Ted Cruz: The Four-Part Series

In a four-part series for radio, Glenn tells the life story of presidential candidate Ted Cruz --- from his early upbringing by immigrant parents to his courageous leadership today. Known for tenaciously standing up to establishment power brokers in Washington --- on both sides --- and the media, Cruz has done so with both honor and class. Ted Cruz is, in Glenn's words, the George Washington we've been praying for, born at this time for a reason --- to become president of the United States.

The four-part series is compiled below for your convenience.

Part I: The Early Years

Raised by an American mother and a Cuban immigrant father, Cruz was taught to love the United States and revere the Constitution. From an early age, he learned important lessons from both of his parents, including discipline and hard work. His father --- Rafael Cruz --- fought in the Cuban revolution, and was imprisoned and tortured. After fleeing to Texas in 1957, penniless and not speaking a word of English, Rafael washed dishes for 50 cents an hour to pay his way through the University of Texas.

When Ted was eight years old, he went to a summer camp and accepted Christ in his life. Early on, it became apparent that Ted was more than average. He was brilliant --- and destined for something big.

When he was 15, Ted Cruz was one of five Houston kids selected by the Free Enterprise Institute to tour the country and speak about the Constitution. Prior to graduating high school, Ted had delivered 80 speeches on such topics as economics, the Austrian economist von Mises, and the importance and meaning of the Constitution.

Ted's decision to attend an Ivy League school was not received well by his parents. They were struggling financially. To make his dream a reality, it would mean scholarships, students loans and working two jobs. Additionally, his father was concern the liberal environment would tarnish his son's beliefs.

"Ted, you're growing into a good, strong man," Cruz's father said to him. "Are you going to be strong enough to go to an Ivy League school and hold on to your principles and values?"

Ted assured him he could and was accepted into Princeton University. He later attended Harvard Law School.

Subsequent years at Princeton University and Harvard Law School would uniquely prepare Ted to be leader of the free world. They would also put him on a collision course with some of the most powerful people in the world --- including the president of the United States.

Part II: The College Years

As his high school's valedictorian, Ted had the opportunity to visit several campuses while scouting out colleges. He dreamed of attending an Ivy League school and visited esteemed campuses like Harvard, MIT and Dartmouth. He realized his dream when he was accepted to Princeton University.

Paying for an Ivy League education wasn't easy, though. His family was struggling financially so it required earning scholarships, taking out student loans and working two jobs --- no government bailouts for this constitutional conservative.

During his freshman year, Ted realized that being a principled conservative in a liberal environment would be challenging. He was paired with a New Jersey liberal as his roommate. Needless to say, they didn't exactly hit it off. (In fact, that roommate is conducting a Twitter jihad against Ted this very day.)

Being a super smart geek, Ted naturally joined the Princeton debate team. He became a champion debater, winning multiple categories, including 1992 Team of the Year and 1992 Speaker of the Year. He additionally won significant national debates earning awards for the 1992 National Championship for Top Speaker and the North American Debating Championship Top Speaker. Today, he is forever enshrined in the Princeton debate hall of fame.

Ted continued his debating record at Harvard Law School where he became a world debating championship semifinalist.

While at Harvard, Ted served as the primary editor of the Harvard Law Review, the executive editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy and the founding editor of the Harvard Latino Law Review. He graduated magnum cum laude from Harvard Law School.

One of Ted's law professors --- liberal lion lawyer Alan Dershowitz --- said this of his student:

"One of the sharpest students I had, in terms of analytic skills. I've had 10,000 students over my 50 years at Harvard. He has to qualify among the brightest of the students. Deeply principled. He thinks he's doing the right thing. I saw that years ago when he was a student. He was not a compromiser. He was not somebody who tried to make friends by accepting what was then the political correctness of the day."

Upon graduating from Harvard Law School, Ted landed a job as the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice law clerk in U.S. history, clerking for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He later went into private practice defending his first love --- the United States Constitution.

Working on matters relating to the Second Amendment and the NRA, Ted helped prepare testimony for the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. When he was 28, Cruz joined the George W. Bush presidential campaign in 1999 as a domestic policy adviser, advising then governor George W. Bush in a wide range of policy and legal matters, including civil justice, criminal justice, constitutional law, immigration and government reform.

During the 2000 election, in the case of Bush vs. Gore, Cruz was sent to Florida to sort out the legal mess created by the dangling chad situation. Cruz assisted in assembling the Bush legal team, devising strategy and drafting pleadings for filings with the Supreme Court of Florida and the U.S. Supreme Court. He helped lead the way to two big wins, clearing the way for Bush to become president.

He was still barely 30 years old.

Part III: The Supreme Court Years

At age 33, Ted Cruz became the youngest solicitor general of Texas in American history. He would go on to become the longest serving solicitor general, ferociously fighting for the Constitution. He sought out conservative, constitutional causes, distinguishing himself with exceptional achievements and victories:

• Cruz authored 70 United States Supreme Court briefs and presented 43 oral arguments, including nine before the United States Supreme Court --- more than any practicing lawyer in all of Texas or any current member of Congress. He took on some of the biggest cases decided by the courts in decades --- and won virtually every single time.

• Cruz won a huge Second Amendment victory in the District of Columbia versus Heller, drafting the amicus brief signed by the attorneys general of 31 different states and presenting the oral argument. This victory struck down a D.C. handgun ban as infringing upon the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms --- and it changed everything regarding your right to carry a gun.

• Cruz wrote a brief on behalf all 50 states in the Elk Grove Unified School District versus Newdow case, in which atheist activist Michael Newdow sued on behalf of his daughter to stop schools from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. He objected to the phrase, "One Nation Under God." For months, the pledge was not spoken in nine western states --- until Cruz argued the case. The Supreme Court upheld Cruz's belief that Newdow had no standing to file suit on behalf of his daughter.

• Cruz successfully defended the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments Monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds before the Fifth Circuit Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. As a result, the Ten Commandments Monument currently stands on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol.

• Cruz fought on behalf of the state of Texas to uphold the death penalty sentence for a vicious gang member who was in the United States illegally when he and other gang members brutally beat, raped, tortured and killed two teenage girls in Houston. The Mexican Consulate became involved, as well as then President George W. Bush, who sided with the Mexican government and turned the case over to the International Court of Justice which ruled against Texas and stayed the execution. Texas then turned to Solicitor General Ted Cruz. Appearing before the U.S. Supreme Court, Cruz successfully defended the Constitution. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that decisions from the International Court of Justice were not binding in any domestic law and even the president had no power to enforce them. Ted Cruz won and gang member Jose Medellin met his maker.

Ted Cruz has a proven record of fighting for and defending the United States Constitution --- even when it means going against the establishment. In the case of Medellin versus Texas, not only did he go against a brutal, illegal alien murderer, the country of Mexico, the Geneva Convention, the International Court of Justice --- but also his former boss and the president of the United States, George W. Bush. This may provide insight into why George W. Bush broke his long-standing policy not to comment on politics to say recently about Cruz, "I just don't like the guy." Being embarrassed and beaten on the international stage isn't generally followed by afternoon tea.

There's a reason why the Republican establishment in D.C. is known for not liking Cruz. They stand for the party, for themselves and for their own political power. Ted Cruz doesn't play party politics or political games. Ted Cruz stands for principles, values, integrity and the United States Constitution.

What does your candidate stand for?

Part IV: The Candidate

Ted Cruz is the real deal. He is a true conservative to the marrow of his bones. Not the kind of "conservative" you find in Washington, D.C., the kind that has betrayed us for decades --- but a true constitutional conservative as the Founders intended. The Constitution isn’t just an afterthought to Ted Cruz. He memorized this sacred document when he was 13 years old, and those words are ingrained in the very fabric of his being.

How does a man come to live and breath the Constitution? It's simple, really --- he was raised that way. Raised by a man who lost his freedom in Castro's Cuba and fled to the United States in search of freedom. Raised by a man who taught him to revere God and the Constitution of the United States. Raised by a man who lost his way because of alcoholism and atheism, but found his way back by the grace of God.

Ted Cruz was raised with the Bible and the Constitution on his kitchen table every single day of his life.

As valedictorian, magnum cum laude graduate, Ivy League scholar, debating champion, Supreme Court law clerk, defender of our constitutional rights and U.S. senator, Ted Cruz has held firm to conservative beliefs and values. He is a dedicated husband, loving father and committed Christian. He is a constitutionalist. But, most of all, he is consistent, with a proven track record and history.

For Cruz, it may be true that he has very few friends in Washington, D.C., but he should wear that as a badge of honor.

Constitutional principles have always come first for Ted --- even ahead of party loyalty. Like when he filibustered Obamacare for 21 hours --- alone --- trying to stop the unconstitutional takeover of America’s healthcare system. He knew his own party would come after him, but he had promised the American people to hold firm in his beliefs. So he did.

Ted understands the gravity of our situation, and he understands how to right the wrongs of the past eight years by holding true to the principles of the U.S. Constitution. It's all there, written long ago by the brilliant men who fought the fierce battle for freedom and liberty. We don't need a bailout, we don't need any new government programs. We need to return to the First Principles laid out for us by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.

Ted Cruz is the George Washington we've prayed for. He's here --- the man who understands that government is not the solution but the problem. Ted Cruz understands that the restraints placed on the government by the Constitution are a good thing. Because absolute power corrupts absolutely. We've had enough of that corruption far too long.

It's time to send a man of honor and character to the White House, a man who says what he means and means what he says. It's time to send a man that will proudly place his hand upon the Bible and solemnly swear to faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

That man is Ted Cruz, and his time is now.

Featured Image: Senator Ted Cruz

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Durham annex EXPOSES Soros, Pentagon ties to Deep State machine

ullstein bild Dtl. / Contributor | Getty Images

The Durham annex and ODNI report documents expose a vast network of funders and fixers — from Soros’ Open Society Foundations to the Pentagon.

In a column earlier this month, I argued the deep state is no longer deniable, thanks to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. I outlined the structural design of the deep state as revealed by two recent declassifications: Gabbard’s ODNI report and the Durham annex released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

These documents expose a transnational apparatus of intelligence agencies, media platforms, think tanks, and NGOs operating as a parallel government.

The deep state is funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

But institutions are only part of the story. This web of influence is made possible by people — and by money. This follow-up to the first piece traces the key operatives and financial networks fueling the deep state’s most consequential manipulations, including the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

Architects and operatives

At the top of the intelligence pyramid sits John Brennan, President Obama’s CIA director and one of the principal architects of the manipulated 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence, signed off on that same ICA and later joined 50 other former officials in concluding the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” ahead of the 2020 election. The timing, once again, served a political objective.

James Comey, then FBI director, presided over Crossfire Hurricane. According to the Durham annex, he also allowed the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server to collapse after it became entangled with “sensitive intelligence” revealing her plan to tie President Donald Trump to Russia.

That plan, as documented in the annex, originated with Hillary Clinton herself and was personally pushed by President Obama. Her campaign, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS, which commissioned the now-debunked Steele dossier — a document used to justify surveillance warrants on Trump associates.

Several individuals orbiting the Clinton operation have remained influential. Jake Sullivan, who served as President Biden’s national security adviser, was a foreign policy aide to Clinton during her 2016 campaign. He was named in 2021 as a figure involved in circulating the collusion narrative, and his presence in successive Democratic administrations suggests institutional continuity.

Andrew McCabe, then the FBI’s deputy director, approved the use of FISA warrants derived from unverified sources. His connection to the internal “insurance policy” discussion — described in a 2016 text by FBI official Peter Strzok to colleague Lisa Page — underscores the Bureau’s political posture during that election cycle.

The list of political enablers is long but revealing:

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who, as a former representative from California, chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time and publicly promoted the collusion narrative while having access to intelligence that contradicted it.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both members of the “Gang of Eight” with oversight of intelligence operations, advanced the same narrative despite receiving classified briefings.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, exchanged encrypted text messages with a Russian lobbyist in efforts to speak with Christopher Steele.

These were not passive recipients of flawed intelligence. They were participants in its amplification.

The funding networks behind the machine

The deep state’s operations are not possible without financing — much of it indirect, routed through a nexus of private foundations, quasi-governmental entities, and federal agencies.

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations appear throughout the Durham annex. In one instance, Open Society Foundations documents were intercepted by foreign intelligence and used to track coordination between NGOs and the Clinton campaign’s anti-Trump strategy.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control.

Soros has also been a principal funder of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which ran a project during the Trump administration called the Moscow Project, dedicated to promoting the Russia collusion narrative.

The Tides Foundation and Arabella Advisors both specialize in “dark money” donor-advised funds that obscure the source and destination of political funding. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the biggest donor to the Arabella Advisors by far, which routed $127 million through Arabella’s network in 2020 alone and nearly $500 million in total.

The MacArthur Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation also financed many of the think tanks named in the Durham annex, including the Council on Foreign Relations.

Federal funding pipelines

Parallel to the private networks are government-funded influence operations, often justified under the guise of “democracy promotion” or counter-disinformation initiatives.

USAID directed $270 million to Soros-affiliated organizations for overseas “democracy” programs, a significant portion of which has reverberated back into domestic influence campaigns.

The State Department funds the National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-governmental organization with a $315 million annual budget and ties to narrative engineering projects.

The Department of Homeland Security underwrote entities involved in online censorship programs targeting American citizens.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Pentagon, from 2020 to 2024, awarded over $2.4 trillion to private contractors — many with domestic intelligence capabilities. It also directed $1.4 billion to select think tanks since 2019.

According to public records compiled by DataRepublican, these tax-funded flows often support the very actors shaping U.S. political discourse and global perception campaigns.

Not just domestic — but global

What these disclosures confirm is that the deep state is not a theory. It is a documented structure — funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control. It launders narratives, neutralizes opposition, and overrides democratic will by leveraging the very institutions meant to protect it.

With the Durham annex and the ODNI report, we now see the network's architecture and its actors — names, agencies, funding trails — all laid bare. What remains is the task of dismantling it before its next iteration takes shape.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.