It still is uncertain if there are enough Donald Trump supporters to garner him the GOP nomination for president – we’ll probably have a pretty clear idea in just a few weeks. But if the intensity of their support, and animus for those who disagree with their choice, would count, Melania Trump already would be measuring for curtains in the private quarters of the White House.
WND CEO Joseph Farah on Tuesday released in his daily commentary his personal recommendation for the presidential election this fall: U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz.
Praising Trump for playing “an invaluable role in this campaign – breaking the back of political correctness, presenting a positive vision forward for America and standing up to those who would prefer to see the nation borderless and rudderless,” Farah called Cruz “the real deal.”
While affirming he would support Trump, the front-runner right now, if he turns out to be the nominee, he said Cruz “demonstrates he has the clearest, most Reaganesque vision of where the country needs to go in its much-needed recovery from eight years of Barack Obama. Cruz is principled, sophisticated and a solid conservative whose understanding of and commitment to the Constitution is unshakeable.”
The emails to WND erupted.
Hundreds flooded in. And in the comments section for the column, there were thousands.
They blasted, they criticized, they ridiculed and they charged. They talked about Cruz’s politics, how evil is Hillary Clinton, Trump’s business skills, Cruz’s wife, the U.S. Senate, Marco Rubio, and many more topics.
But most, by far, focused on – Ted Cruz’s eligibility.
Ray, for example, wrote, “How much time, money and effort did you expend to expose the ineligibility of Barack Obama? Cruz is not eligible. You know it and have been silent on it these past months of Republican mud fights.”
Robert T. wrote, “I plan to stay with the constitutionally eligible candidates. I’m not going to vote for Cruz and then one year later the Supreme Court rules him ineligible.”
Added another, “Do you realize that if Sen. Cruz wins the GOP nomination, Hillary is in the White House? You see, Cruz is not a natural born citizen. Both of his parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. That prevents Cruz from ever being a natural born citizen. Your own paper has proven this so many times with our usurper, Barry Soetoro. Or do you even read your paper?”
Richard Darden wrote, “Just saw Farah’s endorsement of the ‘ineligible’ Canadian Ted Cruz. I can’t believe it! Does your online news not support our Constitution?”
In fact, WND has carried numerous columns and reports on the eligibility for the presidency of Cruz, Rubio and others. Farah, ever at the tip of the spear on a news issue, wrote more than two years ago that he wasn’t sure, but suspected Cruz was not eligible, “at least not by my understanding of what the founders had in mind when they ratified the Constitution.”
But he was pointing out the double standard of the legacy media, which steadfastly refused to raise any questions about Barack Obama when nearly 100 lawsuits were brought from 2007 until about 2010 over his eligibility.
“Never mind that the only law enforcement investigation into Obama’s birth certificate found that it was a fraud and forgery. It didn’t matter. The media, besides WND, have steadfastly refused to report the facts for fear of being labeled part of the ‘birther’ conspiracy,” he wrote.
Then along comes Cruz, he wrote, and, “Every media outlet in the country is questioning his constitutional eligibility.”
Fast forward more than two years, and the endorsement of Cruz brought out hundreds of Joseph Farah’s detractors to WND.
He explained: “I was inundated with more than 100 emails eviscerating me for my personal endorsement of Ted Cruz. On the other hand, I received about a half dozen atta-boys. Most of the protests claimed Cruz is constitutionally ineligible – even though, as the candidate has explained, his mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth.
“As I have explained before, ad nauseam, from my point of view, when the Congress and courts abdicated their responsibility with regard to the questions of Barack Obama’s eligibility, a precedent was set. If Obama was not going to be held accountable to any standard during eight years as president, how could we hold others accountable?” he wrote.
“I was the one who saw this coming during the last eight years. That’s why I kept calling for a national dialogue that no one wanted to have. But as far as Ted Cruz goes, there is no doubt in my mind that he doesn’t have any allegiance to the country in which he was born – Canada. It’s a non-issue. Ted Cruz is the most pro-American official I know. He was also very forthcoming with his birth certificate. He has made his case on eligibility in the media. I have suggested to the campaign that it offer even more in the way of constitutional justification for his candidacy. However I was surprised by the outpouring of concern among many that he could be elected president and challenged successfully by the Democrats.”
American courts, almost universally, either refused to even look at suggestions Obama was not eligible, or threw cases out based on “standing,” – that the person bringing the complaint wasn’t personally injured even if there was illegal behavior.
One reader said, “No one is perfect, and I, too, believe Cruz is the best man for the job,” and Greg Peterson said, “I enjoyed your column today, recommending readers vote for Ted Cruz. I have been a fan of Ted Cruz for a quite a while and believe he really is the best choice by far, for the reasons you have stated.”
But the overwhelming number lashed out on the issue about which WND led the reporting when questions arose about Obama.
Michael Morton wrote, “After reading for many years ‘The Whistleblower’ and learning from the writing of Joseph Farah, what the meaning of a Natural Born Citizen is, I am truly devastated that you would vote for a man who is without any question not a Natural Born Citizen, and therefore not eligible to be president…”
Junior G wrote, “Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen and has not even proved that he is even an american citizen at all . He has provided no papers to prove anything just like Obama . it is believed that he entered the country illegally in 1974. Have you lost it ? We will boycott w n d.”
Vicki Webster went straight to the point: “Please cancel my Whistleblower subscription immediately and refund any money that may be due to me. The reason: In his most recent column, Joseph Farah endorsed Ted Cruz for president. I will not knowingly or voluntarily put so much as a single dime into the pocket of someone who endorses a candidate who, as the Canadian-born son of a Cuban father, is ineligible to serve as either president or vice president.”
Judith A. Burrell wrote, “I am shocked that you have endorsed Ted (Bushie) Cruz……..I think he hides behind his Christianity and fake conservativism. He reminds me of an Elmer Gantry.”
Responded Farah, “It’s clear that Trump commands passionate support. I have not offered much criticism of Trump. I’ve defended him profusely. I’ve congratulated Trump on energizing the campaign. My endorsement of Cruz was based on his consistency. But simply because I had the audacity to endorse someone other than Trump, his followers went ballistic – canceling subscriptions, threatening to organize boycotts, name-calling and worse.
“Keep in mind, this was just an expression of my personal preference. I just have one vote. I was not making a corporate endorsement. We have many loyal Trump supporters working at WND. What I think about who the best candidate is has no impact on our news coverage, which, as anyone can see for himself or herself, has been very fair to Trump,” he said.
In his column, Farah had summarized the Democratic side briefly: “Pick your poison” between a former secretary of state “who should and could be indicted at any moment” and “an avowed socialist who once honeymooned in the Soviet Union.”
He continued, “Whoever ultimately wins the Republican campaign – be it Trump or Cruz – represents a vastly more hopeful future with plans that offer high potential for recovery from what we’ve lost.
“That’s why it’s time for Republicans to stop eating their own. To win in November will require unity among the top vote-getters and a healing of the bad feelings of record numbers of GOP voters who turned out in what is the equivalent of a grass-roots rebellion against establishment, business-as-usual politics.
“I am preparing myself for what appears to be inevitable – nominee Trump or nominee Cruz.”
But the critics continued:
Judith Tuttle wrote, “I agree that Ted Cruz is the best candidate, but he is not qualified under the Constitution. Are we to continue ignoring the law as we have for the last eight years?”
Mary Miltenberger said, “I thought you were more knowledgeable than to support someone who is not eligible to be president. Cruz and Rubio are not Natural born citizens and do not qualify to be president or v-president.”
And from Paul Drexel came: “Ronald Reagan was a natural born citizen. Cruz is not. Neither is Rubio. The Constitution is clear about it. If the Constitution is now a living document, the rule of law no longer applies. Obama’s communist handlers saw to that with a complicit media and a revisionist Supreme Court and a sissy Republican Party.”
In fact, detractors pointed out that the column made the headlines at birtherreport.com, a website that has diligently and exuberantly followed the cases challenging Obama’s tenure in the White House.
George Dunson spent no time finessing his thoughts into words, writing, “You Sir are a IDIOT! ANYONE who would NOT vote for the best can[d]idate TRUMP then you must be for KILLERY !”
In the commentary’s comment section, Dave Monat wrote, “How can you endorse a Canadian for POTUS? All credibility has been lost.”
Conservativewarrior said, “Trump is ELIGIBLE, cruz is NOT.”
For the record, the Constitution requires a president to be a “natural born citizen,” a requirement imposed on no other constitutional office holder, but that term is not defined in the Constitution. From other, contemporaneous writings to the Constitution, it likely was understood then to have meant the offspring of two citizens of a country born in the country.
However, today’s media reports commonly gloss over the difference between a “citizen” and “natural born citizen,” as the Constitution specifies.
