The Cowerding of America - Vietnam

 The first signs I saw of America no longer being the land of the free and the brave was with the onset of Vietnam.  We engaged in a “CONFLICT” not a war and it was never classified as a war.  I would like to add in this conflict (not war) the U.S. Marine Corps lost five times as many dead as in World War I, three times as many dead as in Korea, and more total killed and wounded than in all of World War II.  We sent young men to die and those men did not even know what they were fighting for.  We did know that we did not have the full support of the U.S. Government or the American people.  

We followed orders while celebrities like Jane Fonda called us murders.  Our President Johnson was caught between a rock and a hard place.  He did not want to be the first American President to lose a war (conflict) and yet he did not want the American citizens to turn against him and the Democrat Party.  Our troops were asked to fight in a war which our political leaders in Washington would not let us win. 

Draft evasion (dodging) became vogue.  It was more popular to be a coward than to be loyal to the United States Military or the United States Government.  Draft dodgers were usually college-educated sons of the middle class who could no longer defer induction into the Selective Service System - PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON.  Deserters, on the other hand, were predominantly sons of the lower-income and working classes who had been inducted into the armed services directly from high school or who had volunteered, hoping to obtain a skill and broaden their limited horizons.  Then you had the TRUMPS, BUSH, and other wealthy families with influence who kept their boys out of harm ways.  Let us not forget two other prominent draft dodgers Joe Biden and Dick Cheney.

Starting in 1965, Canada became a choice haven for American draft dodgers and deserters. They were not formally classified as refugees, but as immigrants, there is no official estimate of how many draft dodgers and deserters were admitted to Canada during the Vietnam War. One informed estimate puts their number between 30,000 and 40,000.  Whether or not this estimate is accurate, the fact remains that emigration from the United States was high as long as America was involved in the war and maintained compulsory military service; in 1971 and 1972 Canada received more immigrants from the United States than from any other country.

There were more than 300,000 deserters and draft evaders in total, in which 209,517 men illegally resisted the draft while some 100,000 deserted. 

We do know that it was the largest number of Americans to leave the country to avoid supporting the United States since the American Revolution.  Draft dodging was so popular that books were written on how to do it.  In 1977 on his first day in office President Jimmy Carter pardon the draft dodgers. It is estimated half of them living in Canada returned to the United States with smiles on their faces, while many families stood over graves of their young boys killed in Vietnam crying.

Distinct from draft resisters, there were also deserters of the American forces who also made their way to Canada.  The deserters have not been pardoned and may still face pro forma arrest, as the case of Allen Abney demonstrated in March 2006.  Another similar case was that of Richard Allen Shields: He had deserted the U.S. Army in Alaska in 1972 after serving a year in Vietnam. Twenty-eight years later, on March 22, 2000, while he attempted to drive a lumber truck across the US-Canada border (in Metaline Falls, Washington) he was arrested by U.S. Customs agents and jailed at Fort Sill.  He was discharged from the Army with an Other Than Honorable discharge in April 2000. Not harsh enough in my opinion.  

There were some legal ways to avoid the draft.  Men who had physical or mental problems, men who were married, with children (ended in 1965), attending college or needed at home to support their families might be granted deferments.  Homosexual were exempt and a large number of heterosexual boys claimed to be homosexual to be exempt, while many homosexual hid their sexuality and served proudly with distinction.  It should be said two thirds of the men who fought in Vietnam volunteered for service.  Seventy-three percent of the men that died in Vietnam were volunteers.  

In the ‘60s and ‘70s, young people were referred to as the “Love Generation,” partly because of their insistence on sexual freedom, drugs, hippie lifestyle which they proposed as an alternative (“make love, not war”) to the Vietnam conflict.  I cannot help but refer to them as the loser generation and I am a product of the 60’s.  I credit them with contributing to the downfall of America.  Their goal was to change society and they did.  We have not recovered from what they started.  America slowly became a nation of whimpering slaves to FEAR—fear of war, fear of poverty, fear of random terrorism, fear of getting down-sized or fired because of the economy, fear of getting evicted for bad debts and fear of North Korea, China, Russia, Middle East and Muslims in general.

                                                            

 Attorney General Holder said, America ' has become a nation of cowards' on race.  This is one of the rare occasions I agreed with him, but we have become a nation of cowards not just on race, but on just about everything and his boss President Obama was the biggest coward of all.  John McCain’s economic adviser Phil Gramm said that this country is a “nation of whiners”.  But, please do not blame today’s ills on the 55,000 Baby Boomers who died in Vietnam! 

There was little to no stigma attached to draft dodgers in the 60’s and there is little to no stigma attached to millennials today.  It seems to be a generational thing where there's no stigma attached to being irresponsible.  Millennials delay getting jobs, their own place to live, in general delay growing up in order to delay responsibilities.  Just as the 60’s love children contributed to the decline of society so will the millennials living in mommy's and daddy's basement.   Some of these parents really don't want their kids to leave because they fear they cannot take care of themselves.  A friend told me a few months ago their 30 year old son cannot move out because he has to pay back his student loans and ask me, “Why are they making him pay it back?  It is so unfair”.  She was a love child!  Every failed generation wants someone to blame.

The media during the Vietnam era and the media today are destroying our nation.  The media defines those that want to serve our country as loser, not heroes.  Regardless of what the gutless media says my heroes are the young men and women who face the issues of war and possible death, and then weigh those concerns against obligations to their country, simple obedience to duty, as they understand it and are willing to suffer loneliness, disease, wounds and the ultimate price death.  Some in media are making cowards of our people! 

I love our America, but I will criticize us and not stand by QUIETLY and watch us become a ‘ONCE UPON A TIME GREAT NATION’.  Many students have told me that they are the most well-informed generation in history; really those same students could name all five Simpson family members, but could not name four of the five freedoms in the First Amendment!  Ignorance breeds cowards! 

I pray that the thousands of Americans in uniform around the word are not paying attention to the current cycle of news stories in Washington coming out of the Democrats and die heart liberals that are upset that President Trump ordered hitting a Syrian Airbase for using chemical weapons against their own people. It must be demoralizing to see the rest of us acting like such cowards—and making things more dangerous for them.  I know it was for us who served in Vietnam.  Have we forgotten the vows we made when the Twin Towers fell, and the Pentagon burned? That we would do what it takes to avenge our dead?

Politicians cannot be trusted before or after they are elected to office.

Edward Snowden proved Government’s (politicians) cannot be trusted – WAKE UP AND MAKE THEM ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE !

What keeps a person passive and compliant is fear of repercussions, but once you let go of your attachment to things that do not ultimately matter – money, career, physical safety – you can overcome that fear. The Internet should allow people to experience freedom and explore fully what freedom in a democratic society is all about. Washington is not allowing that to be possible.

I do not want to live in a world where we have no privacy and no freedom, where “Big Brother” might be watching and listening to everything I say and do. I do not think Edward Snowden ever wanted to destroy the NSA, but he did want the people to know what was going on so that the people could decide if they were willing to give up their freedom of privacy.

After Snowden returned to the NSA he went to Japan until 2011. He then returned again to the Dell Corporation assigned to the CIA office in Maryland. If Edward Snowden was the loser, low tech computer operator as the Obama administration portrayed him to be why did NSA, Dell Corporation, CIA and others keep rehiring him over and over again?

In 2012 he was transferred by Dell from Maryland to Hawaii that is where he started downloading the documents he thought the world should see. He realized there was one set of documents that would only be available to him by having access to NSA files so he applied and got a position with Booz Allen Hamilton  which gave him that access. He took a large pay cut in order to secure the job.

In 2013 Edward Snowden requested a few weeks off to receive treatment for his epilepsy. He went to Hong Kong telling none of his family or his girlfriend because he did not want to get them involved in what he was about to do. 

Edward Snowden was staying at a Five Star Hotel, paying with his own personal credit card, using his legal name and was not in hiding as the media and government said. He did not choose Hong Kong so he would have ties with the Chinese mainland government. He chose Hong Kong because he knew it was part of Chinese territory and he believed American Agents would not be as free to operate against him for fear of China getting involved.  He never contacted the Chinese government. His ultimate plan was to seek refuge in Ecuador or Bolivia.

Hong Kong was also attractive to him because it had an elected Democratic government, and it was use to being at odds with a major power – China Mainland. It was also a place where dissenters formed big street protest against China. He felt the people in Hong Kong would be more sympathetic to his cause.

Obama had pledged to protect whistle blowers when he campaigned for President, but he did the opposite once he took office. Obama actually waged a war against whistle blowers. The Obama administration has prosecuted more government leakers under the Espionage Act of 1917 than ALL previous administration in the history of the U.S.A.  I think Snowden believed he had to leave the U.S.A. in order to accomplish what he wanted to do. The man did not and does not want to go to prison – who does?

Let us not forget what the Obama administration tried to do to James Rosen at Fox News. They would have done far more to Edward Snowden. He would have been arrested immediately without bail.  

It would be hard for anyone to deny that the New York Times is pro Obama, but they even came out and said, “The administration has now lost all credibility. President Obama’s ‘Dragnet’ proves he will use any power given him and most likely will abuse it.”  The New York Times back down somewhat after the story was released and said they were only talking about what Obama would do with this one issue. We know Obama has abused his power on MANY issues.

Whistle blowers have been abused and prosecuted under the Obama administration. Journalists have been threatened with jail by intimidation. Laws , ethics, morality nor the Constitution has stopped the Bush or Obama administration from violating U.S. citizens’ rights to privacy.

 How many times have we  read or heard the media say that Edward Snowden  “FLED TO CHINA”? Media was doing what Washington ask them to do even if it was a lie. They made it sound as if Snowden was a secret agent for China.  The governments goal was to turn the American people and the world against Edward Snowden.

Washington was involved in economic espionage and diplomatic spying while condemning China for doing the same thing.  Documents Edward Snowden released proved NSA was spying on Petrobras, the SWIFT banking system, the
Russian oil company Gazprom and the Russian airline Aeroflot strictly for economic reasons. The surveillance had nothing to do with terrorism or national security. How many times have you read about or heard Obama condemn China for economic surveillance? 

Prior to attending the Latin America, energy companies conferences in Mexico and Venezuela our Washington representatives made sure they had all the surveillance NSA had collected on Latin America energy companies which allowed Washington an advantage during the conferences. We know this thanks to Edward Snowden.

NSA employs about thirty thousand employees and that does not count the private contractors. It is estimated 70% of our national intelligence budget is spent on private contractors. In 2010 AT&T was paid to spy on Brazil, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, South Korea and Venezuela for the U.S.A.  It is a known fact, thanks to Edward Snowden, that the government , telecommunication companies and tech companies all work together to carry out surveillance. They cooperate with each other to rob us of our Fourth Amendment rights.

NSA does not only pay private contractors for surveillance they pay foreign governments as well. In 2012 they paid the governments of Canada, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Pakistan, Taiwan and Thailand to carry out surveillance for them.  We know this thanks to Edward Snowden. How can we be assured the information these foreign governments give us is accurate. Is this how the “weapons of mass destruction” got started and was used to start a war?

In 2012 Microsoft was advertising they had the ability to guarantee privacy through their new Outlook program. They promised high levels of encryption to its customers. The government became worried and within a few months Microsoft devised methods so NSA could intercept and decrypt the data on Outlook. We know this thanks to Edward Snowden.

The government even has manufacturers to install malware in individual computers before they are sold to the public giving the government complete control of the computer. China does the same thing and the U.S. officials warned U.S. corporations and individuals not to buy computer equipment manufactured in China because they were installing malware at the factory, but we were doing the same thing.  If you bought Chinese products China could monitor you and the U.S. could not so they wanted you to buy U.S. products with U.S. malware installed in them. We know this thanks to Edward Snowden. At the time Edward Snowden released his documents at least 50,000 computers made in the U.S. had this malware installed in them. The New York Times has reported since more than 100,000 computers have this malware installed in them.

NSA has the ability to alter information in your computer even when the computer is not connected to the Internet. We know this thanks to Edward Snowden.

On June 18, 2013, Obama told Charlie Rose: “What I can say unequivocally is that if you are a U.S. person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls … by law and by rule unless they … go to a court and obtain a warrant and seek probable cause, the same way it has always been.” THIS WAS AN OUT AND OUT LIE.

The GOP chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers, around the same time told CNN that the NSA, “…is not listening to Americans phone calls. If it did it would be illegal and they would be breaking the law.” THIS WAS AN OUT AND OUT LIE and Edward Snowden proved it.

To be continued …

Do not take my freedom of privacy from me!

I want to begin this piece with saying I am not against ALL  government surveillance. Some spying in my opinion will always be necessary and all countries do it. I am for targeted surveillance, aimed only at those for whom their is substantial evidence to believe they are engaged in real wrongdoing.

It was decided in the 1970’s when the Church Committee revealed abusive surveillance being carried out by the United States government  that the government must have evidence of probable wrong doing before it can listen in on personal conversations. Unfortunately government officials did not follow the law. On their own without consent or knowledge of the people they began the unlawful practice again.

Until recently I was for hanging Edward Snowden. I bought the government's propaganda and the mainstream media’s line that he was a traitor and that he had put government operatives in danger. A close friend had been telling me for years I was wrong and I finally agreed to research the matter and I was shocked at what I discovered. I am sure there are many citizens just like me that are or were making judgments on Edward Snowden without really looking into the facts for themselves.

Is Edward Snowden a villain or not. That is a decision we each must make, but WE should make the decision based on what we learn from taking a critical look at the situation and not just buy into media and government hype.

Here's one definition of a hero: It's someone who, given a choice between doing the right thing at great personal cost or the wrong thing for great personal benefit, chooses the former. I now believe Snowden did the right thing and no one can dispute that he made a great personal sacrifice to do so. Snowden did not gain personally from what he did, he had to leave the country he loved, he had to leave behind his family and girlfriend and he gave up a potential income of around $200,000 a year.  Edward Snowden risk everything to let the American people know how their Constitutional freedoms were being violated by our government. We would most likely never know if not for Edward Snowden.

Unlike others who've controversially exposed government secrets — WikiLeaks' Julian Assange and Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, the latter facing life in prison — Snowden was at least somewhat more selective in his disclosures, and the journalists who received them. It is not true that Snowden’s disclosure put ANY government operative in danger – no identities were released by Snowden. The government has not shown one definitive examples of someone being put in danger. The only government entity harmed was the NSA and the Bush/ Obama administrations. The world became aware of the lies they have told for years regarding national security.

Edward Snowden has forced a public debate on the sweepingly invasive programs that should have taken place before they were created. If continued indefinitely, a secret government database permanently tracking the actions of every American would, indeed, pose a threat to democracy.

Some in media that are more loyal to the government than to the people did the governments bidding and tried to betray Snowden as a person who liked drama. They said He gave himself the code name "Verax," Latin for truth-teller, and he warned a Washington Post reporter that the U.S. intelligence community would be willing to kill to stop the release of the documents. I to would have taken a code name until I was ready to reveal myself – if ever. Most of us take code names when we use the Internet – Tom1942. If anyone believes someone in government is not capable of killing to keep their illegal actions from coming out they are naive. Why would the majority of mainstream media do the governments bidding - for future access to the politicians.

For years the UK and US governments broke the law. For years, they hid the sheer scale of their spying practices not just from the British and American public, but from other elected officials. I bought into the government line, “nothing to hide, nothing to fear.” There is no such thing as a risk free society. I now realize that  myself and most Americans have been dubbed by the government in allowing them to rob us of our guaranteed Constitution rights in the name of TERRORISM! More people are killed each year in automobile accidents than by terrorist and I do not think anyone is willing to give up their freedom to own a car and drive because of the risk of being killed in an automobile accident.

Snowden, now 32, remains in Russia under temporary political asylum after leaking classified National Security Agency documents in 2013. Former Attorney Gen. Eric Holder said Monday that Snowden has performed a "public service" by releasing the information on the agency's vast data-collection programs. This is the same man that wanted him tried, given life in prison or even executed.  This is the same man that lied about Snowden to make the American people and the world turn against him. This is the same man that said a high school drop out would never have access to such classified intelligence. This is the same man that called Snowden a traitor and a liar. Now this same man says Edward Snowden performed a public service, but still wants him tried in the United States for treason. Why would he want him tried for treason if he committed a public service BECAUSE it would be a deterrent to future whistle-blowers. I say pardon Edward Snowden.

I am going to continue this subject in stages, but I want to give you some things to think about as we go forward in days to come. FBI Director James Comey told a Senate committee on Dec. 9 that the two San Bernardino shooters were radicalized at least two years before the terror attack and had discussed on the Internet and telephone jihad and martyrdom as early as 2013. How does Comey know this? Comey was probably relying on communications intercepted by the National Security Agency (NSA). Whether that’s true or he learned it some other way, the government looks bad. If Comey’s source is the NSA, then it means persons known to have radical sympathies still managed to enter the U.S. unhindered and stage an attack. So what are we taxpayers getting for the trillion dollars we have given these agencies for over a decade?

Edward Snowden, the NSA whistle-blower who fled overseas in 2013, said the NSA was intercepting far more data than it could possibly analyze. It did so as part of General Keith Alexander’s “collect it all” campaign. The result was an intelligence agency drowning in so much intercepted data that it missed what Comey’s agents found in a matter of days – once they knew where to look. By then, 14 people were dead and 22 injured. We spent a trillion dollars and sacrificed hard-fought civil liberties so the FBI could explain a killer’s motive after the victims were already dead.

It may be that Comey uncovered information about the terrorists’ background by non-technical means. FBI agents knocked on doors and talked to people.  It’s old-fashioned, but still effective.

The NSA still looks bad in either scenario. It means that even with every possible legal advantage and a near-unlimited budget, the agency still missed very obvious signs of radical intent by people who then entered the U.S. and attacked us. That’s not basic security, much less “national” security. That proves Americans are not getting what we are paying for.

FBI Director Comey says it is all our fault – the citizens fault. He claims the citizens are at fault because we prefer to keep our private affairs private and in doing so we are endangering national security. You would have thought their government tactics had worked in San Bernardino. Government officials know how to blame others, but not accept responsibility for their failures.

Washington politicians and government employees serve Washington not the people of the United States. We are getting a bad deal!

Too  be continued…

The government uses fear to make the citizens fall in line

Create fear in people of a common enemy and convince them you are the only source of protection from that enemy and you can gain ultimate control. That technique has been used by the military in basic training for decades. New recruits fear the Drill Instructors and the source of protection from them are your fellow recruits. I was the Barracks Chief at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. I was surprised that the Drill Instructors I knew in private were not the same men when in front of the recruits. They used fear to get the new recruits to depend on each other. Fear is a powerful thing and can be used for good and bad.

9/11 caused Americans to fear. Who could we turn to other than our elected officials for protection? We had no choice but believe the people running our government knew best and the politicians took full advantage of it. We unfortunately did not think for ourselves and began to rely on the government for all our security against terrorism.

My political party – Republican Party – was all for the Patriot Act. That same party espouses the virtues of our Founding Fathers, small government and individual freedoms. Our Founding Fathers would have never supported the Patriot Act, the Patriot Act increased the size of government and the Patriot Act took away some individual freedoms. The Patriot Act led to the NSA abuses which robbed us of some of our guaranteed freedoms.

President Bush shortly after 9/11 signed the Patriot Act. It was done in haste and could not have possibly been well thought out in such a short time. The Patriot Act allowed our government to legally intercept PRIVATE conversations and correspondence and even gave the government the right to enter our homes and businesses for what the Founding Father described as unreasonable search and seizure.  We were willing to accept this intrusion on our privacy for the politicians promise of security at home and abroad from terrorism. There is no such thing as a risk free society.

9/11 was a perfect opportunity for Bill Bratton to gain the fame he so desperately craved. Bill Bratton was a former Boston policeman who became second in command and then went on to become the head of the New York transit police system. Even as a military policeman in Vietnam he had already begun to seek fame.  His colleagues referred to him as an ‘attention seeker’.

If burglaries went up in a particular area he got warrants to bring in every one in the area that had ever been questioned or convicted of burglary. If car robberies went up he set up registrations check points in the area and stop every vehicle. If you did not have the registration papers in the vehicle you went to jail. Crime did decrease, but civil rights were violated. The homeless became a target. New York city citizens complaints against the police department jumped 50%.  The question we all have to ask our selves is what price are we willing to pay for a little more security. Are we willing to tolerate aggressive police tactics (Bill Bratton tactics) and loss of freedoms.

The officials of New York were at first impressed until the law suits were filed and settlements were having to be made out of court in order to reduce losses and two years later Bill Bratton was fired. Bill Bratton moved on to the notorious Los Angeles Police Department as Police Chief.

Following 9/11 people were willing to accept Bill Bratton’s crime-fighting techniques.  People were looking for a PROACTIVE F.B.I., private security force and police force. Most were willing to sacrifice their rights to privacy because of fear. Bill Bratton returned to fame and his police tactics went in to effect in the Federal Government.

I went to a Galveston Bookstore and ask for a book on terrorism and a few days later was visited by two government agents and ask why was I searching for the book. I simply wanted to know as much as I could about what I had to fear. I learned that curious people needed to fear their own government. I had been a supporter of the Patriot Act until then because like many Americans I said over and over if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear. Maybe I over reactive, but the visit by government agents instill some fear in me. It seems that since Galveston is a port town extra precautions were being taken in the area.

President Obama and President Bush defended the extensive secret collection of information as critical to fighting terrorist. I believe security had to be stepped up, but I question did they go too far. What I found interesting was Obama saying you can’t have 100% security and 100% freedom. I realized then for sure that just like guerrilla warfare in Vietnam our leaders did not understand terrorism at all. Any American who thinks they are 100% secure are foolish.

In a single vote in 2011 our members of Congress  wiped away what thousands of patriotic Americans died for -- our right to privacy and our freedom of speech. As events in Washington have proven, freedoms lost are hard to regain. The Patriot Act was based on ignorance and fear. We were told the Patriot Act did not curtail any of our rights. We have now found that was not true just as we have found so many things Washington politicians say are not true (Iran Deal). Ben Franklin agreed with the statement: "Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security." Politicians are often ill informed (weapons of mass destruction). Human history has proven there will never be an honest excuse for giving away our freedoms.

I will not vote for a politician that voted for the Patriot Act which took away Americans freedoms and then turns around and ask us to support ‘Open Borders’ or ‘Path to Citizenship’ or ‘Amnesty for Illegals’  or welcoming Syrian refugees into America.  This alone is enough for me to vote for Donald Trump.

Appointing Supreme Court Justices has become critical to political parties!

I will be surprised if the conspiracy stories do not begin soon over Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. There were some very important cases about to be ruled on, cases that have tremendous political ramifications.

Among these is Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Association, a landmark case regarding the mandatory collection of union dues and their use for political purposes. The ruling could have meant the death of collective bargaining and the political might of America’s unions.

The Democrat Party has depended on the union votes for decades to keep them in power. Since Reagan the union’s power has slowly eroded and if employees were not forced to pay union dues their political power would have most likely ended. Without political power to threaten politicians with their block votes and large campaign donations politicians would no longer have a reason to rule in favor of union bosses even when the politicians know their decisions are not in the best interest of the country as a whole.  

After oral arguments in the case in January, The Washington Post indicated the court’s conservative majority, including Scalia, were leaning to rule against the union’s ability to collect mandatory dues. But, with Scalia’s passing and the news that the Republican led Senate will likely not confirm an Obama nominee means such cases could end up with a 4 to 4 decisions. Lacking a majority, the lower court’s rulings would stand in favor of the unions.

Had the Supreme Court ruled that union dues could not be used for political purposes, it would have dealt a major blow to one of the Democrat Party’s most powerful assets.

Another key case is U.S. vs. Texas, in which opponents challenged the legality of the president’s executive orders dealing with illegal immigrants. Signs are now strong that it will be decided at the lower court level and the Supreme Court will not deal with it.

Supreme Court justices take a vote on a case immediately after oral argument, cases that have already been argued, even if no opinion has been written yet, the Chief Justice has an obligation to include Justice Scalia's vote in those cases. In other cases where no vote has yet been taken, we may get tied votes which means the lower court decisions will stand. That means that a number of controversial issues will have to be brought back to the court in new cases when there are nine justices.

Not all legal experts agree with the view Chief Justice Roberts could issue a decision using Scalia’s vote.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, blasted comments by Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader that the Senate would try to block President Obama from nominating a new justice to replace Justice Antonin Scalia.

Ms. Warren said, “Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.”

That is not what Ms. Warren and other Democrats were saying in 2008 and 2004 when they were afraid that George Bush would appoint a new Supreme Court Justice prior to elections. The Democrats in 2008 and 2004 like the Republicans in 2016 threaten to block a new nominee for the Supreme Court.

In the 1840’s and 1860 the Supreme Court went two years without nine Justices. That is certainly not an ideal situation, but the Supreme Court operated during those periods and would do the same today regardless of what Harry Reid says about the Court cannot go one year without nine Justices.

There was a time when the Supreme Court exercised its role as final decider on important public issues, modestly, on a non-partisan, non-ideological basis and only when necessary to protect the Constitution from clear excesses committed by the political branches. In my opinion those days are long gone there is no denying the Supreme Court has become just another arena for playing out the same partisan and ideological warfare that dominates the other branches. This is why political parties and politicians fight so hard to have their president make these appointments.

The current size of the court, nine justices, is not established in the Constitution. It has varied over U.S. history from five to ten.  The changes in the size of the court were almost always done for partisan/political/ideological reasons. Constitutionally, the number of justices could be changed again. F.D.R. is the last president to try to change the number on the court, but he failed to do so.

Republicans and Democrats have been obstructionist, mean-spirited and unfair when it comes to appointing Supreme Court Justices. Be careful of what you believe coming from the mouth of politicians from either political parties during this time of replacing Justice Scalia and be careful of the conspiracy stories that will likely begin over Scalia’s death – no autopsy, no heart failure, death due to natural causes, enjoying a hunting trip and vacation the day before he died will only feed them.  

What do I think of Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz tries to appear as an uncompromising politician, but he is deal maker just like all other politicians.  His father has said over and over again his son, "Ted will not compromise." But, I think Ted Cruz will compromise on matters that do not matter to him regardless if they matter to others within the party or the Republican voters.

It depends on what audience Cruz is talking to if he is willing to compromise or not. In front of some audiences Cruz has said, "If they offer you half a loaf, you take it - and then come back for more."

Some students who were in college with him complained that Ted didn't have an off switch and that he lectured them all the time. Some claimed he was overbearing.  The Ted Cruz I see today affects me in much the same way as he did his college friends.  I have never felt he was talking to the American people it always seems to me he is lecturing us and prior to Donald Trump he was the most overbearing and smug politicians I had listened to.

Like Obama he knows what he wants and he wants everyone else to want the same thing.  In other words Ted Cruz like Obama thinks he knows what is best for us!  I get the impression if we do not agree with him he believes we must be stupid.

Rob Marks, a fellow student at Princeton, said this about Cruz, "There was no emotion. It was pure logic. In Ted's mind, he was never wrong. He viewed himself as ideologically pure."  I do not think Rob Marks would have a difficult time recognizing the Ted Cruz of today because it appears to me he has not changed.

Edward Bergman, a New Jersey lawyer who taught Cruz in a course on alternative dispute resolution, said Cruz's classroom manner and written work displayed a smugness that made him unpopular. I am glad I had an opportunity to read that article because that is the same feeling I get when Cruz addresses the Senate or in the recent debates. It's a smug, know-it-all attitude like he demonstrated on Greta Van Susteren show on 12/18/15 on Fox News. I now know I am not the only one that feels that way about him.

When Cruz filibustered in 2013 against Obamacare for 21 hours and 19 minutes, many conservative thought they saw a man standing up for their principles. I was and still am against Obamacare, but what I saw during the filibuster was an arrogant, uncompromising, hardheaded, stubborn man who thought his ideas were the only correct ideas. What did he accomplish with the filibuster theatrics, except get some television exposure? We still got Obamacare. If Cruz had been willing to work with others and compromise a little maybe he could have gotten some amendments to Obamacare that would have made the plan better.

To be in politics you must be willing to compromise. Politics is all about give and take in order to accomplish goals. Obama is a failure in politics because he does not understand the art of compromise.  Even though Cruz claims “half a loaf is better than none” his actions do not reflect that.  Like Obama Cruz loves intellectual arguments for the sake of arguing. Like Obama Cruz would perhaps make a better professor than politician. Like Obama Cruz could care less who criticizes him and he is not interested in finding out why they criticize him because he has already concluded he is right.

How tough will Cruz be on Wall Street since his wife Heidi Cruz is a managing director of Goldman Sachs in Houston? I know what Cruz says now, but if elected and he has real power over the economy what will he do then. 

His wife claims Ted has learned, “…not to preach at people. People don't want to be judged." She sees a different Ted Cruz than I do or he was so much worse than he is now the change has overwhelmed her.

I have noticed when he is in Iowa, a farm state, he skirts over the fact that he is against farm subsidies and feeds them bushels of political propaganda on, "Abolish the IRS"; the “EPA is completely lawless" and “over the past 17 years, the planet has seen "no warming whatsoever."

 Cruz likes to tell the story about a 6-foot-6 African American guard walking up to him and saying, “I didn't vote for you, but I'll say this: You've done what you said you'd do", if elected president the farmers of Iowa will be able to say, I did vote for you and you’ve done what you said you would do you took our subsidies away – we didn’t hear you say it, but we now know you said it to others.

Cruz still has excellent debate skills and he knows what to say and what not to say at the appropriate times. Cruz is to public speaking what Michael Phelps was to swimming. Cruz is the Republican Barack Obama. He is a Huckabee Christian Conservative. He can demonstrate he is a bit of Ron Paul when it serves him well. He is the Tea Partiers candidate because his goal is to push the Republican Party as far right as possible.

Ted Cruz truly believes the Declaration of Independence's promises people certain unalienable Rights. He believes certain freedoms are every human's birthright and that governments must protect those rights. Ted Cruz has always demonstrated that he is for the underdog. Cruz stands for many things I stand for, but what frightens me about Cruz is he is not flexible in his thinking, once he has decided he is right he seems to close his mind to further discussion.

I know Cruz is against abortion, but I am not clear why he is against abortion. Does he oppose abortion because it is murder (moral) or that terminating a pregnancy violates natural order and natural law is the basis of the Constitution (intellectual) — is it an intellectual or moral issue for Cruz? The difference speaks to his real evangelical roots. Evangelicals are against abortion for moral reasons regardless of any intellectual argument. Pro- right groups can argue for abortion based solely on intellectual reasoning. I know Cruz loves intellectual debates, but what about moral debates.

Cruz would be for a Constitutional Amendment limiting the Federal Governments power. At a 2010 Federalist Society panel he stated, "If one embraces the views of Madison...which is that men are not angels and that elected politicians will almost always seek to expand their power, then the single most effective way to restrain government power is to provide a constraint they can't change."  If elected and he pursued the Amendment change it would be divisive and it would take up valuable time an administration needs to deal with more relevant crisis.

As Solicitor General for Texas Cruz went before the Supreme Court eight times, five involved the death penalty, with Cruz arguing that Texas should be allowed to execute the mentally ill.  Was the argument a moral issue or an intellectual issue for him? You may ask what difference it makes. Again, I think it speaks to his conservative religious views he constantly touts.

 No one's is a bigger promoter of Ted Cruz than Ted Cruz. The Austin American-Statesman pointed out that he took credit for a case that was actually argued and won by Gregg Abbott, then Texas Attorney General, now Governor of Texas. He actually claimed the victory as one of his own high-court victories. Journalists who have interviewed him have commented “Ted Cruz loves to talk about Ted Cruz”.

Cruz should give credit to the super-PAC’s, and a flurry of barnstorming by national conservatives, including Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, and Sarah Palin for his runoff win for the Senate. Cruz dishonestly ran as an outsider even though his credentials—Harvard Law Review, Rehnquist court, Bush campaign, Perry administration did not truly fit that billing. Cruz can speak the language of established Republicans and Tea Party Republicans and that is one of his greatest assets – he can live in both worlds as needed.

Cruz can and will break out in a few lines of Spanish when he thinks it will benefit him even though he cannot carry on a conversation in Spanish.  Cruz is the typical educated politician, use car salesman, door to door vacuum cleaner salesman. He will say and does what he thinks will help him win. The argument he is having with Rubio at the moment over immigration/citizenship is an example of that.

Cruz touts the 10th Amendment theories most prominent during the civil rights clashes of the 1950s and '60s, when Southern governors touted their (nonexistent) right to invalidate federal laws. His social conservatism takes us back to the '90s, when the gay rights agenda (which Cruz has pledged to combat in DC) was seen lurking around every corner. His fear of international treaties as a gateway to the dissolution of American sovereignty might have fit right in during the Eisenhower era. Many of Cruz’s ideas are not new.

Cruz supports a Constitutional amendment mandating that Congress pass a balanced budget. He argues that this is the best way to cut down deficits and the debt. I agree that we must have a balanced budget. I think that politicians are so dishonest we can never have a balance budget unless the Constitution demands it. If politicians are going to seek an amendment change on the budget now may be the time to do it.  But, Cruz would most likely want to tie the 10^th Amendment argument to it and it would all be a waste of time and money.

Cruz wants to reduce corporate tax rates to 15 percent and cut federal subsidies for renewable fuels. I definitely could support lowering corporate tax rates because I believe it would improve the economy and create jobs. I am for stopping subsidies of all kinds to private for profit corporations. No one ever financed one of my business ventures and I do not want to finance someone else’s. Business ventures are always a risk and those who stand to profit from them should take the risk and not the taxpayers.

Cruz is a proponent of a simpler tax code. Politicians have been saying we need a simpler tax code for thirty years, but they take no action to accomplish it when in office. I do not think Cruz is any different.  Although he does claim he is for a ‘flat tax’ which I would support.

Cruz is for each individual states defining “marriage”. I am not a supporter of that. All Americans should be guaranteed the same equal rights in all States regardless of where they live in the United States. This could prohibit gay couples from seeking advancement in employment in other states. It could prevent gay couples from living where they want to live. It could prevent gay couples from living near their families. It could create problems for couples when traveling and sickness occurred. There are all sorts of problems with States defining marriage. I once supported what Cruz stands for, but now I see the problems it can and would create. I am not against a national vote to decide the legal definition of marriage, but I would oppose not offering gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples in committed relationships. I understand that the term ‘marriage’ has traditional meaning to many Americans.

Cruz stand on gays is confusing because in April, he sounded more open-minded at a New York reception hosted by two gay businessmen. Cruz, an attendee told the New York Times reporter, "He would have no problem if one of his daughters was gay." It could be Cruz just trying to say the right thing at the right time to win once again demonstrating his ‘debate and public speaking skills’.

Like Cruz I am for requiring all judges to stand for election at least every four years, but I would exempt Supreme Court Judges from the law.  I still favor lifetime terms for Supreme Court Judges because I feel it brings more continuity to the legal system and American way of life. I do not want Supreme Court Judges making decisions based on the current whims of Americans because they have to stand for reelection.

Ted Cruz supports building the Keystone XL pipeline. I support Keystone XL pipeline and believe that any politicians that values the interest of the American people would support it. Obama allowed tree huggers to keep him from doing what was best for employment and the economy. Obama is responsible for many American families’ suffering needlessly for non-existent environmental concerns.

Ted Cruz favors deportation of unauthorized immigrants. It is not clear to me or to Greta on Fox News how he would accomplish the deportation. He wants those that want immediate round up and deportation to believe he would do that, while those, like me, who want illegal aliens deported as they are caught he wants us to believe he would proceed in that manner.

In 1999 Cruz urged Mr. Bush, to state his opposition to illegal immigration and to urge enforcement of border restrictions. At the same time, he reminded Mr. Bush we need to remember that many of those coming here are coming to feed their families, to have a chance at a better life. It is not quite the same as calling illegal immigration “an act of love,” as Jeb Bush did last year, but Mr. Cruz’s advice to Mr. Bush in 1999 was sharply different than in 2015 as he seeks to create distance between him and Mr. Rubio.

Cruz supports expanding foreign trade and voted to give President Obama fast-track authority for getting the Trans-Pacific Partnership through Congress. I did not like the typical Washington backroom deals that allowed the bill to get to the floor, but I to would support a bill that would create jobs, growth, and opportunity for struggling American families.

Latest polls put the candidates standing at: Donald Trump 34%, Ted Cruz 18%, Marco Rubio 13%, Jeb Bush 7% , Ben Carson 6% , Chris Christie 5%, 4% each for Carly Fiorina and Mike Huckabee, 2% each for John Kasich and Rand Paul, 1% each for Lindsey Graham and Rick Santorum, and less than 1% each for Jim Gilmore and George Pataki.

Can Cruz win in 2016?  The Tea Party supporters believe Cruz can win in the general election. I do not think ‘purest’ do well in the Republican Party in the end. Republicans tend to support more moderate candidates when it comes to the final vote. I do not think just nominating a ‘purest’ conservative is going to win the general election for the Republicans. 

Now that the field of candidates appears to be down to Trump, Cruz and Rubio I believe voters will start taking a more critical look at all the candidate and they will find Cruz is not all he claims to be. Cruz to me is just a more polished politician than Trump. Both are egotistical maniacs – in love with themselves. 

If I were to support either I would choose Trump because I see Cruz as a snake hiding in the grass waiting to attack.  I cannot get past my feeling that Rubio seems too young and too immature to be President of the United States. I was optimistic when the primary campaigns began, but not so optimistic now. Who is going to win I honestly do not know.

++Did Cruz not prove Cruz is for Cruz at the Republican Convention and is the snake that I always claimed he was.

Donald Trump's Muslim proposal may help him and not hurt him.

Nearly every politician from both parties have been critical of Donald Trump for suggesting closing the U.S. to all Muslim immigrants until the officials can get a handle on the Islamic terror threat.  Sounds like a good suggestion to me. If the back room power bosses of the Republican Party, Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders and the other Liberals think they will hurt Trump by attacking him I think they may be wrong. Let’s get real Trump’s supporters are primarily white, conservative, Christians. I doubt if many Muslims, Blacks or Hispanic will be supporting Trump regardless of any statement he makes. Therefore Trump’s remarks may help him instead of hurt him in the primary elections, but the general election will be a different animal. No other Republican is standing up to Obama on the terrorist issue as Trump is.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest on Tuesday called Trump a “carnival barker” who should be disqualified from running for president, along with any GOP candidate who doesn’t denounce his remarks. I do not think Donald Trump or his supporters care what one of Obama’s paid hacks says. Josh Earnest says what Obama and his advisors tell him to say. He is not paid to think for himself. Josh Earnest remarks may help Trump in the polls.

House Speaker Paul Ryan said Trump’s remarks go against what the party stands for. I wish Paul Ryan would explain to us what the Republican Party stands for, because I no longer know. As far as I can tell the Democrats and Republican stand for the same thing. The Republican House and Senate have demonstrated they will not use the power of the purse to block or change Democrat (Obama) programs.

The National Republican Committee Chair said, “I don’t agree with Trump. We need to aggressively take on radical Islamic terrorism, but not at the expense of our American values.” It seems obvious to me Reince Priebus has lost touch with what American values are.  

A majority (56%) of Americans agree that the values of Islam are at odds with American values and the American way of life. It appears to me that American voters are fearful about terrorism and are willing to do anything that they think might make us safer. I think more conservative Americans at this time would agree more with Donald Trump than with Reince Priebus, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Linsey Graham and Dick Cheney are saying.  That is certainly what the polls reveal.

A new USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll released Tuesday revealed that even if the GOP establishment successfully ends Trump’s White House bid, 68 percent of his supporters would vote for him as an Independent, 28 percent said they wouldn’t and the rest were undecided. I tend to believe for the first time in my life I would support an Independent candidate. I would support an Independent Donald Trump because I do not think he would let the Republican and Democrat elected officials push him around and if they tried he would go public as Reagan did and they would not risk that.

Trump’s high poll numbers survived the attacks he received for making inappropriate statements on Mexican immigrants, questioning the heroism of Sen. John McCain as a prisoner of war, and suggesting that Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly was menstruating (I am not sure that is what he meant) when she asked him tough questions (I think unfair questions) at the first Republican primary debate. He could survive this last comment that has brought on a media storm as he has others.

If Donald Trump should continue to carry the support of the Republican voters and the Republican Party sabotaged his Presidential possibilities I think they would be guaranteeing a win for the Democrats and most likely Queen Hillary.

How fast the Democrats forget their past. Don’t they remember the Iranian hostage crisis? President Carter banned all Iranians from entering the U.S. unless they opposed the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency. Some argue that Trump’s plan is different because it bars members of a religious group. I believe the Shite Islamist regime in Iran was and is an Islamic Radical Muslim Religious regime ran by Imam’s.  Donald Trump’s proposal certainly seems similar to me.

 “The Secretary of Treasury and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly,” Carter said in 1980. In addition, the Carter administration began a thorough campaign to deport Iranian students who had overstayed their visas.

The Carter move was aimed at protecting American lives and was not very controversial at the time. Donald Trump’s proposal is aimed at protecting American lives and would not be that controversial if not for the Democrat, Liberals, media and the Republican establishment in Washington D.C. that want to stop Donald Trump.  I think if Donald Trump’s plan was carried out sensibly and diplomatically it would not be controversial with most American.

One media outlet was concerned that CAIR had been offended because the Director of the MUSLIM organization, Ibrahim Hooper said, “We’re entering into the realm of the fascist now.  It should be disturbing to all Americans that the leading Republican presidential candidate would issue essentially a fascist statement.” I am not concerned with what CAIR thinks, since I do not view them as a moderate Islamic group. I am more concerned as to why some are more concerned about what CAIR thinks than what the majority of American thinks.

Journalists have stated that Less than 24 hours after Mr. Obama (in a speech from the Oval Office) urged Americans not to overreact to the terrorist massacre by Islamic extremists in San Bernardino by vilifying Islam and he praised the patriotism of millions of Americans Muslims Mr. Trump called for an entry bans and forced registration of Muslims which will set off a backlash from moderate Islamic Muslims. Perhaps if Obama did not try over and over again to make Americans look like the bad guys in the Radical Muslim Terrorist crisis Donald Trump would not have to propose what he did.

The media has begun to take a tougher stand against Republican front-runner Donald Trump after his campaign promise to keep Muslims out of the country as a means to stop the terrorist threat of ISIS. There have been other times when the press leaned harder on Trump when they thought he had made statements that would disqualify him only to find his statements helped him in the polls.

The Philadelphia Daily News put a photo of Trump with his arm raised in a “Sieg Heil” salute on its front page with the headline “The New Furor.” Michael Days, the editor-in-chief of the tabloid, said he decided to go with the image after receiving outraged texts throughout the day about Trump’s comments.

It was reported, “On the 74th anniversary of the surprise Pearl Harbor attack by Japanese warplanes that brought the United States into the Second World War that Mr. Trump’s anti-Muslim accusations stirred dark memories. Not since then, when tens of thousands of Americans of Japanese ancestry – including citizens – were rounded up and forced into internment camps has a major political figure in the United States called for imposing discriminatory treatment on the basis of religion or race.”

I believe Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a Democrat, was President at the time of the Japanese interment and he personally called for it to be done. Then and now are two different times. I would have disagreed with Roosevelt’s decision because the U.S. was not threatened by Japanese Radical Terrorist living in the United States. 

One liberal article stated, “Some Republicans have been stoking the smoldering embers of anti-Muslim fervor in the United States since Mr. Obama launched his bid to replace former president George W. Bush. Mr. Obama, whose Kenyan father and Indonesian stepfather were both Muslims, spent some of his childhood in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim-majority nation, and has been openly accused of being a closet Muslim by some right-wing Republicans.” I believed Obama was a Christian and I do not recall his father or stepfather ever being on a ballot in the United States so the religious preference of his father or stepfather is of no importance to me. I think the majority of American’s accepted that Obama was a Christian. Lately, I have begun to wonder and I think others have to if we could have been wrong due to Obama’s constant attack on America, Americans and particularly American Christians.  The article even stated “Donald Trump hates Muslim.” I may be wrong, but I have never heard Donald Trump say he hated anyone. I did hear him say that a lot of Muslims around the world hated Americans.

Liberal articles have used Donald Trump’s statement claiming that many Muslims danced and celebrated on rooftops in New Jersey as New York’s World Trade Center’s twin towers burned and collapsed against him. Frankly, I believe Donald Trump was incorrect or exaggerating when he made the statement. I am sure there were Radical Islamic Muslims in every state that were pleased to see the terrorist win one against the United States.

If Donald Trump did lie when he made the statement it pales compared to Obama’s lies – if you like your doctor you can keep him, Bengasi was caused by an anti-Muslim video, the I.R.S. did not discriminate against conservative organizations and all the other lies he has told the American people. It is not right, but all politicians make statements that they think will win them votes when speaking to a particular group of people.

Gulf News, a Dubai-based English-language news outlet took the opportunity to seize on Donald Trump’s remarks and added to them by stating; “Trump’s solution would be to bomb the hell out of ISIS militants in Iraq and Syria.”  I really do not care what the Middle East Muslim media says. If Trump was elected and ordered more effective bombings it would be better than what Obama has done over the past seven years. It seems to me there are Muslim groups in the Middle East fear a Donald Trump administration. They certainly do not fear Obama or the Democrats.

I read, “If you’re a bigot, redneck or white supremacist voter in the US right now, you gotta love Donald Trump. But it you’re a Muslim, an immigrant, a Mexican or Black, then you had better be afraid — very afraid.” I am not a bigot, redneck or white supremacist and I might support Donald Trump. I certainly would fear Donald Trump less than I do Islamic Muslim Terrorist. I do not think any Muslim, Mexican or Muslim need fear Trump if they are here legally and obeying the laws.

Liberals have never been a supporter of Bill O'Reilly on FOX News Channel, until he slammed Trump’s commentary as a "racist diatribe," saying that even former Vice President Dick Cheney was “disgusted” with Trumps statement.  Cheney, speaking on a radio show said Trump’s plan to ban all Muslim immigration, “… goes against everything we stand for and believe in. Religious freedom has been a very important part of our history and where we came from.” When someone seems to agree with the Liberals they forget all the times they have said Bill O’Reilly did not know what he was talking about, but all of a sudden he has become an expert and they are quoting him as if he is a prophet.

Dar al-Ifta, Egypt’s official religious body, echoed Cheney’s statement on religious freedom in the U.S. The organization issued a statement saying Trump’s commentary was “… totally erroneous” and that “… such hostile attitudes towards Islam and Muslims will increase tensions within the American society of which Muslims represent around 8 million peaceful and loyal American citizens.” Many thought the San Bernardino Radical Islamic Terrorist and his family were peaceful and it does not appear they were.  I really did not expect a Muslim Middle East religious group to support Donald Trump or his latest comments.

They went on to say, “It is unfair to punish all Muslims because of a group of extremists whose criminal actions are repudiated by Islam,” I do not think all Muslim should be judged by a few radicals, but I do think those that are not radical should be taking the fight to the radicals and not expect non-Muslims to do it for them. I also do not think Egypt is doing such a great job controlling the Islamic Muslim Radicals in their own country so why are they trying to tell us how to deal with our problem.

Donald Trump’s words were more in your face, but are they that far off from what the other GOP candidates who are criticizing Trump have said about Syrian refugees, Muslims, and immigrants.

A short term ban on Muslim visa’s, since the present visa program is not working, sounds reasonable to me. We have got to do be better than what we're doing. Muslim or other people that travel to terrorist countries at the moment should be vetted more than any others and we should have a moratorium on anybody that has been in any terrorist country or anywhere where terrorists are based.

Once we get a workable immigration/visa program we could resume issuing visas to Muslims and I think that is exactly what Trump wants to do. Obama recently said if any Republican has a better idea on a deal with Iran then let them propose it. Donald Trump thinks he has a better idea on Muslim visa and he proposed it and Obama and his henchman did not consider it at all, instead they immediately attack Trump. 

Bill Clinton returned the Democrats to power with some radical ideas for a Democrat – he favored the death penalty and he wanted to drastically reform welfare. Clinton won the election because on every issue that the Republicans had hoped to dominate—balancing the budget, welfare, crime, immigration, and taxes—Clinton staked out a strong centrist position early on. Clinton knew what Americans wanted at that time and he won.

Could Donald Trump win the nomination by adopting some Democrat ideas, by not being as conservative as some in the Republican Party want him to be and by giving Americans what they want at this time?

I have said before I am confused when it comes to the 2016 election, In the back of my mind I cannot ignore that maybe Donald Trump does not want to be President; maybe Trump wants the Republicans to lose the election; maybe it would be more profitable for Trump if Hillary and Bill returned to the White House, instead of a Republican. Donald Trump is a businessman and profit is the world he understands. Trust of any politicians is difficult for me in 2016.

I do not think an Independent Donald Trump could win a National election, but I do believe it would guarantee a loss for the Republican Party. I do not think the Republicans have anything to gain by trying to sabotage Trump’s campaign.  The latest Bloomberg poll shows almost two-thirds of likely 2016 Republican primary voters favor Donald Trump's call to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the U.S., while more than a third said it makes them more likely to vote for him. An online Bloomberg poll showed 37 percent among all likely general-election voters support Trump’s controversial Muslim visa proposal.