Everything’s Bigger In Texas; Even The Liars

Senator Ted Cruz is a lawyer. Lawyers are trained to lie. We all know this. Is it because Ted Cruz is a trained liar that it’s so easy for him to lie to his supporters about the immigration battle of 2013, and how it went down in the senate?

On the campaign trail, Senator Cruz tells his supporters he killed the infamous Gang of Eight Bill. Cruz even goes so far as saying that the amendment he proposed was specifically designed to kill the bill. This is exactly the opposite of what he told his colleagues in the United States Senate. That’s called, a lie. It’s also not consistent. Especially coming from someone who tells his supporters he is the “consistent conservative” running for president. This isn’t my opinion. It just is. When we look at how this trained liar carefully crafted his words in 2013, and compare them with what he tells his supporters about the Gang of Eight Bill on the campaign trail, the truth is obvious to any normal person.

Looking back at how things went down in 2013, we find that Senator Cruz (like any good lawyer) laid out several different disputes about his “deep concerns” with the bill. None of his disputes ever really rule anything out at all. Why? Because lawyers like to have their cake and eat it too. By repeatedly saying the phrase “deep concerns”, Ted Cruz never really took a concrete stand on the pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens. Did Lawyer Ted know in 2013 he would run for president in 2016? Only 25 days after being sworn in as a United States senator? Only a couple months after we fought tooth and nail to get him elected to the United States Senate? Did Senator Cruz intentionally use words so he could argue either side of the immigration debate at a later date? You decide.

As Julie Andrews says in The Sound of Music. “Let’s start at the very beginning, a very good place to start…” Let’s start with an interview he gave a couple days after being sworn in as a senator. On January 7th, he was asked what to do with the illegal aliens in the United States. Cruz said, “We should enforce the laws with respect to those who are here illegally now.” Good Answer Lawyer! But, then the Gang of Eight debate began, and the double-talking-lawyer-side of the senator began too, immediately Cruz said:

“I appreciate the good work that senators in both parties have put into trying to fix our broken immigration system. There are some good elements in this proposal, especially increasing the resources and manpower to secure our border and also improving and streamlining legal immigration. However, I have deep concerns with the proposed path to citizenship. To allow those who came here illegally to be placed on such a path is both inconsistent with rule of law and profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who waited years, if not decades, to come to America legally

Good Answer Lawyer (sort of)! SIDEBAR: What about THE WALL?!?!?! The “good elements” in the Gang of Eight Bill, that Cruz praises, did not include a wall. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Even though stretches of the imagination have been the one consistent thing in Cruz’s presidential campaign. As all good lawyers know, using the phrase deep concerns deceptively gives a lawyer the ability to argue his position at a later date in either direction. No matter how the current mood of the country regards immigration, Ted Cruz’s deep concerns gave him wiggle-room to claim anything about his past position on immigration.

Let’s take a look at what the lawyer tells the American people just a few weeks later:

“The president has been focusing on amnesty, a path to citizenship that skips ahead of the line”

“..a position not supported by a great many Americans and not a position that will achieve bipartisan cooperation. It’s designed to scuttle the bill.”

True. But, does the lawyer say he will build the wall? Does the lawyer say he will deport illegal aliens? Does Cruz say I AM AGAINST AMNESTY in any way shape or form? No, he does not. By Cruz sneakily saying that amnesty is “a position not supported by a great many Americans and not a position that will achieve bipartisan cooperation”, Ted Cruz deceptively plays both sides of the immigration debate. At a later date Cruz can conveniently claim he was for, or against, anything.

Cruz increases his deception, quite cleverly, the following month when asked point blank, “Would you vote against anything that has a path to citizenship?” If the statements Cruz makes now, while campaigning, about how he killed the Gang of Eight bill, matched what really happened in the senate – the only truthful answer would be simple: “NO”. Did Cruz say “NO”? Of course not. Lawyers, think ahead and use tricky words so they can play either side of the argument at a later date. Instead of saying “NO”, Ted Cruz gives another devious and unreliable answer. The lawyer says, “I have deep, deep concerns about a path to citizenship for those who are here illegally.”

Now let’s take a look at what Cruz later said to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Cruz  again covertly sets himself up so he can play either side, at a later date, for a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens. When talking about his deep concerns, the unscrupulous Ted Cruz, said that a pathway to citizenship, “jeopardizes the likelihood of passing any immigration reform bill“. When talking about illegal aliens, slippery Cruz tells the senate he wants “to ensure that we have workers who are here, out of the shadows, able to work legally.”.  It’s not so shocking that Mr. Rule of Law himself, Ted Cruz, uses the establishment’s popular talking point: out of the shadows. We all know what that really means. Out of the shadows means that illegal aliens will be granted benefits, work status, and God knows what else without being held accountable for breaking our laws. Ted Cruz knows this, we know this, and guess what? We don’t like this. Furthermore, what about THE WALL Mr. Lawyer?

A few days later the shifty senator was again asked what to do with the illegal aliens in the United States of America right now. Get a load of this typical lawyer answer, “I think there probably could be a compromise on that, if a path to citizenship was taken off the table.” Probably and compromise aren’t words that “a consistent conservative running for president” would use.

The next thing that happened is various senators started proposing amendments to the bill. This is where things get really complex, and the lawyer in Ted Cruz get’s even more untrustworthy. Senator Jeff Sessions wisely proposed some amendments to modify and keep within reasonable limits the way green cards are handed out. Senator Cruz submitted an amendment that ignores the procedure for green cards, and blocks citizenship for illegal aliens:

I don’t want this bill to be voted down and I hope the stakeholders who want this bill to be passed will be interested in amendments to craft a bill that will pass and I look forward to working with the committee members in that process.”

Hmmm…”I don’t want this bill to be voted down” doesn’t match what Cruz is telling his supporters on the campaign trail. But for some reason they don’t seem to care, or maybe they don’t notice that Ted Cruz is not “the consistent conservative running for president”. It’s kind of funny that Senator Ted Cruz’s supporters are saying his amendment was a poison pill designed to kill the bill. Heck, even Senator Ted Cruz HIMSELF says his amendment was intended to kill the bill. Wait a minute! Let’s re-read what Senator Cruz told his colleagues in the United States Senate: “I don’t want this bill to be voted down and I hope the stakeholders who want this bill to be passed will be interested in amendments to craft a bill that will pass and I look forward to working with the committee members in that process.”

So which is it? Is Ted Cruz lying to his supporters or did Ted Cruz lie to his colleagues in the United States Senate? Lying is probably why nobody likes him in the senate, not because he is a “DC outsider” as he claims. So, was Ted Cruz lying both times, or did Ted Cruz just lie once? Is Ted Cruz lying now, or was Ted Cruz lying then? You decide.






(1654 Posts)

THOMAS is an Editor at Conservatives4Palin, and Chairman of the Board for American Grizzlies United. Mr. Schmitz is a Southern California native based in Hollywood. Thomas’ controversial pop culture approach to modern politics delights supporters and offends critics. Mr. Schmitz has been described as, “culturally rebellious”, and a “rebel with a cause”.

Leave a Reply