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.
U.S. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman Unveils Her First Proposed Legislation In Trenton - A Bill To Stop Online Sales Of Ammunition Nationwide
House Bill Seeks to End Online Ammo Sales; Only Allows Face to Face Purchases With Identity Verification:
Published on May 15, 2015
Introduced on Tuesday by New Jersey Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, H.R. 2283, known as the “Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2015,” primarily seeks to “require face to face purchases of ammunition.”
New Gun Bill Would End Private Sale Of Guns
Published on May 21, 2015
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) introduced a bill that would effectively create a firearms registry by forcing private sellers at gun shows to report sales to the Attorney General and by requiring gun show organizers to register with the Justice Dept. http://www.infowars.com/house-democra...
On this Thursday, May 14th edition of the Infowars Nightly News Darrin McBreen covers some truly shocking footage of United States Marines preparing to detain and restrain people in camps, then just who is coming across our border and Osama Bin Laden, the bigfoot of terrorists, what really happened and finally Darrin welcomes a very special guest for a final word on Obama's plan to turn over control of the Internet to the federal government.
Report: Jade Helm Helicopters Loaded With live Ammo
The Ohio National Guard is alerting soldiers to report to duty in preparation for potential riots following the trial of Cleveland, Ohio, police officer Michael Brelo, according to an insider.
And an Ohio native shot a video of a train transporting military vehicles heading toward Cleveland.
Cleveland Primed to be next Ferguson; Video Works Even Though Image is Blocked:
MILTARY CONVOYS ON THE I-95 INTERSTATE HIGHWAY IN SOUTH CAROLINA
(Friday Church News Notes, May 22, 2015, www.wayoflife.org, fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - In a new treaty finalized on May 13, the Vatican has officially recognized “the state of Palestine.” Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said, “Yes, it’s a recognition that the state exists” (“Vatican recognizes state of Palestine,” The Times of Israel, May 13, 2014). In a papal audience on May 16, Pope Francis called Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas “an angel of peace.” Three years ago, the Vatican had “welcomed the decision by the UN General Assembly to recognize a Palestinian state.” The Roman Catholic Church has long been opposed to Israel. Jews were slaughtered during the Catholic crusades and placed in ghettos in Catholic-controlled cities. The heresy of Replacement Theology, which replaces Israel with the Church, was fathered by Rome and borrowed from her by Protestants. In 1922, Cardinal Gasparri, Vatican Secretary of State, voiced concern that the British Mandate on Palestine might “give Israel a privileged position and might compromise the rights of the Catholic Church regarding the protection of the Holy Places” (“The Holy See and the Postwar Palestine Issue,” International Affairs, Spring 1984). In 1950, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that the Vatican was “intensifying its campaign for the internationalization of Jerusalem” (JTA, Nov. 21, 1950). That campaign did not cease until the 1980s when the Vatican began to support the PLO and its goal of making East Jerusalem its capital. In 1982, Yasser Arafat was received at the Vatican “with all the honor and dignity accorded a head of state.” With the 2015 treaty, the Vatican’s support shifts from the PLO to the Palestinian State. The Vatican is comfortable making treaties with Muslim terrorist organizations that hate Israel, vow her destruction, and persecute professing Christians because she is one of the devil’s chief instruments in human affairs. One day, Mystery Babylon will yoke together with the very Antichrist himself, according to Revelation 17, and Rome doubtless is at the heart of this end-time phenomenon. “And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it” (Zec. 12:3).
On May 7, In the lawsuit ACLU Vs. James Clapper, The Director Of National Intelligence, a three-judge panel for the Second Circuit held that "the telephone metadata program exceeds the scope of what Congress has authorized and therefore violates Section 215 of the Patriot Act. The ruling sends the case back to the District Court for further proceedings.
Section 215 of the Conspicuously Subversive Patriot Act expires in June. Section 215 of the Patriot Act is commonly referred to as the Library Records Provision. 215 Allows the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as applied by the Director Of The FBI or an official designated by the director access to “tangible things” deemed under investigation. This investigation must be conducted in accordance under the guidelines laid out in Executive Order 12333 and must not be carried out on Citizens whose activities are protected by the First Amendment. All orders must be granted by a FISA court judge. These orders carry gag orders, as to not expose the investigation.
This broken promise by our Federal Government was exposed by numerous whistleblowers and undermined by the Intelligence community on a massive scale. Now, The lights have been turned on, and the roaches are scurrying to keep control of the kitchen.
Meanwhile, The Mouthpieces Of The American Counter Terror Movement ratcheted up by the Military Industrial Complex project the psyop needed for the unconstitutional legislation.
Expect to see more blatant extortion thrown at the feet of the American People, threats like these will increase as the scrutiny of unconstitutional surveillance grows.
LIBERATION THEOLOGY: THE BELIEFS THAT BIND OBAMA & POPE FRANCIS;
THE SOCIAL JUSTICE TIES OF COMMUNISM
FATHER OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY
WELCOMED AT VATICAN
(Friday Church News Notes, May 15, 2015, www.wayoflife.org,fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - Gustavo Gutierrez, founder of Liberation Theology, was welcomed this week at the Vatican by Pope Francis. This is the second visit of Gutierrez to Rome during Francis’ papacy, and it marks the mainstreaming of the Catholic version of the social gospel. Liberation Theology seeks to analyze and solve the underlying cause of poverty rather than preach the gospel to the poor. It is a Marxist approach to the solving of societal ills. It is shortsighted, focusing on this present life rather than eternity. It blames poverty on capitalism. It focuses more on America as the cause of global social injustice than on Communism and petty dictatorships, even though America has lifted more people out of poverty than any communist government. “The literature of liberation theology consisted of the usual Marxist cant sprinkled with holy water, with unoriginal references to class struggle, oppression, imperialism, dependence, and especially how Latin America poverty was all the fault of capitalism emanating from the United States and western Europe” (Steven Hayward, “How Is Liberation Theology Still a Thing?” Forbes, May 10, 2015). The social gospel has become one of the major uniting factors of a one-world “church.” Even “evangelical” missionaries today tend to focus more on healing “social injustices” than preaching the gospel and building biblical churches, but there is no liberation theology or social gospel evident in the book of Acts.
The comments were made Tuesday at a poverty summit at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., where, alluding to his longstanding proposal to raise taxes on “carried interest,” Obama said, “If we were able to close that loophole, I can now invest in early childhood education that will make a difference. That’s…where the question of compassion and ‘I’m my brother’s keeper’ comes into play. And if we can’t ask from society’s lottery winners to just make that modest investment, then, really, this conversation is for show.”
Using the “isolate ... personalize ... polarize” Alinsky tactic he has relied on ever since winning society’s lottery and attaining the presidency, Obama singled out one specific group for scorn. After claiming that “where a previous CEO of a company might have made 50 times the average wage of the worker, they might now make a thousand times or two thousand times,” he lamented that “The top 25 hedge fund managers made more than all the kindergarten teachers in the country.” And according to a Washington Postanalysis, this statement is accurate. Yet what’s implied may not be.
That analysis indicated that the top-25 hedge-fund managers earn on average $464 million each, and, Obama claimed, they’re “paying a lower rate than a lot of folks who are making $300,000 a year.” One solution to this is lowering the rate “folks who are making $300,000 a year” pay, but that doesn’t seem to be on Obama’s radar. This brings us to the first problem: The “top 25” might be good poster boys for tax increases, but no such increase is top-25 specific.
They tend to fall on people such as those earning $300,000 a year.
In fact, that very income places you in the top one percent — that demonized minority — in certain states.
Leftists will say that the one percent and other wealthy people don’t pay their fair share of taxes, but the facts say otherwise. Those earning 300G a year aren’t in the one percent nationally (they’re in the 95-99 percentile), yet they still pay 18.3 percent of total federal income tax despite drawing only 12.1 percent of total U.S. income (all figures from 2014). And the dreaded national one percent?
These three million people do command handsome incomes — above $615,000 — and take in 17.1 percent of all income.
They also pay 45.7 percent of all taxes.
How much more heavily should they be taxed?
The top 20 percent earn more than $134,300 (51.3 percent of income), but pay a whopping 83.9 percent of all income tax. And the rest?
The bottom 20 percent, those earning 0 to $24,200, only take in 4.5 percent of all income, but are responsible for-2.2 percent of all income tax. That’s not a typo; they pay negative tax because their tax credits are great enough so that not only do they owe no income tax, they actually receive money from the government. In fact, 43 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax.
Moving on, one might also ask: Why single out hedge-fund managers? The “top 25” in any field are quite an elite group and will obviously be exceptional in many ways. It’s said that boxer Floyd Mayweather set a record in getting $200 million for his last fight, against Manny Paquiao, and one analysis indicated that the two of them split $138,000 per second of their 36-minute bout. So why not bemoan the earnings of the top-25 athletes, actors, or pop stars (or politicians)? Economics professor Dr. Walter Williams provided the answer last year:
The strategy for want-to-be tyrants is to demonize people whose power they want to usurp. That’s the typical way tyrants gain power.... Fear and hate is an effective strategy for leftist politicians and their followers to control and micromanage businesses. It’s not about the amount of money top executives earn. If it were, politicians and leftists would be promoting jealousy, fear and hatred toward multi-multimillionaire Hollywood actors, celebrities and sports stars. But there is no way that politicians could usurp the roles of Drew Brees, Kobe Bryant, Robert Downey Jr. and Oprah Winfrey. That means celebrities can make any amount of money they want and it matters not one iota politically.
This is true even if, as Obama also said Tuesday about hedge-fund managers, “You pretty much have more than you’ll ever be able to use and your family will ever be able to use,” with the implication that they’re hoarding money unjustly. (Of course, the Obamas, Clintons, and Pelosis also have more-than-you-can-use money.) But this really depends on your definition of the word “use.”
Perhaps Obama got his economics education from the horror film The People Under the Stairs, in which a character — seeing a Fort Knox-like room of gold in an evil white couple’s basement — exclaims “No wonder there’s no money in the ghetto!” But the reality is that rich people don’t keep money under their mattresses. They may, however, invest in the stock market, which provides corporations working capital they can use to create jobs. Or excess cash could end up in banks, which aren’t just money warehouses; they provide loans to individuals and businesses, the latter of which also are used to create jobs — for people who are not rich.
As for Economics 101, here’s something to ponder. In biblical times, a man might be rich if he had 50 goats; there was precious little wealth to be had. Today, though, we enjoy modern opulence precisely because so much more wealth abounds. Whence did it come? Did God suddenly decide to lavish luxuries upon us?
Since the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy tells us that “matter can neither be created nor destroyed” (at least by man), I won’t say wealth is “created.” But all this additional wealth obviously was “developed”; examples of how this happens are growing crops and using natural resources (e.g., timber, plants, minerals) to produce things that improve our lives. Thus, the goal of any economic policy should be to encourage wealth development — to become a wealthy civilization.
You don’t do this by punishing people for becoming too wealthy.
This brings us to the matter of wealth seizure, legalized theft, and an entity that truly never has enough money. As Dr. Williams wrote in 2012, “If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year,” seized all the “profits of the Fortune 500 richest companies,” and all the assets of America’s 400 billionaires, it would keep the government running ...
For about 360 days.
Yet despite a federal budget of almost $4 trillion, Obama still wants more. So one has to wonder, when he mentioned his obligation to be “my brother’s keeper,” did he mean keeper of other people’s money?
Despite pious rhetoric on the left about “asking” the more fortunate for more money, the government does not “ask” anything. It seizes what it wants by force. If you don’t pay up, it can take not only your paycheck, it can seize your bank account, put a lien on your home and/or put you in federal prison.
So please don’t insult our intelligence by talking piously about “asking.”
President Obama suggested that people of faith should focus more on helping the poor, instead of focusing on divisive issues such as gay marriage and abortion.
During a panel discussion on poverty at Georgetown University, Obama specifically referred to his own Christian faith, pointing out that he recognized the importance speaking out about the issue as president.
“I think it would be powerful for our faith-based organizations to speak out on this in a more forceful fashion,” he said, admitting that his wish might sound “self-interested” because he had disagreements with Christian and Catholic organizations about gay marriage and abortion.
“There is great caring and great concern, but when it comes to what are you really going to the mat for, what’s the defining issue … this is often times viewed as a ‘nice to have’ relative to an issue like abortion,” Obama said.
He argued that churches should spend more time pursuing “powerful” ideas such as helping those in poverty in order to attract more followers.
“Nobody has shown that better than Pope Francis, who I think has been transformative just through the sincerity and insistence that this is vital to who we are, this is vital to following what Jesus Christ our Savior talked about.”
Obama added that he hoped that the American people received that message when Pope Francis visits the United States in September.
“I can’t wait to host him because I think it will help to spark an even broader conversation of the sort we are having today,” Obama concluded. ____________________________________________________________
MORMON, CATHOLIC & SOUTHERN BAPTIST ALL AT THE SAME TIME?
CUBAN AMERICAN STRONG MAN WHO WANTS TO (APPARENTLY) ASSUME THE ROLE OF DICTATOR IN CHIEF FROM OBAMA, BUT ALLEGEDLY "CONSERVATIVE"?
DEFINITELY NOT A CHRISTIAN IN THE REFORMED SENSE OF THE WORD; AND MAY NOT BE A CONSTITUTIONALIST
"ONCE A CATHOLIC, ALWAYS A CATHOLIC"
Acts 4:12-"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." (JESUS CHRIST)
RELIGIONIST BORN INTO ECUMENISM & STILL CONVINCED OF IT;
BAPTIZED A MORMON, THEN A CATHOLIC
THE CATHOLIC "NEW EVANGELIZATION" ALIVE AND WELL IN POPE FRANCIS AND MARCO RUBIO; PROTESTANTS NO LONGER HERETICS
SALVATION NOT FOUND IN A CHURCH;
BUT IN THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST
SEE WIKIPEDIA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio "Rubio's family was Roman Catholic, though from age 8 to age 11, he and his family attended The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints while living in Las Vegas, where his father worked as a bartender at Sams Town Hotel and his mother a housekeeper at the Imperial Palace Hotel and Casino. He received his first communion as a Catholic in 1984, before moving back to Miami with his family a year later. He was confirmed and married in the Catholic Church. Rubio attends Christ Fellowship, a Southern Baptist Church in West Kendall, Florida, as well as Catholic services. In an interview in 2012, Rubio said: "I'm a Roman Catholic. I'm theologically in line with the Roman Catholic Church. I believe in the authority of the church, but I also have tremendous respect for my brothers and sisters in other Christian faiths. I recognize, as the Catholic Church does, that there are excellent teachings of the Word throughout other denominations. The elements of salvation are found in these churches as well."" WHAT IS TRUTH TO RUBIO? (QUOTE FROM SAME WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE BELOW):
A LAWYER'S LEGALESE:
"In October 2011, the St. Petersburg Times and The Washington Post reported that Rubio's previous statements that his parents were forced to leave Cuba in 1959, after Fidel Castro came to power, were incorrect. His parents left Cuba in 1956, during the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. According to The Washington Post, Rubio's "embellishments" resonated with many voters in Florida, claiming they would be less impressed by his family being economic migrants instead of political refugees from a communist regime. Rubio responded: "The real essence of my family's story is not about the date my parents first entered the United States. Or whether they traveled back and forth between the two nations. Or even the date they left Fidel Castro's Cuba forever and permanently settled here. The essence of my family story is why they came to America in the first place, and why they had to stay."" SEE: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/15/is-marco-rubio-catholic-or-baptist-or-is-the-reformation-over/; EXCERPT: But Catholics and Baptists, especially those of the conservative variety who have held Rubio out as the great new hope for the GOP, do take such matters seriously, and some of them are feeling duped by Rubio presenting himself as a dedicated Catholic while he in fact has been attending a Southern Baptist congregation. SEE: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/july-august/marco-rubio-faith-of-many-colors.html?paging=off
Rubio Doctrine: More Spying, More Military and ‘Moral Clarity’
Sen. Marco Rubio Reveals His Foreign Policy Doctrine • 5/13/15
RUBIO PROMOTES INTERVENTIONIST FOREIGN POLICY IN SPEECH AT
Speaking before the internationalist Council on Foreign Relations in New York on May 13, senator and presidential candidate Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) defended “America’s role as a security guarantor” for the world. While denying that he advocated making the United States “the world’s policeman,” Rubio said that America should “convene the world to take action” during international crises.
Senator Rubio made it clear that he advocated using U.S. military power beyond the mandate given to the president as commander in chief, to the federal government (in general) to “protect each [state] against invasion,” or even to Congress, to “repel invasions,” “define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas,” and to “declare war.” Each of these actions presumes cooperation between the president and Congress to defend American interests, not the interests of the world. He said:
As president, I will use American power to oppose any violations of international waters, airspace, cyberspace, or outer space. This includes the economic disruption caused when one country invades another, as well as the chaos caused by disruptions in chokepoints such as the South China Sea or the Strait of Hormuz.
The above statement not only indicates that, despite his denials, Rubio would use the U.S. military as “the world’s policeman,” but by failing to mention Congress in his game plan, apparently would assume unilateral presidential power to do so.
Rubio approvingly summarized U.S. foreign policy in recent years as “a passionate defense of human rights, the strong support of democratic principles, and the protection of the sovereignty of our allies.”
The Constitution is clear that the obligation of the federal government is to “guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion.” It says nothing about supporting “democratic principles” (which are far different than a republican form of government) or about protecting "the sovereignty of our allies.”
Rubio, however, sees a different mission for the United States, stating that “vulnerable nations still depend on us to deter aggression from their larger neighbors.”
George Washington, our first president and president at the 1787 convention where our Constitution was drafted, strenuously opposed involving the United States in defending allies instead of our own interests. In his oft-quoted “Farewell address,” Washington stated, “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”
Rubio lamented that the interventionist foreign policy he champions has been “replaced by, at best, caution, and at worst, outright willingness to betray those values for the expediency of negotiations with repressive regimes.”
Yet, though Washington (as expressed in his 1793 Proclamation of Neutrality) had refused to ally himself with France in its war against Great Britain, the United States did recognize the new government and maintained diplomatic relations with France.
By so doing, Washington was practicing the advice he gave in his Farewell Address: “Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all.”
Though the CFR’s primary interests related to foreign policy, Rubio also addressed other topics. In what CNN described as “a knock on GOP presidential opponent Rand Paul, who is working to reign in government surveillance programs and opposes extending the PATRIOT Act,” Rubio asserted that “we cannot let politics cloud the importance of this issue.” Rubio stated:
A strong military also means a strong intelligence community, equipped with all the tools it needs to defend the homeland from extremism both home-grown and foreign-trained. And key to this will be extending section 215 of the Patriot Act. We cannot let politics cloud the importance of this issue. We must never find ourselves looking back after a terrorist attack and saying: We could have done more to save American lives.
The National Security Agency (NSA) has used Section 215 of the Patriot Act to justify its bulk collection of U.S. phone records, but this section is set to expire on May 31. New legislation, the USA Freedom Act, passed the House by 338-88 on May 13, purports to limit those powers, but does so only modestly and extends some portions of Section 215 for five more years. For this reason, it would not be a surprise if Paul again opposes the bill when it comes to the Senate, as he did last year. Paul favors not just partial limitations of the NSA’s surveillance powers justified by the Patriot Act, but elimination of them.
If Rubio sought a sympathetic venue to outline his interventionist foreign policy, he could hardly have done better than the CFR. Founded in 1921 by a group tasked several years earlier by President Woodrow Wilson to formulate new U.S. foreign policy after World War I, a major impetus for those founding the CFR was the rejection of the Treaty of Versailles that provided for the League of Nations by the Senate on November 19, 1919. These internationalists were determined to counter the perceived “isolationism” of those who had rejected the treaty and the league, and usher in a new era of interventionist U.S. foreign policy.
Within a decade, CFR members had begun to dominate the State Department, and all but a few secretaries of state from the Roosevelt administration until our present time have been CFR members. Secretary of State John Kerry is not a CFR member, but his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, is. Presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is not a member, but her husband, Bill, and daughter, Chelsea, are both members. The administration of George W. Bush, under which the United States invaded Iraq, was dominated by CFR members Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
The most notable characteristic of CFR influence on presidential administrations is an interventionist foreign policy that had led to U.S. involvement in a succession of wars, including World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. These wars have produced approximately half a million U.S. battle deaths.
Senator Rubio is not a member of the CFR, but he is certainly on good terms with the organization and shares their outlook. His picture appeared in the 2012 CFR annual report and he prefaced his talk on May 13 with these words: “It is an honor to be back at the Council on Foreign Relations, and — I appreciate very much the opportunity to address you here today.”
Were the 2016 election to be a contest between Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton, the future of U.S. foreign policy would be clear. It would mean a continuation of the same policies that have dominated our nation since the onset of World War II — interventionism, more war, and more casualties.
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!
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.
________________________________________________
Jeb Bush Praises Obama’s NSA Spying Program
Published on Apr 23, 2015
Former Florida Governor and likely Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush called the NSA's mass collection of Americans' phone records, which was revealed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, the greatest accomplishment of President Obama's presidency, during an interview on radio host Michael Medved's program. We look at the story on the Lip News with Elliot Hill and Mark Sovel.
Jerry Falwell Jr. Introducing Jeb Bush at Liberty University - 05-09-2015
Liberty Commencement 2015 - Former Gov. Jeb Bush
S.O.B. (Son of a Bush) Touts His “Christian Conscience”
Published on May 12, 2015
If there was any doubt that JEB would be more of the same, he confirmed that he would have invaded Iraq without questioning fake intel, just like his brother. Then he went on to tout his “Christian Conscience” as evidenced by his acquiescence as Florida Gov when a probate judge slowly starved Terry Schiavo to death.
Michelle Malkin Rips On Jeb Bush, Common Core; Disgusted With Jeb Bush:
Jeb Bush supports the "higher standards" in Common Core
Published on Apr 6, 2014
One of the topics in Shannon's interview with Jeb was education and Common Core. Jeb is a supporter of Common Core and considers the idea that Common Core is the Obamacare of education is nonsense. He said it is not the federal takeover of education.
Rand Paul: 'The invasion of Iraq was a mistake'; but Jeb Bush doesn't think so:
