Can foreign-born Sen. Ted Cruz prove he’s not a member of some subversive organization?

If you were to ask Sen. Ted Cruz, the freshman Republican from Texas, if he’s part of some nefarious plot to violently overthrow the U.S. government, he surely would say no.

But is such a denial good enough? Don’t the American people deserve solid proof that Cruz is not involved in subversion?

I raise this question in the same spirit that Cruz has raised the question of whether former Sen. Chuck Hagel has received money from North Korea or from other enemies of America. I have no evidence that Cruz belongs to any subversive group, but neither does he have any evidence that Hagel has received money from North Korea. He’s even said he has no such evidence.

As you may have surmised, what I’m doing here is imitating Ted Cruz’s imitation of the late Sen. Joe McCarthy, the infamous witch-hunter for whom an especially ugly period in American history has been named.  I’ll admit that I’m not as good at this as Cruz is, but my mention that he wasn’t born in this country has a nice McCarthyistic touch, doesn’t it? I might add that Cruz even looks a little like McCarthy (see above).

And there’s another striking similarity between today’s Texas troublemaker and the late red-baiter from Wisconsin. McCarthy often claimed that he had lists of specific numbers of Communists in the U.S. government. Cruz has claimed that he knows of a specific number of professors– twelve — at Harvard Law School when he was a student there who said “they were Marxists who believed in the Communists overthrowing the United States government.”

Cruz has cited these so-called commie professors as evidence that Barack Obama “would have made a perfect president of Harvard Law School.”

Obama was, in fact, president of the Harvard Law Review before Cruz arrived at the school. And Obama is now, to hear Cruz tell it, “the most radical” U.S. President “ever to occupy the Oval Office.”

Young Ted is something of a radical himself, isn’t he?

For more about Ted Cruz’s latter-day McCarthyism, see HERE and HERE and HERE.



  1. Luke Fredrickson

    Cruz promised to tell the truth while in D.C. because he “owes it to his constituents”, but appears more interested in blatant lies.

    Hagel will make a fine Secretary, regardless of this clown show by Republicans. He reminds me a bit of Clinton’s pick of Cohen, in a similar period which demanded procurement reform in the DOD after the end of the Cold War.

    It really bothers me how fealty to Israel is now seen as a litmus test for all Cabinet picks… a proverbial tail-wagging-the-dog problem. Except this dog eats billions of our hard-earned dollars every year.

  2. Paranoia and fear are the two big weapons used by the Republican extremists so Rafael Cruz is a perfect fit.

  3. All blown out of proportion.

    This article sets the facts straight.


    An excerpt:

    “Of course, the more controversial part of Senator Cruz’s equation is his charge that there were Marxists on the faculty. Mayer weakly allows:

    It may be that Cruz was referring to a group of left-leaning law professors who supported what they called Critical Legal Studies, a method of critiquing the political impact of the American legal system. Professor Duncan Kennedy, for instance, a leader of the faction, who declined to comment on Cruz’s accusation, counts himself as influenced by the writings of Karl Marx. But he regards himself as a social democrat, not a Communist, and has never advocated the overthrow of the U.S. government by Communists. Rather, he advocated widening admissions at the law school to under-served populations, hiring more minorities and women on the faculty, and paying all law professors equally.

    Cruz’s spokeswoman confirmed, in response, that this is precisely the faculty clique he referred to, and Mayer does not dispute their numbers on the faculty.”

  4. Nef- So the professor was influenced by the writings of Karl Marx. That doesn’t make him a commie red but one who supports judicial equality. If Cruz was offended then perhaps he should have studied law elsewhere.

  5. Craig Knauss


    Since you’re obviously into that anti-communist BS, feel free to read this:

    OLYMPIA, Wash. — It has been just shy of 50 years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Washington state law barring members of the Communist Party from voting or holding public-sector jobs is unconstitutional.

    Evidently, that is not enough time to remove it from the books.
    Washington is one of a handful of states with similar laws still in existence despite their having been declared unconstitutional decades ago.


    Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon, D-Burien, first introduced a measure to repeal Washington state’s anachronistic anti-subversives law last year, figuring, he says, that it would be an unceremonious end to a dead-letter statute originating from a dark period in our nation’s history.

    He was wrong. Though his bill passed out of the House Judiciary Committee, it did so on a party-line vote, with four Republicans opposed.


    BTW, how come we don’t have any anti-Nazi or anti-Klan oaths?

Leave a Reply

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