THIRD DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY DEBATE: OF DATA BRIDGES AND DATA COMPROMISE?

Keywords or Terms: Bernie Sander’s Campaign team; Data Voyeurism; Data Compromise; Hillary Clinton’s Campaign team; Priority Data; Democratic National Committee’s Network; Total Overreach of Voter data; What is mine is mine; What’s yours is mine too”; Wiggle room answers; Democratic Party Watergate of 2015; Donor’s List; Pragmatic Network Protection; and, Euphoria of the Moment

Through nearly eleven months of Democratic Competition for party nomination, nothing has been sizzling or juicy as the current data breach or compromise of one of the aspirant by another. As Secretary Clinton’s commanding polls successes were galloping and the Democratic front-runner was more interested in solidifying her progress by resorting to the old political tactic of labeling or demonizing her rival as a single issue candidate, little did she know that her closest rival campaign team were abrading her lid through data pilferage. Senator Bernie Sander’s campaign team, either knowingly or unknowingly, was engaging in the unexpected and unimaginable error of data abridgment. Allegation against Bernie’s team of staffers, including possible misbehavior of data voyeurism: viewing, searching and saving donor’s data and deploying shifting messages regarding the actual time of access to Hillary Clinton’s campaign priority data, started flowing around town.

Could this be Democratic Party Watergate of 2015; or, has the situation not risen to a level of clandestine campaign data pilferage? With this critical event, can Senator Bernie Sander reassure Secretary Clinton’s campaign team of the start time of the data compromise, as each team gets to know how much and to what extent this unfortunate event  has taken place; and, how both campaign teams can rise above this misunderstanding and develop a new “tone” and “spirit” of trust; or, has things gone too far too soon, to arrive at a conciliation that can put each team at rest that no fishy stuff has been going on; and, no one should be expecting any form of truce or apologies for any misconstrued activities?

Looking to the future, has the time come for Senator Bernie Sander’s campaign team to acknowledge the superiority of Secretary Clinton’s campaign team and opt for a negotiation of the complicated issue of gaining access to the latter’s donor’s list through the data abridgment? Or, is this the best moment to come clean and quit presenting itself as victim of a cautious and deliberate effort to abridge campaign data that are propriety information for Hillary Clinton’s campaign? Answers to these questions depend on where your support or reservations lie. Further, has the Democratic National Committee been complicit or part of a scheme to provide democratic leaning voters’ list to Bernie Sander’s campaign? Is there really no chance for Bernie Sander’s campaign team to catch up with the twenty-percent deficit in polling against the former US Secretary of State’s Campaign without playing dirty? At one time, it appeared Bernie Sander’s campaign team were defensive or playing fast and loose regarding data abridgment; however, the alleged forty-five-minute data breach on the Democratic Party National Committee portal has introduced another dynamic to campaigning for party nomination within the Democratic Party.

A defensive system of protecting democratic leaning voters’ list on the Democratic National Committee’s portal is likely to change in light of this dramatic event. Not far behind is the data security policy of both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Both campaign teams are more likely to quickly streamline their access and use of secondary data sources in the wake of current friendly “mishap”. Democratic National Committee like Hillary Clinton’s campaign team is now confronted with the reality of data insecurity and how this may inadvertently undermine campaign efforts. Data insecurity can confound unwitting campaign teams and shift chances of redoubling campaign contributions from potential donors. The rise of data espionage is not limited to national governments or security; it is also found in political campaigns. The offensive nature of data abridgment is found in associated data or information stripping of campaign rivals, juxtaposition of the dynamics of “what is mine is mine” and “what’s yours is mine too”, and the often difficult question of who is really at fault. A sometimes irrational or immoral activity that ends up in a law suit by either the aggrieved and the offender are face saving if only for a while.

Any Presidential campaign team, Democrat or Republican, has the onus to protect its data source in the modern age of electronic campaigns for a number of reasons, some obvious, others oblivious to an uncanny eye. One pragmatic reason is probably what Hillary Clinton campaign suffered, the chance your closest rival gaining access to data and information on your donors and using the same source for seeking funds for his or her campaign. Data security issues are not only relevant for enterprise or agency private networks, as it turns out, it is just as relevant to modern day campaigns, as an aspirant attempt to build a supporters’ base, donor’s and contributors’ list, and broadcasting the goals and ambitions of the campaign. Political office seekers now have to defend their campaign, extend their policy and programs, answer press questions as well as protect their campaign data network to survive the challenge from rivals and competition. In brief, data security calls for greater awareness and constant monitoring of data sources and network administrations of both the candidate and the affiliated political party.

Indolent and unimaginative campaign outfits that fail to establish probable strategies for transferring and receiving data from a clearing committee or agency, is more likely to face the kind of sudden data abridgment currently experienced by the Clinton’s camp. If Clinton’s campaign fail to quickly recognize and respond to possible or potential data abridgment, it may not be in a position to determine the extent of that abridgment because of immediate insufficient information regarding the extent of compromise. The lines may be drawn between the Sander’s Campaign and Clinton’s Campaign teams, the Sander’s campaign team’s litigation against the Democratic National Committee and probably the Clinton’s campaign, may be an attempt of a cover-up; however, no one is sure; and no one is certain of the ultimate outcome of the litigation, which may leave everyone involved miserable and despondent. This can actually lead to reputation issues for Democrats and their ultimate party flag bearer in the general election. Certainly, Democrats must expect the Republicans to exploit this unfortunate event that can easily be managed with a sense of comrade as a political party with a sense of purpose to retain the White House oval office. 

To satisfy data security needs of political campaign networks, there is a need for establishment of parameters regarding data and information sharing and movement on those networks: between campaign networks; among aspirant’s networks; and, the local interface usage by multiple users on the network(s). There is need for incremental policies, as the campaign move through the months of campaigns to general election. Dealing with inhibited use of network data and sources and or watching closely entry and exit into a campaign electronic network(s), is as important as winning the nomination or election in an information age.

The salient and changing facts regarding when the Sander’s campaign team actually gained access to Hillary Clinton’s Campaign network and when they exited, are still opaque. Leaving wiggle room in answers to actionable questions on data abridgment of any sort, is a difficult is a difficult circumstance to be in. For Sanders, the presidential aspirant rival of Ms. Clinton, it means a gawkier eye on the activities of its data managers or network interface users to avoid possible criminal allegation against its campaign on bases of data abridgment. For the Clinton’s camp, the genie has been out of the bottle, defending your data source on all networks, the party’s and yours, is your prominent task or responsibility. Indeed, the strength of either candidate’s presidential campaign team is probably based on the ability to maintain transparency in the reception and use of data and information from whatever sources, without being labelled as a culprit.

The struggle for survival and campaign successes in a bid for party flag bearer and subsequent victory in a general election is a matter of territorial data protection and ability to refrain from defaulting to suspicious activities against rivals. The entire campaign exercise is both a territorial protection of strategies as well as well, protection of propriety and priority information. It is also going to require self-imposed restraint from using rivals’ information without authorization. Advances and successes in primaries and caucuses must depend on tactical and strategic offenses and discipline from defaulting to fraud or suspicious data abridgment in order to win. Aspirant and Senator Bernie Sanders must terminate any of his staff involved in the purported suspicious activity to rise above the fray and maintain the often touted moral transparency that his campaign has been known for till now.

Accusation of stealing campaign data from an opponent is bad press enough for a struggling campaign that is attempting to make a difference and overcome polling differentials. Senator and aspirant Bernie Sanders after all, has projected a campaign of restraint and one strictly on principles and possibilities of alleviating many Americans from poverty. The alleged data abridgment from his campaign must now be accepted as an aberration; however, if Aspirant Hillary attempt to use this as a campaign crutch, a simple apology at the third democratic party debate appropriate and hopefully sufficient, to move ahead of the controversy.

Hillary Clinton campaign team’s enthusiasm to use this error as a rope to hang Bernie Sander must be cautious as things like this has a tendency to boomerang. Yes, the suspected data abridgments from the rival candidate present new set of problems for former Secretary of State’s campaign; however, going too aggressively against Bernie Sander’s team may create other political pitfalls and challenges that may not be immediately apparent. The danger of going heavy handed in criticism may cause unintended consequences when it comes to general elections in November of 2016. This is the reason why a nuclear option of dragging Bernie Sander’s campaign through the mud may not be advisable.

The conventional wisdom is that Secretary Clinton Campaign is still the front runner; and that this unfortunate event may cripple the efforts of the Democratic Party to hold on to the White House as a whole if the issue of data abridgment is not handle with some maturity. Senator Bernie Sander may come out completely scratched in the litigation initiated against the Democratic National Committee and fall apart from this unfortunate event. Could an extended litigation within the Democratic Party scuttle the chances of the party from fielding a better prepared flag bearer? Can Secretary Hillary Clinton fear an excessive exposure of her campaign strategies at a litigation forum and thereby exposing or tearing asunder hitherto protected strategies of her campaign? These are issues and questions that must be contemplated in light of the current difficult experience.

The euphoria of the moment regarding the data abridgments dictates a new strategy for the former’s secretary’s campaign, as well as the Democratic National Committee. There is no longer a time to take things for granted by either party or any other candidate in the race. Just as Secretary Clinton is building a better bandwidth of policies and programs for her campaign, now is the time to correlate that effort with keener strategies and technologies to protect her campaign network. There is an option to implant device drivers  and encryption technology that are automatic defense managers against intruders; or queries from inter-agency or inter-candidate’s electronic networks. This will eliminate agency or candidate’s network invasion by anyone, friend or foe.

Finally,  Secretary Clinton’s campaign initiative to cut fees for immigrants seeking citizenship is probably uplifting for progressives; advancing proactive policies on national security, income inequality and a more equitable justice system are even more clear-able; however, leaving your network susceptible to invasion, or data swap from Democratic National Committee Network  that may lead to allegation of criminal activities, is hardly a sign of a proactive data network user and dynamic campaign outfit. Working with the Democratic National Committee to exchange or transfer data of opponents may be construed in multiple context; however, shying away from impropriety may be a better option. Perfect is the enemy of the good, right? Thus, working to establish data sharing guidelines or date transfer protocols on networks is better than good; it is Perfect!

FIFTH REPUBLICAN PARTY PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: META DATA, NATIONAL SECURITY AND IMMIGRATION REVISTED

Keywords or Terms: ‘Baddest Cowboy’ in the White House; Ted Cruz; Donald Trump; Lindsey Graham; Hostility; Hate; Retribution; Blanketing Statement; Data Mining; Civil Liberties; Immigration Laws; Islamic Jihadist; Extremism; Muslim Emigration; Middle Eastern Allies; Quran; Islamic Nations; Turkey, Morocco, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Algeria and Indonesia; International and Domestic Violence; State  of Israel; State of Pakistan; Eight Amendment of US Constitution; and, United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) signatory

2016 Republican Presidential aspirants described their goal for America as a return to a “World of Wars”. After the Islamic Jihadists attack in Paris and San Bernardino, the fear that has been the essence of these two attacks probably served as a pedestal for two of the Republican aspirants to prescribe, just in the mode of what both attacks were meant to accomplish by their perpetrator: hostility, hate and retribution. Senator Ted Cruz would bomb ISIS out and former Reality Show host, Donald Trump, has no problem with killing immediate family members of suspected terrorists. As if the Republican aspirants were seeking to outdo each other at the party’s fifth presidential debate, each talking over each other, presented a bravado that made many wondered if Republicans truly learned anything from the alleged shortcomings of the last Republican White House. While one or two of them were actually reflective, Rand Paul and Rick Santorum, Lindsey Graham came out with a tirade, saying he misses George W. Bush, an allusion and unlatching admiration of the last Republican Administration of alleged ill-repute.

The basic security issues facing the nation are not the mining of citizen’s meta data in an effort to counter terrorism, reforming immigration laws in light of wave of illegal immigration and quelling citizens fear in light of increasing possibility of another homeland attacks; rather, it is how to better balance citizens’ liberties with the security agencies’ right to know, and countering or stopping another Islamic Jihadist or sympathizers’ attack; making a transition from a nation with discountenanced or unenforced immigration laws to one with acknowledged and enforced immigration laws, without violating the civil rights of the huge undocumented immigrants among us; and, enlisting unflinching support from Middle-Eastern Allies who understand to an extent, the nature of extremism of Islamic Jihadist groups bent on destroying America, without being perceived as disrespectful of the Islamic Faith, or making blanketing statements that categorize all Muslims, in and out of America, as terrorists.

The bravado exhibited by Cruz and Trump at the fifth Republican Party debate is fraught with danger. At this juncture, it is safe to say, Middle-Eastern and Islamic nations are not living in a world of tranquility with the rising extremism among the ranks of their religion. To a great extent if not to their credit, religious leadership in many of these Islamic nations (Turkey, Morocco, Uzbekistan and Indonesia) and their governments are probably in comparative disillusion and tumults about rising extremisms in their religion. The audacity of the multiplicities of international and domestic violence from Islamic Jihadists, who appear to have hijacked the religion and continue to inflict mayhem and or broadcast hatred to the West, are as worrisome to men and women of Islamic faith as they are to Americans. A few of them are even completely perplexed and taken aback by the claim of these extreme groups regarding the teachings of Quran, with some of them issuing out apologetic official statements regarding their complete dissociations from terrorism and the new order of interpretation of the provisions of Quran.

At an Individual or microcosm level, the execrated Islamic Jihadist groups’ attacks across the globe, are not only petrifying to many within the religion just as it has been for the West; but appears to have backfired with huge publicity issues with countries and leadership in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Algeria, Indonesia, Turkey, and other moderate majority Muslim states, casting the Islamic Religion as very violent and hostile to civility; a far cry from what many in the religion consider as a peaceful religion. What these countries and religious leadership probably see as their portion with rising extremism of Islamic Jihadists, and probably admonish and characterize with the words: “We are ashamed, fed up, mystified, confused and disillusioned with the repeated violence of extreme groups among us and we do not have an immediate solution to the canker-worm that appears to have engulfed our religion”; however, with all deference, remember not all apples on a tree are bad. 

Of course, the call for exemption of Muslims’ emigration into America and the profound disparagement of people of the religion and the current promise to annihilate Muslims and their families by Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, play readily into the narrative that Americans and the West do not respect the Islamic faith and those who practice it.  Not only will the perceived religious bigotry of the two 2016 Republican aspirants mirror the nature of extremism associated with terrorists, they are truly reminiscent of a presidential aspirant fanning fear and hatred of a segment of our society; and, this is truly telling about six weeks to the first caucus or primary voting in the State of Iowa. Worst still, this new comments from probably the two front-runner in the Republican Party of 2016 presidential nomination exercise are likely to serve as ideological baggage that turns some supporters away, while gaining some credibility and or credence with like-minded voters who see the world from the prism fashioned out by Donald and Ted at the fifth Republican Party debate.

The perceived US government alliances with Centrist Middle Eastern Islamic States remain fragile with the continued derogation of Muslims and Islamic Faith by potential flag bearer of America’s Republican Party. If Donald Trump and Ted Cruz continue to build on their extremism on Muslims, either on Islamic Jihadists across the globe or American Muslims, the current meager support America is receiving in terms of intelligence gathering in fighting international terrorism and maintaining global security and stability, have the tendency to fail and create additional headaches to things on the ground; as the insensitive derogation, are more likely to provoke serious conflicts in the relations between America and the Islamic world. The current fear of domestic and international terrorists is not necessarily Germaine to America, there are also profound fears among some Islamic States’ governments, and many of their leadership are continually seeking avenues to counter the machinations of the terrorist groups and move beyond the adverse public relations created by Islamic Jihadists’ attacks on cities as Paris and San Bernardino. Believe it or not, the nemesis for some of the Islamic State governments are so grieving that a few of them have actually taken it upon themselves to take out a few of these terrorists within their borders.

While there are reasons to believe that Ted Cruz and Donald Trump are probably aware of the fear they are arousing among the populace for their personal political ambition, both have failed to calm the average American fear of terrorism or built confidence in current initiatives pursued by US government to stay abreast of both domestic and global terrorism. The denigration of minorities in America, which began with Donald Trump in the past seven months and culminated in Ted Cruz’s newly found strategy to garnering votes for his political ambition, are hardly going to dissuade rather committed Islamic Jihadists. The ideological promise or bravado to annihilate the Islamic extremists is hardly a source of succor for those apprehensive of terrorist group(s). When Donald Trump cancelled his visit to the State of Israel this week to meet Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, he probably lost an opportune chance to hear first-person experience in fighting terrorism or religious war in over half a decade. The Irish Liberation Army would teach Ted Cruz a thing or two about fighting religious wars. No-one ever wins a religious war; and, no matter how badly we will like to derail and destroy ISIS, their preconceived notion that they are fighting a religious war makes fighting them a rather tough challenge. This is why global terrorism seems like fighting a chameleon war with a chameleon group of extremists across the globe. It is just a tough enterprise that requires time and patience!

There are so much to learn from two of the legacies of 9/11 terrorist attacks: 1) allegation that US engaged in torture to obtain information regarding actual and potential terrorist attacks on the homeland between 2002 and 2007; 2) the firestorm of unintended consequences of engaging the State of Pakistan, a loose and fragile nuclear power, in dislodging one of the terrorist groups, Al Qaeda. The after effect of the first consequence led to the issue of data mining domestically to get an edge on potential terrorist threats; an issue civil libertarians frown on, and one which became a football between Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Donald Trump in the fifth debate. For all intense and purpose, Pakistan became an unwilling partner to the US because of influence of religious terrorists within her borders, and probably its convoluted position of being an unwitting sanctuary for terrorist groups; both of which made trust of the partnership, difficult.  This ultimately has become the consequential effect of partnering to engage global terrorism. Now, imagine the hypothetical promise from Donald Trump to bomb terrorists’ immediate family and Ted Cruz’s proposed attempt to bomb ISIS out? What are likely to be outcomes of such engagements or actions by the US government with respect to domestic and international laws? What are going to happen to the international treaties that America has been signatory? Most important, these proposed actions by Republican Presidential aspirants run afoul of the use of degrading treatments or punishments as contained in the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), a treated US is a signatory.

Apart from violating the eighth amendment of the US Constitution, prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments and specific provisions of US signed international treaty like UNCAT, the two Republican proposed actions fall under auspices of national and international criminality; and, spun other national security concerns. In other words, we are about to elect criminals to run the office of the US Presidency, if either of these two people end up in the oval office. This essentially is the nemesis of their construed proposals; and, an example of one of the allegations against the last Republican Administration. Incidentally, this is the unfortunate challenge or backlash, the US has been attempting to reel out since the advent of Obama’s Administration; and consequent to our choice to be a nation of law and order, which commands international respect as the only Super Power left standing across the globe. Proposals like Cruz’s and Trumps have consequences and no reasonable leader, Christian or Non-Christian, Jewish or Non-Jewish; Muslim or Non-Muslim, Atheist or Non-Atheist, has a chance of surviving with this kind of mind set once in the office of the US President, no matter how novel an ambition, or basis of political or legal argument; thither the security exigency.

It appears from the fifth Republican Presidential Aspirants’ debate that fierce competition, a drive to out-do each other on the rostrum, reduced the debate to the level of who is able to be the “Baddest Cowboy” in the White House’s oval office? While Ted’s and Donald’s rhetoric may appear appeasing to an increasingly frustrated and frightful citizenry about terrorism, they open up other “whoop lashes”, a couple that could relegate us to the level of ISIS, Kahane Chai, Irish Republican Army and Basque Fatherland and Liberty. Fear tends to arouse euphoria; and sometimes, a complete sense of indecency and shallow introspect from deft and non-creative leaders. The average American wants their leader to protect them from danger without violating the provisions of US Constitution; and, probably, all provisions of signed International Treaties. From the debate, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump appears to be saying they are not ready to uphold this; this ultimately disqualifies them from becoming the President of the United States.

Why Republican voters continue to be drawn to the dark side in the party’s nomination process?

Keywords or Terms: State of Iowa and New Hampshire primaries or caucuses; Minority Groups; Donald Trump’s Demagogue; Tea Party; White House Administration; CBS Face the Nation Program; John Dickerson; Focus-Group of republicans; Establishment Republicans; Stalinist or Hitlerism; George Wallace (1968), Father Coughlin (1936), Gerald Smith, William Pelley and Gerald Winrod (1930’s); and Donald Trump (2015)

Recently, Americans began wondering why violations of political decorum in presidential campaigns are being rewarded with voters’ support; or, why a demagogue and racist bigot appears to be gaining more support and running farthest than any other aspirant in the race for Republican Party nomination. Despite repeated and insistent derogation comments from real estate mogul Donald Trump about minority groups, the Republican front runner for party nomination appears to be maintaining his lead and acquiring increasing support from likely Republican voters in the early nomination states of Iowa; and or, New Hampshire?

It is now on record that the more Mr. Trump lambastes minority groups, neither expected backlash nor rejection by the rank and file Republicans, appears to be his portion. Rather, Mr. Trump continues to receive growing and expanding support from hitherto unlikely groups, even among Americans who are hardly known as extremists. The extremists’ Tea Party membership, who are seeking outlet for their frustration with current White House Administration, continue to reminiscent in Trump’s offending comments against minorities. For the Tea Party group, Donald Trump represents, if not mirror all their frustrations, and helps broadcasts their inner inhibition about minorities and or, anyone who does not look like them. Frankly, the divergence in the position of the ‘center-right’ Republicans and the extremist Republicans are gradually narrowing and there is no better way to celebrate Donald Trump’s front runner’s status than to shower him with accolades for his campaign style. Like one of Donald Trump’s new convert said on CBS Face the Nation program, it appears the nation is in a funk and only Donald Trump among the field of Republican aspirants has had the gut to say things the way they are; and, only the voting booth will determine who is wrong or right in the coming months or year.

A room-full of focused survey group interviewed by a Republican strategist on CBS Face the Nation on Sunday, December 13, 2015, reasserted the reasons for the front-runner’s lead in the opinion polls with one focus group member reiterating: “Donald Trump is able to say what he likes because he is not beholden to anyone.” You may want to ask, despite their exposure to examples of demeaning and derogation comments from aspirant Trump, majority member of this focus group had no problem defaulting on the side of the front-runner? If there is any consolation for many Americans who have their reservations regarding the focused-group position and mystified about current Republican polling results or what popular press is crediting to Mr. Trump’s campaign style and strategy, maybe Governor Kasich follow-up response to the CBS Face the Nation program host, John Dickerson, question would suffice. The Governor reminded everyone and anyone watching the program on Sunday Morning that, the opinions of a small focused group of Americans cannot be said, as representative of the true opinions of the Republican Party in collective, and no one can say with any degree of certainty, the real reason why members of the group are opting for the dark side of their party. For Governor Kasich, a rival of Mr. Trump for the party nomination: “Until the final voting in all the fifty states’ causes and primaries are completed and counted, no one must assume that the party nomination is going to Donald Trump.”

Like establishment Republicans and opinion leaders, who are anticipating a procedural change at the 2016 Republican National Convention with the caviar, a candidate must have a written support of a “plurality’ of delegates, just to ousted or upend Donald Trump’s chances, Governor Kasich is certain that Mr. Trump will never end up being the Republican Party nominee. Establishment Republicans appear to share the same belief and conviction that the party’s flag bearer must at a minimum, be a representative candidate of the plurality of Republicans, not just the extreme fringe groups that have overwhelmingly supported Mr. Trump so far, a group establishment Republicans prefer to categorize as the dark side of their party. Preponderance of Democrats and Independents hardly want the Republican problem to become a national problem: having a demagogue, Xenophon, racist or religious bigot standing in contest and ending up as the President of the United States.

To their credit, it appears establishment Republicans are not ready to nominate or defend someone they consider unrepresentative of the plurality of their party membership to be the party’s flag bearer. Yet, they are unwilling to totally denounce Mr. Trump, fearing unwholesome criticism may implode the party’s apparatus. Indeed, in private, some concerned Republican Party kingmakers are seeking credible alternative to Mr. Trump, hoping his campaign polls number will not continue to catch fire and derail party’s ethos of decency. Unfortunately, if Mr. Trump continues to garner additional support, and it appears that is the case as of date, Republicans may ultimately end up with a candidate of demagoguery in the general elections.

Perhaps Mr. Trump’s perceived support is a fluke because the actual voting in all states’ caucuses and primaries have not taken place. Perhaps also, if given the choice between a demagogue and a center-right Republican in the voting booth, voters will default on the side of decency, and do the right thing. Thus, if majority of Republicans decide that it is in their best interest to support an alternate candidate before the end of the stats’ primaries and caucuses, maybe the party echelon would not have to deal with the problem; or persuade themselves that a Stalinist or Hitlerism is the ultimate the 2016 Republican party has to offer in the general elections. For now, let all Americans apprehensive of Mr. Trump brand of campaign hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

Reasonably interpreted, demagoguery hardly represents the place of any major American Political Party in 2016; and no amount of extremism and or nationalistic campaign messaging will attract additional support from Republicans. However, the message so far from the polls taken is that, Donald Trump’s version of demagoguery discounts the importance of other Republican aspirants and gradually denies them the necessary limelight to connect with likely Republican voters. The present reactive theory is that Donald Trump’s demagoguery continues to trigger waves of powerful emotions among Republicans and he has readily exploited those emotions for his personal political benefits; that his brand of demagoguery appears to be breaking establishment principle and threatening the governance of the party; that, but for the fact that Mr. Trump, with his millions could hardly convince himself or pass as an ordinary America, his brand of campaign would have readily met all the four criteria, the 19^th Century Author James Cooper identified as all that are needed in a demagogue or campaign of demagoguery. Ted Cruz’s candidacy and campaign strategies have been moving towards Donald Trump’s brand lately and polling figures are indicating some progress for the Canadian-born Republican Senator from Texas in early voting state of New Hampshire. However, no one can decipher if this new upsurge can upstage Donald Trump in the State of Iowa or South Carolina.

One can only speculate from historical data that demagogues and demagoguery campaigns hardly lead any aspirant to the White House oval office. We know demagogues are antithesis of democracy and are mostly tyrannical in their outlook of people and public policies. How about George Wallace (1968), Father Coughlin (1936), Gerald Smith, William Pelley and Gerald Winrod (1930’s)? These demagogues got nowhere with their message(s) of hatred; but only confused Americans the more about the purpose of presidential campaigns, and or political governance. Fast forward to 2015, it is rather unlikely a Republican demagogue like Donald Trump could win 1,191 delegates. Neither would a demagogue in the Democratic Party win as many as 2024 delegates in current cycle of campaigning to be nominated the party’s flagbearer. Would anyone imagine a candidate who believes that: 1) “The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people”; 2) “Hillary Clinton Killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity”; 3) “Hillary Clinton is running for president because she wants to stay out of jail”; and, 4) “Ted Cruz is a bit of a manic and doesn’t have the right temperament to be president”; or 5) “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on”; can actually end up being the President of the United States in 2016? Further, unless the center-right establishment Republicans are unable to coalesce or get its acts together, would the American voters would have to make a choice between a Democratic nominee flag bearer and a Republican aspirant who has failed to uphold the simple tenets of Titus 3:2; 10-11: “to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men; and reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition; knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.”

IMPRECATION: Could this be Donald Trump’s Grand Strategy to win Republican Party Nomination?

Keyword or Terms: Muslims; Donald Trump’s campaign Strategy; Xenophobic; Racist; Bigoted Extremists; Christian Far Right; Anti-Americanism; Nationalism; Star Spangle Banner; Constitutional Scholars; Incorrigible Enemy; Israel; King David; Psalm 109; Islamic Jihadist; ISIS, Mexicans; African-Americans; President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR); Infamy Speech; Japanese Pearl Harbor Invasion; Terrorist Groups and Camps

Republican front runner for 2016 party nomination transformed the political foray and discussions this week. Compared to multiple offensive altercations and rhetoric’s from Donald Trump beginning from the onset of his campaign, his yesterday released statement concerning another American minority group, probably topped the imprecation chart; and, made it to a place where even the most disdained Republican to far-left Democratic values, will hardly thread. The substance and bases of almost all the imprecation psalms that many Christian Far Right probably shy away from, appear rather pale from the ground-shaking and tumultuous statement of: “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

The entrenchment of demagogic rhetoric and grossly inflammatory comments may appear a “win-win” strategy from the Republican front-runner’s perspective; however, many who know better, including some rather very Conservative Republicans, probably felt that the real-estate mogul has charted a new direction with his recent comments about fellow Americans that can only be considered as Anti-American. Like the House Speaker Paul Ryan said of Donald Trump’s comment: ‘this is not what the [Republican Party] stands for.” Some Constitutional scholars wondered if Donald Trump’s most recent comment against a minority group of Americans is not unconstitutional; with the former US Vice-President, architect of some rather hostile public policies against people from the Middle-East, Dick Cheney saying: “It goes against everything we stand for”

Donald Trump will hardly bulge. Billionaire Donald Trump probably liken himself to King David of Israel, who asked in Psalm 109, the strongest and most intense psalm of the Bible, an awful request of judgement against an incorrigible enemy of the nation of Israel. Just as King David of old considered himself as God anointed, so has Donald Trump considered himself, the self-anointed voice of the far-right, those who wrap themselves with ‘Old Glory’ and sing more so loudly the Star-Spangle banner to the edification of Nationalism. This is a deliberate campaign strategy, this is a crafty and probably a winner among the front-runner’s supporters. Would this strategy win a major party’s nomination in 2016 or general election? Only time will tell.

With the new demagogic rhetoric, Donald Trump ignores God’s judgement and vindication, concerning the multiple atrocities from ISIS and the imminent fear of another attack from the extreme groups of Islamic Jihadist bent on destroying America. Trump has dumped American-Middle Eastern leaders’ strategy or alliance to fight global terrorism; and by default, national terrorism. Trump’s escalating comment against Muslims this week is analogous to extreme comments against another minority group of Americans in his former campaign speeches, Mexicans. While this is appearing a deliberate strategy of winning the nomination, as the front-runner has always refused to back down from his comments and has actually doubled down on them, when called out by well-meaning Americans, this new comment is a Duce. When asked today about his initial position on American Muslims, the front-runner reiterated his earlier position; and, it appears he is not blowing hot air. What is known today, no matter how abhorrent many of us find many of his rhetoric, Donald Trump continues to ginger new debates, blaze new discussion points; a new direction, where he has left one of his prominent rival no option but to label him as unhinged

In the planetary of Donald Trump’s supporters, the Republican far-right, all Muslims are terrorists and responsible for all the carnage since September 11, 2001, including Paris's, San Bernardino's and other unfortunate acts of terrorism in and against America. The front-runner, in an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Barbara Walter today, insists members of his party understand he is the worst thing that ever happened to ISIS. If you are wondering why the extreme comment(s) may be sitting well with some far-right Republicans while establishment Republicans are running away from them and saying comments as these hurt the party, you only need to look at how the Republican Party over the past seven or so years appears to have been hijacked by extremists, folks who could hardly care what happens to people that do not look like them. The Xenophobic, racist and bigoted extremists!

If you say, it is time for some mainstream candidate to redirect Republican Party passion and create a sense of identity that many Republican voters can identify with and rally round, don’t be surprised when you hear that Donald Trump’s comments are synonymous with their private inhibitions that they hadn’t a podium to display. In a nutshell, there are more Republicans, some say about sixty-five percent, who support aspirant Trump’s position and comment(s) on Muslims, who are also willing to move with him to a third party independent candidacy if need be. After all, Mr. Trump says his comments are not different from what President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) probably said in his Infamy Speech, about Japanese after the Pearl Harbor invasion?

Some political pundits insist that Donald Trump’s comments, either about Undocumented Immigrants, African-Americans or Muslims, are deliberate; they re-affirm a strategy that wins. To this end, the more outlandish, the more shocking, the better they are for the chances to be nominated the Republican flag bearer next year. Aspirant Donald Trump has pursued a divisive strategy, relying on his reality television theatrics, to draw and probably muscle unwilling Republicans toward his candidacy for the party nomination. But mainstream Republican party stalwarts may be inclined to resist Trump’s candidacy and label it as too reckless and practically divisive for the general populace.

Unfortunately, Republican party’s kingmakers’ privately held sentiments reflect an unwholesome reluctance to become truly engaged with a fascist campaign strategy. You will see that in former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum stance, maintaining there are more practical ways to refuse Muslims’ entry into the United States and Senator Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) reluctance to chastise Donald Trump; rather commending him for finding ways to secure American borders. A Presidential aspirant with Donald Trump’s strategy to win, even when considered too provocative by outsiders to his supporting base, is unlikely to change; so, expect more outlandish comments from the Republican Party front-runner, as every time he makes these provocative comments, he sees his polls’ number skyrocket. For all intense and purpose, this is a winning strategy for aspirant Donald Trump; this is why he dares mainstream Republican insiders to jettison his efforts.

For a number of Donald Trump’s campaign supporters, his comments have been directed against sworn enemies of America. First, for Undocumented Immigrants who constitute a threat to the middle-income lifestyle, guaranteed by stable wages, some claim static wages, and union protected work privileges. Second, the terrorists who knocked down the World Trade Center in New York and constantly are trying to undermine the security of the nation. For him, if anyone is seeking the truth and not being complicit, they should see things the way he sees them: anyone who is a Muslim is an enemy of America; forget the extremist Jihadist Muslims' paradigm. Trump continues to maintain he has tremendous relationship with American Muslim communities and they agree 100 percent with his sentiments. Third, until Muslims, including the Americans among them, show the nation they are not terrorists, they are all enemies and are personal non-grata in America.

For Donald Trump, we are at war with Muslims, not the radical, extreme jihadists. Further, in the eyes of Mr. Trump: “[Muslims] are people that have tremendously bad intentions. [Americans] have to be smart and have to be vigilant.” Are there historical reasons to share the aspirant’s sentiment? Yes and No. The extremist Jihadists who have sworn to bring death to America have accomplished some of those threats and are still working hard to accomplish it. Trump’s supporters are rapidly associating the Islamic faith with terror because of repeated incidences on the home front and in ally’s country as in Paris, France. Two American Presidential Administrations, Republican and Democrat, since September 11, 2001, have unequivocally reminded us that we are not at war with Islam or followers of the religion. After all, there are American Muslims fighting to protect the constitution and American way of life as we speak; and, have vowed to continue to fight to keep the homeland safe. America is only fighting against the extremists Jihadist, terrorists, who continue to gang up to harm America and her allies. Unfortunately, these assertions are circumspect for some of the die-hard skeptics. Although America continues to ramp up its attacks on these terrorist groups and keeping up the pressures on these extremists’ camps and groups to ensure victory; however, the successes and re-assurances are hardly enough for this group. Would better communication about how various White House Administrations are keeping America safe; and, unraveling the machinations of the terrorist groups across the globe suffice? Probably. That at least, is one way to re-assure the skeptics and undermine Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric and strategy.

Less anyone think the writer is a sympathizer of Donald Trump’s sentiments? I am least myopic, xenophobic, racists, nationalist or bigoted. I cannot imagine any sensible American making claims and crediting a position as abhorrent as Mr. Trump has been taking on his campaign trail. In fact, I consider Mr. Trump as not only divisive but completely destructive to the effort to protect national security and combat global terrorism. Further, As Americans, we do not set one group against the other for any personal selfish reason(s). In addition, our lofty constitution and subsequent amendments require us not to discriminate on basis of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, disability, or status as a disabled or Vietnam era veteran. Anyone therefore, who is an American, a true American, would not be making claims and assertions that Donald Trump as a presidential aspirant has been spewing in the past seven months. Has Republican Aspirant Trump gotten any of his claims right? No; and, emphatically No. In fact, he has muddled up a very challenging grist that continues to puzzle all well-meaning Americans. How Donald Trump continues to ramp up in polls, is still a puzzle.

                                          Capital Building, Salento, Puglia, Italy