Thread: REVEALED: The One-Page Amendment Which Proves Marco Rubio Is LYING About Ted Cruz On

REVEALED: The One-Page Amendment Which Proves Marco Rubio Is LYING About Ted Cruz On Amnesty





WRITTEN BY: MATTHEW K. BURKE
DECEMBER 19, 2015

The RINO GOP establishment and the Marco Rubio presidential campaign have been desperately trying to project Rubio’s pro-amnesty position on Ted Cruz — a constitutional conservative and staunch defender of border security and opponent of illegal immigration.

Rubio’s spin, i.e., outright lie, goes something like this: Cruz offered up amendments to the Rubio-Schumer amnesty bill, aka: “comprehensive immigration reform” in 2013, and was caught on tape (completely out of context) saying that the amendments would help the bill pass. Therefore, Cruz must be pro-amnesty for illegal aliens just like Rubio is.

See, “everybody does it” is the deceitful narrative the GOP establishment is trying to implant in our minds, so we need to forget Rubio’s position on illegal immigration and just move on. It sounds like something Democrats would craft, and it’s a false narrative that has been shouted from the rooftops by the talking heads on FOX News, which has been poisoned by the GOP establishment and Rockefeller Republicans like RINO Karl Rove.

The truth is something far different. At the time, the Rubio-Schumer led “Gang of 8” cabal argued that their amnesty bill wasn’t really amnesty at all. So Ted Cruz called their bluff, saying that if they really wanted their bill to pass, they should include the following simple one-page amendment, offered by Cruz, a poison-pill, which stated:

“Purpose: To provide that no person who has previously been willfully present in the United States while not in lawful status shall be eligible for United States citizenship.”

You can read the entire one-page amendment below:


As you can see, Cruz’s amendment, which didn’t pass but was supported by the likes of Senator Jeff Sessions, considered among the strongest opponents of a “pathway to citizenship” or amnesty for illegal aliens, made no mention whatsoever of providing illegals with a legal status or anything close to it.

Instead, the Cruz amendment was rejected by Marco Rubio and the “Gang of 8,” which exposed true intentions of comprehensive immigration reform — to provide amnesty to the millions of foreigners in the country illegally.

Moreover, Cruz’s strategy worked. It killed the Gang of 8 bill, to the chagrin of the establishment of both parties. The Democrats want millions of new voters, and the crony capitalists in the GOP want cheap labor for big business, all at the expense of Americans.

Nevertheless, Marco Rubio, the new establishment darling after the tanking of Bush, Kasich, Graham, Christie, etc., MUST LIE and deflect his position on illegal immigration by trying to smear Ted Cruz.

Because Rubio will never be forgiven by the grassroots for his pro-amnesty position, a betrayal of the Tea Party members who supported him based upon his 2010 campaign promises to fight against amnesty, not to support it.

FOX News, including the entire panel on The Five, should be ashamed of themselves for furthering Rubio’s lies as if they were true. They are lies, and damnable ones at that.

http://politistick.com/revealed-the-...uz-on-amnesty/

Oh come on, polistick, citizenship isn't work, citizenship isn't residency, citizenship is becoming a US citizen. Rubio said Cruz supported legalization, which is permission from the government either through a permit or assurance to remain in the country and avoid deportation which is amnesty.

Rubio said Cruz's position wasn't all that different from his, not that they were the same, and he was right, because legalization with or without citizenship is amnesty. Cruz supported legalization amnesty without a path to citizenship, while Rubio supported legalization amnesty with a path to citizenship.

That's how I see it anyway. I mean we've always considered legalization of any type a form of amnesty, which it is.

Originally Posted by Judy

Oh come on, polistick, citizenship isn't work, citizenship isn't residency, citizenship is becoming a US citizen. Rubio said Cruz supported legalization, which is permission from the government either through a permit or assurance to remain in the country and avoid deportation which is amnesty.

Rubio said Cruz's position wasn't all that different from his, not that they were the same, and he was right, because legalization with or without citizenship is amnesty. Cruz supported legalization amnesty without a path to citizenship, while Rubio supported legalization amnesty with a path to citizenship.

That's how I see it anyway. I mean we've always considered legalization of any type a form of amnesty, which it is.

IMO, you're view on this is all wrong as evidenced by Sen. Sessions own words (noted in several previous threads). The gap between Cruz and Rubio on the issue of illegal immigration and amnesty is large. As has been explained to you on several occasions, the Cruz amendment for legalization without citizenship was designed to kill the gang of eight amnesty bill. A bill with no path to citizen ship was not a consideration for the Democrats. The Dems had insisted on a path to citizenship, without it there was no bill.

Please read:

http://www.alipac.us/f9/revealed-one...d-cruz-326498/

Originally Posted by MW

IMO, you're view on this is all wrong as evidenced by Sen. Sessions own words (noted in several previous threads). The gap between Cruz and Rubio on the issue of illegal immigration and amnesty is large. As has been explained to you on several occasions, the Cruz amendment for legalization without citizenship was designed to kill the gang of eight amnesty bill. A bill with no path to citizen ship was not a consideration for the Democrats. The Dems had insisted on a path to citizenship, without it there was no bill.

Please read:

http://www.alipac.us/f9/revealed-one...d-cruz-326498/

As I've explained to you numerous times, Cruz's Amendment failed and the Gang of Eight bill passed by a landslide in the Senate, 68-32, more than a 2/3 majority, a Super Majority, a majority large enough to over-ride a Presidential Veto, a majority large enough to pass an Amendment to the US Constitution. Whatever his devious plan might have been intended to do, other than what he said under oath or what the Amendment itself would have done had it passed, it did nothing and the Gang of Bill passed. It was defeated in the US House of Representatives.

There's a difference between offering an amendment that passes and then kills a bill, and offering an amendment that fails and the bill passes with a Super Majority.

In business, sports, and most other walks of life, we would call this a huge fail.

But if you want to call it some type of win, then of course, you're entitled to your opinion.

Originally Posted by Judy

As I've explained to you numerous times, Cruz's Amendment failed and the Gang of Eight bill passed by a landslide in the Senate, 68-32, more than a 2/3 majority, a Super Majority, a majority large enough to over-ride a Presidential Veto, a majority large enough to pass an Amendment to the US Constitution. Whatever his devious plan might have been intended to do, other than what he said under oath or what the Amendment itself would have done had it passed, it did nothing and the Gang of Bill passed. It was defeated in the US House of Representatives.

There's a difference between offering an amendment that passes and then kills a bill, and offering an amendment that fails and the bill passes with a Super Majority.

In business, sports, and most other walks of life, we would call this a huge fail.

But if you want to call it some type of win, then of course, you're entitled to your opinion.

As I've explained to you numerous times, Cruz's Amendment was designed to kill the bill. Yes, the bill passed because Cruz's Amendment did not pass. Had it passed, the bill would have failed because the bill wouldn't not have been acceptable to the Democrats without a path to citizenship for the illegals. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. Cruz, as Sen. Sessions has explained, joined him in doing all they could to stop the gang of eight amnesty bill.

Nobody called the Amendments failure as a win. It is what it is, but Cruz deserves credit for doing what he could in an honest attempt to stop the bill.

Originally Posted by MW

As I've explained to you numerous times, Cruz's Amendment was designed to kill the bill. Yes, the bill passed because Cruz's Amendment did not pass. Had it passed, the bill would have failed because the bill wouldn't not have been acceptable to the Democrats without a path to citizenship for the illegals. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. Cruz, as Sen. Sessions has explained, joined him in doing all they could to stop the gang of eight amnesty bill.

Nobody called the Amendments failure as a win. It is what it is, but Cruz deserves credit for doing what he could in an honest attempt to stop the bill.

Do you really believe the Senate would have defeated the Gang of Eight Bill, the most massive immigration reform bill in US history, over the issue of citizenship? I don't believe for a second that even if Cruz's amendment had passed, the Senate would have defeated this bill. It would have passed with an even greater majority, possibly a 3/4 Majority, with Cruz and I guess Sessions and others voting for it.

I understand the whole legislative process very well. And this is truly the dumbest thing I've ever heard of from a US Senator, let alone 2 US Senators. The fact is if Cruz's amendment had passed, the Gang of Eight bill would have passed the Senate with an even higher majority because it would have picked up the Senators voting against it for purely political reasons related to the citizenship provision, like Ted Cruz himself and I guess Jeff Sessions as well.

But you're free to think whatever you like about it. If you ask me, it's a sad but perfect example of the type of stupid monkey business that goes on in DC that's responsible for the dire and terrible situation we're in because when the public calls up to ask one of them if they support a bill, and they tell you yes, you can't believe them anymore than when they tell you they don't. Ted Cruz is the epitome of that and exposed that problem to the world on December 15, 2015 in the debates.

I guess all the FairTax supporters who are behind Cruz because they believe he really supports the Senate FairTax bill, S 155 in the US Senate because he's an official co-sponsor of the bill and tells them he does, yet his tax plan on his website is an income tax plan and he doesn't even mention the FairTax, although he's basically copied the advantages of the FairTax as his advantages for his income tax plan, but that doesn't work because his plan is an income tax plan whereas the FairTax is a national retail sales tax on consumption, two very different systems which are not interchangeable because they work differently because one taxes income by force with a mandate whereas the other one taxes voluntary final consumption. I'm sure the FairTaxers will be as disappointed with Cruz on the FaiirTax as I am with his past positions, actions and statements on immigration once they realize that fact.

Furthermore, anyone who believes his tax plan which abolishes payroll tax funding for Social Security and Medicare without an alternative tax to replace the funding but states on his website he'll "fund Social Security and Medicare from general revenue" is Whistling Dixie and dancing the Cruz Version of the Texas Two-Step.

Ted Cruz is in way over his head.

Look at this:

https://www.tedcruz.org/

It says "one nation, one tax, abolish the IRS"

Then look at this:

https://www.tedcruz.org/tax_plan/

There's not one tax, there are 2 income taxes. 10% for individuals. 16% for businesses.

The plan does not abolish the IRS yet he claims it does on the first place of his website. Every business and every individual still has to file an income tax return, report earnings, do all the math to figure out their taxable income and deductions, including their interest and investment income and after you've spent hours figuring up your income and doing the math for your postcard return, then IRS agents have to verify the returns. You still have all the personal deductions, charity deductions and mortgage interest deductions to figure up after you've figured up all your income from all the various sources, which again the IRS has to process and verify. Likewise, businesses still have all the issues of taxable income reporting, determining all their allowable deductions and expenses, and a new interesting wrinkle he's come up with.

Look at this!

The corporate income tax – the source of endless waste and fraud in our tax system – will be eliminated. No longer will American businesses face the highest top tax rate, 35 percent, in the developed world. The trend of American companies and jobs moving off-shore will stop. Instead, all companies will pay a simple, low rate Business Flat Tax of 16 percent. The tax will be based on revenues minus expenses such as equipment, computers, and other business investments.

Revenue minus business investments like computers and equipment. What? What about normal operating expenses like utilities, rent, insurance, wages, benefits, supplies, inventory, travel, sales expenses, marketing, advertising, maintenance, cleaning, security, etc. which are not considered "business investments", they're business costs and expenses. Revenue is different than income and gross income. Revenue may come from loans for example, investment capital, and so much more. Expenses are operating costs. Business investment is a capital expense, so it's not clear from his plan and doesn't read like operating expenses are deductible, just capital investments. If that is the case, he's not lowered income taxes on businesses, he's quadrupled them. So no one will be coming back home for that, and no one trying to get out from under our existing income tax will cancel plans to move offshore or to another country.

And look at this!

Allows for automation of compliance. Instead of having individuals report every detail about dividend or interest income, for example, banks, brokers, and financial institutions would simply withhold the tax.

Really? It's not already bad enough that you withhold income tax from wages and earnings, you're now going to allow banks, brokers, and financial institutions to "simply withhold the tax" from your investments? Withholding means stealing. Ted is making it easier for the crooks in DC to steal your money before you even get it. Well, tell me Ted, how do banks, brokers and financial institutions know how much if any to withhold until after you've filed your income tax return to determine what if any tax on any income including your income earned through banks, brokers and financial institutions you owe to begin with? What you have proposed Ted is stealing investment income off the top.

And then there's this one:

Eliminates a current competitive disadvantage for American products through border adjustability: foreign imports will be subject to the Business Flat Tax and American exports will have the tax removed, giving U.S. businesses a level playing field.

Hmmm. How does an income tax levy an import? Ted's income tax is a tax on "revenue minus business investments". Income tax is a tax on income, not products. So how would this work? I buy tomatoes from Mexico and the US, Walmart pays income tax on that income. Tomato growers in the US who export their tomatoes would pay no income tax? Under Ted's plan all the food and other products sold in the US will be diverted to offshore sales to avoid the income tax because exports are tax-free. Is Ted trying to starve us to death as well?

Here's what Ted has done. He's trying to apply the rules of the FairTax which is a national retail sales tax to an income tax, because he doesn't know what he's doing and for some reason is too chicken to just stand up for the FairTax, which is what a co-sponsor of legislation is supposed to do. So he's tried to appease the Tea Partiers with this income tax plan without actually giving up any control over Americans. He's as authoritarian as any Democrat and worse actually because he's going to withhold the tax from investment earnings and dramatically increase the tax on businesses.

I'm not sure what he's trying to achieve here, and sadly I don't think he does either.

Judy wrote:

Do you really believe the Senate would have defeated the Gang of Eight Bill, the most massive immigration reform bill in US history, over the issue of citizenship? I don't believe for a second that even if Cruz's amendment had passed, the Senate would have defeated this bill. It would have passed with an even greater majority, possibly a 3/4 Majority, with Cruz and I guess Sessions and others voting for it.

I understand the whole legislative process very well. And this is truly the dumbest thing I've ever heard of from a US Senator, let alone 2 US Senators. The fact is if Cruz's amendment had passed, the Gang of Eight bill would have passed the Senate with an even higher majority because it would have picked up the Senators voting against it for purely political reasons related to the citizenship provision, like Ted Cruz himself and I guess Jeff Sessions as well.

Yes, absolutely, Cruz's amendment to remove a path to citizenship would have killed the bill. Furthermore, regardless of the Amendment, Cruz and Sessions have already said they were not going to support the bill. Honestly, I can't believe you actually think Cruz and Sessions would have voted on the bill ....... utterly amazing.

Perhaps this will help you get a better grasp of what happened:

https://www.conservativereview.com/c...-rubio-or-cruz

Originally Posted by MW

Judy wrote:



Yes, absolutely, Cruz's amendment to remove a path to citizenship would have killed the bill. Furthermore, regardless of the Amendment, Cruz and Sessions have already said they were not going to support the bill. Honestly, I can't believe you actually think Cruz and Sessions would have voted on the bill ....... utterly amazing.

Perhaps this will help you get a better grasp of what happened:

https://www.conservativereview.com/c...-rubio-or-cruz

I know what happened.

There are multiple issues here as far as I'm concerned.

1. Ted Cruz's history of supporting increased legal immigration.

2. Ted Cruz's history of never opposing legalization until Tuesday night's debate.

3. Ted Cruz's history of never supporting deportations of illegal aliens until Wednesday after the debate.

4. Ted Cruz's dishonesty at the debate Tuesday night.

5. Ted Cruz's possible perjury in two or more US Senate hearings.

6. Ted Cruz taking credit for killing a bill when the bill passed the Senate by a Super Majority across party lines.

If people want to believe there was some grand scheme of poisonous deception and twisted promises in the Senate that produced some beneficial result to which they want to credit Ted Cruz to advance his race for President of the United States, then have at it.

The fact is the Gang of Eight bill passed the Senate with flying colors. The bill was defeated in the US House of Representatives by a large Republican Majority because Americans wanted it stopped, which is exactly how our system of representation is suppose to work. And, in the case of S 744, it did.

Judy, at times I honesty have to question whether you even bother reading other post that provide evidence to dispute some of your claims. I'm not going to bother providing you a list of my concerns with Donald Trump because it would serve no purpose. Besides that, I support Trump and Cruz.