.

During his 2010 Senatorial campaign, Rubio was slammed by pro-illegal immigration contingency when he made this controversial statement critiquing the Arizona Immigration law:

States certainly have the right to enact policies to protect their citizens, but Arizona’s policy shows the difficulty and limitations of states trying to act piecemeal to solve what is a serious federal problem. From what I have read in news reports, I do have concerns about this legislation. While I don’t believe Arizona’s policy was based on anything other than trying to get a handle on our broken borders, I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with ‘reasonable suspicion,’ are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens. Throughout American history and throughout this administration we have seen that when government is given an inch it takes a mile.-Senator Marco Rubio

Rubio’s Senate campaign took heavy criticism for this statement and immediately went into damage control mode to try to mitigate the fallout. Rubio immediately back-peddled and the damage was limited.

But earlier in his political career when he was Speaker of the Florida House, Rubio was labeled as being “pro-amnesty” for illegals when he blocked the passage of six immigration reform bills that were to be heard in committee. Rubio stated that these bills did not make it out of committee, and he noted that a similar bill introduced in 2009 also never made it out of committee.

Congressman David Rivera (R-FL), one of Rubio’s closest friend from his days in the Florida Legislature has introduced the Adjusted Residency for Military Service Act — the ARMS Act. It’s a variation on the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to some children of undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally.-Miami Herald
There is now talk that Rubio may co-sponsor the measure in the Senate, a move that will undoubtedly set off a backlash from Tea Party and other grassroots groups against the Senator.

Marco Rubio supports the military component of the Dream Act, but the problem for Rubio is that this measure is another form of amnesty and it would wholly discredit him as being against any form of amnesty for illegal immigrants. Rubio believes that citizenship is only granted to those illegals who get discharged from the Armed Forces with an Honorable Discharge, but both Rivera and Rubio are completely disconnected with the unintended consequences that will fall upon the country if this measure is adopted.

Let’s raise a couple obvious, and not so obvious questions about the this Military-only Dream Act.

First of all, how is this going to be paid for? If you have 100,000 illegal immigrants that attempt to enlist in the armed forces, where will they serve, especially in light of the drastic military cuts that President Obama has proposed?

Of those 100,000 illegals that enlist, how many will wash out of their respected Basic Training programs? As of 2006, the wash-out rate for enlistees in the military is as follows:

Service 1998 rate Latest Available Rate (2006) Army 17.9% 13.6% Air Force 8.8% 7.1% Navy 17.0% 14.0% Marines 13.5% 11.7%

What do we do with those 13.6% of Army wash-outs, or 14% of the Navy’s wash-outs? Do we offer them a consolation prize for not being able to serve the opportunity to gain U.S. Citizenship?

Aside from the high wash-out rate and the shrinking military, what about those illegal immigrant soldiers that receive a ‘General’ discharge, as opposed to an Honorable Discharge?

General discharges are given to service members whose performance is satisfactory but is marked by a considerable departure in duty performance and conduct expected of military members. Reasons for such a characterization of service vary, from medical discharges to misconduct, and are utilized by the unit commander as a means to correct unacceptable behavior prior to initiating discharge action (unless the reason is drug abuse, in which case discharge is mandatory). A commander must disclose the reasons for the discharge action in writing to the service member, and must explain reasons for recommending the service be characterized as General (Under Honorable Conditions). The service member is normally required to sign a statement acknowledging receipt and understanding of the notification of pending discharge memorandum. They are also advised of the right to seek counsel and present supporting statements.

In addition, service members are required to sign documents acknowledging that “substantial prejudice in civilian life” may be encountered under a general discharge.^[2]Despite this, some personnel think because the discharge is described as general under honorable conditions, it is as good as or the same as an honorable discharge. Concerning VA disability and most other benefits that is true; however, a general discharge may preclude participation in the GI Bill, service on veteran’s commissions, and other programs where a fully honorable discharge is required. However, one state,Illinois, prohibits discrimination against a veteran from housing or employment on the basis of unfavorable discharge from military service per the Human Rights Act of 1970.-Wikipedia

Another question to consider is the following- how long does an illegal immigrant have to serve before he or she is ‘Honorably Discharged’ and receives their citizenship- is it 2 years, 4 years, 6 years, or more? And what if the soldier decides to make the military a career, what then? Do ‘what if’?’ provisions need to be added to the agreement regarding extended military service?

Another question- once these illegal immigrants become citizens by virtue of their military service, will they be allowed to immediately request the rest of their families?

Senator Rubio, Congressman Rivera, and others who support this military amnesty measure seem to be completely blinded by the rantings and pressures coming from the pro-amnesty lobby, and their support of this measure could very well help open an ominous “Pandora’s Box” of future amnesty measures.

(Cross-posted: The Shark Tank)

Soon we will know the winner of the Florida Republican primary, and the winner in Florida will probably be the ultimate Republican nominee for president.  So it is time to start considering whom to have for vice president.  Florida Senator Marco Rubio is the man.  It’s not too soon!  Don’t take “no” for an answer!

During the time he has been a senator, Rubio has already accomplished a strong conservative voting record.  As a Tea Party activist, he has followed through with pledges to oppose all tax hikes and he voted in favor of the Ryan Budget to restrain entitlement spending.  He has called for repeal of Obamacare and abolition of capital gains and estate taxes, and he has also called for a flat-rate federal tax.

And take your pick on all other conservative issues, and Rubio is on board for all of them: national security, abortion, vouchers and charter schools, gun rights, streamlining regulatory burdens on businesses, and opening up drilling for oil here in the U.S.  There are more positions, but you get the point.  Rubio is a solid conservative who would be a great fit with any candidate at the top of the GOP ticket.

But it is not only his stands on the issues that call for a draft-Rubio movement for vice president.  It is Rubio’s full-throated defense of American conservative values and free-market capitalism that appeal to conservatives.  During the four debates he had in his 2010 race for Florida’s Senate seat, Rubio truly stood out.  He even spent some time criticizing the moderator, which was cool back in 2010 and is even cooler today.  Replaying highlights of Rubio’s Senate debates, as will inevitably happen during his campaign for vice president, will be an excellent national introduction for Rubio.

Forceful, unapologetic articulation is a new requirement for Republicans: it is not only a good track record or voting record, conservatives also demand the ability to forcefully articulate conservative principles.  Just ask Texas Governor Rick Perry.

Rubio would also be the first Hispanic candidate for high elective office.  Oh sure, we will be told, Hispanics don’t vote for ethnicity alone, but if the GOP could put a significant dent in the 67% to 31% advantage Hispanics gave Barack Obama over John McCain in 2008, the presidential race is almost over before it starts.

The only drawback Rubio might have is that he has served in the Senate for only two years before running.  But where have we heard that before?  Possibly a certain Democratic presidential candidate in 2008?

But unlike Barack Obama, who before his election to the U.S. Senate spent seven years in the Illinois State Senate setting a record for voting “present,” Marco Rubio spent nine years as a representative in the Florida House of Representatives and even served two years as Speaker of Florida’s House.

Rubio will also be an asset in recent political developments.  In many political issues, the credibility of the politician on a certain issue determines his ability to get something done.  For example, that was why Richard Nixon, the perennial cold warrior, was able to go to China.  It is also why Governor Mitt Romney, noted rich guy, will never get top marginal tax rates dropped and in fact he is not even proposing it.  In the case of Marco Rubio, his mere ethnicity gives him credibility on immigration matters, so whoever the president will be, Vice President Rubio will be able to lead the issue of securing the border against illegal immigration while instituting a functional, bipartisan guest worker program, major electoral issues this year.

Rubio can also provide needed cover on another issue: the recent pandering to “Space Coast” Floridians.  Who would have ever thought that in the current days of $15 trillion national debt, Republicans would be outdoing each other on space proposals?  I mean, really!  I guess when I called Newt Gingrich “the Apollo 13 candidate,” more references to space were probably a given, so it might be my fault.

But in this primary season the Republicans have courted every Floridian vote, including the Floridians in the so-called “Space Coast.”  Hence the recent Republican calls for more trips to space, including a permanent station on the Moon.  If this keeps up, Moon-shots for Floridians will be like ethanol subsidies for Iowans, an obligatory pander to Florida voters from each new crop of presidential candidates.  As a Floridian, Rubio can put a stop to it and call it the shameless pandering that it is.

Other names mentioned for vice president include Susana Martinez, governor or New Mexico, would be very good, especially on energy issues; and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who just won re-election by a landslide.  Jindal is also very good on energy issues and has recently been making a lot of news on school choice issues.  Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has also been mentioned, and he has a great fiscal track record.  The charismatically-challenged former presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty has also been mentioned as a possible vice president.  In his recent candidacy Pawlenty showed that he stands for most of the issues Republicans favor.

Good people, but none of them is Marco Rubio.  So let’s draft Rubio for vice president and get this general election campaign started.

 

Hello, I’m Marco Rubio, a Senator from Florida. Right now all eyes are focused on my home state ahead of next week’s Republican presidential primary. It’s an exciting contest and I know that passions are high. So I wanted to take a moment to explain to the rest of the country why Republicans in Florida are so excited about this primary: Because we believe our country is in big trouble...

About a month ago, many conservatives pounced upon Nikki Haley when she endorsed Mitt Romney and branded her as a traitor and RINO as though she is failing to govern South Carolina in a conservative manner.

I’ve asked it at the time and I’ll ask it again; where had Newt Gingrich been when these very conservatives including Nikki Haley and Marco Rubio challenged establishment Republicans in primaries in 2010? Why, he was busy endorsing others like Dede Scozzafava over tea-partier Doug Hoffman, Robert Bennet over Mike Lee, and so on. Not only has Newt chosen to support left-leaning candidates over Tea-partiers, he had repeatedly supported liberal legislation first as a Congressman and later as a private citizen.

The Drudge Report has become the number one news source for millions of conservatives who are refreshed to see news which the mainstream media fails to report. Drudge has linked to and helped make viral many liberal-exposures including Breitbart’s explosive Acorn videos.

Last week, Drudge had a headline about a network’s upcoming interview with a presidential candidate’s ex-wife; a news that would under normal circumstances be featured on every website. Although divorces are usually a messy business and many ex-spouses seek to slander their former spouse, it is only reasonable that voters will still want to hear what the candidate’s ex-wife has to say (taking it perhaps with a grain of salt) especially since the court documents regarding his first divorce have shown that Newt and not his wife had requested the divorce, contrary to his claims.

Drudge had come under heavy attack from Newt supporters for reporting this news, and Saturday night after Newt had won South Carolina, twitter was loaded with messages proclaiming Matt Drudge had lost. What has he lost? He owns a news site, and reported this piece news as he does with all other news.

Also, what’s wrong if he personally doesn’t support Newt (although I haven’t heard him say so)? It has come to the point that anyone who says anything not so complimentary of Newt, even when it’s the truth, is branded as in the camp for Romney. I, for instance, support neither Newt nor Romney. I support Rick Santorum. I’ve found it quite disturbing, though, to have been told by Newt that supporting Santorum is equivalent to supporting Romney. No, it isn’t and being told so won’t change that. I don’t support many of Romney’s policies of which Santorum has always held contrary views. I’m of the opinion that I will support the person who appears to me as the only principled conservative still in the race and I also feel that supporting Newt is similar to supporting Romney since they’ve held similar views on a majority of the issues. You may disagree with that, but don’t say I’m not allowed to support someone other than yourself.

It’s true that a huge chunk of conservatives are currently supporting Newt. However, that doesn’t mean one isn’t a conservative if he supports another candidate, including Romney. Furthermore, disagreeing with Newt doesn’t automatically mean the individual supports Romney; he may be supporting an alternative candidate such as Santorum or has not yet made up his/her mind.

Conservatives have already dumped Nikki Haley. They’ve blasted Matt Drudge for the past week. Now Rubio has become the target of attacks. What has Rubio done? Rubio hadn’t questioned Newt’s conservatism or dared discuss Newt’s past. He simply responded to an analogy that Newt had made which included Rubio. Also, after having been questioned about a specific ad, he responded that it was more befitted for a liberal with its false fear-mongering message to Hispanics (much in the manner Obama has engaged in the 2010 midterms). The Newt team apparently felt Rubio was in the right for it responded quite quickly and promised to pull the ad.

Newt is beloved by many for his sharp responses and hard-hitting answers. At times, though his remarks seem to follow liberal tactics or deliver a punch which is contradictory with conservative values, and he’s admitted as much. Just as he’d apologized for his fear-mongering comments on the Paul Ryan Plan as “right-wing social engineering” which hurt conservatism at a time when the left attempted to portray conservatives as throwing grandma off the cliff, so too, his portrayal of Romney as anti-immigration without differentiating between legal and illegal immigration has struck the wrong balance.

If we’re going to throw under the bus every conservative who utters anything anti-Newt I think we’ll need super-long tractor-trailers to fit everyone under. We should be able to understand that conservative opinion will be split in a primary and that not everyone will agree with your choice of candidate. That’s what primaries are all about. Let’s stop the trashing and bashing of conservatives solely because their opinion conflicts yours.

 

Abie Rubin blogs at The Thinking Voter and can be followed on twitter.

Churchill never had the opportunity to meet Marco Rubio, but I believe he would have felt a kinship with my Senator. Today, Reuters joined the unholy alliance of jokers and schemers who have been engaged in a vicious quest to smear the name of Marco Rubio in the eyes of the American public, and specifically in the Hispanic community.

Currently it’s common to hear sorrowful wailing because the Republican Party is forced to choose one of the candidates running for president. If only XYZ had ran, THEN we’d have something to get excited about.  This lack of interest from the Great Candidate(s) is then used as a corollary argument that Barack Obama is seen as unbeatable by the smart guys.

I submit to you that this balderdash is completely refuted by the pesky facts. Following are some of the names that are repeatedly tossed out as our great lost hope.

Chris Christie – Really? A moderate from New Jersey with two years in elective office? From Day 1 has steadfastly said “No” to running in 2012.

John Thune – Really? A guy who is in his first term in the Senate (and he had to be talked into running again after losing the first time) and is not known outside South Dakota?

Sarah Palin – Love her but no. She wisely realized it wasn’t in the cards and at just 48 she has plenty of time to wait for better opportunities.

Mitch Daniels – Its fairly well established that his wife and family were opposed to a presidential run. No mystery here.

Tim Pawlenty – Oh wait….

Bobby Jindal – Barely into his second term as Governor of a small state, will turn just 41 later this year, no way is 2012 his best time to run. Huge future potential.

Marco Rubio – In his first term in the US Senate, also will turn just 41 later this year,  no freaking way should he rush things. Huge future potential.

Haley Barbour – Oops, wrong list.

Paul Ryan – Extremely hard to run for President from the House, not well known by the average person, at just 42 has a huge future, we need him more in Congress at this point.

Unless I’m forgetting someone those are the names that get tossed around yet there are very good and obvious reasons why none of them will be the Republican nominee in 2012.

Contrary to popular folklore the GOP does not have a bench of 600 pound gorillas ready to come in, unite the party, and sweep to victory who instead cravenly decided to enter the bunker for four more years.

In fact there is only one person I am aware of who fits that description. Only one person with the organization, name ID, political experience, political ability, and the potential to draw the various factions together. And his last name simply makes him a no go for 2012.

Besides, when you consider that the Democrats had to choose between Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama in 2008, I think our choices of Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum begin to take on a certain luster.

America hates Newt Gingrich – so say The Washington Examiner and the polls.  And with nearly 60% of the electorate holding an ‘unfavorable’ opinion of the former Speaker of the House, it is hard to argue the point.  Newt simply is not well-liked, particularly among Democrats and the ‘establishment-types’ within the Republican Party.  Now, with his surprisingly comfortable win in South Carolina over the weekend, the political long knives are out, being hastily sharpened for what no doubt will be one final glorious attack, aimed at ending Newt Gingrich’s political career once and for all.

By all accounts, this should be a relatively simple task.  How hard could it be, after all, defeating a career ‘DC-insider’ who, according to Democrats, wants to starve children, deprive seniors of their medications and force inner-city minority students to work as janitors; and, according to Republicans, supports an individual mandate, favors amnesty for illegals and has spent much of the last decade lining his pockets as a lobbyist, err historian, for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?  Indeed, defeating Newt Gingrich should be the political equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel.

To further complicate matters for Newt, he continues to run far behind his chief political opponent, Mitt Romney, in money, organization and popularity.  In the next primary state (Florida), Romney and his Super PACs have already spent millions on TV ads all across the Sunshine State, while the cash-strapped Gingrich had yet to run a single TV ad with just 10 days to go until the January 31st primary.  In addition to a large cash advantage, Romney (unlike Newt) also has an organizational apparatus in all 50 states (he’s been running for President practically non-stop for 5 years now); and Romney’s favorability rating among voters continues to be much higher than Newt’s.

So, how then can Newt Gingrich – the consummate inside-the-beltway politico – ever hope to gain his party’s nomination, let alone defeat Barack Obama in November?  Quite easily, actually.  Newt Gingrich will be the next President of the United States if he calls a press conference, stands in front of the television cameras, and delivers the following speech…

My fellow Americans, I stand before you today as a candidate for the office of the President of the United States.  My candidacy, as many of you know, has been an improbable one, to say the least.  It has been full of controversy, chaos and uncertainty.  There were moments when we were totally broke, without a staff, and lacking a clear and coherent message.  In fact, many in the national media have declared my campaign ‘dead’ on numerous occasions, some before the first votes were even cast in Iowa back on January 3rd.

But now, we find ourselves in a position where our solutions-based, ideas-oriented message is fundamentally beginning to gain a foothold with the American people.  We saw this in South Carolina, where, despite all of the vicious and misleading attacks by my opponents and by the press – both on me personally and on my previous work in the Congress – the voters in that state rejected this type of destructive politics, and provided our campaign with a sweeping and historic victory that has reverberated all throughout this country.

My critics say that I am a consummate Washington insider.  They say that I am more concerned with personal accolades than I am with renewing and restoring the American spirit that once was the hallmark of this great nation.  They say that I am a man of unconventional and unorthodox ideas.

Well, I believe that America finds itself in need of some unconventional and unorthodox ideas.  I believe that America needs to have faith in its elected officials again.  That is why I am announcing today that, if elected, I will serve only one term as President of the United States.  Four years, no more.  Frankly, that’s all I will need.  You see, if you would give me the honor and privilege of serving as your President for the next four years, I can directly and unequivocally promise you that I will spend every waking minute of those four years creating the solutions that will renew this nation’s spirit and restore our place as the bright, illuminative beacon to the rest of the world.

Without concern for a second term, I will not be beholden to any Washington lobbyists.  I will not be jetting all over the country holding fundraisers.  There will be no Hawaiian vacations, no golf outings, no extended stays at Martha’s Vineyard.  My sole and singular focus will be on restoring the citizens’ faith and confidence in the American system of governance.

And to assist me in that endeavor, I have recruited a young man who knows what it means to have received God’s blessings of living in the freest and most democratic nation in the history of the world.  Tonight, I am announcing that the United States Senator from Florida, Marco Rubio, has agreed to serve as my Vice President should you, the American people, give use the privilege of serving you.  Together, Marco Rubio and I will drastically and fundamentally reduce the federal government’s role in your daily lives.  We will cut federal spending, eliminate burdensome regulations, and most importantly, we will restore your faith and confidence in your government.

You see, I am not running for President for my own personal gain; I am running for President for the sole purpose of restoring America to her rightful owners – her people.  Marco Rubio and I ask that you join us tomorrow to turn the page on the next chapter of this great human experiment called America.  Together, we will fundamentally restore and renew America.  Thank you.  God bless you.  And may God continue to bless the United States of America.

Now that would be truly historic…

 

Cross-posted at PoliticalMommentary.com

So, Erick Erickson decided to make a big push against SOPA today, again bringing out the primary threat card. I also had a post on SOPA and PROTECT IP today.

We were heard. On the House side, Speaker John Boehner echoed Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and said the committee needs to find consensus before the bill can get a vote. And again, conservatives like Darrell Issa, Justin Amash, and Jason Chaffetz aren’t going to lie down and quit. So as long as Boehner and Cantor are true to their words, SOPA is dead in the House this Congress.

On the Senate side, of the 16 Republicans co-sponsoring PROTECT IP, I’ve received word of six of them changing their minds. Kelly Ayotte, Roy Blunt, John Boozman, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, and Marco Rubio are dropping their support. Moe was keeping track, but I think Ayotte flipped after the posted.

The threat of electoral consequences is all a politician will listen to. Democrats know that the online left won’t lift a finger, so Democrats are still backing SOPA and PROTECT IP, much to Markos Moulitsas’s disappointment. We stood on principle, while Daily Kos just whined. We got results, he got blown off.

Erick even tried to make this a bipartisan thing, where both sides would primary the SOPA and PROTECT IP supporters, but he got crickets.

Lamar Smith remains primary target number one though, as he does his best impression of the Saddam Hussein Ministry of Propaganda. The Allies are not in Iraq! SOPA is still in control of the country! It’s all lies! Also, Lamar Smith is himself an E-PARASITE. Will he resign and report to prison?

Read More →

So, Erick Erickson decided to make a big push against SOPA today, again bringing out the primary threat card. I also had a post on SOPA and PROTECT IP today.

We were heard. On the House side, Speaker John Boehner echoed Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and said the committee needs to find consensus before the bill can get a vote. And again, conservatives like Darrell Issa, Justin Amash, and Jason Chaffetz aren’t going to lie down and quit. So as long as Boehner and Cantor are true to their words, SOPA is dead in the House this Congress.

On the Senate side, of the 16 Republicans co-sponsoring PROTECT IP, I’ve received word of six of them changing their minds. Kelly Ayotte, Roy Blunt, John Boozman, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, and Marco Rubio are dropping their support. Moe was keeping track, but I think Ayotte flipped after the posted.

The threat of electoral consequences is all a politician will listen to. Democrats know that the online left won’t lift a finger, so Democrats are still backing SOPA and PROTECT IP, much to Markos Moulitsas’s disappointment. We stood on principle, while Daily Kos just whined. We got results, he got blown off.

Erick even tried to make this a bipartisan thing, where both sides would primary the SOPA and PROTECT IP supporters, but he got crickets.

Lamar Smith remains primary target number one though, as he does his best impression of the Saddam Hussein Ministry of Propaganda. The Allies are not in Iraq! SOPA is still in control of the country! It’s all lies! Also, Lamar Smith is himself an E-PARASITE. Will he resign and report to prison?

Read More →

This morning I noted that we should primary Senators and Representatives on the left and right who refuse to back away from SOPA and Protect IP.

Included in the list, unfortunately, was Senator Marco Rubio. I would hate, hate, haaattttteeeee to primary such a great guy. We spent a lot of time, energy, effort, and money getting him elected. But SOPA/Protect IP is that bad.

Now, I’ve made clear that we wouldn’t do this unless the left was on board too and I’ve only really heard crickets from them. But it was a threat so many of us felt needed to be made to emphasize just how bad this legislation is.

Today, about 40 minutes ago, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida showed again why he is a real leader and listener within the conservative movement. He is dropping his co-sponsorship of Protect IP.

I hope other Republicans in the Senate follow his leadership on this issue. and please call Senator Rubio’s office and thank him for his leadership. His number is (202) 224-3041. We often fight. We should also often say thanks.