Why is John Kelly Censoring Trump’s News Feed?

Why is John Kelly Censoring Trump’s News Feed?

Posted On 03 Sep 2017
By : admin
139 Comments

According to several news reports in recent days, President Trump is growing quickly weary of the military-style constraints his new chief of staff, Gen. John Kelly, is implementing on the West Wing. While Trump has, in recent weeks, applauded Kelly for giving him “time to think” for the first time since his inauguration, he has also bristled loudly against some of the rules that Kelly has put in place.

In an interview with The New York Times, longtime Trump associated Roger Stone said it was only a matter of time before Kelly found himself in the unemployment line next to Reince Priebus.


“It is inevitable that a guy who will not be contained and does not want to be handled or managed was going to rebel against the latest manager who wanted to control him,” Stone said. “Ultimately Donald Trump is his own man, and he’s going to resist all the control and regimented systems Kelly is trying to impose.”

The Times reported that not only is Kelly trying to limit the number of outside visitors received by the president, but is actually censoring the kind of news reports that make it into the Oval Office:

Mr. Kelly cannot stop Trump from binge-watching Fox News, which aides describe as the president’s primary source of information gathering. But Mr. Trump does not have a web browser on his phone, and does not use a laptop, so he was dependent on aides like Stephen K. Bannon, his former chief strategist, to hand-deliver printouts of articles from conservative media outlets.

Now Mr. Kelly has thinned out his package of printouts so much that Mr. Trump plaintively asked a friend recently where The Daily Caller and Breitbart were.

The question posed in our headline is not an idle one. Why is Kelly so interested in limiting the kind of information that reaches his boss? Is it because he wants to streamline the efficiency of the presidency? Or is it because he has his own political agenda – one that does not conform to the kind of stories Trump might read in the pages of grassroots conservative websites like the ones mentioned in the Times?

For his part, Trump remains publicly supportive of his latest hire.

“General John Kelly is doing a great job as Chief of Staff,” he tweeted on September 1st. “I could not be happier or more impressed.”

This is a White House that could use a drop of discipline, so Kelly’s attempts to get the West Wing under control are to be encouraged. But if those efforts extend to trying to CHANGE Trump or throw him off the agenda he promised the American people, the president must take action before this betrayal takes a toll on his mission.

http://www.restoreamericanglory.com/...mps-news-feed/

Quote:

---

The question posed in our headline is not an idle one. Why is Kelly so interested in limiting the kind of information that reaches his boss? Is it because he wants to streamline the efficiency of the presidency? Or is it because he has his own political agenda – one that does not conform to the kind of stories Trump might read in the pages of grassroots conservative websites like the ones mentioned in the Times?

---

It would be the latter. John Kelly wants to control the agenda and is doing his best to focus Trump toward liberal positions, especially where illegal immigrant amnesty is concerned.

Kelly was hired as Chief of Staff to curtail the leaks, something Priebus just wasn't able to do. But from what I see, there are still leaks all over the place, maybe not ones that were as sensitive as earlier ones, but still lots of chatty cathy's all over the place.

kelly, javanka were behind knocking out Bannon too. And now blocking communications from Miller - they will rid him next. Can't believe that trump has no loyalty at all to those that helped him form a presence that won him the election. Picking ryan's buddy Reince was a mistake so trump is off the wall, he is a bouncing ball, the javanka takeover, kelly etc. People will tire of this big time as they are starting to already.

Bannon was fired because he talked to the press about North Korea, said there were no viable military options against North Korea, and "they got US".

Flynn was fired because he wouldn't stop talking to the Daily Caller.

Priebus was fired because he couldn't or wouldn't control the leaks.

But whatever, there are people who liked Trump for his immigration stance but didn't like him personally or disagreed with other policies. You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time.

In my opinion, Trump has done what we wanted him to do ending DACA, so our lobbying efforts should focus on Congress, because we might need a friend in the White House Oval Office to veto a bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Bannon was fired because he talked to the press about North Korea, said there were no viable military options against North Korea, and "they got US".

Flynn was fired because he wouldn't stop talking to the Daily Caller.

Priebus was fired because he couldn't or wouldn't control the leaks.

But whatever, there are people who liked Trump for his immigration stance but didn't like him personally or disagreed with other policies. You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time.

In my opinion, Trump has done what we wanted him to do ending DACA, so our lobbying efforts should focus on Congress, because we might need a friend in the White House Oval Office to veto a bill.

---

All speculation. None of those reasons were given for the firings by the White House.

Trump is supporting and expecting amnesty legislation on his next within the next six months. So no, he's not doing exactly what we want.

http://Ryan and Kelly Urging Trump to Sign Dream Act

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

All speculation. None of those reasons were given for the firings by the White House.

Trump is supporting and expecting amnesty legislation on his next within the next six months. So no, he's not doing exactly what we want.

---

Oh really? What were the reasons given by the White House?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Oh really? What were the reasons given by the White House?

---

They didn't go public with a reason ........ but you already knew that or why else would you be speculating?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

They didn't go public with a reason ........ but you already knew that or why else would you be speculating?

---

So you don't know if my reasons are speculation or fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

So you don't know if my reasons are speculation or fact.

---

Well, since you've provided no evidence .........

spec·u·la·tion¹
/ˌspekyəˈlāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence:

You are the one speculating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

You are the one speculating.

---

Perhaps you should go back a read the comment you made that started this discussion:

Judy wrote:

Quote:

---

Bannon was fired because he talked to the press about North Korea, said there were no viable military options against North Korea, and "they got US".

Flynn was fired because he wouldn't stop talking to the Daily Caller.

Priebus was fired because he couldn't or wouldn't control the leaks.

---

Those are all speculations because you have zero evidence that substantiates your claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

Perhaps you should go back a read the comment you made that started this discussion:

Judy wrote:



Those are all speculations because you have zero evidence that substantiates your claim.

---

It's what I would have done, which is all the evidence I need. Any person in the White House who speaks to a reporter and tells them the US has no viable military option against North Korea would not work for me, one more second. Any person who can't stay off the telephone with the Daily Caller when I'm trying to tap down the media hysteria over his chats with the Russian Ambassador, would not work for me, one more second. Any Chief of Staff who can't control the privacy and confidentiality of my meetings and prevent these outrageous leaks, can't work for me.

It's pretty simple stuff, MW. Sorry if it flies over your head, but being President is a very important job with vitall responsibilities. This unauthorized chatting with the press isn't tolerated in business and there's no reason at all why it should or would be tolerated one second in the American White House by a responsible President of the United States.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

It's what I would have done, which is all the evidence I need. Any person in the White House who speaks to a reporter and tells them the US has no viable military option against North Korea would not work for me, one more second. Any person who can't stay off the telephone with the Daily Caller when I'm trying to tap down the media hysteria over his chats with the Russian Ambassador, would not work for me, one more second. Any Chief of Staff who can't control the privacy and confidentiality of my meetings and prevent these outrageous leaks, can't work for me.

---

Being a Trump cheerleader and excuse maker, doesn't make you Trump, nor does it mean you think like him. Deserved or not, he could of fired these folks for any number of reasons.

MW, it's as obvious as the flag in your avatar why these men were fired. If you aren't capable of figuring that out, then it's no wonder why you can't figure out Trump's DACA Decision and why he's managing it the way he is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

MW, it's as obvious as the flag in your avatar why these men were fired. If you aren't capable of figuring that out, then it's no wonder why you can't figure out Trump's DACA Decision and why he's managing it the way he is.

---

No, it's not obvious. However, it's very obvious of what Trump's DACA plans are and why he has decided to protect those enrolled in the program for the next six months. Actually, he has flat out told us he wants a DACA (DREAMER) amnesty bill on his desk for signature within the next six months. Pay attention, Judy, you're losing ground.

It's obvious to anyone with 2 live brain cells still connected.

Funny how all of sudden you're believing everything he says to a DemoQuack or the Media and ignore everything he said to Americans. What did I call that? Oh yeah, Selective Trump Believing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

It's obvious to anyone with 2 live brain cells still connected.

Funny how all of sudden you're believing everything he says to a DemoQuack or the Media and ignore everything he said to Americans. What did I call that? Oh yeah, Selective Trump Believing.

---

Most people would call it flip-flopping.

He promised us one thing to get elected and then flipped positions afterwards. That's not so unusual in the world of politics.

So far, he's not flip-flopped anything except more sending troops to Afghanistan to knock out Al Qaeda and shut down the Taliban. Hopefully his plan will work and that mess solved quickly.

We all have different reasons that we voted for Trump. We have all been trying to sort out what is fake and what is real. I have been watching the liberals put their spin on everything that comes out of Trump, then I listen to all of the do or die Trump supporters put their spin on it. It reminds me of the game of gossip and it makes me want to scream.
Democrat or Republican, I don't care. I care about my state and my country. I do not like what is happening to California or my country. That is the reason why I joined ALIPAC. During the primaries when I was putting questions out there to educate myself to elect the best person, I felt attacked by members here. You had to be for Trump. Heaven help you if you were considering someone else. We lost members not because they were for Ted Cruz, but because of the attack methods of certain Trump supporters. I know because I too backed away for those reasons.
Not being able to depend on media or certain members here, I am going on my reading and hearing skills combined with Trumps audio and body language. I do not trust him and I think he is a coward. That being said I pray I am wrong and he is the only one that can change my mind by his actions.

MontereySherry wrote (excerpt):

Quote:

---

During the primaries when I was putting questions out there to educate myself to elect the best person, I felt attacked by members here. You had to be for Trump. Heaven help you if you were considering someone else. We lost members not because they were for Ted Cruz, but because of the attack methods of certain Trump supporters.

---

I know exactly what you're talking about because I too suffered through it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

So far, he's not flip-flopped anything except more sending troops to Afghanistan to knock out Al Qaeda and shut down the Taliban. Hopefully his plan will work and that mess solved quickly.

---

Oh please. Trump has a long history of positional flip-flops on a host of issues. Of course the DACA flip-flop is the one of immediate concern and that flop happened immediately after his election. At times Trump seems to have a tendency of jumping to the side that will place him in the most favorable light with the most people. He doesn't really seem to be a man of conviction as evidence by the ease in which he can be influenced to change directions.

Let's take DACA for example. He was influenced to change positions because a few folks he chose to surround himself with have convinced him that it wasn't in his best political interest to keep his promise to "immediately" end DACA. So what did he do in response, he decided to drag the program out for eight months, while all the time telling the DACA members they had nothing to worry about. He only semi-cancelled (not officially ended until Mar. 5th) the program because AG Sessions refused to defend it in court. And what's he doing now, he's encouraging and pushing the legislative branch to legalize a DACA (DREAMER) program within the next six months. That is an amnesty and he promised to not support any amnesty during his presidency, didn't he? Okay, back to DACA. Should the attempt to put a DACA amnesty bill on his desk for signature fail to materalize in 6 months, he has promised to revisit the program. His position change not to end DACA "immediately" after election would be considered a flip-flop.

When someone says they're going to end a program and they end it, that's not a flip-flop to me.

Quote:

---

That is an amnesty and he promised to not support any amnesty during his presidency, didn't he?

---

Not really. What he said was he was going to get all the bad ones out, and then decide what to do with the good ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

When someone says they're going to end a program and they end it, that's not a flip-flop to me.

Quote:

---

MW wrote:

That is an amnesty and he promised to not support any amnesty during his presidency, didn't he?

---

Not really. What he said was he was going to get all the bad ones out, and then decide what to do with the good ones.

---

His actions on DACA couldn't be described as anything but a flip-flop.

As for amnesty:

Excerpt:

Quote:

---

Donald Trump shrugged off any suggestion that he was softening his stance on immigration Wednesday night, delivering a hardline speech in Phoenix, Ariz., and vowing there would be “no amnesty” for illegal immigrants.

---

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/don...ech-2016-08-31

From the same speech:

Quote:

---

“For those here illegally today who are seeking legal status, they will have one route and one route only. To return home and apply for re-entry like everybody else under the rules of the new legal immigration system that I have outlined today,” he said.

---

If he lets them back in do you call that an amnesty or a flip flop?

From various interviews during the campaign including some in same time period as Phoenix Speech:

Donald Trump’s Current Immigration Policy Will Deport A Laughably Low Number Of Illegal Immigrants
Eric Owens
Education Editor
11:06 PM 08/28/2016

Donald Trump’s statements throughout the last week about deporting illegal immigrants suggest that the percentage of illegal immigrants he wants to deport is tremendously low.

The Republican presidential nominee’s statements in recent days have been inconsistent, but the most reasonable estimate of the number of illegal immigrants he now wants to deport based on his statements is 690,000 — out of a widely accepted total of 11 million.

The figure, 690,000, is the number of known illegal immigrants who have been convicted of felonies or crimes defined as serious misdemeanors.

Deporting 690,000 out of America’s 11 million immigrants would result in the deportation of 6.27 percent of all known illegal immigrants. About 10,310,000 illegal immigrants — over 93 percent — would continue to reside in the United States. (For a comparison, this population of 10,310,000 remaining illegal immigrants would be slightly larger than the entire population of Sweden.)

Last week, amid reports that Trump will disavow his trademark campaign promise to deport millions of illegal aliens, he announced on “The O’Reilly Factor” that his immigration policy would continue the policies of Barack Obama and George W. Bush.

“What people don’t know is that Obama got tremendous numbers of people out of the country — Bush the same thing,” Trump explained. “Lots of people were brought out of the country with the existing laws. Well, I’m gonna do the same thing.”

“Now, the existing laws are very strong,” Trump told Fox News host Bill O’Reilly. “The existing laws, the first thing we are going to do if and when I win, we are going to get rid of all of the bad ones.”

Trump also used the term “bad ones” at a town hall event in Austin, Texas with Sean Hannity on Wednesday. “Everybody agrees we get the bad ones out,” Trump said.

In a Thursday interview with CNN host Anderson Cooper, Trump said his policy will focus on deporting “bad dudes.”

The exact meaning of Trump’s terms “bad ones” and “bad dudes” is unclear, but the most reasonable interpretation is that he is referring to illegal immigrants who have been convicted of crimes.

“We have gang members. We have killers,” Trump told O’Reilly last Monday. “We have a lot of bad people that have to get out of this country. We are going to get them out, and the police know who they are.”

In the immigration plan Trump released in August 2015, he specifically called for the deportation of criminal illegal immigrants.

While Trump speculated to CNN’s Cooper that the number of illegal immigrants who have committed crimes is “probably millions,” criminal statistics do not reflect this claim.

The Migration Policy Institute, a think tank described as neutral by partisans on both sides of the immigration divide, estimates that about 300,000 of America’s known illegal immigrants have felony convictions. This estimate is based on statistics for actual criminal convictions from 2003 to 2013. These illegal immigrants are murderers, gang members and various other dangerous criminals.

Another 390,000 known illegal immigrants currently living in the United States have been convicted of committing serious misdemeanors, according to the Migration Policy Institute’s statistics. The term “serious misdemeanor” varies by state. Examples can include prostitution, child endangerment, the possession of certain illegal drugs and criminal trespass to a vehicle.

On Thursday, Trump suggested that as many as 30 million illegal immigrants could be living in the United States right now.

“Nobody even knows it’s 11 [million],” he told CNN’s Anderson Cooper. “It could be 30 [million], it could be 5 [million].”

In the event that there are 30 million illegal immigrants in the United States, a Trump policy of deporting convicted criminals would lead to the deportation of 2.3 percent of the known illegal immigrant population — leaving 29,310,000 illegal immigrants in place. (That’s over 4 million more people than everyone in Texas.)

If the number of illegal immigrants is 5 million, Trump’s policy would deport 13.8 percent of all known illegal immigrants, leaving 4,310,000 illegal immigrants in the United States.

The data concerning illegal immigrants who have committed crimes was compiled in 2014 and is “the most recent data available,” Migration Policy Institute communications director Michelle Mittelstadt told The Daily Caller. “It takes quite a while to do these annual surveys.”

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank which favors immigration restrictions, the number of illegal immigrants who have committed crimes is much higher because, at some point in their immigrant experience, many illegal immigrants have committed some kind of criminal fraud.

“Illegal immigrants are not ‘undocumented,'” Center for Immigration Studies communications director Marguerite Telford said in a statement to TheDC. “They have fraudulent documents such as counterfeit Social Security cards, forged drivers licenses, fake ‘green cards’ and phony birth certificates.”

“Experts suggest that approximately 75 percent of working-age illegal aliens use fraudulent Social Security cards to obtain employment,” Telford added.

Identity theft is also a commonly-committed crime among illegal immigrants, Telford suggested.

In testimony to a Texas state Senate earlier this year, Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies said that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency of the Department of Homeland Security, “has estimated that approximately 2.1 million criminal aliens are living in the United States.”

TheDC contacted the ICE for comment, but the agency failed to respond by press time.

TheDC also contacted groups which are generally supportive of illegal immigrants. Their representatives said they don’t have figures on the number of illegal immigrants in the United States who commit crimes.

According to the Migration Policy Institute, 640,000 illegal immigrants have entered the United States since Jan. 1, 2014 and continue to reside here.

An additional 60,000 have received removal orders since Jan. 1, 2014 but remain within the borders.

The number of illegal immigrants who entered the United States from roughly 2007 to 2010 is 1,370,000, the Migration Policy Institute says.

In many years prior to 2010, the group says, some 790,000 illegal immigrants had either re-entered the United States after being deported, or managed to stay in the United States despite a final deportation order.

If Trump’s policy were to include among the total number of criminals illegal immigrants under deportation orders (for whatever reason) as well as recently-arrived illegal immigrants, the total number of criminal immigrants would be 1.4 million, according to the Migration Policy Institute’s estimates. The figure, 1.4 million, is about 13 percent of the U.S. illegal immigration population.

Some 9.6 million illegal immigrants — a population slightly larger than the combined total populations of Oregon and Minnesota — would remain under such a broader policy.

Under immigration law as it was formulated in 2010, before a series of executive orders by Obama, a Trump policy of deporting criminals as well as recently-arrived immigrants and immigrants under deportation orders would result in the deportations of about 3 million illegal immigrants.

Thus, 8 million illegal immigrants would stay. That figure is slightly less than the entire population of Virginia.

Trump has responded ambiguously to questions about how he would address the overwhelmingly large population of illegal immigrant who have not committed felonies or serious misdemeanors.

“There’s no amnesty, as such,” Trump told Hannity at the Austin town hall event. “But we work with them” provided they “pay back-taxes.”

Trump has flatly stated that illegal immigrants would not be eligible for U.S. citizenship under his policy. At the same time, he suggested the possibility of a form of “touchback amnesty” this week, which could allow vast numbers of illegal immigrants to leave the United States briefly and then return to live and work under some kind of legal status.

“There’s no path to legalization unless they leave the country,” Trump told CNN’s Cooper on Thursday. “When they come back in, then they can start paying taxes, but there is no path to legalization unless they leave the country and then come back.”

Trump would not commit to deporting illegal immigrants who have not been convicted of any crimes. He would also not commit to allowing them to stay. “There is a very good chance the answer could be yes,” Trump told CNN’s Cooper when Cooper asked whether he would deport illegal immigrants who have stayed out of trouble. “We’re going to see what happens.”

Choosing which illegal immigrants to deport is complex and difficult for Trump, he told Hannity on Wednesday.

“I’ve had very strong people come up to me — really great, great people come up to me — and they’ve said, ‘Mr. Trump, I love you, but to take a person who’s been here for 15 or 20 years and throw them and their family out, it’s so tough, Mr. Trump,'” Trump said. “I have it all the time! It’s a very, very hard thing.”

“There could certainly be a softening because we’re not looking to hurt people,” the GOP nominee added.

Trump indicated that he plans to declare his immigration policy in a crystallized form in a speech later this week. He had suggested that he would give such a speech last week, but the speech was delayed for unspecified reasons.

Trump, 70, has changed his position on the immigration issue many times in recent years. (RELATED: From Immigration To Guns To Abortion, Donald Trump Must Reckon With His Progressive History)

Just four years before making severe immigration restrictions the centerpiece of his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump suggested that hostility toward illegal immigrants partially cost 2012 GOP candidate Mitt Romney the presidency.

U.S. immigration policy must “take care of this incredible problem that we have with respect to immigration, with respect to people wanting to be wonderful productive citizens of this country,” the septuagenarian billionaire told journalist Ronald Kessler.

“He had a crazy policy of self-deportation which was maniacal,” Trump said of Romney. “It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote.” (RELATED: FLASHBACK: Trump Bashed Romney For Being ‘Mean-Spirited On Illegal Immigration After 2012 Election)

In 2011, Trump suggested that the way to deal with America’s 11 million illegal immigrants is on a case-by-case basis. “You know, it’s hard to generalize,” Trump told Bill O’Reilly. “You’re going to have to look at the individual people.”

“If somebody’s been outstanding, we try and work something out,” Trump similarly explained in July 2015, a day after a tour of the U.S.-Mexico border.

In August of 2015, Trump released a broad immigration reform outline calling for an end to birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, a large wall between the United States and Mexico, an increase in immigration enforcement and the deportation of criminal illegal immigrants.

In November 2015, Trump called for a “deportation force” to remove the illegal immigrants currently living and working in the United States. (RELATED: Trump Calls For ‘Deportation Force’ To Remove Illegal Immigrants ‘Humanely’

In 1999, Trump said he supported stringent restrictions on immigration. “I think that too many people are flowing into the country,” he told Tim Russert on Meet the Press then.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/28/do...al-immigrants/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

From the same speech:

Quote:

---

“For those here illegally today who are seeking legal status, they will have one route and one route only. To return home and apply for re-entry like everybody else under the rules of the new legal immigration system that I have outlined today,” he said.

---

If he lets them back in do you call that an amnesty or a flip flop?

---

Okay, now you're just attempting to confuse the issue. Aren't we basically saying the same thing? He said he wouldn't support an amnesty during this campaign, but now he has come right out and said he supports a DACA (DREAMER) amnesty. Not only does he support it, he is actually encouraging it.

Well, I didn't trust what he said during the campaign and now you and everyone else can see why.

Yeah in a way we are saying the same thing, but for different reasons. Trump speaks a different language, when he talks about ""amnesty", he's usually referring to pathway to citizenship, because for the most part, people opposed to illegal immigration didn't care if they were here, so long as they didn't vote because they'd vote Democrat. We call anything that gives anyone permission to stay here if they came here illegally or over-stayed a visa amnesty. we call sending them home but giving the good ones a chance to come back some day, "touch-back" amnesty. We call deferred status and legalization without a path to citizenship, de facto amnesty. We all call DACA illegal and unconstitutional, so Trump says okay, I'll end that lawlessness and Congress can fix it by passing a law to make it legal and constitutional but with no rights to ever become citizens, i. e., no "amnesty". Trump wanted to deport them all with a "deportation force", and tells a reporter "they all gotta go". When asked how is he going to do that in the follow up, he says "management."

This is such a huge problem at this point in time, over 30 million illegal aliens in the US and more coming in every day. A staggering number for 5,000 ICE agents to deal with. I don't know how exactly he's going to solve this problem and end illegal immigration into the US once and for all, but I totally trust him to make enormous progress on this problem, he's attacking it from all sides and all angles with really no help from anyone except for a very small handful of great people in the Administration, Sessions, Miller, Mnuchin, Mulvaney and possibly Cohn who as it turns out did not opposeI ending DACA.

I have no problem at all with hounding Congress to oppose amnesty or any type of legalization in any form and making sure Trump knows we absolutely oppose any form of legalization or amnesty of any type, whether it's legal or not.

MonterrySherry, I understand what you are saying.

I kept asking myself, 'is he real?'.

For me, I voted for Pres. Trump because I truly felt the alternative was too frightening.
Also, out of hope. Truly, though, I liked a lot of what he said about illegal immigration and staying out of wars and I hope he would give courage to those who agreed with him to work on their own to fix things. The wall never resonated with me.

I never expected him to do it all alone - of course, I absolutely never expected the
insane frenzy on the part of the news media and I didn't expect the petulant defection of the so called republicans.

As for Ted Cruz, I don't trust him. He showed up in Texas and rose to prominence too quickly. Those kinds of people smack of being 'chosen' or 'bought and paid for.'

I think Cruz was sent to Texas because evidently Texas has a pretty strong political organization. Also, with a (an?) Hispanic name, the masters thought he would appeal to the illegals who vote, some Hispanic citizens, and the halo polishers. His wife being a Goldman employee and a member of CFR didn't make me feel any better.

Texas has sent some presidents and other politicians to Washington, so I think they thought we would jump on the Cruz bandwagon.

We haven't sent the best and the brightest, though. I am not proud of any that I can think of - maybe Ron Paul. I never really considered the Bushes Texan, though. Sometimes I think we send them to Washington just to get them out of Texas.