Until Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary, the prospect of Donald Trump as the Republican nominee remained largely theoretical.  Sure, he had dominated the national polling, but the Establishment talking heads in the media kept speculating, perhaps in an attempt  to convince themselves, that Trump’s popularity might not translate into actual votes.  That hope ended in New Hampshire.  Now, you might wonder, as I do, why a State with about 0.4% of the U.S. population should play such a pivotal role in selecting the next President, but that’s the way it is.  The Establishment hates Trump, and for that matter, Ted Cruz.  They had the perfect solution, or so they thought, Jeb Bush.  He had the name, he had the money, he had the organization, and he possessed the three most important Establishment qualifications:  1) it was his turn; 2) he’d be sure not to offend anybody; and 3) after being defeated, he’d be a good loser.  There is only one problem with Jeb, he is so boring that he couldn’t lure you out of a burning building.  Jeb may be politically dead, but he still has so much money that he just won’t lie down.  The “experts” weren’t daunted.  They next put their money on Marco Rubio, or so it seemed.  But, Rubio was attacked during a debate by that media darling, Chris Christie.  Rubio didn’t respond properly, or so we were told, and he faded.  Then came New Hampshire.  Trump spent $3 million and won big.  Ted Cruz spent about $500,000 and finished third.  Some $34 million bought Jeb fourth place.  Rubio got fifth place for $16.7 million.  John Kasich spent $12.3 million and finished a strong second.  The Establishment now is perplexed.  Where to go next?  What about Kasich?  Well, 17% looked good in New Hampshire, but the next State up is South Carolina.  As I write this, a new poll has Trump at 32%, Cruz 26%, Rubio 20%, Bush 10%, Carson 7% – uhh, where’s John Kasich you ask?  He is at 2%, and does not appear to be the Establishment savior.  So where do we go from here?  Donald Trump polls in the 30’s in most places, but my inclination is that he’s got all the support that he’s going to get, in other words, a good 66% of Republicans do not favor his candidacy.  The source of the Trump phenomenon is anger at the politicians who promise one thing when they run, then ignore the voters’ wishes once elected.  Washington Republicans told us if they won the House they would reverse Il Duce Obama’s unconstitutional actions.  We gave them the House and they failed to act.  They told us if they could win the Senate, then they would stop Obama.  We gave them the Senate and nothing changed.  Now, just give us a President and … you know the rest.  We are simply tired of being lied to by the people we send to Washington.  Does anyone really believe that another President Bush, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan would change anything?  As in 2008, people want change.  Not the “hope and change” that led to the dismantling of our constitutional system by Barack the Destroyer, but a new-found respect for the law, a return to common sense and sanity, and a step away from the madness of the recent eight year unpleasantness.  People thirst for a leader who will keep us safe.  Most of all, the people who have turned toward outsiders want to put a stop to “business as usual” in Washington.  This is a recipe for a conservative populist, who understands that the power resides in the people, and that elected officials should serve the people and not themselves.  If you’re looking for a candidate who says what he means, means what he says, and who strikes fear in the hearts of the Washington Establishment, that man is Ted Cruz.  If the Washington cartel wasn’t convinced that he’ll do exactly what he says he’ll do, they wouldn’t be spending so much time and money trying to destroy him.  We’ve been told time and time again, “Ted Cruz is not liked.”  It’s true.  The cartel doesn’t like him because he’s likely to derail their gravy train.  If you’re angry, and rest assured, I’m angry too, then the solution is not Donald Trump.  We’ve suffered eight years of runaway liberalism, and the eight years before that were no model of conservative leadership.  Donald Trump admits he’s not a conservative, and boasts that he’s a deal maker.  That’s how we got into this mess.  Trump is a fine businessman, but the federal government is not a business.  In a business, the books have to balance.  In the government, you raise $3 trillion, you spend $4 trillion, and you tell the people you kept spending under control.  Frankly, a deal maker with the ability to print money scares me to death.  Thomas Jefferson told us that “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”  It is high time for somebody to put the fear of the people into this government.  Ted Cruz is ready to do just that.

As a conservative, I am accustomed to living with the media double standard; a media which endorses any campaign tactic of a Democrat as “tough politics” with “sharp elbows,” yet decries any action by a Republican, beyond the usual near-comatose blathering, as unfair, dangerous, and probably illegal.  That said, the 2016 Presidential campaign coverage, as well as the campaign itself, has been strange, to say the least.  In the past, we got political news on TV from the three networks, once a day, every evening.  Today, we are afflicted with 24 hour a day constant news, and on whatever news channel you select, in addition to the constant verbal barrage of “news,” you also get the news crawl at the bottom of the screen.  In the 24 hour news-cycle,  practically anything that happens is branded as “Breaking News.”  And so it was on Monday with the news coverage of the Iowa Caucuses.  Now, no offense to Iowa, but I find it a bit foolish to put so much emphasis on one State’s contest.  Moreover, what kind of a contest?  Certainly not an election.  In an election, when the voter goes to vote, he or she goes behind a curtain to cast his or her vote in privacy.  Moreover, police and poll watchers are present to make sure that there is no politicking going on within 100 feet of the polling place.  In Iowa, people meet at numerous caucus sites.  Each candidate sends representatives to speak to, and attempt to influence the attendees.  It’s not an election, but the media reports it as though it is an election.  And the media reports politics the same way it reports everything else, through the liberal template.  The media buys into the liberal notion that the news revolves around the complaints of victims. A racial or gender victim is always a good story.  In politics, victims allege “dirty tricks” and cry foul.  And it makes no difference if the media created the story and the alleged “victim.”

And so to the Iowa Caucuses coverage.  You may have heard that Ted Cruz is being criticized for allegedly trying to convince Ben Carson supporters to support Cruz by spreading the false rumor that Carson was about to end his campaign.  As with most media coverage, that’s not exactly the truth.  Here are the facts.  On Monday night, CNN reported that its correspondent Chris Moody had “breaking news” that Ben Carson was going from Iowa home to Florida, and not to New Hampshire or South Carolina.  CNN reported that Carson would go instead to Washington, D.C., to the National Prayer Breakfast.  The CNN commentator said, “If you want to be President of the United States, you don’t go home to Florida.”  The implication was that Carson’s action was highly unusual, and that he wasn’t going home simply to change his clothes, but for some other reason.  In response to the CNN report, the Cruz campaign emailed Cruz supporters who were to speak at the caucuses that Ben Carson was taking time off from the campaign trail and making a big announcement next week.  The Cruz people were encouraged to use this as a reason for caucus attendees to support Cruz.  That is all that was said in the email.  (As an aside, as I write these words on February 4, 2016, the Prayer Breakfast has just concluded, and Ben Carson did attend, but did not speak).  When this became an issue, Ted Cruz apologized to Ben Carson.  I think the apology was just, because the Cruz campaign email did get one thing wrong – the notion that Carson would make a “big announcement” this week, which CNN may have implied, but did not report.

The Cruz campaign email provoked Ben Carson to cry foul.  Now a victim, Carson was given more media coverage than he has gotten in months.  Not to be outdone, Donald Trump used the occasion to accuse Ted Cruz of fraud, demanding a new election.  The fact that no election had been held in the first place apparently escaped Trump’s notice.  Moreover, the fact that Trump’s hands are not exactly clean apparently didn’t matter either.  Trump, you may recall, is the fellow who called Ben Carson “a pathological damaged” person, making the comparison to a child molester.  Trump went on to claim that “Ted Cruz gave us Obamacare.”  (Cruz was elected 2 years after it was passed), and that Cruz claimed that Trump supported Obamacare “because he was born in Canada.” (Huh?)   How can Trump get away with things like that as merely tough politics?  He recently was a Democrat, so he gets a pass.  Don’t forget, Trump once promised that “I will apologize sometime in the hopefully distant future if I’m ever wrong.”  We won’t hold our breath.

It often is said that Americans should not have to pin their futures on and trust their freedom to the agreement of five Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court on some case before that body.  That is a lovely sentiment, however, the reality is that, more and more, that is precisely what Americans are required to do.  If all the Justices sitting on the Supreme Court were dedicated to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, which it is supposed to be; if the Justices were dedicated to the separation of powers that the Framers intended; if they understood and accepted that the Federal government was created by the States, and not the other way around; if they all accepted that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in the Bill of Rights exist and actually mean something; then we would not be at the mercy of five Justices.  Sadly, too many of the Justices serve, not the law, but their political agendas.  That is why the election of 2016 is so important.  The recent 8 year unpleasantness, which we know as the Obama Administration, has added two liberal partisans to the Court, Justices Sotomayor  and Kagan.   They, along with Justices Ginsberg and Breyer, do not regard the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, so much as a movable feast for liberalism, under which whatever left-wing flavor of the month they advocate may be declared a “right.”  And, this is why the upcoming election is so important.  Most people expect the next President to appoint two or three new Justices to the Court, and maybe more.  Another Democrat President will see the Court populated by more Justices who serve not the law, but their political agenda.  We cannot afford such a prospect.  The other day, Hillary Clinton said she might appoint Il Duce Obama to the Court, noting, after all “he was a law professor.”  Let’s deal with that first.  Obama never was a law professor.  On his graduation from Harvard Law School, Obama got a call from the Dean of the University of Chicago Law School, who asked Obama if he had any interest in teaching law.  According to Dean Baird, Obama said “No,” and added that he was planning to write a book about voting rights.  The Dean offered Obama an office, a computer, a secretary, a $60,000 salary, health benefits, and a position as a Visiting Law and Government Fellow.  Obama stayed 12 years, and taught some courses as a Lecturer.  He could not be a professor, because he never wrote even one scholarly article.  And that book about voting rights, well, Obama never wrote that either, choosing instead to write one of the two autobiographies that he has written, and leading me, once again, to propose that no person who writes an autobiography before he or she ever has a real job should be permitted to hold any office.  Justice Obama?  Don’t worry about that, it will never happen, for several reasons.  First of all, there is a far higher probability that Hillary will be standing in front of a judge instead of appointing any judge.  Secondly, even as President, it’s unlikely she would choose Il Duce, and even less likely that he would accept.  The Court is no place for a narcissist with a Messiah complex, and there’s no limelight on the Court.  Obama couldn’t make political pronouncements, continue to raise money for his Marxist causes and constantly intrude on and upstage the next President.  The Court is too much like a real job, and any job where you have to work hard and can’t simply run your mouth is not the right job for a totalitarian demagogue.  Finally, and hopefully, Obama won’t wind up on the Court because we will elect a conservative Republican as the next President.  We’ll start that process next week in Iowa.  If we manage to nominate a real conservative, instead of Side-Show Donald, we may have a chance.

As I have previously written, the popularity of Donald Trump stemmed from the fact that Trump didn’t talk like a politician and didn’t act like a politician.  So far, the national polls still show Trump with a big lead, but whether the lead in national polls will translate to primary votes remains to be seen.  First of all, we don’t have a national primary, we have separate State caucuses and primaries from February to June, so national poll results don’t tell the whole story.  Secondly, and more importantly, as Trump has felt the heat from Ted Cruz in Iowa, the first State contest, he has been sounding and acting more and more like Trump the politician, rather than like Trump the Maverick, breath of fresh air.  You see, Iowa grows corn, and over 40% of all the corn grown is used to produce ethanol, which is added to gasoline.  Once upon a time, we were lectured by environmentalists that gasoline with 10 to 15% added ethanol was good for the environment.  These mastermind environmentalists also judged “gasohol” a “win-win” because is would reduce the amount of oil needed to run motor vehicles, a good thing because, the masterminds told us, we were fast approaching “peak oil” – the time when oil production would peak, and then would decline steadily thereafter.  In other words, we were running out of oil, and that’s why we needed to run cars on alcohol.  As a result, the U.S. government pays huge subsidies to farmers, many of whom are in Iowa, to grow more corn, to make more ethanol, to add to the gasoline, by means of which to save the planet.

Unfortunately, here in 2016, we are confronted by several inconvenient truths.  Despite decades of warnings about “peak oil” from the environmental Jeremiahs, our shale oil production has produced so much domestic crude oil that we are running out of places to store it.  In the last 5 years, oil has fallen from $127 a barrel to under $30 a barrel.  So why continue to pay corn growers billions of dollars for producing “renewable fuel”?  It’s better for the environment?  Well, no.  It turns out that it takes 4 gallons of oil to produce 3 gallons of ethanol.  That raises the price of the gasoline you buy.  You’ve paid more than $10 billion extra since 2007.  What’s more, the alcohol is not good for your car either.  You’d get better mileage on pure gasoline, which would be cheaper.  Plus, alcohol damages the engines that burn it, especially small engines, like those on your lawn mower.  And one more thing, using so much of the corn crop for fuel makes less corn available for food, and drives up food prices.  So, to recap,  there’s a glut of oil, ethanol is bad for the environment, it makes fuel cost more, your car run worse, it ruins your lawn mower, and it raises the price of your Frosted Flakes and Doritos.  So why does the government continue to give your money to farmers to produce more ethanol?  Because the farmers refuse to be weaned from the government teat.  They want that money.  You have to remember that the “farmer” who gets the subsidies is not good old Fred Ziffell from Green Acres.  The “farmer” is a big corporation, like Archer Daniels Midland.  They produce ethanol.  It has been estimated that, for every $1 profit ADM makes on ethanol, U.S. taxpayers pay $30 in subsidies.  Now that study is a bit dated but even if the subsidies equaled the profit, it would still be senseless corporate welfare.

What’s this got to do with Donald Trump?  Well, he’s been running behind Ted Cruz in Iowa.  Cruz wants to phase out the payments to these big corporations for ethanol.  That prompted Iowa Governor Branstad to declare that Cruz must be defeated.  Trump now is sounding very much like a politician, as he has come out for the expansion of the subsidies and has bashed Cruz for trying to end them.  Trump keeps touting his willingness to “make deals,” to the point where many Establishment politicians have actually begun to support Trump.  That should worry Conservatives.  There is too much debt, too much corporate welfare, too much waste, too much government meddling with industry, and there have been too many dirty deals done in Washington.  We need a leader, not a dealer.

Will Trump fade?  I don’t know, but what sounded like something new in June now sounds just like the same old thieving politicians with their hands in your pocket.

This has been a very unusual Republican primary season, to say the least.  This time around, we have seen a larger pool of Republican candidates than we normally see.  The campaigning seemed to start earlier, and unless my impression is mistaken, the number of candidates to date has not shrunk as quickly as it has in years past.  So far, the only candidates who have dropped out are Lindsey Graham and George Pataki.  Graham’s problem was he never managed to rise above 0% support.  As for Pataki, most people never even knew he was running, and never noticed when he dropped out.  Then there’s Donald Trump.  When he announced his candidacy in Jun, I was sitting in jury duty, so I got a chance to hear his speech live.  I thought his remarks about Mexicans would doom him.  I was wrong.  Like most members of the media, as Trump continued to make non-PC remarks, I expected his sudden popularity to evaporate.  It did not. (NOTE – I use the commonly understood definition of “PC .”  Rather than “political correctness” my definition if PC is “political cowardice.”)  Every Trump comment that caused the media to predict his political demise only made Trump stronger.  For a long time, I wasn’t convinced that Trump really wanted to be President.  I thought he was just trying to raise issues that would not otherwise be raised.  I’ve changed my mind.  Now, I’m convinced that Trump thinks he can win and is in it to win.  Trump’s popularity is unprecedented, but not surprising, at least not to me.  The Republican Party is controlled by the Establishment wing.  The Establishment is just what the name suggests.  It represents the status quo, the system, what Ted Cruz calls “the Washington Cartel.”  The Establishment Republicans are content to nominate another good loser who will stand up, smile and go out of his way not to offend anybody, all the time trying to imitate the Democrat candidate.  They say that’s the only candidate who can win, and apparently haven’t noticed that these candidates never win.  Simply put, the Establishment has no problem with the Welfare State, as long as it gets to run the Welfare State.  Well, in 2016 people are fed up.  We are not about to accept another good loser, and that accounts for the popularity of Trump.

That said, I am not a Trump supporter.  Make no mistake, if Trump is the candidate, I will go out and work hard to get him elected.  Notice that there is no one from the Establishment who will say the same about Trump, or any conservative.  That’s the problem.  Conservatives will vote for the good losers when they are nominated, but the Establishment doesn’t believe that reciprocity is necessary.  My problem with Trump is not that he can’t win, but rather what will happen if he does win.  It’s fine to be a Maverick candidate, but the object of this exercise isn’t simply to elect a candidate, but to get control of the runaway government, reverse the unconstitutional actions of Il Duce Obama, grow the economy, build up the military and protect us from the threat of terrorism.  In order to do all those things, the next President needs some knowledge about how Washington works, even if we all agree that we don’t like the way it works.  And above all, the next President is going to have to work with a Congress which is not about to bend over and grab its ankles the way it does for Il Duce.  This Summer I had the privilege of taking a continuing education course on separation of powers taught by Justice Scalia.  Scalia was asked about the remedy for Obama’s extra-constitutional actions.  While skillfully avoiding getting enmeshed in politics, what Justice Scalia said was sobering.  He said that the Constitution is designed to give Congress the power to control the Executive, but that, if the Congress refuses to use the power that it has, you can’t expect the courts to fix the problem.  I guarantee that if Donald Trump, or any conservative, is elected President, the Congress will remember the powers vested in it by the Constitution.  That is why I am not convinced that Donald Trump will be able to carry out the policies he supports.  For my money, Ted Cruz has the correct combination of knowledge of and respect for the law, dedication to his principles and experience with the workings of the government necessary to get the job done.  Only time will tell.