Every conservative who is not brain-dead despises Big Media “fact checkers.” Nothing raises a conservative’s blood pressure like seeing a “fact checker” 1) evaluate a truthful claim by a conservative, 2) acknowledge that the facts are true, yet 3) refuse to admit the claim is true because spin spin spinnity spin.

So, for example, when Ted Cruz says the IRS tax code has more words than the Bible, a fact-checker analyzing that claim has an obligation to pronounce it true. Yet we have seen a Big Media fact-checker acknowledge the truth of Cruz’s facts, yet refuse to pronounce his claim true, because derp derp derp. When Carly Fiorina says she went from secretary to CEO, we have seen a Big Media fact-checker say: yep, she started off a secretary, became a CEO, therefore three Pinocchios, because derp derp derp.

So-called “conservatives” who go around touting such dishonest “fact checking” pieces, because those pieces favor the candidate for whom they are shamelessly cheerleading, deserve to have their conservative card revoked, for good. Then, someone should take a metaphorical two-by-four to their head, in the form of a scathing post that lays out their duplicity.

This is such a post. It is another in my series of posts debunking the absurd screeching of Rubio fan-boi “AG Conservative” in a post deceptively titled 6 Blatant Ted Cruz Lies about Marco Rubio. This evening’s debunked lie is this:

3) Cruz claims that Rubio “supports citizenship for 12 million people here illegally” (Debate) and “advocates amnesty for criminals who are here illegally”

(http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/cruz-distorts-rubios-immigration-stance/)

As noted in the factcheck link above, this is clearly false. The assumption here is that Rubio advocates for citizenship for every illegal currently here, but even the dreaded Gang of Eight bill would have not allowed anything near that. Rubio has always said that anyone that is here illegally and convicted of another felony must be deported and given the requirements before anyone could possible obtain citizenship, the number that would actually ever reach that point is much smaller than 12 million.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/cruz-distorts-rubios-immigration-stance/

Let’s look at the FactCheck.org analysis of Cruz’s claim that that “advocates amnesty for criminals who are here illegally.” The specific quote from Cruz was: “He even advocates amnesty for criminals who are here illegally.” How does FactCheck.org handle that?

The Gang of Eight Senate immigration bill, S. 744 — which Rubio voted for but later backed away from — would have withheld Registered Provisional Immigrant status from those convicted of felonies, three or more misdemeanors, certain foreign offenses or unlawful voting.

Rubio’s campaign noted that Rubio also supported a failed amendment to the Gang of Eight bill sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn that would have gone even further to preclude from residency anyone who had committed misdemeanor offenses including domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, assault resulting in bodily injury, the violation of a protection order, or driving while intoxicated. The amendment also would have excluded from residency anyone convicted of three or more misdemeanors other than minor traffic offenses. (See page 4427 of the Congressional Record.) Cruz also voted in favor of the amendment.

So one could argue that Rubio’s plan would allow those convicted of some misdemeanor crimes to obtain legal residency, but Cruz’s blanket claim that Rubio “advocates amnesty for criminals who are here illegally” omits the criminal exceptions that Rubio has outlined.

(I love that “one could argue” bit. That’s fact-checker speak for “it is true but we don’t like it, so rather than saying it’s true, we’ll say ‘one could argue’ it.”)

But Cruz didn’t say Rubio “advocates amnesty for all criminals who are here illegally.” He said Rubio “advocates amnesty for criminals who are here illegally.” And Rubio absolutely does advocate amnesty for criminals who are here illegally. Namely, criminals who meet the other requirements of the Gang of 8 law, whose specific crimes are not the crimes that the Gang of 8 bill (or the amendment that Rubio voted for) said would deprive them of a chance at legalization.

Therefore, to call this claim by Cruz a “blatant lie” is . . . well, we won’t call it a “lie.” But it’s not accurate.

P.S. It would end the post with a strong partisan flourish if I could devastatingly show that Cruz’s other claim — that Rubio “supports citizenship for 12 million people here illegally” — is also true beyond the shadow of a doubt. Vindicated, and vindicated again! Pow! Biff! Bam!

Unfortunately, intellectual honesty precludes me from saying this. Indeed, FactCheck.org quotes Cruz as saying: “He [Rubio] advocates legalization and citizenship for everyone here illegally.” That’s clearly not true. The Gang of Eight bill did not seek to legalize “everyone” here illegally. There were specific criteria set out in the bill. And Cruz has no other basis I am aware of to make the claim, besides Rubio’s support for the Gang of Eight bill.

Which doesn’t make Cruz’s statement a LIE, by the way. It’s just inaccurate. Maybe he forget the qualifier.

What you just witnessed was a Cruz supporter acknowledging that Cruz said something not entirely accurate. Fanbois like AG Conservative will never do that. Trust me. They scream liar at Cruz even when he is telling the truth, but if you give them evidence of Rubio lying, they’ll spin, ignore, and spin some more.

It’s why I have decided to have no more personal interaction with such people on Twitter. It just makes me mad. But I’ll continue refuting their BREATHLESS CLAIMS OF LIES BY CRUZ here on the blog.

I’m just getting started, in fact!

UPDATE:

@Patterico You 3rd "debunking" concludes by admitting that Cruz lied about Rubio? hahaha these are hilarious. Keep going.

— AG (@AG_Conservative) February 23, 2016

My statement in the post, by the way, was “Which doesn’t make Cruz’s statement a LIE, by the way.”

Do you see what I mean?

[guest post by Dana]

But that was different! Isn’t that the way of Democrats??

On the heels of Justice Scalia’s passing, Joe Biden was rather melodramatic in his objection to any delay in naming a successor to the vacancy:

“To leave the seat vacant at this critical moment in American history is a little bit like saying, ‘God forbid something happen to the president and the vice president, we’re not going to fill the presidency for another year and a half,'” Biden said.

Which is funny, because that’s not what he said when there was a Republican in the White House:

It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not–and not–name a nominee until after the November election is completed. The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over…

It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over…Others may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time, but as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the Justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate, and the Nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks. In the end, this may be the only course of action that historical practice and practical realism can sustain.

So while the Democrats continue to be exposed as hypocrites, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, while on the Senate floor, first emphasized Biden’s honesty and sincerity and then proceeded to feed Biden’s words back to him:

“The Biden Rules recognize ‘the framers intended the Senate to take the broadest view of its constitutional responsibility.

The Biden Rules recognize the wisdom of those presidents – including another lawyer and former state lawmaker from Illinois — who exercised restraint by not submitting a Supreme Court nomination before The People had spoken.

The Biden Rules recognize the court can operate smoothly with eight members for some time, and ‘the cost of such a result, the need to re-argue three or four cases that will divide the Justices four to four, are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate, and the Nation would have to pay for what assuredly would be a bitter fight.’

The Biden Rules recognize that under these circumstances, ‘[the President] should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.’

The Biden Rules recognize that under these circumstances, ‘[It does not] matter how good a person is nominated by the President.’

The Biden Rules recognize that ‘once the political season is under way … action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process.’

The Biden Rules recognize that ‘Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the President, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.’

The Biden Rules recognize that under these circumstances, ‘the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.’”

Not all Republicans are on board however: Sen. Mark Kirk, who is facing re-election, wrote in an op-ed today that he believes it is his duty to give President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee a hearing and a vote.

–Dana

[guest post by JVW]

It’s a mini-tradition (if mini-tradition can be defined as something done in two consecutive years) for me to post a reflection of George Washington on that great man’s birthday. For this 284th anniversary of his birth, I wanted to share with you one of the great stories of how Washington’s calm genius and understanding of human nature averted a mutiny among his officers and enlisted men.

In March of 1783, Washington became aware of a rebellion permeating throughout the army. The Newburgh Conspiracy likely began in Congress, when paymaster Robert Morris, a delegate from Pennsylvania, began to suspend regular payroll for the troops, promising that the back wages would be fully paid once a peace treaty had been signed. As with much of the early dealings of our country, this promise carried the heavy overtones of politics. Federalists like Morris, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton believed that withholding army pay would force the rest of Congress to address its precarious financial situation by passing an import tariff, an idea which had been rejected by the states a few months earlier. Congress also faced the daunting task of funding the promised lifetime half-pay pensions for veterans (proving that extravagant but foolhardy financial promises are embedded into our national character), while at the same time lacking the will to raise the necessary funds. Morris and his schemers began to secretly communicate with senior officers led by General Henry Knox, and they hatched a plan to threaten a march on Philadelphia by the army if pay did not resume. With word coming from Paris that British and American negotiators were finalizing a peace treaty, the disbanding of the army suddenly appeared imminent and soldiers understandably feared that Congress would simply stiff them on what they were owed. A more radical set of the schemers, led by General Horatio Gates, argued for an immediate march and military takeover of the government.

Washington at the time was camped with the army in Newburgh, New York. Throughout the war, he had written hundreds of letters to Congress pleading for better supplies and higher wages for his beleaguered troops, so he was naturally sympathetic to their plight. He also harbored serious doubts about the ability of Congress to effectively manage the affairs of the newly-born nation. That notwithstanding, Washington hated the idea that his army might engage in insurrection, and his republican instincts strongly inclined him to favor a military that was subservient to the elected representatives of the people. He had worked behind the scenes to help General Anthony Wayne quell a similar mutiny in a Pennsylvania regiment two years earlier. When talk of joining the march on Philadelphia began to spread in his camp, Washington called for a meeting of his officers on March 15, 1783 and prepared a statement to share with them:

In the moment of this Summons, another anonymous production was sent into circulation, addressed more to the feelings and passions, than to the reason and judgment of the Army. The author of the piece is entitled to much credit for the goodness of his Pen and I could wish he had as much credit for the rectitude of his Heart, for, as Men see thro’ different Optics, and are induced by the reflecting faculties of the Mind, to use different means, to attain the same end, the Author of the Address, should have had more charity, than to mark for Suspicion, the Man who should recommend moderation and longer forbearance, or, in other words, who should not think as he thinks, and act as he advises.

[. . .]

I cannot, in justice to my own belief, and what I have great reason to conceive is the intention of Congress, conclude this Address, without giving it as my decided opinion, that that Honorable Body, entertain exalted sentiments of the Services of the Army; and, from a full conviction of its merits and sufferings, will do it complete justice. That their endeavors, to discover and establish funds for this purpose, have been unwearied, and will not cease, till they have succeed, I have not a doubt. But, like all other large Bodies, where there is a variety of different Interests to reconcile, their deliberations are slow. Why then should we distrust them? and, in consequence of that distrust, adopt measures, which may cast a shade over that glory which, has been so justly acquired; and tarnish the reputation of an Army which is celebrated thro’ all Europe, for its fortitude and Patriotism? and for what is this done? to bring the object we seek nearer? No! most certainly, in my opinion, it will cast it at a greater distance.

[. . .]

While I give you these assurances, and pledge myself in the most unequivocal manner, to exert whatever ability I am possessed of, in your favor, let me entreat you, Gentlemen, on your part, not to take any measures, which viewed in the calm light of reason, will lessen the dignity, and sully the glory you have hitherto maintained; let me request you to rely on the plighted faith of your Country, and place a full confidence in the purity of the intentions of Congress; that, previous to your dissolution as an Army they will cause all your Acts. to be fairly liquidated, as directed in their resolutions, which were published to you two days ago, and that they will adopt the most effectual measures in their power, to render ample justice to you, for your faithful and meritorious Services. And let me conjure you, in the name of our common Country, as you value your own sacred honor, as you respect the rights of humanity, and as you regard the Military and National character of America, to express your utmost horror and detestation of the Man who wishes, under any specious pretences, to overturn the liberties of our Country, and who wickedly attempts to open the flood Gates of Civil discord, and deluge our rising Empire in Blood.

At the end of the address, Washington told the assembled officers that he wished to read from a letter sent to him by Congressman Joseph Jones of Virginia which addressed the demands of the soldiers. The general, who was a lifelong fan of the theater and understood how to wring an emotional response from a rapt audience, played his part to perfection. After taking out Jones’s letter, Washington stared at it for a silent moment. He then reached into his coat pocket and fished out a brand-new pair of reading spectacles, recently ordered from a Philadelphia optometrist, and made a show of placing them on his eyes. Washington, who had taken command of the Continental Army at age forty-three, was now fifty-one. “Gentlemen,” he explained to the officers, “you will pardon me. I have grown grey in your service and now find myself growing blind.” Hardened military men shaped by years of toil and strife began to openly weep and talk of rebellion fizzled out. Congress eventually reached agreement on finances; the promised lifetime pensions were reduced to five years’ worth of full pay; the peace treaty was formalized; and the army disbanded.

– JVW

In case you missed it over the weekend, I published two posts yesterday showing that Marco Rubio has said different things about amnesty in English and in Spanish.

In Part One, I showed that Rubio has promised in English that there would be border security before anything happens on legalization, while in Spanish he told Univision that legalization happens first, and border security second.

In Part Two, I showed that Rubio has suggested in English that he would eliminate all of Obama’s illegal amnesty measures on day one, while in Spanish he assured Univision watchers that DACA — the amnesty geared towards dreamers — could not be ended on day one of his administration, and hopefully would last until comprehensive reform could be enacted that would allow them all to stay here permanently.

Some people are asking why I am taking on Rubio. I agree that Donald Trump is the bigger problem, and I am working on something that hopefully would advance the ball on him. But I also agree with Ted Cruz that if we elect a candidate who is pro-amnesty, as Rubio patently is, we are likely to lose in November. More to the point, even if we win, we will get amnesty, including eventual citizenship — and anyone who is honest will admit that Rubio wants this. And that will cause many long-term problems — not the least of which is the creation of a pool of millions of new Democrat voters. If Rubio is elected, we will cement a Democrat majority for decades to come.

We need Ted Cruz. But he is getting hurt by the false perception that his campaign is dishonest. It’s a perception being driven by both Marco Rubio and Donald Trump (and Ben Carson), for their own personal reasons. There are, to be sure, self-inflicted wounds in this process: a Photoshop of Rubio and Obama when genuine pictures would serve the same purpose; or yesterday’s incident where Cruz’s campaign manager pushed a video that supposedly showed Rubio insulting the Bible, which is a preposterous enough notion that it should have raised some red flags. But most of the perception of dishonesty is itself driven by dishonest attacks on “lies” by Cruz that turn out not to be lies. Cruz needs honest folks to have his back on these issues. And Rubio is out there pushing this stuff hard, and in a dishonest manner. So Rubio is going to get some pushback.

If you like Rubio and don’t mind him lying about Ted Cruz, and get upset when people like me defend him, then skip the posts.

Here’s the programming notes for the week. One of the biggest cheerleaders for Marco Rubio on Twitter is a fellow who calls himself “AG Conservative.” He has penned a piece he titles 6 Blatant Ted Cruz Lies about Marco Rubio. You probably won’t be surprised to learn that the “blatant lies” are anything but. His number one “lie” is “Rubio said different things about amnesty in Spanish and in English.” That’s what I exploded yesterday in the two posts linked at the top of this post.

I think it’s worth taking the time to dismantle these “lies.” AG Conservative’s phony list is as good a place to start as any. And so I shall address many of his claims, if not all, this week.

And AG Conservative’s “blatant lie” number two is related to “blatant lie” number one, and is already addressed in the posts and related pages that I have written. It is: “Marco Rubio has gone on Univision and said in Spanish, ‘No, no, I wouldn’t rescind amnesty.'” AG Conservative says:

That’s a direct quote from Cruz that he has repeated several times. As you can see from the Univision transcript, Rubio actually says the exact reverse. This is just a lie. Cruz has adjusted this at times to say Rubio wouldn’t get rid of Obama’s executive amnesty on “day one,” but even that is not accurate as Rubio has always held that he would get rid of DAPA (which hasn’t taken effect and is being held up by the courts) on day one.

AG Conservative says Cruz has repeated “many times” that Rubio would not rescind amnesty, without qualification (such as adding “on day one”). But to prove this point, he provides only one link, to an NBC News piece. As I said on this page:

It should be noted that this is a clipped quote, provided without video evidence, by NBC News — a partisan leftist organization that no sane conservative would trust to provide full context for any quote from a conservative. If video evidence were to emerge that shows Cruz making the claim that Rubio “wouldn’t rescind amnesty” without qualifying it with a phrase like “on day one” — and I am unaware of any such proof — then we could have a discussion about whether and to what extent Cruz’s statement was misleading, given that Rubio, in his Univision appearances, consistently contrasts DAPA, which he “would revoke,” with DACA, which he 1) would not revoke on Day One (although he has since flip-flopped on this); 2) hopes would only be revoked once a legislative amnesty passed; and 3) won’t commit to revoking without legislative amnesty, but merely says that it can’t be the policy forever.

In short, the only credible evidence I have seen of Cruz making this claim is that Rubio wouldn’t revoke Obama’s illegal executive amnesty “on day one.” And I already showed that this claim is true, in my Part Two post linked above and published yesterday. Obama’s illegal amnesty has two parts: DACA (for dreamers) and DAPA (for everyone), and Rubio has clearly said in the past, at least in Spanish, that he would not rescind DACA on day one. So this second “blatant lie” by Cruz turns out to be 100% true.

More to come this week.

UPDATE: AG Conservative on Twitter cites me three other pieces on the Internet that quote Cruz, in that single appearance, supposedly making the accusation in the manner NBC News quoted him. This doesn’t mean that Cruz actually said it without qualification (since nobody provides audio or video or even verbally explains the surrounding context). If he did say it, this doesn’t mean that it’s a “lie” — as opposed to a mistake made once, since he generally qualifies the statement. And it doesn’t discount the other arguments I made in the post showing that Rubio clearly does not want to revoke DACA. More on his obnoxious responses to me here, if you care, which I doubt.