No, Ted Cruz did not blame Donald Trump for #BrusselsAttacks

trump cruz battle

In the wake of the horrific Islamic terror attack in Brussels, Belgium that claimed the lives of 30 people, Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz made the point that now is not the time to abandon NATO, despite comments to that effect made by Donald Trump reported just yesterday.

Brussels is where NATO is headquartered, and is also significant for being the capital of the European Union. Without NATO, Europe will be left virtually defenseless against Russian military aggression. 

The Washington Post delved into Donald Trump’s “unabashedly noninterventionist” foreign policy strategy yesterday. Trump questioned the wisdom of U.S. involvement in NATO, which he said “may need to be significantly diminished in the coming years, breaking with nearly seven decades of consensus in Washington.”

Trump was quoted as saying,

“NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money.”

Not surprisingly, Vladimir Putin also wants NATO to go away.

Just last month, the U.K.-based Telegraph reported that events in Syria pose “a direct threat to European security, combining the dangers of terrorism with the risk of direct conflict between Nato and Russia.”

In the wake of the attacks in Brussels, Ted Cruz said in part:

“Donald Trump is wrong that America should withdraw from the world and abandon our allies. Donald Trump is wrong that American should retreat from Europe, retreat from NATO, hand Putin a major victory and while he’s at it hand ISIS a major victory.”

Trumpsters, of course, took Cruz’s comments as a personal insult to Trump, saying that Cruz “blamed” Trump for the Islamic terror attack in Brussels.

Pro-Putin conspiracy theorists InfoWars posted a video quoting Cruz saying “It is striking that the day after Donald Trump called for weakening NATO, withdrawing from NATO, we see Brussels, where NATO is headquartered, the subject of a radical Islamic terror attack.”

The video left out the rest of Cruz’s quote stating that Trump is “wrong that American should retreat from Europe, retreat from NATO, hand Putin a major victory and while he’s at it hand ISIS a major victory.”


Our friend “sundance” from the Conservative Tree House who has previously promoted demonstrably fake stories about Ted Cruz wrote in an article called “A New Low – Senator Ted Cruz Blames Donald Trump for Brussels Terrorist Attacks (video)…” that Cruz had “the unbelievable audacity to rush to the microphones and blame presidential candidate Donald Trump for the Brussels terrorist attacks earlier today.” Sundance continued desperately:

“Don’t try to obfuscate his words and claim he didn’t, it’s right there in the video.”

Sundance, of course, used Alex Jones’ cherry picked video.

Clash Daily also repeated the lie, declaring that Ted Cruz “blamed Donald Trump instead [of Islamic terrorists]” for the Brussels terror attack.

The lie is being reported as fact all over social media. Perhaps engaged readers can take the time to respond to some of those repeating the lie with this article.



Author: renee nal

Related Articles

27 thoughts on “No, Ted Cruz did not blame Donald Trump for #BrusselsAttacks


    Many Republicans claim to be politically conservative. They say they have principles, too. They say they understand the US Constitution the way it was meant to be understood, that is conservatively.

    This being the case, how do these conservatives then vote for Ted Cruz. From a traditional, principled, conservative point of view, Cruz is not a natural born citizen. This is a fact that principled, conservatives voters must consider when they go to the polls.

    Lawrence Tribe writes, “There’s more than meets the eye in the ongoing dustup over whether Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as president, which under the Constitution comes down to whether he’s a ‘natural born citizen’ despite his 1970 Canadian birth.”

    “Senator Cruz contends his eligibility is ‘settled’ by naturalization laws Congress enacted long ago. But those laws didn’t address, much less resolve, the matter of presidential eligibility, and no Supreme Court decision in the past two centuries has ever done so. In truth, the constitutional definition of a “natural born citizen” is completely unsettled…”

    “…Cruz…wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a ‘natural born’ citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”

    Being born on US soil and having two parents is the most sensible meaning of the natural born citizen clause. Sensible and principled conservatives must know this. What happens to their principles when they vote for Cruz?

    Some who argue that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen may be doing this to support Barack Obama and not call up the ghost of the Birthers. Cindy Simpson writes, “To a certain extent…Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal are eligible. Because as another friend, attorney Monte Kuligowski, explained, the precedent has been set with the election of Barack Obama…If Obama was eligible, those Republicans, too, are eligible.”

    The definition of who is natural born citizen may have been broadened over time to protect Barack Obama and to fend off charges of racism. That may be why no court or judge up to this point has accepted a case or granted standing to anyone who questions Obama’s status.

    And even if the courts ruled against the sensible meaning of natural born citizen, the conservatives I know would oppose a watered down deffinition. The courts ruled in favor of the same-sex marriage nonsense. Conservative know that same-sex marriage was never written in the US Constitution.

    Perhaps the back and forth on what is a natural born citizen may soon change. “There is no way we get through this campaign without Donald Trump suing Ted Cruz.’ That’s a prediction that MSNBC…host Chris Hayes dropped on his guests…Hayes predicted that Trump’s lawsuit would be centered on constitutional eligibility questions…Trump now has cause, he has injury…”
    Beyond that, who among principled conservatives believes that Ted Cruz can run and win against Hillary Clinton? All things being equal, a vote for Cruz will be a vote for Clinton.

    the media and the documents

    Members of the media have been reluctant to investigate in depth the claims of the Birthers or anyone who brings up the topic of natural born citizenship. True, some Birthers have not been seen in a positive light because of their own actions. Nevertheless, members of the media act as if they have been warned to stay away from this subject.

    Consider what Bill O’Reilly did during the Obama birth controversy. At the time of that birth certificate controversy, O’Reilly claimed in a segment with Ann Coulter. “As we mentioned, The Factor debunked the whole Birth Certificate deal more than a year ago. It was easy. The state of Hawaii sent us a copy of the document. End of story.”,css.print/pub_detail.asp#ixzz3STpm4Zqz

    We have to wonder, now, as Andrea Shea King wondered then, how Bill O’Reilly can make the claim that, “The Factor’ investigated…we found that President Obama was born in Hawaii. We sent (for) the documents….”

    The state of Hawaii maintains Obama’s records are off limits. “The following court decision upheld the statute which restricts access to vital records: Justice v. Fuddy–ICA–April 7, 2011 Concurring opinion by J. Leonard.– denial of request to see President Obama’s birth certificate.”

    If Obama’s records are sealed, how could Bill O’Reilly claim, “…we found that President Obama was born in Hawaii. We sent (for) the documents…?”
    the Constitution and the documents

    It’s important to recall there are two issues compacted into one natural born citizen argument. We should unpack those two issues and see how they relate to the Ted Cruz situation.

    The first issue is the meaning of the natural born citizen clause in the US Constitution. The text of the Constitution does not define what is meant by natural born. Furthermore, the text does not specify whether there is any distinction between persons whose citizenship is based on jus sanguinis (parentage) and those whose citizenship is based on jus soli (birthplace).

    The second issue relates to the documents someone shows to prove they are a natural born citizen. In Obama’s case, there is still much dispute about the genuine nature of these documents. Beyond that, some of the documents presented may seem persuasive, but they are not. For example, you cannot present a newspaper article at a State Department office announcing your birth, and use only that to get a US passport.

    It is reasonable, based on the documents we have, to be an agnostic when it comes to the evidence Obama has shown so far to establish he is a natural born citizen. It’s like the evidence for the existence of a supreme being. The evidence can go either way. Many decide one way or the other about who Obama is on faith, not facts.

    Some experts dispute the copy of the president’s so-called PDF document released by the White House. Sheriff Joe Arpaio claims he has evidence that the Obama document is forged. Beyond that document, there are Obama’s sealed college transcripts and his disputed Social Security number.

    “…in a radio interview…Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio affirmed he is ‘pretty well convinced’ President Obama’s birth certificate, as released by the White House in 2011, is a ‘fraudulent, fake document…’”

    Then there is the 2010 case of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin. He doubted Obama’s qualifications to be commander-in-chief. Regardless of the matter in this case, you’d think that a US president would have released at this time all the necessary documents to prove Lt. Col. Lakin was mistaken, instead of letting him face a court martial.

    Even after the Lakin case, there remains the amount of time Obama spent postponing the release of his birth documents. Why did it take until April, 2011 for a copy of the birth documents to be given to the press?

    A few years ago, Breitbart News obtained a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by Barack Obama’s literary agency, Acton & Dystel, which touts Obama as “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.” Does that statement in the booklet disqualify Barack Obama from being a US President?

    The literary agent who wrote the description, Miriam Goderich, now works with Dystel & Goderich agency, which lists Obama as one of its clients. Goderich claimed listing Obama’s birthplace as Kenya was “nothing more than a fact checking error.”

    The bottom line is that this biography was not questioned or edited until well into Barack Obama’s presidency and we are expected to believe that it was just a misunderstanding or mistake of some kind. Yet, they had 21 years to correct it.

    Because of these ambiguous documents, doubt about Obama being a natural born citizen continues. “A New York Times/CBS News poll…showed broad, continued uncertainty about where Obama was born. Fully 45 percent of Republicans and 25 percent of independents in the poll said he was born in another country, with the percentage of Republicans saying that 13 percentage points higher than it was a year ago.”

    the Cruz argument

    The ambiguous nature of the Obama birth documents could help Ted Cruz if he ever has to go to court and defend his status as a natural born citizen. How principled an argument he would make is problamatic.

    As some understand it, Senator Cruz’s belief is that the term natural born citizen means born of a mother who is a US citizen. Birth in a foreign country (in this case Canada) has noting to do with being a natural born citizen. Let’s takes Cruz’s position and see where it leads.

    On the one hand, if natural born citizen only means born of a mother who is a US citizen, no matter where that birth takes place, then imagine this scenario: A woman who is a US citizen goes to Syria, where she marries a native Syrian who is an ISIS commander. She gives birth to a son who is, according to the Cruz position, a natural born US citizen. Forty years later, her son returns to Dearborn, Michigan and is elected to the US Senate. He then runs for president on a platform of imposing Sharia law on the country.

    This scenario is for many an example of what the founders wanted to avoid by writing into the US Constitution the natural born citizen clause. This scenario is what we may end up with if we accept the Cruz argument.

    On the other hand, Cruz also could argue there is some legal and expert testimony for his position. Nevertheless, it may be better to argue that a precedent has already been set. We now have a sitting US president whose only uncontested claim to natural born citizenship is through his mother.

    To support his position Cruz could call into question Obama’s birth documents. Citing the discussion above, Cruz could claim that we know Obama was born of a mother who was a US citizen, but what conclusive proof is there that Obama was born in the United States? (There is the argument that Obama’s mother may not have resided long enough in the US or was old enough to confer citizenship upon him, but that can be set aside for the time being).

    Ted Cruz could attempt to show by expert testimony that the copy of Obama’s birth certificate the White House gave to the press is a forgery. The Birther ghosts will now haunt the court room.

    The argument for Cruz being a natural born citizen would then be very simple. There is no conclusive proof that Obama was born in the USA. We know Cruz wasn’t born in the USA, but in Canada, so Cruz is a natural born citizen only by reason of his mother’s citizenship, just like Obama, whose place of birth remains undocumented. If Obama is a natural born citizen, then so is Cruz.

    If Cruz wins in court with this Birther argument, then he may get two birds with one stone. He’s on the ballot as a candidate for US president as a natural born citizen, and he has shown the public that the White House presented false documents to the voters. In defending his qualifications to run for office, Cruz could turn the Birther controversy into a document controversy and use that to prevail in court.

    Regardless of a court case, principled conservatives must decide if “citizen at birth” and “natural born citizen” mean the same thing. The only principled conclusion is that “citizen at birth” and “natural born citizen” are not the same. It is a stretch of the imagination and a stretch of meaning to claim the these two types of citizenship are so elastic that they extend to cover Ted Cruz’s Canadian birth.

    Nevertheless, because the Washington establishment is committed to seeing Obama cross the finish line and then some, the argument about natural born citizenship is seen by them as a nuisance.

    Natural born citizenship is also seen as a potential whirlwind that may blow way the house of cards built up over the past eight years. Who in the RNC wants to bring the whirlwind question of Cruz’s natural born citizen to court, if in so doing it blows in Obama and charges of racism, too?

    The political establishment has been working steadily to undermine the entire concept of US citizenship, not only the concept of natural born citizen. This is what open borders is all about. The political establishment does not want more citizenship arguments but less.

    Principled conservatives know how important clear definitions of citizenship are to the survival of any nation. That’s one reason why they oppose amnesty. The most fundamental transformation a nation can undergo is the transformation of its citizenship laws.

    Many voters fear traditional concepts of citizenship are being transformed. That is one reason Donald Trump’s campaign for president has set the political process on fire.

    It is incumbent upon Ted Cruz, if he is a principled conservative, to face the natural born citizen issue head-on. If Cruz doesn’t, then Donald Trump may do it for him.

    1. Are you?

      Ideologue. Did I spell that correctly? Does the medium size fit or should I order a large?

  2. The “fact” is that Ted Cruz, when responding to the Islamic atrocity in Brussels, clearly and intentionally went out his way to link it with Trump and his position on the expense to the American taxpayers of supporting NATO. That much speaks for itself. You can spin it anyway you want to BUT there were any number of more appropriate and constructive ways Cruz could have addressed Islamic terrorism in Brussels, i.e., things that he could have suggested to lessen the threat of terrorism by Islam, not only to the EU but to the United States, than to commingle Trump in the same thought as if one had anything to do with the other. NATO had absolutely nothing to do with Brussels. The funding of NATO had absolutely nothing to do with the atrocity in Brussels – and NATO could not have prevented it, no matter their funding, and to imply otherwise is simply disingenuous at the very least and ignorant of the roles and responsibilities of NATO member nations at best. Do some research if you don’t believe this entry. Educate yourself.

    1. Cruz responded to a direct question. And I would think you would be angry at your buddies Alex Jones and “Sundance” for blatantly lying. Does that bother you at all?

      1. I don’t listen to Alex Jones and I don’t know who Sundance is. However your response was obviously some kind of attempt at a back-handed smear because someone who is more informed disagrees with you. You will get a lot farther debating with facts than simply defending yourself by making what you intended to be unflattering innuendos and less than subtle personal attacks. I notice you didn’t make any factual statements in your reply so I’ll take that as an admission that my assertions are correct. Sincerely, facts could have swayed me to your point of view. Now everyone knows the truth. Cheers

          1. Apology accepted. Then you retracted the apology and threw in a parting insult. Why was that necessary? It was your article that prompted my adversarial and factual response. Maybe you need to re-read your own article again. That begs the question, is it yours? Really? You don’t appear to remember what you said in your own article. Why does any factual disagreement with you cause you to continually lash out venomously? Wow. Are you one of those people that cities name streets after? You know, “One Way”?

            The hole is deep enough already. I thoughtfully recommend that you stop digging.

    2. “NATO had absolutely nothing to do with Brussels. The funding of NATO had absolutely nothing to do with the atrocity in Brussels – and NATO could not have prevented it, no matter their funding, and to imply otherwise is simply disingenuous at the very least and ignorant of the roles and responsibilities of NATO member nations at best. Do some research if you don’t believe this entry. Educate yourself.”

      Categorically wrong.
      Brussels means a strategy, a global one.
      Underestimating your dead-enemy is a typical Munich-thinking.
      Well, not funding as such, yet a counter-strategy.
      NATO is not good enough? Pls offer an alternative. Now!..

  3. Surely Trevor you can be more professional and not call those for Trump as “Trumpsters.” You’re sounding like the typical Cruz commentator. Are you buddies with Erick Erickson by any chance?

    What we do know is that Cruz did use this as a political punt of the football while the bodies were still warm.

    1. Are there any facts in the article you would care to dispute? Does it concern you at all that some outlets are blatantly lying about Ted Cruz? Does it bother you that people in Trumps own circles are repeating the blatant lie?

  4. “When you don’t define the enemy, then you don’t have screening programs designed to keep them out,” says Cruz. This is entirely logical. So much so you have to be willfully ignorant in order to disagree. You cannot screen what you will not identify. Utterly irrefutable.

    Answering a reporter’s question about Trump, Cruz highlighted the difference between his and Donald’s policies. A stark difference. On the one hand experience and knowledge, on the other a blowhard with neither.

    “Donald Trump is wrong that America should withdraw from the world and abandon our allies. Donald Trump is wrong that America should retreat from Europe, retreat from NATO, hand Putin a major victory and while he’s at it hand ISIS a major victory.”
    Again, for the haters, that was in response to a direct question, not some volunteered political spin.

  5. So tired of people and media twisting words or taking things out of context,not showing the WHOLE response,cherry picking to push a certain agenda.Cruz was NOT blaming him for the attacks.He was saying that Donalds stating we should get out of NATO was startling especially with the terrorist attacks today and being in the city where NATO is headquarted.THAT is what he said.But of course those who support Donald take it out of context and try to say Cruz blames Donald for the attack.THAT IS A LIE.If I were Cruz I just might sue these people sometime then maybe they’d think twice before doing this.Besides,Donald says he is so tough but if someone disagrees with something he says and points out why it’s wrong he gets all offended like a little kid.Donald needs to be tougher if he becomes President.Putin won’t care if he offends Donald BELIEVE ME.

    1. Hi Renee,
      I’m glad to see you’re doing well and still active. We met briefly at Restoring Love in Dallas a few years ago. I was another ‘curly top’ and we had a nice convo about hair care and current events. I even still have you in my contacts under your name ‘V.K.’
      Please feel free to respond whenever you get the chance (or when/if you actually remember me-:) )
      Wishing you much success.

      Sincere regards,
      Lyn Macomber

    2. you mean the same national review that printed a negative edition on Trump and started a tsunami? Guess what, that rhetoric and hatred just makes people more livid and they gravitate to him even more. I wasn’t a big Trump fan at first, but when i saw how these elites were attacking their own, I made a mad dash to the voting booth and voted him to be our nominee. Thank you for your input.

      1. Trump’s been getting a bad rap, not just from the media, but also Republicans who fear they won’t be able to “control” him, should he become President. He’s running his campaign as a business man and good business men don’t reveal everything up front. Not until it’s necessary.

        They establishment et al will control Cruz, because that’s how the DC establishment runs Congress. I’m also tired of the media and reporters etc misquoting Trump. The establishment Republicans need to get their head out of their A$$$es and accept what the people want.

        I heard Trump’s comments about NATO and he did NOT say that he would pull out of NATO. As quoted above, he said “…..NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money.”….” That doesn’t sound, to me, that he’s saying the US should pull out of NATO.

        I’m not sure Trump is the right person, but I’m also not sure that Cruz is either. But one of these sure as heck beats the alternative.

        1. Donald Trump has financially supported the establishment. Donald Trump said several times that he used to be establishment (until running for pres) and said that he would work with the establishment. Donald Trump has praised people like Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid. Donald Trump is not a conservative and he is for big government.

          The establishment has never been able to control Cruz. Not once. Ever.

        2. Trump says “NATO is costing us a fortune,” which easily can be understood as the US should reduce its spending there resulting in a weaker NATO. Yet, I no longer believe Trump looks at this in an analytical way, rather he just sees the $585B expenditure and determines we will pay less, expecting all things (regional stability) to continue as before. Perhaps this narrow view comes from years of negotiating building contracts, where others pay shortfalls, defaults, etc., often backed up by court litigation. However, on the world stage, the US can tell Estonia, Latvia, Bulgaria, etc., to pay more, but it won’t happen because they don’t have the money. Ultimately, NATO will just get weaker with its defense. It is kind of like telling Mexico to pay for a wall built on US soil. It won’t happen, but it sounds good.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *