Ted Cruz Has No US Citizenship Of Any Kind – One Week To Drop Out

Posted on April 11, 2016 by Rick Wells in 2016 Election, Politics, Senator Ted Cruz 46 Comments

Ted Cruz Is Not US Citizen Of Any Kind – One Week To Come Clean

Sometimes people are willing to allow themselves to be deceived in spite of the most obvious of evidence that it is taking place. Ted Cruz supporters can see that their candidate is playing Hussein Obama’s game and sealing his records for the same reason that Obama did. They won’t allow themselves to consider why he’s going to so much trouble rather than simply producing what every citizen and legal immigrant have to produce when they go to work in the US, proof of eligibility. They were critical of Obama’s $4 million spent hiding who he is but don’t give a second thought when Cruz does exactly the same thing.

Cruz is a foreigner, quite possibly an illegal alien, with no legitimate ability to run for president of the United States. At issue is not only the requirement that a president be natural born, it is clear that Cruz is probably not even an American citizen of any description. He has offered no paperwork to substantiate his citizen claims, a process and product for foreign born Americans provided by the States Department. For those of you who think it citizenship documents just magically appear as part of the placenta, they don’t. There is a process; documentation must be provided to the State Department and official documents of citizenship issued in return by the federal government. There is no short cut and it is not automatic.

Cruz was born in Canada and no naturalization or any other documentation has taken place since. Those who fail to register a foreign birth by the age of 18 are out of luck; their window of opportunity is slammed shut and birthright citizenship is no longer available. That’s why Cruz has refused to provide his information. Just as with Hussein Obama, he can’t provide what doesn’t exist.

On the April 3^rd edition of the Podcast of the North American Law Center, host JB Williams put Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz on notice, that he had two weeks to quit the race voluntarily or he would spill the beans. Williams has evidence that Cruz is attempting to become our second consecutive imposter president. One week has passed without action from the candidate.

Constitutional Attorney Steven Pidgeon joined JB Williams for a discussion of the threats to our Constitution and our sovereignty from the Globalist cabal who, if we fail to stop them this election, will have succeeded in stealing the country from the American people. Cruz is chief among those globalist threats.

Williams says, “For years we’ve been talking about election fraud, we’ve been talking about dead voters, we’ve been talking about felon voters, we’ve been talking about illegal alien voters, okay? We’re not talking about that anymore, we’re talking about stupid voters. We’re talking about people who are American citizens, who do have a right to vote and are not smart enough to tie their own shoes if they think a guy whose Canadian born is eligible to be a US president, without any documentation whatsoever.”

Williams puts the campaign on notice, saying, “If Ted continues on, within the next two weeks, I’m going to make a prediction. Within the next two weeks, if he is still in this race, we are going to release the files we have. Two weeks from tonight and we will bury Ted Cruz forever in American politics.”

He says, “I’m sick of it, I can’t believe we actually have to take this guy down this way, I cannot believe the American people are not smart enough to figure this out on their own, but they’re not; so we’ll figure it out for them.” He adds, “If we have to expose this guy, if we have to expose this guy in order to stop him from defrauding this nation then we are going to do that. I hope somebody with Ted is listening tonight, I hope you go play this for him, send him the podcast, make sure he understands he’s got two weeks to come clean with the American people or we’re taking him down.”

That broadcast was a week ago, and no action has yet been forthcoming from the Cruz campaign. If anything he’s upped the tempo of the dirty politics, lies and underhanded delegate manipulation and theft and questionable election results.

Attorney Steven Pidgeon added, “There is absolutely no chance, following this election, to recover the American Constitution. No chance, if we don’t do it here, there’s no chance. The next opportunity you’re going to have is going to be with a Molotov cocktail against a tank, with a FEMA camp behind it. People need to understand how close we are to a total socialist overthrow.

Cruz now has one week, the truth will be revealed on April 17^th if Lyin’ Ted hasn’t come clean with the American people by that time. The compelling arguments are also posted on the North American Law Center website and are worth reading.

TED CRUZ AND MARCO HAVE NO RIGHT PLAYING A PART IN THE AMERICAN ELECTION PROCESS...THEY ARE BOTH CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBLE FRAUDULENT CANDIDATES...

Cruz, Rubio join forces in Arkansas to block Trump delegates

By DAVID M. DRUCKER (@DAVIDMDRUCKER) • 4/12/16

Ted Cruz's and Marco Rubio's supporters have teamed up in Arkansas to pack the state delegation with individuals who'll turn against Donald Trump in a contested convention.

Since Rubio ended his presidential bid March 15, his network of party insiders has lined up behind Cruz to win delegates who'd vote for the Texas senator once they're no longer bound to Trump in a floor fight. Trump won Arkansas' GOP primary March 1 with 32.8 percent of the vote compared to Cruz's 30.5 percent and Rubio's 24.9 percent. But Cruz's canny operatives, with Rubio riding shotgun, is likely to thwart Trump in the delegate election.

READ  MORE...

SORRY TED...YOU CAN NEVER EVER BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN...

Presidential eligibility of George Romney
by Pinckney G. McElwee of D.C. Bar
June 1967, The Congressional Record 6-14-1967

The Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103) provides in pp 104: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the seas, or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural-born citizens."

In Osborn v. Bank, 22 US (9 Wheat) 738, l.c. 827, Chief Justice Marshall said:

A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an Act of Congress, but the Act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as regards the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the Courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstance under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.

Thus the Act of March 26, 1790 would be unconstitutional if it attempted to enlarge the rights of a naturalized citizen to be equal to those of natural-born citizens under the Constitution.

Although it is not within the power of Congress to change or amend the Constitution by means of definitions of languages used in the Constitution so as to mean something different than intended by the framers (amendments being governed by Article V) an argument might be advanced to the effect that the use of identical language by Congress substantially contemporaneously might be considered in later years by a court to reflect the same meaning of the same words by the framers of the Constitution; and under this argument to attach importance to the Act of Congress of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103).

This argument fades away when it is found that this act used the term “natural born" through inadvertence which resulted from the use of the English Naturalization Act (13 Geo. III, Cap 21 (1773) as a pattern when it was deemed necessary (as stated by Van Dyne) to enact a similar law in the United States to extend citizenship to foreign-born children of American parents. In the discussion on the floor of the House of Representatives in respect to the proposed naturalization bill of a committee composed of Thomas Hartley of Pennsylvania, Thomas Tudor Tucker of South Carolina and Andrew Moore of Virginia, Mr. Edamus Burke of South Carolina stated, “The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents in the 12th year of William III." (See pp 1121, Vol 1 (Feb. 4, 1790) of Annals of Congress.) The proposed bill was then recommitted to the Committee of Hartley, Tucker and Moore, and a new bill containing the provision in respect to foreign-born children of American parentage was included, using the Anglican phrase “shall be considered as natural born citizens." Manifestly, Mr. Burke had given the wrong reference to the Act of Parliament of the 12th year of William III which was an inheritance law. But, it was a naturalization bill and the reference to the English acts shows the origin of the inadvertent error in using the term natural-born citizen instead of plain “citizen" came from copying the English Naturalization Act.

Mr. James Madison, who had been a member of the Constitutional Convention and had participated in the drafting of the terms of eligibility for the President, was a member of the Committee of the House, together with Samuel Dexter of Massachusetts and Thomas A. Carnes of Georgia when the matter of the uniform naturalization act was considered in 1795. Here the false inference which such language might suggest with regard to the President was noted, and the Committee sponsored a new naturalization bill which deleted the term “natural-born" from the Act of 1795. (1 Stat 414) The same error was never repeated in any subsequent naturalization act.

The Act of 1795 provides:

The children of citizens born outside of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.

In 1802, when Congress repealed entirely the law of 1790, it enacted that “the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, although born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States" (2 stat 153). (R.S. 1993) This was followed by the Act of 1855 (10 Stat 604) which repealed the Act of 1802.

In United States v. Perkins, 17 F S 117, the syllabus reads:

Child born in England of mother who had been born in United States, and had married Englishman in England, held not a ‘natural born citizen,’ within the provisions of Federal Constitution, whether child became citizen at birth by reason of mother’s citizenship or by her subsequent repatriation (Cable Act. 8 U.S.C.A. Sections 9, 10, 367-370; 8 U.S.C.A. sections 6 and note, 7, 8, 399 c (a); Rev. St section 1993; Convention with Great Britain May 13, 1870, art. 1, 16 Stat. 775).

And the text of the opinion on page 179 reads:

But I think it is immaterial, for the purpose of the instant suit, whether petitioner became an American citizen at his birth by reason of his mother’s citizenship or later by means of the repatriation of his mother. I do not think the authorities sustain his claim that he is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of the provisions of the Constitution, either of section 1, clause 4, or article 2, that ‘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,’ or of the Fourteenth Amendment, that ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

* * *

I find no proper legal or historical basis on which to conclude that a person born outside of the United States could ever be eligible to occupy the Office of the President of the United States. In other words, in my opinion, Mr. George Romney of Michigan is ineligible to become President of the United States because he was born in Mexico and is, therefore, not a natural-born citizen as required by the United States Constitution.

...Pinckney G. McElwee

TED CRUZ IS NOT NOR HAS HE EVER BEEN AN AMERICAN CITIZEN...

Rafael “TED” Cruz’s eligibility - The whole sordid affair

NOTE: author unknown but this certainly has the ring of truth...more truth than we have ever received from Rafael "Ted" Cruz...

Rafael Bienvenido Cruz was born in Matanzas, Cuba on March 22, 1939. His father was Rafael Cruz who came to Cuba from the Canary Islands, Spain. His mother, Emilia Laudelina Diaz, was a teacher in Cuba. As was customary in the Hispanic culture, it appears that Rafael may have taken his mother’s surname and referred to himself as Rafael Bienvenido Cruz Diaz. At some later date he dropped the second surname and just referred to himself as Rafael Bienvenido Cruz. Rafael B. Cruz claims that as a youth in Cuba he joined the Cuban Revolution an organization of pro-Communist youths, in support of Fidel Castro against Fulgencio Batista. Rafael also claims that after being captured and tortured by the Batista regime he decided to leave Cuba. Rafael has stated that a family friend bribed an official from the Batista government and was thereby able to get an exit visa to leave Cuba to attend college in the United States. Rafael states that he obtained a student visa at the U.S. Consulate in Havana in 1957 . The problem with that story is that you didn’t get a student visa from the USA unless you had already been accepted into a university, a process that takes months to complete. It doesn’t seem logical  that any University would accept a student who has NO money as he claimed, or who spoke very little English, mainly because immigration law did not allow this. This is the statute in effect at the time Cruz came to the U.S. as a foreign student in 1957:

Such alien shall establish specifically that:

(1) He has a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning;

(2) He is a bona fide student qualified to pursue, and is seeking to enter the United States temporarily and solely for the purpose of pursuing, a full course of study.

(3) He will attend, and has been accepted for attendance by, an established institution of learning or other recognized place of study in the United States.

(4) He is in possession of sufficient funds to cover his expenses or other arrangements have been made to provide for his expenses;

(5) He has sufficient scholastic preparation and knowledge of the English language to enable him to undertake a full course of study in the institution of learning or other place of study by which he has been accepted.

(6) He intends in good faith, and will be able, to depart from the United States upon the termination of his status.

There are NO records of a Rafael Bienvenido Cruz (Diaz) immigrating to the USA during that time from Cuba.  ‘Subject of Records’, from Ancestry.com produced a record of a Bienvendio Gregorio Cruz y Lara who was born in Havana on March 22, 1939, and emigrated from Cuba to the United States but he was a different person with a different history and public records indicate that he died in 2012.  Rafael also claimed he arrived in the USA in Key West, but the problem is that Key West did not have an immigration port of entry so if he came legally he would have had to arrive in Miami. Rafael then claims that he made his way to Austin, TX, where he enrolled at the University of Texas, Austin in 1957 and worked washing dishes at fifty cents an hour to pay for his education. This too is a problem, as U of T did not allow its students to work full time, and required all students to be fluent in English.

All of this would be in Rafael’s ‘Alien File’ if he had one. "A-Files" are individual files identified by a subject's Alien Registration Number ("A-number").  An A-number is a unique personal identifier assigned to a non-citizen. A-Files became the official file for all immigration and naturalization records created or consolidated since April 1, 1944. Rafael Bienvenido Cruz (Diaz) would have been issued an A-number and A-File upon arrival in the USA.

In January of 1959, Rafael Cruz was shown holding a pro-Castro sign during a rally in Texas published in the Havana Times. In the article Rafael B. Cruz stated that he planned to return to Cuba in May of 1959 for the summer and come back to the United States in September of 1959 to continue his education. If this trip actually occurred, it would have been documented in his A-File and would prove that he was in the USA legally.

The University of Texas, Austin, Registrar’s Office confirmed that a Rafael Bienvenido Cruz did receive a BA degree with a major in mathematics on June 3, 1961. Student visas required that students return to the country of their origin once they  completed their education, so if he was here legally, he would have been required to return to Cuba. Rafael claims he applied for Political Asylum after his graduation and received a Green Card. Again, it would be expected that if he applied for Lawful Permanent Resident status that these events would have been documented in his A-File. It is more likely that he wasn’t deported because no one knew he was in the USA illegally.

Rafael’s first marriage to Julia Ann Garza occurred on January 1, 1959, and it is not known if she was a citizen of the United States, but this may also be why he wasn’t deported after graduation. Either way he would have had to file for Lawful Permanent Resident status. The birth of Rafael and Julia’s first child was November 22, 1961, Miriam Ceferina Cruz. The birth of their second child, Roxanne Lourdes Cruz was November 18, 1962.  Sometime in early 1967 after 8 years of marriage, Rafael moved to New Orleans without his family to begin work in an oil-related job, with the intention of having his wife and daughters join him once he settled into his new job. One of the very first people Rafael met at work was fellow mathematician and co-worker Eleanor Elizabeth (Darragh) Wilson. (The marriage, both births, the job, and moving to New Orleans should have all have generated A-File entries.)

Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh was born in Wilmington Delaware November 23, 1934.  In 1956, at 21 years of age, Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh married Alan Wilson who she met at Rice University in Houston when she was studying mathematics. Wilson was a Ph.D. student in mathematics who had earned three degrees from Rice: a bachelor of science in electrical engineering in 1949, a masters in mathematics in 1956 and his Ph.D. in 1958. In 1960 after four years of marriage, the couple moved to London England where Alan still lives today. According to Alan Wilson, shortly after moving to London, the couple began having serious marital problems causing Eleanor to move out, leaving him with no idea where she went. So in 1962 he filed for divorce, siting abandonment, which he was granted since she never contested it. He doubted that she even knew that the divorce was finalized as the only thing he ever heard about her was by chance when both were being treated at the same hospital and a nurse told him  that "his wife" was at the hospital. Wilson was just a little surprised as he no idea at that time that she was pregnant. With no real contact after separating, Alan had absolutely no way of knowing who she was with or if she ever gained British citizenship. It is doubtful that she cared about the divorce anyway, with the fact that Alan and her were married in the USA, she probably didn’t feel that it mattered, as there was no record in England of her marriage to Alan Wilson and as far as anyone else knew, her last name was Wilson so there was no way to look it up, even if someone had a reason to.

British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act - Part III - 10 National status of married women

(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, the wife of a British subject shall be deemed to be a British subject, and the wife of an alien shall be deemed to be an alien.

What happened next is unclear, but it is believed that Eleanor became involved with an Englishman whom she left Alan for. Keep in mind that at this point all of her identification, visa and other documentation all stated that she was Eleanor Wilson. The name of the Brit she was involved with is unknown at this time, as is whether or not he knew she was already married, but it is suspected that she married the Brit in order to provide her with all of the benefits of British citizenship which was automatic upon marriage, and that she kept her name as it was on all of her ID, Eleanor Wilson. One thing that is certain is that she eventually had a child with the Brit in early 1966 who she named Michael Wilson. (Alan Wilson claims he did not know anything about what became of the child until the recent interview, or why the child had the same last name as him, but he was absolutely certain that the child could not have been his.) (Eleanor also used her last name of Wilson on Ted’s birth certificate even though she was supposedly married to Rafael) December 9, 1966 just before the age of 1 Michael Wilson died and was buried in Kensal Green Cemetery in Kensington, England. Michael’s birth and death certificates would most likely fill in the missing pieces as they would have the names of the mother and father, marital status and citizenship. That would provide the information needed for a records search for a British marriage license and citizenship change. A copy of Alan and Eleanor’s divorce decree would also clear up a lot of questions.

After the death of her son Michael, her relationship with the Brit fell apart and by early 1967 Eleanor decided that the best thing for her to do would be to return to her family in Houston Texas and leave the 8 years in London behind her. It is not known if she divorced the Brit or not. Soon after arriving back in Texas, Eleanor began looking for work in her field of mathematics and soon located a job in New Orleans with an oil-related company.

The newly hired Eleanor and Rafael started working together as mathematicians for the New Orleans oil company in 1967, and with both being from Texas, alone in an exciting city, it didn’t take long for them to become involved, even though they were both married to other people. Within months they were scheming to make their new found love permanent. A real life Desi and Lucy. The problem was that they were both still married to other people and neither was a US citizen. Eleanor was now British and there was a record of her US marriage to Alan but no record of a US divorce, and the only reason Rafael was still in the US was because he was married to a US citizen, if he divorced his wife Julia and she turned him in then he would be deported. It is highly questionable why he never filed to become a US citizen during these 8 years of marriage.

As mathematicians in their jobs they analyzed geographical seismic data from areas where various oil companies were searching for oil. One of the areas that the company was getting a lot of business from was the Calgary Canada fields and as the analysts assigned to the project, they found their answer. By moving to Canada there would be no record of any previous marriages or divorce, no need to worry about Rafael getting a divorce and being deported. The best part of this plan was that according to the Canadian Citizen Act of 1947, as a British subject Eleanor was entitled to Canadian Citizenship after living there one year. Then marrying Rafael in Canada would make him a Canadian citizen after one year too. It seemed like the perfect plan so within 6 months of starting their new jobs and meeting each other, they quit and headed to Calgary together, telling family and friends that ‘work’ was sending them there.  (Rafael’s move to Canada should have also generated an A-File entry.)

Among the changes introduced by the Canadian Citizen Act of 1947 were the following:

• All Canadian citizens would have automatic right of entry to Canada.
• As a rule, immigrants (including those from the Commonwealth) would not qualify for full citizenship until they had been resident in Canada for five years and had taken out citizenship papers. However, immigrants who were already British subjects would not lose their existing rights, including the right to vote after they had resided in Canada for only one year.Immigrants who had served in the Canadian armed forces during the First or the Second World War would qualify for naturalization after only one year.
• Married women would be given full authority over their nationality status.
• Citizenship would be lost under certain circumstances, such as the adoption of citizenship of another country. (Canada did NOT allow dual citizenship.)
• Provision would be made for instruction in the rights and responsibilities of citizenship and for appropriate citizenship ceremonies, including a revised oath of allegiance.

Once Rafael and Eleanor arrived in Canada they used their mathematics skills and previous experience to start a seismic mapping company called R.B. Cruz and Associates which serviced the oil industry in Alberta. Once Eleanor received her citizenship in 1969 after their first full year in Canada, they got married so that Rafael could also get his Canadian Citizenship. In 1970, as Rafael B. Cruz has so often claimed, he obtained his Canadian citizenship. Keep in mind that it was IMPOSSIBLE to get Canadian Citizenship without first living there for at least FIVE (5) years (Bullet 2 above). So how did Rafael get Canadian Citizenship in less than 3 years as he claims? There is only ONE WAY he could have achieved that, and that is by marrying a Canadian citizen, one Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson, allowing him to become a citizen 1 year after they were married in 1969. Canadian voter rolls after that time period show that both Eleanor and Rafael were registered to vote, which would be impossible if they were not citizens. These are undeniable facts. (Again, all of these events by Rafael should have generated entries into his US A-File.)

By the time Rafael received his citizenship, their relationship was showing signs of strain and the business faltering. Rafael was making frequent trips back to the US to see his children and presumably his American wife Julia, telling them he was still ‘on assignment’ in Calgary. It is probable that Rafael fully intended to return to the USA once he had his Canadian citizenship, but by then Eleanor was already pregnant, and on December 22, 1970 Rafael and Eleanor Cruz gave birth to Rafael Edward Cruz in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. After Ted’s birth they both began drinking heavily as the fights and arguments escalated. By 1974 the business was in dire straits so Rafael sold the ailing R.B. Cruz and Associates to Dave Robson, who turned it into Veritas Seismic Ltd.. Once the business was sold, Rafael abandoned Eleanor and his 3 year old son Rafael Edward Cruz in Calgary with very little money or income and returned to his American wife Julia Ann (Garza) Cruz and their 2 daughters Miriam and Roxanne, in Texas. (Once again, all of these events by Rafael should have generated entries into his US A-File.)

As ‘Ted’ Cruz tells it, Rafael had a ‘come to Jesus’ moment when he became a member of a Dominionist  Church after which he returned to Eleanor and Ted and renewed their relationship. The truth is closer to Eleanor packing up everything she had in Calgary and left the 8 years there behind her and once again returning to her family in Texas, where she proceeded to track Rafael down, not that she won him back 100% though. Rafael B. Cruz continued in BOTH marriages, raising all three of the children into adulthood, at least until 1997, when he filed for divorce from both women, one in the USA and the other in Canada, ending his bigamist lifestyle.

The following facts must be considered concerning Ted’s citizenship:

• At the time of Ted’s birth neither parent was a citizen of the United States. Both had become Canadian Citizens. Rafael had never been and Eleanor gave up her US citizenship in England.
• When applying to become a Canadian Citizen, applicants must take an ‘Oath Allegiance’ renouncing any previous citizenship.
• Canada allows American immigrants living in Canada ONE (1) year to file a Consular Record of Birth Abroad (CBRA) after which if the consulate has not received the CBRA, then Canada will permanently  grant any child born on Canadian soil exclusive Canadian citizenship. That child will not have citizenship in any other country.
• If Ted is a US citizen then there would be a CBRA on record in both the USA and Canada. Producing that would end any question about his citizenship.
• The Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947 explicitly forbids dual citizenship under any circumstance. If you are a Canadian citizen by naturalization or birth, you could not be a citizen of any other country
• Rafael and Eleanor were both registered to vote in Canadian elections.
• If Rafael maintained his contact with USCIS, the birth of his son Ted would have generated an A-File entry.
• In order to enter the U.S., Ted would have had to have been documented as either a Canadian or United States citizen. If not then he would be considered an illegal alien. If Ted was claimed as Rafael’s son, an entry would have been entered into Rafael’s A-File.
• If Ted entered the USA legally as a Canadian citizen which he was, then an A-Number and an A-File would have been generated for him.
• If Eleanor had retained her U.S. citizenship, she would have had to fill out paperwork documenting her Canadian husband. This would have been entered into his A-File.
• Rafael B Cruz would have needed to re-apply and receive Lawful Permanent Resident Status in 1975 when he returned to the U.S. as a Canadian Citizen which would be in his A-File.
• Rafael B Cruz maintained his Canadian citizenship until 2005. As a foreign national he would have had to update his status annually with USCIS which should have generated A-File documentation.
• Rafael B Cruz became a naturalized United States citizen in 2005. According to the USCIS, he would have had to send copies of a number of documents requested under the Document Checklist for Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, as well as submitting a rather lengthy form which currently Totals 21 pages. He may also have filed a form G-28 Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative which would be a part of his A-File.
• The 2005 Application for Naturalization would require documents such as proof that all earlier marriages ended which would have required the submission of divorce decree(s), annulment(s), or death certificate(s), and all correspondence with the IRS regarding any failure to file any income tax return since becoming a Lawful Permanent Resident (which would presumably have also applied to the years he was in Canada).
• Section 349 of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act which stipulates that American citizens who swear allegiance to another country automatically lose their American citizenship. If Ted’s  mother applied for British and/or Canadian citizenship then she would have had to swear allegiance to another country in doing so. She would have lost her US citizenship.
• Article II of the US constitution says about natural born Citizen “enjoin sole allegiance”, which means anyone born in the U.S. is "subject to the jurisdiction" and is a Citizen. Where "subject to the jurisdiction" means a full and complete jurisdiction meaning "NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ONE ELSE. THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS" This is an exact quote, those are the words of the man who wrote most of the 14th Amendment - Lyman Trumbull. The United States never intended to allow dual citizenship either and it is clear that you must be born on US soil  of TWO US citizens to be ‘natural born’ and cannot have ALLEGIANCE to Canada.
• 
  Cruz’s mother on the Canadian voter list
  
  The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans
  
  US Citizenship is not ‘automatic’.
  
  Donald Trump may have the best standing to bring a lawsuit against Rafael Edward Cruz.

THE RAMPANT CORRUPTION CONTINUES...

Obama: Clinton Didn't "Intentionally" 

Put America In Jeopardy; I Guarantee 

No Political Influence In Server Probe

692 Shares

By Ian Schwartz
Posted on April 10, 2016

President Obama is quizzed about the investigation by the FBI Justice Department into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private server and non-government e-mail address by FOX News' Chris Wallace on this week's edition of FOX News Sunday. In the interview, Wallace confronted Obama if he can still say flatly that Clinton did not jeopardize America's secrets. Obama also guaranteed politics will not influence the outcome of the investigation.

Obama contended she did not jeopardize America's national security, however was "careless" in terms of managing e-mails that she has owned. Obama said the scandal needs to be put in "perspective" as Clinton "served her country" and did an outstanding job.

"Here's what I know," Obama told Wallace. "Hillary Clinton was an outstanding Secretary of State. She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy."

"You were prepared to say she didn't jeopardize," Chris Wallace said.

"I continue to believe she has not jeopardized America's national security," Obama defended Clinton. "Now what I also said is that -- and she's acknowledged -- that there's a carelessness in terms of managing e-mails that she has owned. And she recognizes that. But I also think is important to keep this in perspective. This is somebody who served her country for four years as Secretary of State and did an outstanding job and no one has suggested that in some ways as a consequence of how she's handled e-mails that that detracted from her excellent ability to carry out her duties."

READ MORE...

Washington D.C. Law Professor Victor Williams charges that Ted Cruz fraudulently certified his constitutional eligibility for office to gain ballot access.

Ted Cruz Risks Primary Disqualification in New Jersey, Other Late-Primary States, Charges Professor Victor Williams

Apr 08, 2016, 12:36 ET from Professor Victor Williams

READ MORE...

“In 2 weeks the North American Law Center will release proof that Ted Cruz is a fraud. They have issued his campaign a warning that if Cruz doesn’t tell the truth and step down they will release their proof – the truth that so many refused to believe or listen to.” – Karen Bracken

Two Weeks Notice: North American Law Center Calls On Canadian-Born Cruz To Come Clean Or Else

Two Weeks Notice: The North American Law Center 

Calls On Canadian-Born Cruz To Come Clean Or Else

J.B. Williams of the North American Law Center:

"We’re talking about American citizens (who) think a guy who’s Canadian-born is eligible to be a U.S. president – without any documentation whatsoever. If Ted continues on – we are going to release the files we have, two weeks from tonight, and we will bury Ted Cruz forever in American politics… If we have to stop this guy from defrauding this nation, then we are going to do that."

RELATED AUDIO:

- AUDIO HERE -

USURPER BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA TRANSFORMING AMERICA...DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE...

Obama Claims Power to Make Illegal Immigrants Eligible for Social Security, Disability

By Terence P. Jeffrey | April 6, 2016 | 

(AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

Does the president of the United States have the power to unilaterally tell millions of individuals who are violating federal law that he will not enforce that law against them now, that they may continue to violate that law in the future and that he will take action that makes them eligible for federal benefit programs for which they are not currently eligible due to their unlawful status?

Through Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, President Barack Obama is telling the Supreme Court exactly this right now.

The solicitor general calls what Obama is doing "prosecutorial discretion."

He argues that under this particular type of "prosecutorial discretion," the executive can make millions of people in this country illegally eligible for Social Security, disability and Medicare.

On April 18, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case. Entitled United States v. Texas, it pits President Obama against not only the Lone Star State, but also a majority of the states, which have joined in the litigation against the administration.

At issue is the policy the administration calls Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, which would allow aliens in this country illegally who are parents of citizens or lawful permanent residents to stay in the United States.

"The Executive Branch unilaterally created a program — known as DAPA — that contravenes Congress's complex statutory framework for determining when an alien may lawfully enter, remain in, and work in the country," the attorney general and solicitor general of Texas explained in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court on behalf of the states seeking to block the policy.

"DAPA would deem over four million unlawfully present aliens as 'lawfully present' and eligible for work authorization," says the Texas brief. "And 'lawful presence' is an immigration classification established by Congress that is necessary for valuable benefits, such as Medicare and Social Security."

In the administration's brief, the solicitor general admits that the president's DAPA program does not convert people illegally in the United States into legal immigrants. He further asserts that the administration at any time can decide to go ahead and remove these aliens from the country.

"Deferred action does not confer lawful immigration status or provide any defense to removal," he says. "An alien with deferred action remains removable at any time and DHS has absolute discretion to revoke deferred action unilaterally, without notice or process."

Despite this, he argues, the administration can authorize aliens here illegally on "deferred action" to legally work in the United States.

"Without the ability to work lawfully, individuals with deferred action would have no way to lawfully make ends meet while present here," says the administration's brief.

Nonetheless, the solicitor general stresses that "deferred action" does not make an illegal immigrant eligible for federal welfare.

"In general," he says, "only 'qualified' aliens are eligible to participate in federal public benefit programs, and deferred action does not make an alien 'qualified.'... Aliens with deferred action thus cannot receive food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, temporary aid for needy families, and many other federal benefits."

But, he says, aliens here illegally with deferred action will be eligible for "earned-benefit programs."

"A non-qualified alien is not categorically barred, however, from participating in certain federal earned-benefit programs associated with lawfully working in the United States — the Social Security retirement and disability, Medicare, and railroad-worker programs — so long as the alien is 'lawfully present in the United States as determined by the (Secretary),'" says the solicitor general.

The "secretary" here is the secretary of Homeland Security.

"An alien with deferred action is considered 'lawfully present' for these purposes," says the solicitor general.

So, as explained to the Supreme Court by Obama's solicitor general, when DHS grants an alien here illegally "deferred action" under the president's DAPA policy, that alien is not given "lawful immigration status" and can be removed from the country "at any time." However, according to the solicitor general, that alien will be authorized to work in the United States and will be "considered 'lawfully present'" for purposes of being eligible for "the Social Security retirement and disability, Medicare, and railroad-worker programs."

The U.S. Constitution imposes this straightforward mandate on the president: "(H)e shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

When the Supreme Court agreed in January to hear U.S. v. Texas, it made a telling request. It asked the parties to argue whether Obama's DAPA policy "violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution."

The Obama administration has taken care of just one thing here: It has constructed a convoluted — and unconvincing argument — it hopes will provide the activists on the Supreme Court with a cover story to explain why this president need not faithfully execute the nation's immigration laws.

Ted Cruz Cheating Scandal Explodes!...Lyin' Ted Caught!...

Ted Cruz Cheating Scandal Explodes! Presidential Hopeful Named In Murdered D.C. Madam’s Black Book, Investigators Charge

New bombshell is set to rock the Wisconsin primary.

Posted on Apr 4, 2016 @ 10:57AM

Embattled White House candidate Ted Cruz‘s cheating scandal is set to explode wide-open, with fresh — and blockbuster — allegations that the married conservative senator was named in the black book of a notorious Washington D.C. madam who mysteriously died, RadarOnline.com has learned.

Montgomery Blair Sibley, a former lawyer for madam Deborah Palfrey, has filed a dramatic appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court for permission to publish her unconventional “black book,” which consists of some 15,000 pages of phone records and calls to clients, as well as their calls requesting the $300-an-hour services from her gaggle of beautiful hookers!

Sibley told The National ENQUIRER that “time is of the essence” to release the list because one or more of the phone numbers would provide bombshell information that is “relevant to voters before they cast their ballot.”

READ MORE...

TED CRUZ: DC MADAME'S RECORDS WILL BE RELEASED

 

 

By: Devvy
April 4, 2016
NewsWithViews.com

When the National Enquirer story broke about Ted Cruz being a serial adulterer I was out of the state listening to talk radio while driving. My first thought was the 'DC Madame' scandal back in 2007. Deborah Jeane Palfrey ran a successful and very large Washington, DC prostitution business. Ms. Palfrey was indicted in 2008: two counts for using U.S. mail for illegal activities, racketeering and money laundering. This is a lengthy but full back story for those unfamiliar with the case.

Casualties were numerous when the names of some of her clients were released according to the Vanity Fair article linked above: Former deputy secretary of state Randall Tobias; Pentagon adviser and author Harlan K. Ullman, a top military strategist who advised the Bush Administration and U.S. senator David Vitter, a Republican from Louisiana. Here is a list of John's but by no means all of them.

Ms. Palfrey was found hanged in her mother's shed. Her death ruled a suicide despite the fact that she had publicly stated she would never kill herself. Deborah Jeane Palfrey was murdered. Of that I have no doubt. She played a very risky game in a town drowning in filth, corruption and yes, murder when it threatens those who carry out the agenda of the Masters of the Game, global world elites. Evil in human form most Americans simply cannot acknowledge because to do so would crumble their security blanket and bring them into a stark reality they can't handle.

At the time, Ms. Palfrey was represented by an attorney named Montgomery Blair Sibley. It was after that crime was pushed under the rug I became aware of Montgomery in his efforts to expose the criminal impostor in the White House for usurping the office of president of these united States of America. Montgomery went the extra mile in 2012 by attempting to run for president only to hit the iron wall called federal courts filled with cowards hiding behind their black robes.

Anytime a sex scandal involving politicians from both parties pops up it's a difficult issue to pursue because there's usually a spouse and children involved. Former NY Governor Eliot Spitzer and former SC Governor Mark Sanford were both caught cheating. Spitzer with whores from an 'escort' service, Sanford with a woman he met in Argentina. Both destroyed their marriages; I'm betting their children needed counseling. Spitzer went on to get a tv gig with CNN which was eventually canceled because no one watched it. Voters in SC rewarded Sanford and all his lies by electing him to Congress. When Sanford was done using his 'paramour' he drop kicked her via Facebook. But, perhaps there is a happy ending after all as the two lovebirds reunited in 2015.

There's no doubt because I have made myself clear in many columns I believe Ted Cruz is a conniving liar. He knows he's not eligible to run for president but he's not going to let that interfere with his personal ambitions. After all, wasn't it Glen Beck who announced Cruz was the 'anointed one for this time'? Know when I absolutely knew Cruz knew he was constitutionally ineligible to be on the ballot? When he said this on August 22, 2013 at an appearance: “I am secretly a citizen of Ethiopia.”

The crowd got a big laugh out of that one right along with Ted the liar. What he did was copy the fraud in the White House with his born in Kenya jokes. Right out of Saul Alinsky's play book: Mock your enemies openly to distract from the subject at hand and keep doing it so eventually people will believe it.

The Republican Party has allowed three ineligible candidates to run for president this year: Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Why? Because of their complicity in allowing Barry Soetoro aka Obama to usurp the office of president. No way are they going to open that can of toxic worms. Rotten. They're all rotten to the core and Americans by the millions so far have continued to vote for their incumbents in the GOP controlled Congress who have allowed that massive fraud to stand.

On the day before I arrived back in W. Texas I was tuned into Sean Hannity's radio show just to see what was being spoon fed to his audience. Hannity did not use Montgomery's name while talking about the DC Madame and the National Enquirer piece which I haven't read. You know, that publication who printed the truth about JFK's affair with Mary Pinchot Meyer (who was murdered), John Edwards, Tiger Woods and so many others. Anyway, Hannity mocked Montgomery and proclaimed there was no truth to Cruz being one of Palfrey's John's.

Hannity scoffed when telling his audience Montgomery had posted all the information on 815 of Palfrey's Johns and phone records of 40 other similar operations in the Washington area on four servers around the globe and that if anything happened to him the information would be immediately released. One has to remember that Montgomery was restrained by the court from releasing what he has and when you threaten powerful people or ones that know where the bodies are buried (former Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and Vince Foster, Deputy White House Counsel for serial adulterer Bill Clinton; both murdered) you are risking your life. Shallow Sean can laugh all he wants but I find him to be a pitiful example of someone who claims to be a truth seeker.

Cruz went ballistic when ask 'Have you ever been unfaithful to your wife'? He refused to answer. Instead, Cruz used his campaign chair, Chad Sweet to deny he had extramarital affairs although I wouldn't really classify hiring whores as your usual run of the mill affair.

Cruz is a lawyer, a smart one and very savvy. He refuses to issue a personal denial but instead uses a surrogate. Right out of John Edwards play book. The disgraced former senator and presidential candidate denied he was the father of a child born to his paramour, Rielle Hunter, for a couple of years. Instead, his former aide, Andrew Young claimed he was the father. Well, long after the fact, Edwards came clean and owned up to being daddy. But, I always give credit where credit is due and from all appearances, Edwards takes care of his daughter financially and he and his children have a pretty good relationship with the little girl. That does not excuse all his lying, of course. Edwards romance with Hunter has long expired.

When I arrived back home I started looking at what was on the Internet. Many might remember the 2015 blow up when the disgusting cheating web site, Ashley Madison, was hacked:

"Warren Rojas reports for Roll Call, March 28, 2016, that approximately 15,000 email addresses of Ashley Madison's subscribers have the “.mil” or “.gov” designation assigned to the armed forces and federal agencies, respectively.

"Among those are:

Nearly four dozen people who work at the White House.
The Capitol Police.
Seven individuals with ties to House offices.
The email address of Ted Cruz's senate office: press@cruz.senate.gov.

"A Cruz aide insists that although “The email address in question is press@cruz.senate.gov,” that doesn't mean anyone in Cruz's senate office was an Ashley Madison subscriber because the address is “a publicly and widely available forwarding address that is often entered into web contact forms by people with no connection to our office.”

"The aide is being disingenuous because s/he would have us believe that a subscriber to Ashley Madison would use an email address with no connection to the subscriber. How would anyone interested in an adulterous “hookup” contact the subscriber then?"

Deny, deny and lie. But, since Ted Cruz is very well connected (one must read Kelleigh Nelson's amazing research on Ted Cruz) the National Enquirer and the allegations they published was simply pushed aside in favor of the next juicy attack on Donald Trump.

I don't think Mrs. Cruz was taking all this too well because she immediately suspended her campaign activities. Heidi Cruz Cancels New Jersey Campaign Stops This Week: "This comes after The National Enquirer accused Texas Senator Ted Cruz of multiple extramarital affairs last week." There is a story out there in cyber land claiming a memo was sent by Mrs. Cruz that she knew Teddy was dipping his wick in someone else's honey pot, but I have yet to see proof so I consider that to be just another rumor.

Last year Montgomery put out a request for donations. He wanted to head back to court to get the restraining order lifted on all the records he has that belonged to Ms. Palfrey. Montgomery said what he has could impact this presidential election. Well, I thought. One of the candidates, Democrat or Republican must have cheated on their spouse. At that time there were 17 candidates on the GOP side and Clinton, Sanders and a couple other losers for the Democratic/Communist Party USA.

The fact that Montgomery filed a petition with the U.S. Circuit Court last month tells me that one of the remaining candidates wins the grand prize since the race is now down to Kasich, ineligible Cruz and Donald Trump. I didn't think it could be Kasich, but one never knows. Like Chief Justice John Roberts who is spoken of in Washington, DC circles as being homosexual, perhaps there is some truth to this: Kasich Bombshell! - Said To Be Longtime Homosexual

Donald Trump allegedly had an affair while married to his first wife which led to a divorce. At that time he was not running for the office of president. By all appearances Donald Trump and his wife, Melania, seem to have a solid marriage. Palfrey was murdered in 2008; Trump married Melania in 2005. I think Palfrey's records go back to before Trump married Melania.

That leaves Ted Cruz on the GOP side. Of course, it could be Hillary Clinton having an affair with her shadow tied at their hips, Huma Abedin. It's certainly no secret in Washington, DC that Bill Clinton is not the father of Chelsea. That honor goes to Web Hubbell, Hillary the Hun's old law firm business partner. No? A picture is worth a thousand words. Clinton Issues Pardons, Clearing Deutch and McDougal, but Not Milken or Hubbell. Wisely, Hubbell has kept his mouth shut.

Sadly, Chelsea Clinton was ask that very question recently at an event which must have been very humiliating for her. She didn't reply to the question about Hubbell being her father. Why hasn't the puppet media ask Hillary the Hun: Is Web Hubbell Chelsea's father? You cannot deny she looks exactly like Web Hubbell and absolutely zero resemblance to Bill Clinton who has a reputation for shooting blanks his whole life.

I truly doubt it's the 74 year old bum, Bernie Sanders.

While I was on the road, Montgomery was busy:

Monday, March 28, 2016: And now to the Supreme Court . . .

"After waiting for two weeks for the U.S. Circuit Court to rule upon my Petition to (i) order the District Court Clerk to file my Motion to Modify the Restraining Order that prevents me from releasing the D.C. Madam's client list and (ii) direct that I receive an expedited hearing on that Motion, I am -- as I previously announced -- waiting no more.

"Today I have filed at the U.S. Supreme Court my Application for a Stay of Restraining Order directed to the Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr. , Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Notably, in that Application, I unequivocally stated the following:

" To be clear, if Sibley is not allowed to file his Motion to Modify the Restraining Order and thereafter does not promptly receive a fair and impartial hearing on that Motion, he will justifiably consider the Restraining Order void as a result of being denied such a hearing by the District Court, Circuit Court and now this Court. In that event, Sibley will simply release publicly the Verizon Wireless Subpoena Return records containing the names and addresses of eight hundred fifteen (815) Washington D.C. clients of the D.C. Madam's escort service.

"Not a threat, but a promise. And, to date, I have been a man of my word."

Montgomery has stated several times that time is of the essence since voters have been casting their votes and the deciding states as far as delegates are upcoming. Voters have the right to know the truth before they cast their vote.

(Incidentally, the judge who turned down Sibley's petition is Judge Richard Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On March 16, 2016, the same Judge Roberts resigned. The 63 year-old is being sued by a woman who claims Roberts sexually assaulted her when she was 16 years old; Roberts was 27. Roberts says the relationship was mutual consent (a 27-year old with a 16 year old teen) and that the sexual assault allegations are "categorically false". The usual denials just like former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, cutting a deal last October in the hush money cover up over allegations he sexually molested a young boy when Hastert was a high school coach. Hastert's sentencing has been postponed due to health issues.)

On April 1, 2016, a web site posted a page allegedly from Ms. Palfrey's ATT phone records. Montgomery states he wants to release Palfrey's records from Verizon Wireless, not ATT. He was her lawyer and has all her records so where did the ATT come from on April Fool's Day? You can view the alleged one page ATT phone records here. Seven phone numbers are highlighted in yellow. All 1-2 minutes with the exception of one call lasting 7 minutes but it's to an 800 number. What can you say in one - 2 minutes? Your name as a client and which whore you want for the night? Something hinkey there.

The numbers highlighted are purported to be Ted Cruz's private phone numbers. I emailed Montgomery and ask if that page came from him and he responded, "Wasn't me". I have every faith Montgomery is and has been telling the truth all along. What he knows the American people have the right to see, too - before they vote. Montgomery also believes that: “Time is of the essence because people are casting votes in primaries and caucuses,” he says. “I believe this information is relevant to that political discourse.” IF the allegations are true and a big primary is coming up tomorrow - Wisconsin with a large number of delegates - voters have a right to know the truth. IF the allegations are true how many delegates will be awarded before Ted decides to drop out of the race for whatever excuse he thinks he can sell?

I don't think Ted Cruz supporters understand or can appreciate the risk Montgomery is taking if he defies a court order not to mention what's happened to others who represent a threat to the guttersnipes in high places in Washington, DC. Think Deborah Jeane Palfrey and her client list.

The hacking group called Anonymous also threatened to expose Cruz if he doesn't drop out of the race immediately. It looks like they're trying to take credit for the ATT page cited above.

While most find this distasteful and supporters of Ted Cruz loudly object because they can't bear the thought that their holier-than-thou candidate is a serial adulterer, Cruz is doing himself no favor by using a surrogate to deny cheating. We all know the old saying, where there's smoke there's fire. Well, the room is filling up with smoke while Cruz can't seem to utter the words 'I have never been unfaithful to my wife'. But, like I said he's a lawyer and things have a way of coming back to bite spouses in nasty divorces.

Washington Times Fires Writer for Confirming Ted Cruz Scandal, Claimed At Least Two Mistresses Accurate. "When Johnson “came clean” on Twitter it wasn't long before a series of Twitter users began bombarding the writer with questions about his sources and the publications who passed on the story. In response, Drew Johnson says that there were lots of rumors, and that at least one of media outlets knew the whole story but decided it was not in their interest to run it."

And why would it not be in the best interest to run a story they (media outlet above) know to be true? Isn't the truth in everyone's best interest?

But what do experts say about Cruz's denial?

Experts: Ted Cruz Appears Deceptive in His Response to Sex Scandal Story, March 27, 2016

"Phil Houston is CEO of QVerity, a training and consulting company specializing in detecting deception by employing a model he developed while at the Central Intelligence Agency. He has conducted thousands of interviews and interrogations for the CIA and other federal agencies....

"We should note that these two statements constitute the only material that we currently have at our disposal to analyze, which is far from ideal. Obviously, the more material available for analysis, the greater our confidence in our findings. With that said, however, we were struck by the volume of deceptive behavior that we identified in these statements.

"Behaviorally, when the facts are the ally of an individual, he or she almost always tends to focus on the facts of the matter at hand. In this case, if the key fact was that he had not had these affairs, Cruz would almost certainly have been much more strongly focused on the denial. That is, he very likely would have made a point of explicitly stating something along the lines of, “I did not have these affairs.”

"Yet at no point in either statement did Cruz say that. He implied it by saying the allegations are false, and that they're lies, but behaviorally, such statements are not equivalent to saying he never had the affairs. Even if we were to overlook that fact and consider his statements to be a denial, there is an overwhelmingly higher proportion of attack behavior compared to the effort expended at denial. This type of lopsided attack-to-denial ratio is very consistent with what we have historically seen with deceptive people when allegations are levied against them."

Not only has Ted refused to set the record straight (Old memories: Bill Clinton shaking his finger at the tv cameras stating he did not have sex with than woman and it depends on what the definition of is is) he hides behind Carly Fiorina's skirt. But, why is the 'strong, independent' Fiorina stumping and covering for Teddy? Why did Ted Cruz's PAC give half a million to Carly Fiorina's? Oct. 1, 2015.

"The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has asked a Ted Cruz super PAC to explain why it gave $500,000 to another super PAC supporting one of his Republican rivals. According to financial disclosures from June, Keep the Promise I - one of four separate committees backing Cruz - gave half a million dollars to CARLY for America, the political action committee supporting Carly Fiorina.

"Super PACs are legally allowed to give money to other super PACs - they are only prohibited from donating directly to any political campaign. But it's unusual for one of these groups to give money to an opponent, especially when the candidate it supports is still in the race."

Now, if you were running for a high public office would you give a half million bux to a super PAC supporting your opponent? Teddy said it was because Fiorina had important things to say. I guess he didn't but really, Ted, that's the best you can come up with?

Movie stars and other famous people sue publications like the National Enquirer all the time. Blake Shelton Is Suing InTouch For Saying He's A Drunk Mess Who Once Peed On A Mailbox, March 18, 2016. John Edwards didn't sue the National Enquirer nor did Tiger Woods, the 'Reverend' Jesse Jackson (love child) or Senator Gary Hart (dipped into the honey pot while candidate for president) because the stories were true. Eventually the smoke in their cases became full blown bonfires.

I have seen or heard nothing about Ted Cruz stating he is going to sue the National Enquirer. If it were me, damn straight I would IF the allegations were lies - wouldn't you?

Ted Cruz, if innocent of the allegations should sue but we know what that means - the genie jumping out of the bottle or one might say a bimbo eruption. That is why I believe Cruz will not sue the National Enquirer or any other publication or web site that accuses him of using high paid prostitutes to scratch his itch. Oh, he can say he doesn't want to give the National Enquirer any credibility or that he's too busy on the campaign trail, but you and I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. If any more questions come up he can just rely on his old standard they're lies, blah, blah, blah. The National Enquirer has been wrong a few times. Maybe they are this time.

Donald Trump has said he hopes it isn't true and as much as I dislike Ted Cruz, I also hope for the sake of his wife, children and the large number of Americans who have voted for him that it's not. Glen Beck has said he would forgive Cruz for one affair but not two or more: "Beck said he could forgive one incident but not a pattern of adultery." Beck said Cruz didn't have "enough game" to be jumping the bones of multiple women; at least I think that's what he meant. Beck said if the allegations were true he would drop Cruz like a hot potato. If I were Glen Beck I might consider buying those big barbeque mitts.

But, those of us who believe the allegations against Cruz could all be wrong. We are going to find out soon because I take Montgomery at his word that he will release what he has and then we'll all know the truth. If Ted Cruz's name and phone number(s) are in Ms. Palfrey's records his political career and likely his marriage is over. Toast.

Because those allegations have pretty much been brushed aside by heavies like Sean Hannity and Glen Beck, Cruz doesn't look very stressed. I caught a clip of him a couple nights ago on FOX. He was the grand poobah at the North Dakota State Republican Convention. But, we all know how cool Barry Soetoro aka Obama has been the last eight years while being dogged about his ineligibility. Cruz is a slick, practiced politician. For now he can continue acting as if he's won the National Enquirer debate.

Cruz can keep laughing on stage, but will he have the last laugh?