Home » 2016 Election, Featured, Headline, Media Bias, Video

WATCH: Debunking anti-Cruz myths (video)

Submitted by on February 11, 2016 – 5:14 pm EST63 Comments
Ted Cruz AG hearing

Ted Cruz grills Justice Department for targeting gun owners with ‘Operation Choke Point’ via TruthandAction.org

UPDATE: See below for yet another lie, debunked.

There are quite a few rumors floating around in social media about Presidential Candidate Ted Cruz.

Americans are used to the mainstream media lying about Ted Cruz (see here, here & here for just some examples.) But it is particularly painful when the lies come from supposed truth-tellers. The largest culprits starting and perpetuating anti-Cruz falsehoods are sundance of the Conservative Treehouse and Dianne Marshall of the Marshall Report. They blatantly lie, or tell cherry-picked half truths, which are promptly disseminated in social media by an army of bullies who are seemingly not interested in civil debate.

Why create false stories if the candidate is so bad?

The clearly coordinated effort is particularly disturbing because: 1.) it frankly smashes conventional wisdom that ad hominem baseless attacks are the tool of the left – not the principled right, and 2.) the social media bullies may serve to intimidate people from posting positive stories or opinions about Ted Cruz.

Here are some of the most persistent lies, myths and rumors about Ted Cruz:

FAKE!! Ted Cruz stole the Iowa Caucus

The charge is that the members of the Ted Cruz campaign lied about fellow presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson in order to steal his votes. The truth is that CNN’s Chris Moody, using “two [unnamed] sources, on the record” from Carson’s campaign gave the distinct impression, along with CNN correspondents Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, that Carson was taking a break from campaigning.

Ted Cruz’s people used the information which came out as a “BREAKING” news story right before the caucus. The information was readily available to anyone who had a mobile phone at the Caucus, i.e., everyone. Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and yes, Donald Trump supporters ALL used this information.

Ted Cruz is the only one to apologize, but CNN should apologize publicly to Ted Cruz.

FAKE!! Disgruntled Ted Cruz Campaign Staff are Resigning 

This completely fabricated story about a fake disgruntled Cruz staffer named “Don Fairly” was originated by a pro-Trump twitter user named @LandmanMarius (a twitter account that was evidently born to praise Donald Trump).

A series of tweets claimed that a staffer opened up over coffee to tell @LandmanMarius about how the fake “Don Fairly” quit Ted Cruz’s campaign along with seven others because Cruz was “impossible to work with” and “[K]eeps changing positions on policy to suit voters” and bizarrely, that he only pretends to pray for the sake of the media.

The completely fake story designed to slam Ted Cruz was repeated at the Conservative Treehouse and the Marshall Report. After this story was exposed at TrevorLoudon.com, @LandmanMarius deleted all tweets related to the fake Don Fairly.

This screenshot shows one of the Don Fairly tweets as posted at the Conservative Treehouse before it was deleted.

lies repeated by Conservative Tree House

The TRUTH about the culture of the Cruz campaign is more likely reflected at this must-read article at PJMedia:

“Cruz’s Iowa Win In Part Due to Culture of Kindness and Courage at Campaign HQ”

As an aside, it should be noted that @LandmanMarius also since deleted tweets claiming voter fraud in the wake of Cruz’s win in Iowa that were highlighted at TrevorLoudon.com.

Benghazi was certainly not a phony scandal, but Ted Cruz stealing the Iowa Caucus is a phony scandal. 

FAKE!! Ted Cruz was a part of the establishment who went after Chris McDaniel in Mississippi

In a nutshell, Cruz was a vice chairman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), who supported then-incumbent Senator Thad Cochran in 2014 over tea party favorite State Senator Chris McDaniel. Cruz became a part of the organization, however, “based on a explicit commitment from leadership that the NRSC was going to stay out of primaries,” as reported at Buzzfeed at the time.

“Sundance” at The Conservative Treehouse highlights an interview where Cruz referred to the NRSC as the “DC Machine” on a broadcast with Mark Levin, implying that Cruz was deliberately distancing himself from the NRSC. During the call, Cruz defended McDaniel and even called for an investigation. “Sundance” writes about this like it was some huge revelation that Cruz used the term “DC machine” in order to mask his involvement with the NRSC, but in fact Cruz’s role as vice chair was no secret at the time.

Sundance writes:

You’ll note in the interview that Senator Ted Cruz seems to express disgust and outrage at the tactics being deployed by what he calls the ‘DC Machine’.

Senator Cruz states the campaign conduct in the Mississippi runoff was ‘incredibly disappointing’ etc. and even goes on to say an investigation is warranted.

Eventually, we found out who paid for those racist attack ads, and who paid for the phone calls, and who paid for the Democrats to come out and support Thad Cochran in the Mississippi primary runoff.

Oh, we found out alright.

It was the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC)…

Far from being evidence that Ted Cruz is an anti-Conservative RINO bent on destroying the Constitution, the filing shows one thing only: that the NRSC paid for advertising on behalf of Thad Cochran. It is unknown what Cruz’s involvement would have been in general expenditures, much less the nature of the advertising.

Considering that Cruz went public and that Chris McDaniel actually joined Ted Cruz on his campaign, it is highly unlikely that Ted Cruz is a secret RINO.

What WAS reported at the time was that Cruz was “assailed” for not toeing the line over at the NRSC, as reported at RedState:

The National Republican Senatorial Committee was particularly spiteful with both their outside consultants and inside communications team, led by Brad Dayspring, attacking anyone and any group that strayed from Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS). They assailed Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who at the time was even a co-chair of the NRSC.

Back in July 2014, an article at the Washington Post titled “Ted Cruz slams ‘D.C. machine’ over Mississippi runoff, wants voter-fraud investigation” clearly illustrated that Cruz was on the right side of history:

“Cruz stayed out of the Mississippi primary. But his comments align him with McDaniel against his Senate colleague Cochran at a time when Republicans remain sharply divided in Mississippi.”

Consider this from The Hill at the time:

GOP hopes of corralling Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) during the 2014 primary season are officially dead.

The defiant Republican’s brutal criticism of Sen. Thad Cochran’s (R-Miss.) reelection campaign on Tuesday — and the involvement of a group he is technically a vice chairman of, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) — is just the latest example of the Tea Party hero refusing to play nice.

Again, McDaniel even campaigned with Ted Cruz.

But this was not mentioned by “sundance” at the Conservative Treehouse when he accused Cruz of being a part of Thad Cochran’s gang of RINO’s who acted in the most horrendous manner toward Chris McDaniel.

FAKE!! Ted Cruz is a RINO worked with Mitch McConnell 

This charge, again originated by our friend “sundance,” claims that because Cruz initially said he would stay out of races dealing with GOP incumbents (along with Rand Paul); he basically conspired with Mitch McConnell to take out Chris McDaniel.

“Sundance” writes (this author’s comments are bold):

Remember, this agreement is the set up to the Mississippi fiasco of 2014 with Thad Cochran and Chris McDaniel (true, but Cruz BROKE this agreement and in fact called for an investigation). The agreement gave both Rand Paul and Ted Cruz leadership approvals for their 2016 presidential race (Unsourced. where is this documented?).

It is more likely that McConnell wanted to bring Cruz into the establishment for strategic reasons. Cruz revealed in his book “A Time for Truth” that Mitch McConnell assured Cruz that the NRSC “would stay out of primaries from here on out.”

As reported at Politico, Cruz writes:

“But it soon became clear that the NRSC had every intention of supporting incumbents — in primaries — against conservative challengers across the country. And in open races, it actively urged donors to give money to candidates opposing tea party conservatives. That didn’t sit right with me. … It was yet another lesson: Assurances in Washington come with expiration dates.”

But regardless, Ted Cruz did NOT keep his mouth shut over Mississippi, and was in fact incredibly vocal about the dirty tricks from what he referred to as the “D.C. machine” (see above).

“Sundance” also put Ted Cruz in the same camp with Rand Paul, claiming that the fact that since the two Senators agreed not to get involved in primaries, they were equally awful or something. But there are two things wrong with this:

  1. Again, Cruz did not live up to the agreement and vocally came out against the establishment in Mississippi (see above).
  2. Rand Paul actually endorsed Mitch McConnell, sealing his fate with many in the Tea Party.

This is how Ted Cruz actually feels about Mitch McConnell and the establishment in Washington, D.C.:

FAKE! Ted Cruz is a globalist

The FAKE charge of ‘Ted Cruz as a globalist’ started by Ted Cruz’s opponents then-Lt. Governor David Dewhurst and a man named Glenn Addison during the 2011-12 Republican Senatorial primary in Texas.

The charge is not actually with Ted Cruz, but rather with his wife, Heidi Cruz and her role on a controversial task force at the Council on Foreign Relations.

As Jerome Corsi writes in a 2015 article at WND:

“…some of his [Cruz’s] critics are once again confronting him with the issue of his wife’s former membership in the Council on Foreign Relations and her role in the crafting of a CFR document espousing North American unity.”

Before we continue, watch this short video from way back in 2011.

CFR Vice President Lisa Shields took exception to Cruz’s remarks, and blasted then-senatorial candidate Ted Cruz.

As reported at Politico, Shieds lamented:

“The candidate’s assertion that CFR is working to undermine U.S. sovereignty is factually wrong. The accusation is ludicrous…”

But Ted Cruz is a globalist?

As seasoned Republican political player Dave Nalle wrote at the time in an article called “Anatomy of a Smear: Heidi Cruz and the ‘North American Union’:”

“You see, it turns out that according to a whisper campaign coming from Dewhurst or Addison or perhaps direct from the John Birch Society, Ted Cruz’ wife is one of the architects of the dreaded ‘North American Union.’ The JBS is the most likely original source in a now-deleted article in the online version of their New American magazine called ‘Faux Neo-Conservatives Defend North American Union.'”


Heidi Cruz’ role in all of this was as one of a large panel of readers and her sole identifiable contribution to the project is a one-paragraph response in the final appendix in which she says:

We must emphasize the imperative that economic investment be led and perpetuated by the private sector. There is no force proven like the market for aligning incentives, sourcing capital, and producing results like financial markets and profit-making businesses. This is simply necessary to sustain a higher living standard for the poorest among us — truly the measure of our success. As such, investment funds and financing mechanisms should be deemed attractive instruments by those committing the capital and should only be developed in conjunction with market participants.’

What does Heidi write for the North American Union report?

Let’s repeat:

“We must emphasize the imperative that economic investment be led and perpetuated by the PRIVATE SECTOR. There is no force proven like the market for aligning incentives, sourcing capital, and producing results like financial markets and profit-making businesses…” (emphasis added)

Another instance that this author found of Ted Cruz & “globalist” goes back in 2012 when Ted Cruz was running for Senator. But Ted Cruz was actually criticizing “Agenda 21” as a “globalist plan that tries to subvert the U.S. Constitution and the liberties we all cherish as Americans.”

At the time, the George Soros-funded ThinkProgress slammed Cruz for pushing a “truly ridiculous conspiracy theory,” and a Tea Party star was born.

On the “globalist” charge, Nalle said it best in 2012:

“It’s all a patchwork of irrational fear and ignorant assumptions with no substance to it whatever…”

FAKE!! Ted Cruz’s birth records are sealed

Related to the birther issue (addressed below), the claim that Cruz is hiding his birth records seems to have been made first by J.B. Williams of NewsWithViews.com (also see here) in December:

“All citizenship records for Ted Cruz are sealed unless and until Ted Cruz agrees to allow any such records to be released by either U.S. or Canadian agencies.”

Williams does not provide sources for his claim, which was unsurprisingly repeated at the Marshall Report.

J.B. Williams appears to be a disgruntled former Obama birther, as well.

The fact that there is absolutely no basis for this charge does not stop Cruz birthers from making the fake claim all over social media.

FAKE: Ted Cruz is not electable

Those who support Ted Cruz often hear the comment, “I like Ted Cruz the most, but he is not electable.”

Cruz’s biggest competitor at this time appears to be Donald Trump, who Gallup reported last month as having “by far the worst image of any major Republican candidate among Democrats and independents.” People absolutely must consider whether or not their candidate can beat Hillary Clinton, the likely Socialist Democratic nominee.

One indicator may be the polls on the matter collected and maintained at Politico. At the time of this writing, Cruz beats Hillary by one percent, while Trump trails Clinton at four percentage points. But this is just one indicator.

Way back in 2010, Jeffrey Lord of the Spectator wrote about Ronald Reagan and the political climate at the time of his candidacy:

“They didn’t like him.

To be more precise, they thought him an extremist, un-electable, an ultra-right wing nut, dumb, ignorant and, more to the point, not one of their crowd.

One out of six was absolutely correct.

Ronald Reagan was not one of their crowd. Ever.

The ‘crowd’ was The Establishment. The Establishment as it appeared in all of its various incarnations during Ronald Reagan’s political life. First it was the California Republican Party Establishment. Then the Liberal Establishment. Followed by the national Republican Party Establishment. Next up was The Eastern Establishment. Last but not least was the Washington Establishment.

And in each and every case save one (1976), Reagan — and more to the point today — the people who came to be known as ‘conservatives’ or ‘Reaganites’ beat those Establishments like a drum.”

Ted Cruz is openly despised by the Establishment GOP. In this author’s experience, the grassroots has had enough of backroom deals and simply wants a candidate like Ronald Reagan, who will be faithful to the Constitution and Limited Government as envisioned by America’s founding fathers.

But a little-noticed but stunning exchange between Ted Cruz and a farmer in Iowa does the best job of addressing the “electability” concern. As previously reported at TrevorLoudon.com,

“Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz was confronted by a farmer in Iowa who accused him of planning to take away his ethanol subsidies while funding ‘big oil.’ Cruz responded with a clear grasp of the facts surrounding the ethanol market and explained that he did not want any industries ‘across the board’ to be dependent on the government.

‘I hope the farmers vote for you,’ the farmer ultimately said.”

Watch the entire exchange, it is worth it:

FAKE: Ted Cruz used to be a supporter of Amnesty

The claim that Cruz supported Amnesty is contrary to Cruz’s consistent and verifiable positions on the matter, but seems to have been alleged first by Marco Rubio, who absolutely knows better, but evidently wants to win at all costs.

Rubio deliberately distorted the intent of an amendment made to immigration legislation in 2013.

Marco Rubio’s big fat lie is particularly egregious because Ted Cruz’s amendment was designed to EXPOSE the TRUE INTENT of “comprehensive immigration reform.” The Democrats pushing for a “path to citizenship” do not care about the plight of illegal immigrants, but they care very much about a potential new voting block.

As reported at TrevorLoudon.com,

“…listen to the words of Eliseo Medina, President Obama’s ‘go-to’ man on issues of ‘comprehensive immigration reform!’ Here Medina neglects to mention the plight of illegal immigrants. Rather, he discusses the creation of ‘a governing coalition for the long term’:”


As explained at Factcheck.org:

“Back in 2013, Cruz offered an amendment to a Senate immigration bill that would have stripped out a proposal for a path to citizenship for those currently in the country illegally. But Cruz’s amendment would have purposefully left intact the bill’s provisions to provide legal status for them. Numerous media outlets described Cruz’s plan as a compromise “middle road” in the immigration debate that he hoped might be palatable to enough legislators in both houses of Congress to actually pass.

But here’s the thing: Cruz’s campaign says he was bluffing. The true purpose of the amendment, the campaign says, was to expose the real motivations of the bill’s supporters. While those supporters claimed the bill’s aim was to allow 11 million immigrants in the country illegally to come out of the shadows, the Cruz campaign says Cruz was convinced the actual intent was to provide citizenship to those immigrants so they could become future voters. So, the campaign says, Cruz offered the amendment, knowing it would not pass, to show the real priority of supporters. Even if the amendment had been accepted, Cruz still would not have supported the bill, the campaign says, because he opposes legalization…”

With this in mind, Ted Cruz makes his case in 2013:

As pointed out by Caleb Howe at Red State:

“During the Fox News/Google GOP debate on Thursday night, the candidates, especially Rubio and Cruz, were taken to task over their record on immigration. In one exchange, moderator Megyn Kelly challenged Senator Cruz to on whether, based on his amendments offered, he supported legalization. ‘Yes it would,’ said Kelly of his amendment.

However, later that evening Kelly interviewed Cruz and conceded an important point. That being pretty much the opposite, which is that he did not and does not support legalizing the status of people here illegally.”

Ted Cruz has been incredibly consistent on illegal immigration and Amnesty. In 2012, Cruz was given the score of “True Reformer” by anti-illegal immigration think tank Numbers USA, who used this graphic:

Ted Cruz on Amnesty via Numbers USA

Listen to these sound bites, as provided by Patterico, which are compiled in one video here with commentary by Mark Levin:

From 2011:

QUESTIONER: Do you favor a path to citizenship for illegal aliens already in the U.S., stricter border enforcement, and/or the building of a border wall or some other policy or combination of policies?

CRUZ: There were a lot of questions in that piece. Let me lay out my position on immigration, because I can state it simply and in one sentence. I am strongly opposed to illegal immigration. I am categorically opposed to amnesty. And I strongly support legal immigrants who follow the rules and come here seeking to work towards the American dream.

Now with respect to securing the borders, I approach this from the perspective of someone who’s spent much of his adult life in law enforcement. It makes utterly no sense that we don’t know who’s coming into this country. We don’t know the criminal backgrounds. Our borders are largely unsecured. And particularly in a post-9/11 world, that is lunacy. I support any and all possible efforts to secure the border. That includes fences, that includes walls, that includes technology, that includes helicopters, that includes drones, that includes manpower, that includes employment verification, that includes approaching it as a law enforcement priority. And right now, neither party is serious about doing that.

With respect to a path to citizenship or amnesty, I categorically oppose it. And the reason is, I’ve spent a lifetime working to defend the constitution and uphold the rule of law. It is fundamentally unfair and contrary to the rule of law to reward those who break the law. And you know, one of the people it’s most unfair to are those that are following the laws. There are immigrants who wait years and even decades to come here legally. And yet what amnesty programs say is that we’re going to take those that have chosen to break the law, and we’re going to reward them rather than insist that people follow the law. I don’t think that’s fair, I don’t think that’s right, and I don’t support it.

From 2012:

CRUZ: …We have an illegal immigration crisis and we need to do everything humanly possible to secure the border. That means fences, that means walls…


MODERATOR: [unintelligible] wall, you said you’d support a wall —

CRUZ: I said yes to that.

Cruz sponsored legislation that would temporarily block refugees from countries containing “terrorist controlled territory” and also sponsored legislation that would allow governors to refuse refugees.

Ted Cruz’s platform on immigration can be found here.

FAKE: Cruz is not eligible to run because he was born in Canada (to an American citizen): 

Although this debate is evidently not settled, it was included in this list because it is so prevalent in the discussion about Ted Cruz. Politically aware individuals have noticed that a small, but persistent group on social media often insert their “Cruz isn’t eligible” memes on any article remotely related to Ted Cruz.

With little fanfare, New Hampshire recently ruled that Cruz was eligible, and the Illinois Board of Elections determined that Ted Cruz “is a natural-born citizen and is eligible to be president.” There are many other credible Constitutional scholars that have thrown their support for Cruz in the ring, such as Jonathan Adler, “who teaches courses in constitutional, administrative, and environmental law at Case Western University School of Law,” who wrote in the Washington Post last month:

Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His mother was a U.S. citizen. His father, a Cuban, was not. Under U.S. law, the fact that Cruz was born to a U.S. citizen mother makes him a citizen from birth. In other words, he is a “natural born citizen” (as opposed to a naturalized citizen) and is constitutionally eligible.

Despite the many who believe that Cruz is eligible, there are many that believe he is not, such as oft-cited Laurence Tribe, who “has argued in favor of the legal standing of Mr. Obama’s signature health care law and executive orders on immigration” according to the New York Times, declared in part during a debate on Cruz’s eligibility that took place at Harvard on Monday:

Unlike Cruz, McCain was born in U.S. territory,” said Tribe. “And unlike Cruz, McCain was born to two U.S. citizens, parents who had been deployed to the Panama Canal Zone by the military to serve the country.

It should be noted that Donald Trump’s mother was born in Scotland.

Professor Jack Balkin of Yale Law School, however, said the fuzzy definition of “natural born citizen” was clarified under U.S. immigration law in 1970, which held that Cruz “automatically became an American because his mother was one. The law grants birthright citizenship to a child born overseas if one parent is a U.S. citizen.”

Watch the video of the debate here:

It should be acknowledged that Breitbart has been called out by many conservatives for their blatant pro-Trump coverage. McKay Coppins of Buzzfeed claims that “many inside the company [Breitbart News] believe Trump has provided undisclosed financial backing to the outlet in exchange for glowing coverage…” but this is not confirmed.

UPDATE: Astute readers have pointed out that Ted Cruz is now being accused of putting forth anti-homeschooling legislation. Shocker. It is fake, fake, fake!

FAKE: Ted Cruz attacks homeschooling with new legislation designed to give “Federal Control over your choice in how your child is educated”

The Marshall Report blog reports ominously in an article titled “Cruz legislation Attacks Home Schooling – In Lockstep With United Nations One World Education!” that Cruz is seeking “Federal Control” for homeschooling families.  Citing Proposed Bill, S306 “Enhancing Educational Opportunities for all Students Act,” Dianne Marshall warns that the legislation is really a globalist plot.

These charges were repeated at newswithviews.com, FreedomOutpost, AmericanVision.org & of course, all over social media.

The charge is infuriating because children from poorer school districts in particular, are stuck in indoctrination factories where the quality of education is often extremely poor. Senator Ted Cruz has repeatedly said  that school choice is “the civil rights issue of the 21st century” (see here and here) but Marshall and her ilk want people to think this is a globalist plot. The homeschooling piece of the legislation relates to savings accounts for homeschooling families.

In a press release from last January regarding the proposed legislation, Cruz explains:

“The rich and middle class have had school choice from the beginning of time,” said Sen. Cruz. “This fight is about ensuring that every child, regardless of race, ethnicity, or zip code has the same opportunity to choose the school that best fits their needs and will help them achieve their very best. I am proud to work with Sen. [Mike] Lee and Congressman [Luke] Messer on this legislation to give more and more kids hope and opportunity for a better life.”

But don’t take his word for it, listen instead to the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), who vigorously defends this legislation and rejects “globalist” intentions.

Importantly, Title 1 funds are NOT to be given to homeschooling families, as federal funding comes with strings attached.

“Increased government regulation of homeschooling through incentives and initiatives is a real threat to our freedom. Because of that, we have consistently opposed attempts by the federal government to create voucher programs or provide federal education funds to homeschools.”


A common point of confusion for many people about S. 306 surrounds §101 of this bill. This section provides Title 1 federal government funding through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to brick-and-mortar private schools. However, since this bill defines homeschools as private schools only for the purposes of §201 (the Coverdell section), §101 will not allow homeschoolers to receive federal Title 1 funding.”

HSLDA even addresses this on Facebook:

We’ve received several messages asking us about blog posts that have criticized presidential candidate Ted Cruz for his…

Posted by HSLDA on Thursday, February 4, 2016

Ted Cruz himself responded to the charges during an interview with the HSLDA during a radio broadcast (transcript and listen to the interview):

Mike: Senator, there have been a few self-described researchers who’ve expressed concerns about the bill that you are a co-sponsor of, sponsored by our good friend Mike Lee, Senate Bill 306—that gives homeschoolers fair and equal access to savings accounts, the ability to participate in the Coverdell savings account programs. Can you respond to these criticisms: that people claim that the language of this bill would give the federal government the power to change definitions of homeschooling, and run away with federal control, and homeschool liberties would be abused by this bill that you and Mike Lee are supporting?

Sen. Cruz: Well sure, Mike, and I appreciate your raising that. As you know, those allegations are baseless, and they are being pushed primarily by a blogger or two who appear to be supporting Donald Trump and trying to spread misinformation. The legislation is legislation that Senator Mike Lee has introduced, who is a passionate supporter of homeschooling, as am I. And it’s legislation that simply eliminates the discrimination against homeschoolers currently in education savings accounts, so that if individuals choose to save their own money for educational purposes, they are allowed to spend their own money on homeschooling. And there’s no reason that federal law should discriminate against homeschoolers and treat them as second-class citizens. And as you know, the Home School Legal Defense Association has actively supported that legislation for a number of years, has spoken out in favor of eliminating discrimination against homeschoolers. And nothing in that legislation would open the door to even the teeniest bit of government regulation—and if it would, I would oppose it. I do not think the government has any business regulating homeschoolers, restricting their fundamental parental liberty. And allowing people to spend their own money in an education savings account to educate their kids is entirely consistent with that.

See? Not a globalist plot.

H/T: Kristine Ruff


  • Maurice says:

    This information is well done, well documented, and clearly demonstrates the Saul Alinsky-like scam and slandering the republican establishment is willing to just to help progressives sink this entire nation into socialism unto communism. Its time for conservatives to unite like never before to elect Ted Cruz, who has the passion and intellectual strength to push socialism and communism back into the pits of the past where it belongs.

  • G R Williams says:

    Thank you so much for this article. Some of us have been troubled by these two sites’ accuracy in reporting for quite a while.

    • renee nal says:

      I agree and you are very welcome.

    • Deborah Japp says:

      This was excellent info. I know this is an effort that is fake because when Trump first started running, I thought I might support him and someone sent me an email from Gary Forbes’ organization asking if I wanted to work on this “KNOckout” campaign for Trump. It said they would supply the fake names on Twitter and FB and put out info and all you would have to do is pass it along. That turned me away form him right there. He is probably paying these people to do that because you had to sign up and be verified and approved and all–I have seen the same messages from several people, just different Twitter names. That’s not the way to support a candidate-with fake accounts? Real good way to start out–with lies!! I am staying with Cruz all the way!! I am so glad Trevor’s on board and I know Chris McDaniel is because I saw it on his web page.

  • Lynda says:

    Another tremendous article to help all of us who are searching for the truth and legitimate ways to combat the lies without resorting to the childish antics of certain other campaign supporters.

    If I may …
    It has been reported on many sites and FB accounts that the Conservative Treehouse and the Marshall Report are creations of the Tantrump campaign for the sole purpose of spreading these lies you are debunking.

    I’m sure you, the writer, know all about this, but without having actual proof you would be lowering yourself to their level.

    Also, I have urls where Laurence Tribe states; “To be sure, no real court is likelу to keep Cruz off the ballot, much less remove him from the White House if he were to win, but under the originalism theory that Cruz advocates, Cruz would be barred.”

    Thank you again renee nal and Trevor Loudon for this great site!

    • G R Williams says:

      C-SPAN had a program about Ted Cruz’s eligibility as a Natural Born Citizen, several weeks ago. Randy Barnett, a Constitutional Law Professor from Georgetown University, said that what Laurence Tribe said was a ‘jab’ at Ted Cruz, because Tribe is a Democracy Constitutionalist (living document) believer, while Ted Cruz is a Republic Constitutionalist (originalist)
      Here is the link to the video:
      “Natural Born Citizen” Presidential Requirement
      Randy Barnett talked about the legal arguments in the debate over whether Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) meets the constitutional “natural born citizen” requirement and therefore eligible to become president.

      • The original American definition as expressed in the U.S. Constitution of who was a natural born Citizen whether someone was born on American soil or exterior to the geographical area of the United States, went by the natural birth place of the father only.

        Our Founding Fathers did not need to define “natural born Citizen” in Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 because its definition at the time was widely known. They understood its meaning from Emerich de Vattel’s 1758 classic book The Law of Nations.

        § 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

        § 213: Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.

        § 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen – this is naturalization. In some countries, the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding public office – this is a regulation of the fundamental law. And in England, merely being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

        §§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens”. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.

        What is in the Constitution and the original definitions of them are supreme over any federal or state laws.

        Natural born Citizen is a natural state of birth and can not properly be regulated by law or redefined by courts of law.

        • Jonathon Moseley says:

          Natural born citizen IS subject to regulation by Congress.

          That is really the core mistake.

          You (collectively) want to imagine that natural born citizen has some super-constitutional meaning that is above the Constitution.

          And your source for that idea is what?

          It’s very imaginative.

          But it is not the law and it has no basis in fact, reality, or history.

          You copy and paste from the cult: “They understood its meaning from Emerich de Vattel’s 1758 classic book The Law of Nations.”

          No, they did not. Vattel was a private author who wrote a private book — in France — about MONARCHY.

          Vattel’s book is a book about monarchy and aristocracy. It has nothing to do with our Constitution.

          Vattel is not even taken seriously in his home country of France.

          If you go into a French courtroom or to the French Parliament and try to argue Vattel they will look at you like you are nuts. Who is Vattel? A nobody.

          Under British common law a natural born subject included someone born abroad, in foreign lands, to British subject.

          Furthermore, the British Parliament defined natural born subject by statute 100 years before our Constitution was written.

          So we just have this sheer nonsense thrown around as fact.

          Congress has the unchallenged power to define citizenship including who is a natural born citizen.

          You claim that Congress does not have that power.

          What you don’t have is any evidence for that key question.

          • Alexander Reagan says:

            There seems to be a common misconception that the Founding Fathers used the British definition of what a natural born subject is in defining what they meant by a natural born Citizen. This is incorrect. British subjects of foreign lands were natural born subjects because their lands were under the rule of England. America had no possession of foreign lands.

            You attempt to chastise me because, “[I and others] want to imagine that natural born citizen has some super-constitutional meaning that is above the Constitution,” yet you (singular) use British common law in your argument. You can’t have it both ways.

            Yes, the definition of natural born Citizen is super-constitutional or from natural law because people are born in a super-constitutional state. The Declaration of Independence recognizes this fact in, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It goes on to say, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Governments are not God the Almighty. The definition of natural born Citizen is super-constitutional committed to human law in our Constitution.

            Vattel was not a nobody. His book was referenced in America and in European countries.

            The following letter from Benjamin Franklin to Charles Dumas, publicist of a French edition in the Netherlands of Emer de Vattel’s The Law of Nations, after receiving three copies from him. The letter shows that the French edition was widely read among members of Congress before The Declaration of Independence was written and 12 years before the formation of the Constitution.

            The National Archives and Records Administration. Franklin Papers

            From Benjamin Franklin to Charles-Guillaume-Frédéric Dumas, 9 December 1775

            “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the college of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”

            Multiple members of Congress had read and referenced Vattel.

            An English version of Vattel’s The Law of Nations was avaliable before the Founding of The United States as seen below.

            Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts. Volume 20. Transactions 1917-1919. Published 1920. Page 5.

            “The Library Company of Philadelphia [which served members of Congress] likewise possessed in colonial days a copy of the English translation [of Vattel’s The Law of Nations] of 1760.”

            It should be noted here that page 5 references Vattel as “a master of Law between Nations.”

            On page 9 of the same publication shows that Vattel’s The Law of Nations had a great influence on the members of both Continental Congresses and was a reference for parts of our Constitution.

            “That copy of Vattel, in conjunction with the one in Philadelphia, has an especial interest for the students of International Law. For those three books, which arrived here in the early stages of the struggle between the colonies and the mother land, not merely influenced the men who sat in the Continental Congresses in shaping our policy towards Great Britain, but also undoubtedly influenced the framers of the Federal Constitution in the writing of parts of that state document. By the Constitution of the United States the Law of Nations is expressly recognized as being a part of the Law of the land.” bit.ly/1oHs1MO

          • Jonathon Moseley says:

            Vattel had absolutely no influence over the Constitutional Convention, and even if it did Vattel’s book on MONARCHIES and aristocracy would still be irrelevant.

            Have you read Vattel? I did.

            Vattel says that the same man can be the “prince” of multiple countries at the same time.

            How does Vattel help your cause when according to Vattel, Ted Cruz could be President of Canada, President of a liberated Cuba, and President of the United States — all at the same time?

            That’s what Vattel says. You (your movement) doesn’t even know what Vattel says. TRY READING VATTEL. It (Vattel’s book on monarchies) does not even say what you think it says.

            However, you have to move out of the world of FANTASIES and into the world of FACT.

            In your fantasy world, Vattel matters.

            In the REAL world, there is no connection between Vattel or your theories and the real world of the actual U.S. Constitution.

            Got that?

            You do not have any link between your theories and the U.S. Constitution.

            First, the book we KNOW had great influence over the Founding Fathers and the Constitutional Convention is THE BIBLE.

            Under the Bible — which we know dominated the thinking of our Founding Fathers — Israelites born in foreign countries were still Israelites.

            Children born in Egypt to Israelite parents were Israelites, not Egyptians.

            Children born in Babylon to Israelite parents were Israelites, not Babylonians.

            Children born in Assyria to Israelite parents were Israelites, not Assyrians.

            Children born in Rome to Israelite parents were Israelites, not Romans.

            So the dominant influence that we KNOW for sure — the Bible — indicates that the Founding Fathers understood that a child born on foreign territory, away from the parents’ home, is a citizen of the parents’ country of citizenship.

            Second, you (your movement) is greatly in error because you fail to understand American history.

            Our Founding Fathers read

            E V E R Y T H I N G

            about world history, government, politics, political theory, etc.

            The Founding Fathers had a copy of EVERYTHING in this area.

            So extensive was Thomas Jefferson’s personal library that when he donated it, he created the University of Virginia at Charlottesville overnight — just from his own personal library.

            Since you don’t know American history, at all, you think that just because someone had a copy of a book that means something. The Founding Fathers had copies of EVERY BOOK of the remotest relevance.

            There was no TV. There were no movies. The Founding Fathers were far more educated than anyone today.

            They read EVERYTHING, voraciously.

            So if you say they read 1 book, that ignores the fact that they read 1000 books, and 1 book has no significance just because they read it.

          • Jonathon Moseley says:

            And why are you debating this when you have already lost the controversy in court?

            The courts have already ruled.

            You (collectively) are WRONG.

            What is the point of this futile argument?

            The courts don’t agree with you.

            Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.

            Period. End. Case Closed.

          • Jonathon Moseley says:

            “Yes, the definition of natural born Citizen is super-constitutional or from natural law because people are born in a super-constitutional state.”

            And what is your proof for this fantasy?

            That’s ridiculous. “People are born in a super-constitutional state?”

            I realize that this is the falsehood that drives this movement. I recognize that there is a movement that does not know what “common law” means but has built a political religion around it. I realize that this false movement about “natural law” touches on issues from you don’t need a driver’s license, to the courts don’t have jurisdiction over you, to every imaginable silliness.

            Natural born citizenship is only one aspect of this cult.

            And you write: “The Declaration of Independence recognizes this fact in, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It goes on to say, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Governments are not God the Almighty. The definition of natural born Citizen is super-
            constitutional committed to human law in our Constitution.”

            And what does that have to do with being a natural born citizen?

            Your group is very good at humming “God bless America” but providing absolutely no logic or link to the question at hand.

            The Constitution clearly gives the power to Congress to define and control citizenship and immigration.

            Case closed.

            When the people created the government, Congress was and is empowered to define citizenship.

            And the Founding Fathers agreed with that. In 1790, they passed a law defining natural born citizenship.

            Those who wrote the Constitution believed they had the right to define natural born citizenship.

          • Jonathon Moseley says:

            Finally, there is no such thing as “natural law” in the way you imagine.

            Natural law is PHILOSOPHY — not law.

            Natural law is an ink-blot test. It is in the eye of the beholder.

            Twenty people can look at natural law and all have 20 different interpretations.

            There is no natural law. It is an appeal to philosophy, not law.

            There is no authority defining natural law or enforcing it.

            Natural law is only an appeal to common sense and human decency.

            Talk about natural law seeks to present it as some precise set of legal rules. There is no such thing.

          • Alexander Reagan says:

            I have shown you historical facts that the Founding Fathers knew and read Vattel. I did not say they used him in every instance. I am only referring to their use of his work regarding the definition of natural born Citizen. I do not deny our Founding Fathers predominantly, directly and indirectly, used was The Bible as an influence during the founding era.

            Again you fail to value the historical facts I have shown you when you say that there is no connection between Vattel and The Constitution. The Founding Fathers are that connection as they read Vattel.

            There is no proof that the Founding Fathers used The Biblical Israelites to determine what a natural born Citizen is. On the contrary, it was their fear of foreign influence that they restricted any future president and Commander-in-Chief, excluding those who went from being subjects to the English king before July 4, 1776, and being American citizens afterward.

            It was a letter dated 25 July 1787 from John Jay to convention president, George Washington, mentioning the need to include “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution. This was to prevent men with foreign loyalties from holding the positions of president, and Commander-in-Chief. Washington dutifully gave the letter to the convention’s Committee of Eleven who approved it. It was then was voted to be included in the Constitution.

            John Jay’s letter reads in part: Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen. 1.usa.gov/23jmgYH

            A question arises: Where did John Jay get the term “natural born Citizen” from? The answer come from these historical documents:

            A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875

            Journals of the Continental Congress , Volume 29

            Page 886 Journals of Congress

            FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1785.

            Congress assembled. Present, as before.1

            Office For Foreign Affairs,
            24th. November, 1785.

            Sir: Mr. Temple presented to me this Morning the Commission which I have now the Honor of transmitting to your Excellency, herewith enclosed. It appoints him Consul General of his brittanic Majesty throughout the United States of America.

            Two questions arise on this Occasion–

            (1.) Whether he is to be received de Jure.
            (2.) Whether it will be expedient to receive him de Gratia.

            [Note] 1. This report, signed by Samuel Osgood and Waiter Livingston, is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 138, II, folio 177. The endorsement states that it was read this day and passed September 5, 1786. Morris’ memorial is in No. 41, IX, folio 343.

            November, 1785

            Page 887

            The first Question is settled by Vattel in the following Paragraph, vizt–.

            “Among the modern Institutions for the utility of Commerce, one of the most useful is that of Consuls, or Persons residing in the large trading Cities, and especially in foreign Sea Forts; with a Commission empowering them to attend to the Rights and Priveleges of their Nation, and to terminate Misunderstandings, and Contests, among its Merchants. When a Nation trades largely with a Country, it is requisite to have there a Person charged with such a Commission, and as the State which allows of this Commerce, must naturally favor it; so for the same Reason, it is likewise to admit a Consul. But there being no absolute and perfect Obligation to this, the Nation disposed to have a Consul, must procure itself this Right by the very Treaty of Commerce.”

            The second Question appears to me to be an important one, for that however Determined, interesting Consequences will result from its Decision. In considering it, a secondary Question presents itself, wish. vizt. Whether the Rejection or Reception of this Consul will most dispose his Nation to the Terms of Commercial Intercourse which we To this Point the Fable of the North Wind and Sun seems applicable.

            It appears to me that the Admission of a Consul here, is not a matter of so much Importance to Britain, as to induce that Nation to purchase or obtain it, by any Compliances which they would not otherwise make. Severity or Summum Jus on small Points may irritate, but they very seldom coerce. Retaliatory Restrictions on Trade and Navigation, are great Objects, and very consistant with the Pride and Dignity as well as Interest of a Nation–but under such Ideas, to refuse to receive a Consul, would (whatever might be the true Motives), be generally ascribed to a Degree of Pique and Irittation, which though Nations may feel they ought not expressly or impliedly to declare.

            In my Opinion therefore this Consul should be received, but in such a Manner as to be, and to appear, a Matter of Favor, and not as a Matter of Course.

            I have the Honor to be etc.

            John Jay.1

            His Excellency
            The Presid.t. Of Congress.

            [Note] 1 This letter is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 80, II, folio 61. According to endorsement it was read this day and referred back, with Temple’s commission, to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to report, which he did, November 30.

            By reading the first line of page 887, we see Jay’s report to Congress and from it we know that before November 25, 1785 Jay had read Vattel which was available to him in French and English. This was nearly two years before his letter to George Washington speaking about the importance of inserting “natural born Citizen” into the requirements for being U.S. president and Commander-in -Chief in the Constitution.

            Ted Cruz Watch bit.ly/1SCYw72

          • Jon Moseley says:

            YOU WROTE: “It was a letter dated 25 July 1787 from John Jay to convention president, George Washington, mentioning the need to include “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution.”

            And where in that letter does John Jay provide or even hint at a DEFINITION of “natural born citizen?”

            Do you see the brain damage and pretzel logic?

            John Jay recommends that a further restriction be added to the qualification for President.

            And how does that shed any light on the question of who is a natural born citizen?

            It does not.

            John Jay’s letter is so thoroughly and completely devoid of any definition or hint about who is a natural born citizen as to make any reference to John Jay’s letter completely ridiculous.

            The fact that John Jay expresses a DESIRE to encourage loyalty to the country…

            …. what does that have to do with anything?

            Furthermore, private letters are not part of our Constitution.


            The actual constitution says that a President need only live 14 out of his 35 minimum years in the United States.

            DO YOU GET THAT?

            At age 35, the minimum to be President, a person can qualify as President having lived 35 – 14 = 21 years or SIXTY PERCENT(60%) in a foreign country.

            If a candidate is 50 years old, he could have lived 50 – 14 = 36 years or SEVENTY-TWO PERCENT (72%) of his life in a foreign country.

            So how do you find the imaginations, shadows, and penumbras from John Jay’s letter reflected in the actual Constitution?

            The Constitution would allow a 50 year old candidate to have lived 72% of his life (36 years) in a foreign country but only 14 years required in the United States?

          • Jon Moseley says:

            There is absolutely no connection between the Constitution and Vattel. NO one in Europe takes Vattel seriously. He was a private individual with no official status writing a private book.

            What you and your merry band fail to grasp is that our Founding Fathers read


            They read Plato, Socrates, the Roman historians,

            E V E R Y T H I N G.

            The fact that they read one book or author means absolutely

            N O T H I N G

            in arguing that in one particular point they must have followed Author X.

            Again, there is massive evidence that every aspect of our government, Declaration of Independence, and Constitution is founded upon Biblical literacy.

            The very idea of separation of powers is Biblical, and comes from no other place.

            So the one influence we KNOW influenced the founders is the Biblical example.

            You cite a letter FROM the “Office of Foreign Affairs” at that time TO the Congress.

            Not FROM Congress.

            TO Congress.

            And the author tries to resolve a question and finds one particular author to be a useful idea for resolving the question.

            What does that have to do with ASSUMING (you know when you assume you make an ass out of u and me)

            The “missing link” is that just because someone wrote a pamphlet distributed in New York City saying “a natural born citizen is a little green man from another galaxy” how does that govern the Constitution?

            Answer: It does not.

            Only the Congressional definition of “natural born citizen” counts. Nothing else counts.

          • Jon Moseley says:

            What your merry band is arguing is this:

            John Jay thought it would be good to try to find Presidents who are loyal to the country.

            MY WAY is best — in my opinion — for achieving that goal.

            Therefore MY PERSONAL OPINION must be what the Constitution means.

            MY WAY is the best way, therefore it must be the only way.

          • Jon Moseley says:

            Your arguments are like saying

            “The magna carta was important”

            THEREFORE natural born citizen means whatever I (you) claim it means.

            The sun is important to life on Earth. THEREFORE, natural born citizen means what I say.

          • renee nal says:


          • Jon Moseley says:

            You (y’all) are arguing that because the founders wanted a good choice for president, therefore “my” (your) definition of natural born citizen must be the right one.

            There is no relationship between one and the other.

            You (y’all) continually argue what you WANT to be true and then make a gigantic continent wide leap from that to YOUR definition of natural born citizen must be the right one.

            This kind of pretzel logic is more disturbing than the wrong idea in the main topic.

  • Shery Hancock says:

    THANK YOU! I was a reader at Freerepublic.com for years until recently I quit reading there. Sundance took over, posted several articles every day. If you tried to rebut him, you were treated with venom, and he personally was obnoxious to me. I called him out, and Jim Robinson at FR for allowing hime to post such stuff and be so vitriolic, but I ended up leaving and they kept on posting al the garbage. I even called out Sundance saying that since the rest of the stuff was false about Cruz that maybe it was his Christianity that upset him, then he posted that he was some extremist cult group.

    There are other sites that these people have gotten to and they are vicious in their attacks on Cruz fans, especially. I emailed this link to a couple friends who’ve heard all the rest of the stuff and are trying to figure things out. This was a great article!

  • fb274 says:

    Sen. Cruz was recruited to the NRSC specifically as a Conservative Outreach supporter for securing Conservative Donors. After the Mississippi debacle he indicated he would no longer actively work to secure Conservative donations.

  • David Buzulak says:

    The John Birch / New American article is still up and not deleted:


    Just thought you’d like to know.

  • John Miranda says:

    “When thinking of Ted Cruz I am reminded of the little boy who cried ‘Wolf!’

    He has now started a pathetic campaign to try and label as liars those who are putting out facts about him, his wife and their associations and connections.

    That ‘The Marshall Report’ would be among those targeted is beyond ludicrous.

    Facts are facts Ted, regardless of how much you might wish they were kept hidden and out of the public domain.”

    John Miranda

    • renee nal says:

      Thanks for you comment, John. Please point out the mistake I made – specifically – and I will make the update. After all, I am sure that you want to set the record straight 🙂

      • dotherightthing says:

        The portion regarding Donald Trump’s mother being from Scotland is accurate and has nothing to do with disqualifying him. She emigrated to this country, became an American citizen, married Donald Trump’s father and a few years later Donald J. Trump was born…therefore he was born to TWO U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. Do not obfuscate the issue.

        Rafael Cruz was Cuban but had become a Canadian citizen in 1968. The Canadian citizenship act of 1947 prohibited dual citizenship. This was in effect until 1977 therefore when Ted Cruz was born 12/22/1970–his parents would have been ask to choose–Canadian or American. Since we all know he possessed a Canadian citizenship which he renounced in May, 2014 (after saying he did not know he had it–funny how the most brilliant Harvard law professor did not know he had a Canadian citizenship)—pray tell how and when did he get the American citizenship?

        Heidi Cruz served on the CFR for 5 years—In the last bio you will see it clearly states she is a TERM member of the CFR

        Check the 3rd name down:


        Heid Cruz and her approved bio from Claremont Mckenna College


        Cruz, who graduated Phi Beta Kappa with a B.A. in economics and international relations from CMC in 1994, is a managing director in the Private Wealth Management Group at Goldman Sachs, Texas. She and her two partners work with clients to implement high net worth portfolios across a range of investments and asset classes, including complex derivatives products, private equity, hedge funds, single stock risk management, U.S. and international equities, and fixed income.

        Ms. Cruz began her career as an investment banker with JPMorgan in New York, focusing on international structured finance and subsequently on Latin America mergers and acquisitions.

        In 2000, she served on the Bush 2000 Campaign in Austin as one of President George W. Bush’s three economic advisors. She also served in the Administration as the economic director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council at the White House, advising the President and then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. She also is a former director at the U.S. Treasury Department and was special policy assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, then Chief U.S. international trade negotiator.

        In addition to her private-sector work, Heidi served on the Board of Directors of Living Water International, dedicated to providing clean water and sanitation equipment in the developing world. Her publications include the book chapter, “Expanding Opportunity Through Free Trade,” in Thank You, President Bush; a chapter in Exchange Rate Policies for Emerging Market Economies; and a Harvard Case Study: “American International Group.” She also is a Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

        After graduating from CMC, Ms. Cruz received an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School, and a master’s of European Business from Universite Libre de Bruxelles in Brussels, Belgium.

        Not exactly your typical working mom.

        • Jonathon Moseley says:

          First, the courts have already ruled. So stop spreading lies. Five courts have already denied challenges to Ted Cruz being eligible to be President. Pennsylvania went into great detail on why Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.

          Second, Canadian law is completely irrelevant. This is part of the circus nonsense. It doesn’t matter what Canadian law says. It has absolutely no effect whatsoever on anything.

          If Mexico passed a law tomorrow saying that everyone born in former Mexican land (Texas, California, New Mexico, Arizona) is automatically a Mexican citizen, would that change anything for the US citizens born in those States? Of course not. We don’t give a fig what some other country says.

          • dotherightthing says:

            Not a lie–nearly every case was dismissed without ruling. Judges (due to cowardice_ dismissed based on “wrong court”–“no standing”–“procedural grounds”–

            The Founders NEVER intended for a dual citizen to become President (if he was a Dual citizen)—The King of Jordan has an American wife and two sons. Are you “okay” with them coming to American, living her 14 years and after the age of 35 becoming President?

            We see what having a “dual citizen” currently occupying the WH has done to this country.

            He was also dishonest when running for the U.S. Senate—as a Texan, he never disclosed this to the people of Texas. He is a smarmy little man and you Cruz cultists are too mesmerized by him to see the truth. Kinda like the Jim Jones followers—drink the Koolaid children.

          • Jonathon Moseley says:

            “Not a lie–nearly every case was dismissed without ruling”

            The Pennsylvania judge DID rule on the merits and declared that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.

            However, as to the others, we KNEW that was going to happen ahead of time, because hundreds of lawsuits were thrown out about Barack Obama, and John McCain.

            So everyone knew that there is ZERO chance that any court is going to agree with the froth on this topic.

            Furthermore, the reasons that the courts won’t get involved make clear that they are NEVER going to accept any lawsuit on this topic.

            So when you know going in that Ted Cruz is eligible and you are never going to get a court to agree with you otherwise, Donald Trump LIED.

            And he knew he was lying, because he was involved in the issue when hundreds of lawsuits were all thrown out in 2008 and 2012.


            The Founders NEVER intended for a dual citizen to become President (if he was a Dual citizen)—

            That is only your opinion. In fact, it is highly improbable that the Founders intended that, because nearly everyone in the early country could claim citizenship in Great Britain in addition to citizenship in the United States.

            You are expressing your opinion. But there is nothing to establish that your opinion has any role or place in the Constitution or interpretation of the Constitution.

            It’s only your opinion.

            But the biggest error is that you do not understand what dual citizenship means.

            Under US law, Ted Cruz was a natural born citizen of the United States from the moment of birth.

            UNDER THE LAWS OF SOME OTHER COUNTRY — which we don’t give a fig about — the other country may view a child as eligible to be a citizen of their country.

            So from the perspective of different country’s laws, each country analyzes the situation differently according to its own laws.

            So we in the USA don’t give a fig what Canadian law says about the issue.

            Ted Cruz’s eligibility is governed ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY by analysis under US law of the US Constitution.

            If 20 other countries declare Donald Trump to be eligible for citizenship in those countries, it changes absolutely nothing about his status as a US citizen.

            And that is not far-fetched. Many countries grant citizenship to major investors. Seriously. It’s an E-1 or E-2 visa under U.S. law.

            So Donald Trump has invested so much money in his resort in Dubai that Trump is eligible for citizenship in Dubai.

            Do we care here in the USA? No, we don’t. The fact that Trump COULD apply for Dubai citizenship (UAE) does not affect in any way his US citizenship.


            The King of Jordan has an American wife and two sons. Are you “okay” with them coming to American, living her 14 years and after the age of 35 becoming President?

            Well, it doesn’t matter if I am okay with it or not.

            You are imposing your DESIRE in place of the Constitution, the way leftists do.

            It matters what the Constitution SAYS, not what you WANT it to say.

            I actually went to school with the King of Jordan at Eaglebrook Academy. I would trust him to represent the best interest of the United States more than I would trust Donald Trump to do what is the United States’ best interests (rather than what is in Donald Trump’s own personal interests).

    • Henry Byler says:

      I am an avid reader and have read a lot of the things this article covers. Thanks for the article, you documented things I instinctively knew. When I read many of these disparaging articles about Cruz, I came to know it was a concerted effort to try and defeat Cruz.
      One of the reasons I knew this, as I said, I read a lot and in the past have read on the issues Cruz stands for, so when these things started appearing everywhere, it was easy to figure, it is a big smear campaign.
      When I read about the home schooling thing and that Mike Lee was also a sponsor, I knew what I was reading was misleading, or even downright lies. On social media, some of my friends expressed concern over this and I told them it could not be true, because, we know by history where these 2 men stood.
      John Miranda, you should be ashamed of yourself. It is one thing to be misinformed and help spread inaccuracies, it is another to purposely misinform and lie about another man.
      I also wonder who is behind some of these sites and writers. I have this suspicion that we might be witness to a whole new way of waging a “ground game” as far as elections go.

  • Albert W. L. Moore, Jr. says:

    Cruz is not constitutionally eligible to the Office of President.

    If Cruz can not be President under the Constitution, it’s silly to debate what he would do as President. His eligibility is the first issue.

    Ted Cruz is not constitutionally eligible to the Office of President, because he is not a natural born citizen of the United States.

    A natural born citizen of the United States is one born in the United States to parents, both of whom are citizens of the United States, whether natural born, native born or naturalized, at the time of the birth. So Cruz is ineligible on two counts, because (1) he was not born in the United States and (2) one of his parents was not yet a citizen of the United States at the time of Ted’s birth. Perhaps I should mention, having read Professor Elhauge’s opinion, that neither of Ted’s parents was at the time of birth in the service of the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. See the opinion of Harvard Law Professor Einer Elhauge at http://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/7/71/1265855/opinion-cruz-,really-natural-born-american [Sic, the actual title says “Cruz really not ‘natural-born citizen’.”] See also the works of Mario Apuzzo, which I think he will be glad to share on request; his email address is apuzzo@erols.com.

    I don’t mention that his mother might have become a naturalized Canadian citizen, because I’ve seen no indication that she relinquished her U.S. citizenship before she gave birth to him, so on the assumed facts it’s irrelevant to his presidential eligibility.

    Marco Rubio, also, is not a natural born citizen, because his parents were not citizens of the United States when he was born in Florida.

    Had Ted Cruz been born in the United States, he would not be a natural born citizen, because one of his parents was not a citizen of the United States at the time of Ted’s birth.

    Mitt Romney’s eligibility is questionable because his father’s American citizenship is questionable on highly technical grounds. Come to think of it, Ted’s claim to American citizenship might have similar flaws. Did Ted’s parents register the Canadian birth with the United States embassy or an American consulate in Canada? This might be a requirement imposed to facilitate proof of the child’s citizenship status, rather than an element of citizenship, and could perhaps be cured by filing now, nunc pro tunc. But it would not help prove that he is a natural born citizen; it would help prove that he is not.

    Reverting to the matter of the citizenship of the mother of Ted Cruz, I note that foreign naturalization, per the State Department, can potentially lead to loss of American citizenship. It did so in the case of the pretender. If Ted’s mother effectively renounced or relinquished American citizenship in favor of Canadian citizenship before giving birth to Ted Cruz, then he is not even a citizen of the United States and is not a Senator. The naturalization acts only naturalize the children born abroad of citizens of the United States. Only extensive official investigation can tell whether Ted’s mother ceased to be a United States citizen before Ted’s birth, thus rendering him constitutionally ineligible to the Senate.

    This tends to confirm my long-standing and outspoken suspicion that the Republican leadership accepted as true the lie that the pretender was a natural-born citizen because it wanted to run some Republicans who were not, and hoped the Democrats would accept their ineligibility because the once great and principled Republican Party had accepted the pretender’s ineligibility.

    Ironically, competent official investigation, which I’ve urged in vain for over seven years, would prove that the current pretender to the Office of President was a natural born citizen at birth, born in Hawai’i to two citizen parents. He was adopted by an alien black and a Caucasian American woman, and claims them as his birth parents to perpetrate the fraud that he is half Negro. But the status of natural born citizen can be lost by the loss of American citizenship.

    And even more ironically, the pretender lost the status of natural born citizen when, having come of age, he relinquished American citizenship in favor of his underlying naturalized Indonesian citizenship. He can’t be a natural born citizen when he is no longer a citizen at all.

    The pretender’s American naturalization in 1983 did not cure this defect. Not even if it restored his American citizenship. (And it might not have, if he perjured himself in his oath of citizenship.) It confirmed that the pretender had previously relinquished his United States citizenship (to study as a foreign student) and wanted to restore it (so that he could be a lawyer and public official, and lay the United States open to subjugation). The status of natural born citizen can only be acquired at birth. Once lost, it can not be restored by American naturalization. A naturalized citizen is not a natural born citizen. The pretender’s natural born status at birth and his loss of it are discussed extensively in the intelligence assessment American Holocaust: Communist Subjugation of America.

    Too many people conflate citizenship at birth with natural born citizenship. But native born is not natural born, fools to the contrary notwithstanding.

    The 1790 statute purporting to recognize the foreign born as natural born could have been a scrivener’s error. Writing in longhand, the scrivener meant to write “native” and wrote “natural” instead. Scrivener’s error is recognized in the law. It can support a cause of action for rescission or reformation of legal instruments. How many of us have written “June” for “July” when filling out a check? When writing this article, did Tom McKay mean “fifth columnist” when he wrote “third columnist”? It has been established as a strong scientific probability that Thomas Jefferson himself, in writing a major document, wrote “subjects”, erased it, and overwrote “citizens” in referring to Americans.

    Or it could have been that the original drafter of the statute did not realize that “natural born” was a term of art not meaning “native born”. This would be consistent with the use of “considered as”, because the child born abroad would not have been in fact native born. It would also be consistent with scrivener’s error, intending to write “native” and writing “natural” instead.

    Professor Elhauge has pointed out that no less than James Madison moved to correct the error on grounds it could lead to an unconstitutional interpretation:

    Madison himself pointed out that Congress only had constitutional authority to naturalize aliens, not U.S. citizens, and reported a bill that amended the statute to eliminate the words “natural born” and simply state that “the children of citizens of the United States” born abroad “shall be considered as citizens.” This indicates that Madison’s view was that children born abroad of U.S. citizens were naturally aliens, rather than natural born citizens, and thus could be naturalized by Congressional statute but should not be called “natural born.” Congress adopted this amendment in 1795.

    The contrary position [that Cruz is a natural born citizen] also has two difficulties. It defines a “natural-born citizen” to mean anyone who Congress has defined to be a citizen at birth; that is, anyone born a citizen. This effectively reads the word “natural” out of “natural born citizen.” It also means Congress can by statute change the constitutional limit on who can run for president, when the whole point of constitutional limits is typically that Congress cannot change them.
    See http://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/7/71/1265855/opinion-cruz-really-%5Bnot%5D natural-born-american. The posting of the work of others is perfectly legal when duly attributed to them.

    So the former statutory language erroneously relied upon by advocates of the Cruz eligibility was repealed before it was challenged. Had it been challenged, it would have been found unconstitutional to the extent it was interpreted to support the constitutional eligibility of a foreign-born presidential candidate.

    Or its constitutionality might have been saved by construing “natural” in the context as meaning “native”, recognizing that this was probably the original intent. Of course, in the period 1790-1795, it is probable that every presidential candidate relied on being a citizen of the United States when the Constitution came into effect, and did not need to be a natural born citizen. If for example Alexander Hamilton was ever a candidate for President, nobody would have raised the issue of his birth outside the United States with respect to constitutional eligibility, because he was a citizen when the Constitution came into effect. Read the Constitution:

    “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
    See Article II Section 1 of the Constitution.

    In the constitutional convention and for over 200 years thereafter, it was understood that natural born meant birth in the United States to two American citizens. No case turned on it, because it was universally understood. Long after the statutory gaff of the 1790 Naturalization Act had been repealed, America’s Supreme Court gave the rule as an example of a proposition that was beyond question.

    When the Constitution speaks of citizenship, it refers to a citizen. When it defines eligibility to the Office of President, it refers to “natural born” citizen. The quoted words must mean something, or they would not be there.

    The questionable candidacy of Mitt Romney and the clearly anti-constitutional candidacies of Cruz and Rubio tend to confirm my long-standing and outspoken suspicion that the Republican establishment refrained from investigating the current pretender’s eligibility in the hope that the Democrats would refrain from questioning the eligibility of Republican candidates in general and Romney, Cruz and Rubio in particular.

    But Florida congressman Alan Grayson, a Democrat, might challenge the eligibility of Ted Cruz. He should also challenge the eligibility of Marco Rubio. While he’s at it, he should do all he can to cause official investigation of the pretender, not least because the pretender is a Quisling who daily betrays his homeland and plots a master stroke that will cause the death of 90% of America’s populace within the ensuing year. It is incumbent upon Grayson and many others to do these things as their civic, professional and official obligations. They should have the commendation and support of all who believe in a rule of law that enforces well-ordered human liberty, and who wish to prevent the subjugation of the United States.

    • Judy says:

      Excellent on all points!!

    • EdFrOly says:

      Cruz is a natural born citizen! UGH, he had to do nothing, not one thing to gain American citizenship as his mother is an American citizen and his dad was a legal resident in the process of gaining citizenship. Mark Levin is one of the greatest constitutional minds alive today and he has several articles written about how wrong you are.

      • We should remember that 1 book we KNOW influenced the Framers of the US Constitution: THE BIBLE.

        I am not saying that as an applause line or a crowd pleaser or because people will like it.

        I say that because it is an indisputable FACT.

        So birthers want to speculate that the Framers may have read a book — they read MANY books — and therefore 1 book matters.

        But if there is any book we know for certain influenced the Framers it is the Bible. Most Colonia Americans were taught to read by using the Bible.

        So what does the BIBLE say about citizenship?

        The Israelites spent 400 years living in Egypt. Generations were born in Egypt. Did they become Egyptians? NO! They were Israelites, Hebrews.

        It did not matter where they were born, they were born ISRAELITES, no matter where in the world they were born.

        Then the people of Israel were taken captive into Assyria and Babylon. A couple generations were born in those foreign lands. Did they become Assyrians? NO! Did they become Babylonians? NO! They remained and always were ISRAELITES.

        Many of them returned to the land of Israel and were understood to be the rightful owners of that land — even though they were born in other countries.

    • “A natural born citizen of the United States is one born in the United States to parents, both of whom are citizens of the United States, whether natural born, native born or naturalized, at the time of the birth”

      No, it is not. That is a fantasy.

      A natural born citizen is one who is NATURALLY a citizen as a consequence of their birth.

      The alternative is an NON-NATURAL born citizen — one who becomes a citizen NOT by birth, but by a legal procedure of applying, being processed, and being sworn in as a citizen.

      Anyone who is a citizen from the moment of birth is a natural born citizen.

      Everything else is FICTION.

    • “But Florida congressman Alan Grayson, a Democrat, might challenge the eligibility of Ted Cruz”

      WHO CARES? He will lose.

      Hundreds of lawsuits were filed — and all thrown out — concerning Obama being eligible to be President.

      You don’t know that? These are precedents now.

      Hundreds of lawsuits were all rejected by the courts.

    • “In the constitutional convention and for over 200 years thereafter, it was understood that natural born meant birth in the United States to two American citizens”

      No, it was not. That is another complete fantasy.

      In 1790, the same people who wrote the Constitution passed a law making people born overseas natural born citizens.

    • “Too many people conflate citizenship at birth with natural born citizenship.”

      That is because they are exactly the same thing. There is no difference whatsoever.

      The idea that there is a difference is a complete fantasy for which there is no justification whatsoever.

    • dotherightthing says:

      Perfect summation.

      I was going to post this to Jonathon Moseley who seems to think everything is kosher with Cruz. It is lifted directly from the Naturalization Act of 1795 which rescinded the Act of 1790 and removed the words “Natural Born” when James Madison realized the error in the first Naturalization Act.

      • dotherightthing says:

        SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

      • Jonathon Moseley says:

        But the courts have already ruled that your theories are wrong. What kind of person insists that something is true in the face of all contrary evidence?

    • Jonathon Moseley says:

      “But Florida congressman Alan Grayson, a Democrat, might challenge the eligibility of Ted Cruz. He should also challenge the eligibility of Marco Rubio”

      No, he cannot.

      First, a Florida judge has already rejected the same lawsuit, filed against BOTH Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

      So there is already precedent in Florida. It has already been decided. End of the line.

      Second, Alan Grayson does not have “standing” to bring a lawsuit. Donald Trump does not have standing.

      Even Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, as the Democrat nominee will not have standing.

      Alan Keyes already tried that against Obama. Alan Keyes was a candidate for President on a third party ticket on the same ballot on the same election day as Barack Obama. He had some very powerful lawyers on the job from big conservative groups. They did it “right.” The lawsuit was dismissed for lack of standing.

      So no one will have standing to bring such a lawsuit.

      And the killer, final reason? The courts say if you don’t like candidate A, just don’t vote for him. You are not injured. If you don’t think he’s qualified, then vote for someone else.

      That’s why ultimately no one has standing.

  • Jeremy Denning says:

    Thanks Renee. I appreciate how you are standing for the truth. Keep up the good work.

  • S. Hancock says:

    I have Christian friends who will not vote for Cruz because they say that you cannot trust ANYONE who claims to be one and they voted for Jimmy Carter and look how that turned out. Their speech was so scorching I was almost in tears, or I would’ve told them…you only had to look at Carter’s policies to judge what kind of Christian he was/is. There was no use arguing. But, I was upset.

    • “I have Christian friends who will not vote for Cruz because they say that you cannot trust ANYONE who claims to be one”

      Translation: They are not Christians. They might say they are, but they aren’t.

      (NOT because of whom they support in an election, but because they obviously have no clue what it means to be a Christian.)

      • Daniel Brubaker says:

        Or, to paraphrase those Christian friends:

        “If a candidate is a Christian, he (or she) had better not ever EVER say so … or else he (or she) will not get my vote! … Because someone in my past experience once said they are a Christian and let me down, so therefore I know that any future candidate saying they are a Christian will do exactly the same thing.”

        And Jon, you are correct that those people saying that are not (and I would tweak in this way) mature Christians, because Jesus himself told those who follow him to be overt open about the fact. A visible witness to the world is part of what it means to follow Jesus.

        Of course, actually following him (not just saying so) is another part of what it means to follow him!

        Which is more to the point of those folks’ real concerns about politicians who tell the world they are Christians and then support Marxism, or oppression of the weak, or unequal application of justice, etc. It does not mean those politicians are not Christians, but it does do a great deal of damage.

        The main point being: Look at a candidate’s policy record. Look at their character. Every candidate (at least every Republican candidate, and a good many Democrat ones too) CLAIMS to be a Christian in much the same way as every Republican candidate CLAIMS to be conservative. But some are, and some aren’t. And of those who are, some are more committed and mature, and well-grounded in their principles and their faith than others.

        So it is simplistic and a bit foolish to refuse to vote for someone because they claim to be a Christian. People CAN base their voting decision on whatever they wish. Like the many, many people who cast their votes for Barack Obama because of the color of his skin with no concern whatsoever for his political philosophy or his very concerning track record. Or those many people who will vote for Hillary Clinton (should she get the nomination) simply because “it’s time for a woman in the White House,” with no concern whatsoever for her character or her track record or her political philosophy.

        A well-educated populace, and a moral people would not, by and large, act in such a superficial way. These two characteristics of a citizenry are so incredibly crucial to the healthy functioning and preservation of the American republic. And as we know it is for this very reason these two supports have been so directly and steadily attacked by those who wish to destroy the American republic and subjugate the American people.

        • Jonathon Moseley says:

          These many millions of so-called Christians are not seeking or honoring God. They are looking for praise from men. They want approval in public opinion, not the approval of God.

          So they call themselves Christians to the extent that makes them sound good.

          But they reject any aspect of God or Christianity that might risk popularity in society.

  • Axe says:

    It’s really nice to have a comprehensive outline in one place.

  • Michael Mercier says:

    Thank you for all your research.

  • John Miranda says:

    Truth does not fear investigation. The Marshall Report has always been based upon facts and truth. Zero slander, zero profanity, 100% factual. For those with any doubt I suggest you read the Marshall Report instead of listening to someone denounce it because of an obvious agenda. Truth does not fear investigation.

    John Miranda

  • renee nal says:

    This is from your article:

    “Can any of them explain to me what exactly sustainable development for the 21st century new world order is all about, if it is not what they say it is about on the United Nations website? Can any explain to me why the Council on Foreign Relations determined in 2014 that the president to be elected must have North American Union goals? Instead of smacking the little known guys, why don’t you do an article debunking the United Nations goals for sustainable development and debunk the Council on Foreign Relations stance on what is needed in the next president and their goals for MADE IN NORTH AMERICA. Didn’t you see the links and PDF report in my “little known” liar blog?”

    The answers to your questions are actually in the article above.

    You ask, “Can any of them explain to me what exactly sustainable development for the 21st century new world order is all about, if it is not what they say it is about on the United Nations website?”

    “Sustainable development” is a euphemistic term for Agenda 21. As reported above, Ted Cruz referred to Agenda 21 as a “globalist plan that tries to subvert the U.S. Constitution and the liberties we all cherish as Americans.”

    You ask: “Can any explain to me why the Council on Foreign Relations determined in 2014 that the president to be elected must have North American Union goals?”

    They ultimately want global governance. Ted Cruz actually explains in a video above that CFR wishes to undermine American sovereignty.

    Ted Cruz is not the enemy. Neither is Trump, by the way. I just wish we could get together and put our energy on defeating the socialists who have taken over the Democratic party.

  • renee nal says:

    “Zero slander, zero profanity, 100% factual.”

    This is literally the first paragraph I saw when I clicked on the ‘Cruz is going to dominate all homeschoolers’ article:

    “Now that we are aware of how Rafael Cruz always announces his seedy hidden agenda programs as though they each were the staff of life….we know how to read between the lines. But in his case we now know to always check the amendments he tags on to the end at the last minute.”

  • Henry Byler says:

    John Miranda, I happened onto the Marshall report where I read this stuff and immediately knew it was slander, not factual and said so to some friends of mine who also came across it and asked questions. They don’t read as much as I do and so don’t keep up with all the stuff that is floating out there.
    For some people, the words, “moral character” don’t have much meaning, but for some, that is how we judge others, not by who they are loyal to, or anything we can see, but we watch a person for a long time and after a while we know what that person is all about.
    When we find a person who has that moral character and he shows it time after time, year after year, then, it takes a lot more than words on paper to convince that a person has gone against what he has shown in the past.
    I would like to think I have a little of that, writing this as an example of what I mean by moral character. Some years ago a person approached me and accused me of being the one who stole something from his home, because he felt that it was my car that was seen parked by his home on that day. So happened that there were other people (several) who were there at the time I was being accused. Of course, I denied that I was the guilty one and the people who were there who had known me for some time came to my defense so vehemently that the person apologized to me for accusing me.
    Those of us who have followed Ted Cruz know this about him. He has character, he has always in the past come down on the correct side of issues, even when it meant he had to stand alone. Even when most of the “elite” hated him for it.

  • Jonathon Moseley says:

    “The Marshall Report has always been based upon facts and truth.”

    That is a complete laugh. The Marshall Report does not have a shred of truth on it anywhere. It is just propaganda.

    The Marshall Report is on the level of the Weekly World news at the supermarket check out

  • BillWhittleFan89 says:

    Good stuff, renee nal. Glad to see people like yourself standing up to the endless supply of zealots and alinskyites that have polluted this election cycle. Unfortunately, I fear this sundance fellow’s interest do not lie with the truth and that he will continue to keep posting his propaganda regardless of whether anyone presents him with the actual facts. As such, I hope you keep doing what you’re doing and exposing him and similar malcontents whenever the opportunity arises.

  • renee nal says:

    Much appreciated Bill – and you are sadly correct! Here is the latest:

    More LIES: Viral video slamming Ted Cruz is a big fat fake


  • renee nal says:

    Amen. Great comment, Henry.

11 Pingbacks »

Leave a comment!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.