RATHEREXPOSETHEM

THE CHURCH MILITANT Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse.

Thursday, May 14, 2015

JEB BUSH WOULD NOT RESCIND OBAMA'S EXECUTIVE AMNESTY IF ELECTED PRESIDENT~SUPPORTS OBAMA'S NSA SPYING~LIBERTY UNIVERSITY COMMENCEMENT SPEECH SHOWS ECUMENISM, PROGRESSIVE BENT~COMMON CORE PROPONENT DESPITE WIDESPREAD OPPOSITION

THE PROBLEMS WITH JEB BUSH

BEING PRESIDENT;

JUST ANOTHER ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN MEANS NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE

SEE:

Jeb Bush Would Not Rescind Obama’s Executive Amnesty if Elected President

by Warren Mass

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/20865-jeb-bush-would-not-rescind-obama-s-executive-amnesty-if-elected-president; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

During a recent interview with Megyn Kelly on Fox News, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (shown) said that — were he to be elected president — his first order of business would not be to repeal President Obama’s executive action granting amnesty to four million illegal aliens. Bush, who has not yet announced himself as a candidate for the Republican nomination in 2016, said that although he did not support the Obama administration executive action — which he called unconstitutional — he would not remove it (presumably by another executive action) immediately after assuming the presidency. Bush said he would rather rectify the action as part of “meaningful” immigration reform legislation passed by Congress.

Kelly told Bush that she had talked to Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who was one of the “Gang of Eight” that drafted the bipartisan “immigration reform” bill that passed the Senate in 2013 but was never voted on by the Republican-led House because it provided amnesty to illegal aliens. She said that Rubio told her: "It’s going to be very difficult to undo [the executive action] once all these folks are here, if that legal challenge to his action does not succeed.”

The “legal challenge” that Kelly referred to is a temporary injunction that U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Brownsville issued last February, blocking implementation of the Obama plan. Hanen’s decision was in response to a suit (State of Texas et al v. United States of America et al) filed against the administration by a group of states led by Texas. The administration has appealed that injunction to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which heard arguments from both sides in the case on April 17, but has not yet issued a decision.

Bush replied: “By the way, I think [the legal challenge] will succeed.”

When Kelly asked Bush how he would go about undoing the executive actions (presuming they were still intact should he become president), the former governor replied: “Passing meaningful reform of immigration and make it part of it.”

Kelly then asked Bush if he would have “supported that Senate bill that did not pass.”

Bush replied: “I would have had a different bill that was based on the, you know, my deeply held views on this. But I would have supported that to get beyond this, sure.”

Bush, apparently, is not opposed to granting amnesty to a large number of illegal aliens and differs with Obama solely on the president’s methodology. And his differences with the president are not sufficiently important that he would make it a priority of his, if elected to succeed Obama, to undo the action.

Bear in mind what Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said about the Gang of Eight bill in a national petition e-mailed to his supporters in June 2013, one week before the Senate passed it on a 68-32 vote:

This is urgent. We must stop this Gang of 8 immigration bill, which would give amnesty to an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants with no guarantee of a secure border.

The Senate debate is in the final stages and we need to send Washington a strong signal of the overwhelming grassroots opposition to this amnesty bill from Americans across the country.

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) also opposed the bill, stating: “If [the immigration bill] got stronger, I could consider it, but since they rejected my call to have Congress involved with determining whether the border is secure, I can’t imagine how they can get me back unless they come back to me and say, ‘We've changed our mind.’”

Bush offered this explanation to Kelly about why he was opposed to deporting some illegal aliens, especially those who had been in the country for some time and are therefore eligible for amnesty under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program: “If you’ve been here for an extended period of time, you have no nexus to the country of your parents. What are we supposed to do? Marginalize these people forever?”

Presumably, since every president takes an oath to “faithfully execute the Office of President” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” and that the Constitution requires that “ he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” it might be presumed that what Bush should do — were he to be elected president — is to enforce the law.

It is not the laws that “marginalize” people. Those who break the law marginalize themselves and must be required to come into compliance. It is up to Congress to pass laws to accomplish this, and to the president to enforce these laws. Among the steps required by existing law are border enforcement, apprehension of those who have entered our nation illegally, and deportation of those apprehended.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, who recently advocated “nothing less than a full and equal path to citizenship,” for illegal aliens and who was critical of those Republican presidential candidates who favor granting legal status for some illegal aliens, but still oppose citizenship, Bush said he backs legal status — but not citizenship — for those who have entered the country illegally. “A practical solution of getting to fixing the legal system is also allowing for a path to legalized status, not necessarily citizenship,” said Bush.

Bush has a history of attempting to straddle the fence on the issue of immigration, often bending language to make amnesty not sound like amnesty. During an interview on MSNBC’s Morning Joe program in March 2013, Bush revealed that he would support legislation that provided a “path for citizenship” for illegal immigrants. During the interview, which coincided with the release of Immigration Wars, the book Bush coauthored with Clint Bolick, Bush said he favored a “path to legalization.”

When Morning Joe co-host Joe Scarborough asked Bush: “What’s the difference between a path to legalization and a path to citizenship?” Bush replied: “The principal difference … the principle underlying what we’ve proposed is that if you don’t have a difference between a path to citizenship or a path to legalization, you’re going to create a magnet going forward for more illegal…”

Scarborough interjected: “You’re going to repeat what happened in today’s … Reagan amnesty.”

Bush continued: “So going forward — we wrote this last year — going forward if there is a difference, if you can craft that in law where you can have a path to citizenship where there isn’t an incentive for people to come illegally I’m for it. I don’t have a problem with that.”

Near the conclusion of the interview, Bush replied to a question from political analyst Mark Halperin, who asked: “Governor, just to clarify an important point of a path to citizenship, if there was a piece of legislation that had a pathway to citizenship ... people who came here illegally eligible to become citizens without touching back in their home countries, would you support that?”

Bush replied: “I would support it if it didn’t create an incentive for people to come illegally at the expense of coming legally.”

“If you change the system so that there is a legal path and you have a different term for people that are here already illegally so that the incentive isn’t to continue to have that process, then I would support that for sure,” Bush continued.

We think what Bush meant, amidst all that doubletalk, is that if you legalize illegal immigration, then illegal aliens would no longer be here illegally!

However, we would not guarantee that.

_____________________________________________________________

SHOCK POLL: AMERICANS HATE JEB BUSH MORE THAN HILLARY

Americans have a more favorable view of Clinton (47%) and Biden (39%) than they do of Bush (35%)

BY KIT DANIELS

SEE: http://www.infowars.com/shock-poll-americans-hate-jeb-bush-more-than-hillary/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Sixty percent (60%) of Americans would not consider Jeb Bush for president, compared to 51% who said the same about Hillary Clinton, according to national poll of mostly conservative voters.

The George Washington University Battleground Poll of 1,000 registered voters, of which only 16% identified with the Tea Party, also found that 48% of voters have an unfavorable view of Bush compared to only 44% who have an unfavorable impression of Joe Biden.

Overall, Americans have a more favorable view of Clinton (47%) and Biden (39%) than they do of Bush (35%).

All three presidential candidates led the rest in name recognition.

“Voters are evenly split on Hillary Clinton (47% favorable, 48% unfavorable; 47% would consider, 51% would not) and strongly negative on presumptive candidate Jeb Bush (35, 48; 36, 60),” the poll’s press release stated.

In other words, if the 2016 election pits Bush against Clinton, the latter would likely win, but either way, don’t expect either candidate to act much different than Obama.

“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers,” establishment insider Carrol Quigley advocated in his book Tragedy and Hope. “Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.”

It’d just be more of the same regardless of the party label which misleads voters into thinking establishment candidates viciously oppose each other when in fact they play on the same team.

“I would say the best part of the Obama administration would be his continuance of the protections of the homeland using the big metadata [NSA surveillance] programs,” Bush said in an interview on the Michael Medved radio show.

________________________________________________