Megyn Kelly Cheap Shots at Trump in Gush interview with Rubio

The 5 Basic Questions Megyn Kelly Forgot to Ask Marco Rubio

by JULIA HAHN3 Feb 2016Washington D.C.2,959

In her Tuesday night interview of donor-class favorite Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Fox News’s Megyn Kelly gushed over the young Senator’s ability to deliver a memorized speech without a teleprompter.

However, throughout the interview, Kelly failed to ask the candidate a single substantive question about his desire to enact the open-borders trade and immigration policies endorsed by Fox News’s founder Rupert Murdoch. Instead, Kelly began her interview with Marco Rubio by playing a clip of Rush Limbaugh praising Rubio as a conservative, in spite of Rubio’s push for open borders.

Kelly then asked Rubio these hard-hitting questions:

Let’s start with Rush Limbaugh’s comment, do you agree that you are no moderate centrist?

One of your competitors took a shot at you today, Gov. Chris Christie, who is really hoping to perform better in New Hampshire than he did in Iowa… do you take offense to that, sir, him calling you ‘a boy, a boy in a bubble’?

He says you’re too scripted. You are very smooth. Your acceptance– well, not acceptance [speech]– but your remarks last night were amazing. You were so articulate. There was no teleprompter. To those who say, ‘Oh he’s scripted’– is that scripted or is that just how you talk?

So now that you’re—you know— we got the marco-mentum, as they call it, you know who’s going to come after you both guns blazing. His name starts with D, his last name starts with T. And you’re going to be right in the middle of the cross-hairs for him now that you’re giving him a run for his money. How are you going to handle Donald Trump’s attacks on you?

Do you think it’s time for Jeb Bush to drop out?

What is winning for you in New Hampshire?

Kelly also added: “I will vouch for you — that you have come on the Kelly Fileregularly and you always sit for the tough questions. And I’ll note for the record, you never complain, never once — even if we ask really tough questions, which I appreciate.”

Noticeably, Kelly’s “tough questions” in last night’s interview did not include a single mention of his support for globalist immigration and trade policies.  Below are some questions Kelly did not ask Rubio:

Your 2013 immigration bill would have tripled green card issuances, doubled foreign worker dispensations, and granted citizenship to illegal immigrants. Can you identify a single policy outlined in your Gang of Eight bill that you no longer support?

A supermajority of GOP voters want immigration reduced, but you have repeatedly called for more immigration. Why do you reject what most GOP voters want: less immigration?

You have said you joined the Gang of Eight to get the most conservative bill out of the Senate, but your bill was endorsed by every Senate Democrat,Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and La Raza. So that does mean you are an incompetent negotiator, or that you misrepresented the contents of your bill to the American people?

You continue to insist that your 2013 immigration bill—which would have granted citizenship, and by extension, welfare access and voting privileges, to illegal immigrants— is not amnesty. Why do you believe that every single Republican who campaigned in the 2014 midterm elections against the Gang of Eight bill and called it amnesty–such as Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR)– is wrong and that your bill did not in fact grant amnesty? Under your definition of amnesty, could a President Rubio enact the same legalization provisions of the Gang of Eight bill and still tell voters that you did not grant “amnesty” to illegal immigrants.

You have previously said the Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement would be a “pillar” of you presidency. Do you stand by that statement?

Kelly’s questions to Rubio in last night’s interview are reminiscent of her treatment of Rubio during the first FOX News debate, in which she and the moderators asked the following questions. In one question, Kelly essentially asked Rubio if he could put God and veterans in the same sentence.

Chris Wallace asked Rubio: “Could you please address Governor Bush across the stage here, and explain to him why you… are better prepared to be president than he is?”

On immigration, Wallace asked Rubio: “Is it as simple as our leaders are stupid, their leaders are smart, and all of these illegals coming over are criminals?”

Bret Baier asked Rubio: “Why is Governor Bush wrong on Common Core?”

One Facebook questioner asked Rubio to: “Describe one action you would do to make the economic environment more favorable for small businesses and entrepreneurs and anyone dreaming of opening their own business.”

Kelly asked Rubio: “How do you justify ending a life just because it begins violently, through no fault of the baby?”

Kelly also asked: “So I put the question to you about God and the veterans, which you may find to be related.”

As Donald Trump’s campaign has pointed out, Fox News’s vice president of news and Washington managing editor, Bill Sammon, is the father of Marco Rubio’s press secretary, Brooke Sammon.

“The Fox News executive who oversees the debate process, [his] daughter is a senior executive on the Marco Rubio campaign,” Trump’s campaign manager told CNN. “He’s one of the executives on Fox that writes the debate questions so maybe he has his own ulterior motives… maybe he should disclose that before he’s writing the debate questions for Fox.”

Fox News’s founder, Rupert Murdoch, is a co-chair of what is arguably one of the biggest immigration lobbying firms in the country, The Partnership for a New American Economy. Via his lobbying firm, Murdoch has endorsed Rubio’s 2013 amnesty bill, as well as Rubio’s 2015 immigration expansion bill. Murdoch has also endorsed President Obama’s trade agenda, which Rubio has said would be the “second pillar” of a President Rubio’s three-pillar foreign policy strategy.

Interestingly, the name of Murdoch’s immigration lobbying firm relies on the “New American” euphemism commonly used to describe the demographic transformation brought on by immigration. For instance, The National Journal has launched “The Next America” project to chronicle America’s becoming a majority-minority country. Similarly, the White House’s immigration initiative is called the “New Americans Project.” And the Latino Victory Foundation and the “National Partnership for New Americans” recently launched the “New American Democracy Campaign” to get as many immigrants as possible to vote.

Marco Rubio’s campaign theme is “A New American Century.”

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, 2016 Presidential Race,Rush Limbaugh, Rupert Murdoch, Trans Pacific Partnership, Tom Cotton, gang of eight, La Raza, Brooke Sammon, New American, amnesty bill

Sharia in Obamatrade–Analyst: Sultan of Brunei Could Bypass U.S. Courts, Acquire American Land and Infrastructure

Sharia in Obamatrade–Analyst: Sultan of Brunei Could Bypass U.S. Courts, Acquire American Land and Infrastructure

Aude Guerrucci-Pool/Getty Images

by ALEX SWOYER21 Dec 2015Washington, DC3,692

The text of the Obama administration’s Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal between the United States and 11 other countries reverses policies that were originally put into place to prevent a foreign takeover of the nation’s infrastructure, argues political consultant Curtis Ellis, who adds that the deal threatens U.S. national security interests.

Ellis explained:

Previous U.S. trade pacts stated in no uncertain terms that the national security interests of the United States are determined solely by the U.S. government and supersede any provisions of the pacts.  The U.S. government had unfettered power to protect our national security interests as it deemed necessary – even if its actions might violate the terms of a trade agreement.

But the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement reverses this precedent. As a result, other countries could claim our national security interests violate the T.P.P. agreement and force the U.S. to pay billions of dollars in damages.

Ellis says that Chapter 11 in the more than 5,000-page trade deal provides foreign investors with special rights to acquire U.S. land, businesses, natural resources and investments.

“Under Chapter 28 and Chapter 29, these foreign investors could do an end-run around U.S. courts and sue the U.S. before an international panel, known as an investor-state dispute tribunal, if they feel American law violates their ‘rights’ under the TPP,” Ellis argues.

Currently, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) reviews pending foreign investments in the U.S. to determine if they pose a threat to national security and can recommend the president shut down investments deemed a threat. Under previous trade agreements, foreign investors would have no recourse.

But under the T.P.P., the Sultan of Brunei, the billionaire autocrat who rules his T.P.P. country under Sharia law, could sue for billions of dollars if CFIUS denied his bid to buy a company providing security to U.S. ports and airports.

He would bring his case before a foreign tribunal that could force taxpayers to award him compensation for “lost profits.” The tribunal, staffed by three unelected lawyers hailing from anywhere in the world, would have the power to second-guess the U.S. government on what constitutes a threat to our national security.

Additionally, the Islamic Sultanate of Brunei — a country that’s a party to President Obama’s trade agenda — hasoutlawed Christmas and threatens to place offenders in prison.

Ellis points to an event in 2006 that supports his concerns within the TPP.

According to Ellis, Dubai Ports World (DPW), an enterprise of the United Arab Emirates, sought to purchase a company in 2006, which operated six U.S. ports. During that time, Ellis says, “Congress intervened to block the sale after Coast Guard officials raised the possibility of significant security risks,” but he argues that the 2006 “controversy came in the midst of congressional debate over the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement.”

Ellis’s concerns with TPP is that the TPP, like the Oman pact, gives foreign investors special rights to own and operate U.S. businesses and an option to sue if they feel their rights are violated. He adds that the public outcry in 2006 blocked the sale.

Following the Dubai Ports World controversy, language was added in a footnote to all U.S. trade agreements to shut down any second-guessing of U.S. security interests by trade tribunals. The footnote makes clear the U.S. has sole discretion in determining its essential national security interests.

The critical footnote to the “Security Exception” Article 22.2 of the Peru Free Trade Agreement, Article 21.2 of the Panama FT, Article 22.2 of the Colombia FTA and Article 23.2 of the Korea-US FT reads: “For greater certainty, if a Party invokes [the “Security Exception] Article in an arbitral proceeding initiated under [Investment] Chapter or [Dispute Settlement] Chapter, the tribunal or panel hearing the matter shall find that the exception applies.”

“In plain English, it says if the U.S. invokes national security, that’s final – no foreign ‘trade’ tribunal could overrule it,” Ellis told Breitbart News.

According to Ellis, the TPP eliminated this “crucial stipulation.”

“As a result, any company operating in a T.P.P. country could drag the U.S. before an extrajudicial foreign tribunal and demand taxpayer compensation if our government prevented it from buying a crucial American asset based on national security grounds,” he explains.

Ellis argues that without a footnote to “Article 29.2, one of the TPP’s trade dispute tribunals could substitute its judgment for that of our own government with respect to what is considered an essential security interest of the U.S.”

“The TPP also includes an Annex 9-H which states that a government’s decision on whether to approve a given foreign investment in its territory is not subject to challenges before an investor-state dispute tribunal,” he stressed.

Australia, Canada, Mexico and New Zealand each listed their own foreign investment review laws, according to Ellis. However, the U.S. did not do so.

Breitbart News reached out to the United States Trade Representative’s office about Ellis’s concern but did not receive comment.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, National Security,Economics, national security, Trans Pacific Partnership, Trade Deal, Curtis Ellis