The Hill to Die On: Will Ted Cruz and Rand Paul Take Their Oaths Seriously and Help Mo Brooks Save the Republic?

In 1776 56 brave patriots signed their names at the bottom of the Declaration of Independence; a document that spelled out the specifics as to why the 13 colonies were making a break with England and King George.

Signing that document was treason against the British and every single man, some with names you know, Benjamin Franklin, Sam Adams and of course John Hancock, and some you may not such as Thomas McKean, Button Gwinnett and Arthur Middleton, risked literal life, limb and property by doing so. Had the British prevailed, they very well may have ended their days in front of a firing squad or at the end of a hangman’s noose. Yet still they signed.

The interesting thing is, only about a quarter of the population actively supported the break with England at the time the Declaration was signed. Another quarter, largely those whose fortunes benefited greatly from the connection with England (which some of the signers did themselves) wanted to remain part of the Empire, while fully half the population were what we’d call today “undecided”.

The reality is, leaders do what these men and others did… they led, they fought and they went home and convinced their fellow citizens about the righteousness of their cause and inspired others to join the fight. And in the end, they prevailed, and in doing so they set forth a path that changed the course of human history, much for the better.

Today America finds itself in a place not so different from that which the thirteen colonies faced 246 years ago. While the thirteen disjointed colonies faced the greatest empire the world had ever known, patriots today face the greatest propaganda machine in human history: The Democrat / Media / Tech Industrial Complex.

There are two big differences however. The first is that the thirteen colonies had the benefit of 54 men who were willing to stand up and challenge the King and Parliament in order to do what they knew to be right. Today patriots find a largely barren wasteland of leaders who are willing to stand up as the Democrats and their cabal seek to steal an election in broad daylight.

The other difference is that in 1776 war was the last option available to the patriots. In 2020 patriots still have one last option before something drastic… and the odds of it succeeding are as slim as those faced by the thirteen tiny colonies taking on the most powerful empire in the world.

As the Hill detailed earlier in the week, there is a Constitutional tactic through which the Republic can be saved… and make no mistake, that is exactly what is at stake here.

The tactic involves senators and representatives using the procedures outlined in the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act (ECA) to delay the acceptance of the electors to a point where the House would then choose the President, with each state having a single vote. Given that Republicans control a majority of the state delegations Donald Trump would be declared the winner.

This would be a long and arduous process, something like Jimmy Stewart’s character in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” spending a month reading scripture. No doubt the patriots who choose this path will be tarred and feathered in the press, have their families doxed on social media, and very likely be thrown under the bus by Mitch McConnell and other “leaders” in their own party. In a word, for a while their lives would be made miserable for the crime of standing up to those who would steal the election from the American people.

That’s what real leaders do. That is what real patriots do. In the 200 plus years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the ratification of our Constitution, millions of men and women have put everything – up to and including their lives – on the line after swearing a military oath that starts with this: “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;” Congressmen and senators take a similar oath, but it’s very rare that they risk much of anything, let alone their lives, after doing so. Most senators and congressmen leave office far richer than when they entered politics or at a minimum are able to parlay their service into lucrative lobbying positions on K Street. Can one be a politician and a leader and a patriot simultaneously?

Now is the time for patriots who serve in Washington to actually show that they take their oath seriously. While the Communist Chinese may indeed have influenced our election, the real threat to the Republic, to the Constitution, is a domestic one and it presented itself on November 3rd when fraud changed the outcome of the presidential election. Beyond the God given rights protected by the Constitution nothing is as sacred to Americans as their right to vote. Period. Full stop.

If the integrity of our elections is lost then nothing else matters because at that point no one is accountable to voters, the rules and the Constitution ceases to be anything but a faded piece of paper. As such, now is the time for patriots in Washington to stand up and actually do that which they swore to do. No more assuming “We’ll win next time”. No more thinking the other side plays by the rules. No more assuming that everything will blow over and we’ll be back business as usual soon. No. This is the hill to die on because beyond this hill is a Stalinist tyranny like the one George Orwell warned us about. Tens of millions of Americans have seen the writing on the wall as written by Antifa and Black Lives Matter and AOC and other Democrats who seek to punish Trump supporters. Not sure? Think Stalinist purges can’t happen here? Think again. Look at what was done to Donald Trump over the last four years when every single Democrat involved knew that the charges were fiction. And he was (and is) a billionaire President loved by tens of millions and they only controlled ½ the legislature for ½ his term! Once in power imagine what they will do to average Americans who just trying to make ends meet and wants to be left alone, a small businessmen who just want to make a living, or senators or congressmen who stand in the way of their plans for domination…

There is nothing usual about America in 2020 and what we’ve just experienced was not just another election loss. It was a coup in the literal sense of the word and the Democrats were willing to do it right in front of us because they were pretty sure that no one would do anything about it. This is a call for Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and all ostensibly Republican senators join Congressman Mo Brooks and his army to show Democrats that they were wrong in their calculations and that you take your oath seriously and will fight to protect the United States from these domestic enemies of freedom. It will be challenging and there will be countless people seeking to derail you, from both sides of the aisle. No doubt the media, friends and maybe even some family may seek to knock you from the path – as Benjamin Franklin’s son sought to do with him – but if you keep the faith, if you fight the good fight, we will win and when the history of the 2020 election is written you will find yourselves in the same company as those 56 intrepid men, they having birthed our nation and you having saved it.

www.EverySingleElector.com

Man of Character - Ted Cruz

On Wednesday night Ted Cruz addressed the GOP convention in Cleveland. At first I was a bit disappointed as I was hoping for a masterful dismantling of Hillary Clinton on the biggest stage of the campaign. While he hit her, it seemed almost perfunctory. But upon reflection, he did exactly what he should have done in terms of articulating the principals of freedom, limited government and opportunity. Particularly given the fact that Donald Trump is the GOP candidate and those ideas will likely not find much airtime over the next four months.

Of course none of that really mattered. The only thing that mattered to those on the floor, those in the box seats and those in the media was “Will Ted Cruz endorse Donald Trump?” He didn’t. And as a result much of the GOP establishment, erstwhile conservatives and virtually the entire universe of talk radio hosts have proclaimed his political career over. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, we’ll have to wait and see.

But what we won’t have to wait and see is what courage looks like. Ted Cruz went into the lion’s den and came out not only alive, but clearly in possession of his principals. Near the end of the speech, as the boos became so loud and the crowd was (intentionally) stirred into a frenzy, I couldn’t help but picture one of those countless scenes between the two world wars when Winston Churchill stood in the well of Parliament and warned of the coming storm. He was called a war monger. He was called a trouble maker. He was said to be an old fool. And most of that was from people in his own party!

If one has ever seen video of the raucous debates in Parliament, you can imagine what it was like for Churchill to stand there withering the slings and arrows yet continue to speak his piece. So too was it with Ted Cruz. The Trump inspired crowd would very much liked to have tarred and feathered Cruz had they been able to get to him. They did what they could to intimidate the Texas senator, but he continued with his message, suggesting those in the hall and those at home vote their conscience.

And that is perhaps the single most telling part of this entire farce. Ted Cruz was not telling anyone to vote for him or not to vote for Donald Trump. No, Ted Cruz talked about the party, the constitution, liberty, freedom and he suggested delegates and viewers should vote for the person who they thought would uphold their vision of those things. When someone tells you to vote your conscience and you think they’ve insulted your candidate that tells you much more about you and your candidate than it does about the speaker.

Finally there is the pledge. Ted Cruz did indeed make a pledge to support the nominee. He, along with the rest of the contenders vowed to support the nominee. And he meant it. Do you for one moment think that if Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal or Ben Carson were the nominee he wouldn’t have supported them? No doubt he would have, with bells on. When he made that pledge, he had every intention of fulfilling it.

But here’s the thing. Pledges are not written in stone or blood. Think about it… How many Americans have been divorced? When you marry you promise to “Love, honor and cherish till death do us part.” That’s a pledge… yet somehow almost half of marriages end up in divorce. Does that mean the bride and groom were lying? Absolutely not. They meant it, but things don’t always work out as planned. A pledge is not a golden ticket for the other person to do whatever they want. That pledge does not give a husband carte blanche to sleep with half the women in his office and it doesn’t give the wife the right to abuse the children. The pledge that people make to one another at their wedding assumes a relationship within the normal bounds of acceptable behavior… it’s not an iron clad contract for life that remains in effect regardless of what the other person does.

And so too is it with Ted Cruz and his pledge to support the nominee. Cruz had every intention of supporting the GOP’s nominee when he made it. But then Donald Trump personally attacked both Cruz’s wife and father. Yet Cruz was somehow still supposed to pledge his support. If that’s the case, then one wonders what exactly Trump could have done that would have been sufficient to persuade his supporters that breaking the pledge was warranted? “Stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot people”? What if he had been indicted for fraud associated with Trump University but hadn’t yet been tried? What if it became known that Trump was having an affair? What if he had announced that he was once again pro abortion or wanted to restrict the 2nd Amendment? None of those things happened of course, but which of them, if any might have been a sufficient rupture to allow someone to break their pledge.

For some Americans there are lines in the sand that should not be crossed. Others may have no lines or their lines are fungible. Ted Cruz does have a line and Trump crossed it when he targeted Heidi and Rafael. The fact that Trump has navigated his way through the dysfunctional primary system and come out on top does not make up for the means he pursued to arrive there. Actions, as they say, have consequences, and Donald Trump very much took the low road and lost the endorsement of Ted Cruz as a result. Despite that, Ted Cruz more than fulfilled his promise by taking the stage in Cleveland and talking about Republican values, freedom and the Constitution, then suggesting that voters look to their consciences to vote for the person most likely to defend them. He even explicitly stated that Hillary Clinton would not. That he didn’t kneel and kiss Trump’s ring, and the fact that his refusal has so incised Trump’s team tells you everything you need to know about Donald Trump and his supporters. It is not winning that animates them, it’s obedience. At the end of the day, Donald Trump wants rule the nation and Ted Cruz wants to lead it. The GOP voters have made their choice, now we’ll see how that choice plays itself out on the national stage.

A Nation is Calling: Ted Cruz Should Launch a Coup d'état

Ted Cruz has agreed to speak at the GOP convention.

Ted Cruz has maneuvered himself into a speaking spot at the GOP convention.

I’m not sure which of those statements is true. It doesn’t matter. What does matter is that Ted Cruz is speaking at the convention and will be speaking to much of the nation at the same time. It is an historic opportunity for him and for the nation… and he should not waste it.

The nation is at a precarious point in history. From racial strife to leadership on the world stage to economic stagnation to failing, dysfunctional government to open borders, the US as a functioning nation is in peril. Perhaps not the same peril as Venezuela or Greece – yet – but in peril nonetheless. The federal government continues to take more and more of our money while imposing more and more control over our lives, turning the country into a nation of calcified robots going through the motions of life. Incomes stagnate while working hours increase – for those who choose to or can find work – while the number of those who choose not to or simply stop looking grows. At the top of the income spectrum the rich manipulate Rube Goldberg laws and regulations to grow stratospherically richer and bureaucrats pad their tax payer provided nest eggs. At the bottom the poor get an endless array of subsidies while the middle class watch helplessly as their American dreams slip away in the form of increasing taxes, regulation and diminishing opportunity.

The country is in a desperate place as the economic and individual freedoms that have been the hallmarks of American prosperity and success fade into ancient history. The United States needs someone to stand up and make a full throated defense of American liberty. We need someone to stand up and make a compelling case for small, limited government. We need someone to stand in front of the American people and make a fierce argument for American values of hard work, private property, free markets and the rule of law. But most of all we need someone to stand up and make a passionate case for American Exceptionalism. Next to Thomas Sowell Ted Cruz may be the best man in the country to make those arguments. He should take that stage and leave not a single mind in the audience unconvinced that the United States is indeed the greatest nation in the history of the world. That is what he should do…

But that’s not all. Before that he should launch a coup d'état. Not on the country, but on the GOP. By now everyone knows that Donald Trump has won enough delegates to win the GOP nomination. True. But the fact of the matter is, the Convention Rules Committee meets this week and a coup is actually possible. It only takes the support of 28 of the 112 members to put an issue in front of the convention. In this case, freeing the delegates to vote their consciences rather than as their voters polled. At that point Ted Cruz could unambiguously make his case. That may be a lousy way to run a party and a nominating process, but we wouldn’t be in this position if the GOP establishment had bothered to close primaries to GOP voters rather than letting Democrats pick the nominee. In addition, if Trump was denied, his voters would be livid and would likely stay home or might even vote for Hillary Clinton. So be it. The goal here is not to win the GOP nomination, but to win the White House and attempt to save the country.

This is particularly plausible now that James Comey has done the nation a great service – even if he did it unknowingly. By not indicting Hillary Clinton he has kept her in the race while laying bare all the reasons why she should have actually been indicted. People often mistake a jury’s decision of “Not Guilty” for “Innocent”. While someone may both be judged “Not Guilty” and actually be innocent, in reality those are two separate. OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony were judged “Not Guilty” by juries, but few people believe either of them are innocent of their crimes. The problem was vapid juries and or incompetent prosecutors or both. In either case the number of Americans who would wish to invite said “Not Guilty” persons to live in their guest rooms is likely relatively small.

So too with Hillary Clinton. With the facts laid out by the FBI and focused by the House and Senate committees, it’s obvious to most Americans that Hillary Clinton has little respect for the rule of law, is a lying, scheming manipulative politician who will do and say pretty much anything to get what she wants. Whether it’s Benghazi or her email lies or her apparent fondness for throwing ashtrays in the White House, most Americans do not want to vote for Hillary Clinton. Comey’s attempt to protect her from a jury’s verdict has only made that feeling worse.

The problem for the nation however, is that the GOP is about to nominate someone Americans seem to like even less than Hillary! It’s like your daughter coming home with two prospective dates… Joseph Stalin or Adolph Hitler… how the hell do you pick between them? Imagine if she added a third choice, say… Bernie Madoff! You’d wrap your arms around that guy like he was your best friend… hell, even your family members who lost fortunes might welcome him into their homes too.

But of course Ted Cruz is not Bernie Madoff. He’s an actual, real live conservative who can articulately make a compelling case for small government, for individual freedom and free markets. But more importantly, he is a brilliant debater who would eviscerate Hillary Clinton on the debate stage. He’s a Constitutional scholar who would deftly expose her lies and obfuscation. He is a brilliant wordsmith who could easily and clearly demonstrate to a majority of the American people how much better off the nation would be with him in the White House rather than Hillary Clinton. None of those are things Donald Trump could do.

With a severely damaged Hillary Clinton it’s possible that the incoherent Donald Trump could stumble into the White House, but it’s even more likely he will simply be himself and put her there. With Ted Cruz making the case for voting for freedom there’s no chance that would happen. The nation is begging for a real alternative to Hillary Clinton.  The time is now for Ted Cruz to put to work those skills he forged on the debate team and in front of the US Supreme Court. Everything he’s done has been preparation for saving his country from a disaster… his moment is now. Let’s hope he takes it.

Do Not Go Gently Into That Good Night... Ted Cruz, The Constitution and Third Party Choices

I’ve never seen a train wreck, but I’m told they are somewhat difficult to turn away from if you see one occurring right in front of you. That was my experience two nights ago watching Donald Trump roll in Indiana and then Ted Cruz suspending his campaign.

What made the night almost surreal is that it came on the heels of Ted Cruz simply destroying Trump at a press conference earlier in the day. I couldn’t help but wonder if things might have turned out differently had Cruz not done the same a month before. I’m not sure it would have made a difference with the treacherous John Kasich still in the race, but one never knows.

So now we have it… A GOP nominee selected by Democrats, the media – and that includes the faux conservative media – and angry GOP voters not bright enough to recognize that while bluster and bombast might make for great reality TV, they rarely make for successful real world leaders, at least other than dictators. While the former two groups can be forgiven for trying to select the weakest challenger to their nominee – after all, that’s just good politics – the latter deserves a particular level of enmity as they profess anger at the establishment and then vote for someone who has spent his entire life canoodling with that very establishment.

Now the question facing many of us is whether or not to pull the lever for Trump or take the quixotic path of supporting a third party candidate. On the one hand it would almost be suicidal to do so – in terms of the pursuit of reviving the Constitution – as Clinton would certainly triumph, but on the other hand, the Constitution stands little chance of surviving regardless of whether Clinton or Trump is elected. The only reason to ever consider voting for Trump in the first place was his promise to build a wall. Given that he told the NY Times that he wouldn’t be building any walls, there is literally zero reason to bother pulling the lever for him.

Whether Clinton or Trump makes it into the White House, the freedoms that Americans used to cherish, free speech, free markets, gun ownership and limited government find themselves on the ash heap of history. Barack Obama started down the strongman path of extra constitutionality, and either Trump or Clinton would pick up that ball and run with it.

The 2016 election is simply lost. Absent some miracle that keeps Trump from the nomination, the 2016 will be the end of the Republican party as we know it, and potentially the Republic as we know it. So the question is, what are conservatives to do? What are those who value freedom and limited government to do? What are those who prefer Madison, Jefferson and Reagan to Marx and Castro and Obama to do? Do we take our lumps, swallow our pride and pull the lever for Trump simply because he’s representing the party ostensibly opposing the socialists? Do we sit out the election so that whichever candidate wins we can honestly say we had nothing to do with the consequences? Or do we do something else?

I’d suggest something else. Given that Donald spells the end of the GOP, why not use 2016 the way the Tea Party did in 2010… build something… but rather than hitching our wagon to the festering, corrupt and debauched Republican Party, build something far superior. Build a party that actually stands for something other than its own power. Build a party that champions real limited government, not the use of government to support big business and hinder small business. Build a party that advances the notion that prosperity is the result of free markets, not government intervention in favored industries. Build a party where free speech and free religion are the valued over the feelings of delicate flowers who are offended by practically everything. Build a party where hard work and individual achievement are valued and empowered rather than punished by confiscatory taxes and government social engineering.

Of course building such a party might guarantee a Hillary Clinton presidency. That’s true, but a Clinton presidency is the likely outcome of a contest against Donald Trump regardless. So be it. I once had a friend who told me she didn’t want to go to college because she was 27 and would be 31 when she graduated. I asked her how old she would be in 4 years if she didn’t go to college… Win or lose, a GOP party headed by Donald Trump is no longer a party that respects the Constitution, is no longer a party that respects free markets, is no longer a party that respects free speech and individual liberty. As such, we can choose to do nothing with the five months until November, or we can choose to do something that lays the foundation of a new party to stand up and challenge the big government GOP Democrat duopoly in 2018 and beyond. (Don't forget, the GOP itself was founded in 1854 but didn't win the White House until 1860.)  Granted, it will be an uphill battle, and given the track records of 3rd parties over the last century, it may even be a Sisyphean one, but at the end of the day the choices are clear. Stand by and watch as the foundations of your beloved country crumble, or choose to fight to save the Constitution and greatest republic the world has ever known. I hope Ted Cruz is listening and chooses not to go gently into that good night…

Ted Cruz's Only Hope for Indiana and Beyond: "The Government didn't build the American Dream..."

This has been a tough week for Ted Cruz. He lost 5 states by double digits. Of course they were all northeastern states which means there’s a snowball’s chance in Hell that they will be landing in the red column in November. Nonetheless Trump won them fair and square and he appears to have momentum.

So now there’s Indiana. The numbers are such that if Cruz does not win Indiana, it becomes almost impossible for him to stop Trump from getting to 1237. Given the glowing coverage that Trump gets from the mainstream media, as well as his cheerleaders in the erstwhile conservative media such as Drudge, Rush, and Hannity, Cruz finds himself very much fighting an uphill battle.

He can’t outTrump Trump. He can’t accuse Trump of lying – despite the fact that he is. He can’t accuse Trump of seeking to intimidate delegates – which he is doing. He can’t make nonsensical appeals to uninformed voters’ base instincts – because that’s not who he (Cruz) is. No, the only chance Ted Cruz has to win Indiana – and California beyond that – is to make his pitch for the American Dream.

Basically, it's that Dream that is behind so many voters flocking to Trump in the first place… that along with our celebrity worship culture where many elevate celebrities to a demigod state, regardless of their less than godlike behavior. Americans are angry that opportunities for advancement are disappearing. Americans are angry that every widget found in Wal-Mart is manufactured in China and every tee shirt in Pakistan. Americans are angry that an American icon, Ford, would reduce production here just to add production in Mexico. And Indianans are angry that Carrier would close a plant in Indiana just to open one in Mexico. The bottom line is, many Americans wonder what happened to a country where hard work and innovation were rewarded and where half the population was not on welfare of one sort of another.

One guy seems to be harnessing their anger and making it so they don’t feel like no one is listening… and that guy is Donald Trump. Ted Cruz needs to jump into the scrum. Ted Cruz needs to be crystal clear that he understands what they are feeling… but he shouldn’t pander while doing so… or he’ll be seen like Hillary trying to use an MTA card. No, Cruz has to talk about their issues, but do so in the context of what is causing them. Manufacturing is indeed moving the Mexico and China… but it’s not because companies like Ford and Carrier hate Americans… it’s because the government has made it so difficult for them to operate and earn a profit in the United States. And it’s not just labor costs, because Ford could have saved half its labor costs simply building the Focus in Alabama or Kentucky rather than Michigan. No, the much bigger problem for companies trying to manufacture and keep jobs in the United States is regulation.

Ted Cruz needs to point out that it’s not malice that encourages American companies to build products outside our borders… it’s government. Federal regulation costs the US $2 trillion a year… Looked at in jobs, just half that total would translate to 10 million new jobs at an average salary of $75,000 each. Unfortunately, this regulatory burden not only makes it more difficult for American companies to build here, it scares off international companies who might otherwise invest in the United States. Fundamentally, if the government would loosen the regulatory yoke and unleash American industry, our economy would once again dominate the world.

And then there is the IRS. Because at 40%, the United States has the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world, companies find it less competitive to invest in the United States. Not only that, American companies have $2 trillion in profits sitting in subsidiaries around the world that they can’t bring home because it would cost them too much in taxes. That $2 trillion alone would provide 2 years of paychecks for 15 million Americans at $50,000 a year. By eliminating the IRS and implementing the Fair Tax – which Cruz likes but doesn’t push – a President Cruz would welcome trillions of dollars of investment in the United States from around the world.  Cruz's 10% income tax would have a similar, albeit a somewhat smaller impact.

At the end of the day, the only chance Cruz has to win Indiana and keep Trump from becoming the nominee is to clearly and forcefully articulate that the enemy of prosperity is not Carrier moving a plant to Mexico or Burger King moving its headquarters to Canada… it’s government strangling the American Dream one regulation at a time, it’s tax rates that handicap the country relative to the rest of the world. And in setting up that argument, he has to highlight the fact that Donald Trump’s solution of trying to tax Carrier back into the country is not the answer because for every Carrier that makes the news, there are hundreds of other companies around the world that aren’t located here and never will be because taxes and regulations simply make it too expensive to invest in the United States and create American jobs.

Donald Trump wants to scare companies into staying in the United States and employing Americans. Ted Cruz wants to inspire companies, both American and foreign, to invest in the United States and employ American workers. That’s a big difference and Cruz has to make that clear to voters. Trump wants to use the government to coerce companies to do what he wants while Cruz wants to lighten the government burden and allow American companies and American workers do what they do best, which is innovate and build their way to prosperity. The government did not invent the air conditioner, Willis Carrier did. The government did not bring the assembly line to the automobile, Henry Ford did. But government regulations have sent the companies those two men founded scurrying south of the border to build products in their names.  That is the shame of America in 2016... America used to be a place for entrepreneurship, innovation, invention and most of all, prosperity.  It's not today because of government.  The American Dream used to inspire both Americans and the rest of the world.  It doesn't do that much today because the government has smothered it...

And that's the message Cruz needs to get out:  "The government needs to get out of the prosperity killing business and out of the dream killing business... I understand that and I'll make it happen... Lifelong crony capitalist and John Boehner's golfing and texting buddy Donald Trump won't." 

"A Republic, if you can keep it." Donald Trump and the Tyranny of the Mob...

For the last eight years I’ve been shaking my head, simply bewildered that so many Americans could be so insane as to vote for Barack Obama for president. Not surprisingly, once Obama was ensconced in the White House things played out pretty much as predicted with virtually every month bringing new news of a faltering economy, a shrinking workforce and more government waste, intervention and tyranny. In 2012, after Fast and Furious, the IRS Tea Party scandal, Obamacare and, most of all, Benghazi, I was sure that Americans would rise up and throw out the anti American Obama and vote for the less than conservative, but exponentially superior Mittens Romney. Alas, the population spoke, and they doubled down on the fascist living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

I was certain that year that if only a real conservative who could eloquently articulate the basic tenants of small government and fiscal responsibility had run he would have won by a landslide. After all, wasn’t it obvious that Barack Obama was the worst president in American history and the Democrats were rapidly devolving into open Socialism? But as we know, there was no such conservative running and Milquetoast Mitt was shellacked.

Now, in 2016 we find ourselves in an utterly different situation. We have a rock solid conservative running for the White House. Who can and does eloquently articulate the ideas behind our founding principles of limited government, individual liberty as well as the fundamental idea of American Exceptionalism. Yet, somehow he’s losing the GOP nomination fight… to a guy who’s a big government crony capitalist who has spent most of his life supporting Democrats and their liberal policies. Essentially he’s losing to a vapid populist whose idea of debating is throwing insults and lies around like confetti rather than providing substantive positions on practically any issue.

The next couple of weeks will tell the story, but the fact that we are at this point says a lot about the United States and the American people. That half the population are voting for an avowed socialist or a socialist in liberal clothing is sad. That one third of the remainder are actively supporting a populist candidate with little understanding of the issues at stake never mind the concepts of limited government, free markets and individual freedom upon which this country was founded, is disheartening.

The United States is not a democracy and never has been. We are a republic with a separation of powers and limited government that are unique in the history of government. It was that limited government and the companion individual liberties upon which the government is not to tread that created more prosperity for more people around the world than any government, state or entity in all of human history. Today all of that is in peril as almost 2/3 of the population are seemingly prepared to travel down a path of dismantling the limitations on government our Founding Fathers put in place.

After eight years under a president who decried the Constitution as a “Charter of negative liberties” the next president will have a choice. Either bring the progressive attack on the Constitution and freedom to a halt or pick up where Obama leaves off and continue down that path. Unfortunately, three of the four remaining candidates – John Kasich doesn’t count as a real candidate – are more than happy to jettison the Constitution and pander to the masses. Whether it’s Germany or Argentina or Venezuela, such populist movements rarely turn out well.

Populist movements share one underlying characteristic… they seek to harness the anger of the mob. Once the shackles of constitutional limits are thrown off, there is little to restrain government or the people other than the character of the leaders, and often that’s simply not enough. As Maximilien Robespierre learned, the consequences of doing so can be, shall we say, unforeseen… and unfortunate.

Today we see just such a mob mentality in the GOP race, and it starts at the top. Donald Trump claims the will of the people is being thwarted whenever he loses. He suggests the rules are tilted against him and therefore should be ignored. He’s even suggested that if he doesn’t walk away with the nomination despite not reaching 1,237, there will be riots. His followers have taken to preemptively threatening delegates to the convention if they don’t support him. Even his cheerleader Rush Limbaugh has suggested that if the Donald isn’t given the nomination his supporters will go nuclear. None of that bodes well for the future. If the threat of mob violence and anarchy are enough to do away with the rules when Trump has nothing but a vocal minority of GOP voters on his side, what chance do Constitutional restraints on government have when he is in charge of the entire government infrastructure?

The American people have twice put in office a man with a demonstrated antagonism towards the Constitution and he has spent the last eight years trampling on it. Once that bell has been rung, it’s hard to unring, and history has shown that the siren call of power is hard to resist, even for those without Donald Trump’s HUUUUGE ego. There are four candidates for president remaining. Three of them will pick up where Barack Obama leaves off and continue the progressive march towards the fall of the Republic because they see government as nothing more than an instrument for imposing their ideas on the population. And then there is Ted Cruz, who would turn back virtually everything Barack Obama has done because he understands the value of a strong Constitution, a limited government and a free people.

Emerging from Independence Hall after the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin was asked by a woman what kind of government we had. Franklin replied “A Republic, if you can keep it.” One can’t help but wonder if Americans are willing to vote to keep their republic and the rule of law or are instead going to finally pass the torch to the tyranny of the mob, also known as democracy.

Bankruptcy and Colorado: The rules only count for Donald Trump when they work to his advantage...

Despite what you may have heard or read, Donald Trump has never filed for bankruptcy. His companies have, four times, but Donald Trump never has.  The purpose of corporations is for investors to put a limited amount of capital at risk in exchange for the opportunity to earn money in any one of a myriad of legal ways. Investor use the corporate structure to ensure that if their bets go south, the most they can lose is the capital they invested in the first place.

Corporate bankruptcy laws can give a company an opportunity to restructure its business in a more favorable environment than it would have if it simply continued on whatever path that got it in trouble in the first place… it can give them breathing room. At the same time bankruptcy laws give creditors a legal framework through which they can exercise claims on said company’s assets. At the end of the day, corporate law, particularly as it relates to companies with millions or billions of dollars, can be complex, esoteric, bewildering, yet nonetheless be an effective tool.

It was by understanding the nuances of bankruptcy law that Donald Trump was able to navigate his way through treacherous waters for decades and seemingly emerge each time with a larger fortune than he had when he started. He used the threats of potential bankruptcy (or imminent domain action) to further his interests. He also mastered labor law, tax law and learned to orchestrate the media like a maestro. After all is said and done, the result is that four decades after a $1 million loan from his father – and $10s of millions of dollars in tax benefits from friendly politicians – Donald Trump sits on a fortune that is worth $10 billion – by his own account. That’s the equivalent of taking a $100 loan and growing it into $1,000,000. Not bad. One has to be pretty smart to accomplish something like that, because, whatever you think of the tactics, his fortune is the result of four decades of hard work, not betting it all on some lottery or dropping it into some Atlantic City slot machine.

So it is that backdrop that makes Trump’s current pleas ring so hollow. This morning he was on Fox News complaining that the Colorado delegate selection process was unfair. Had the rules been changed in March and he had no time to react, that might have been a logical argument. But the rules weren’t changed in March. They were changed in August. So it appears that with his $10 billion fortune and eight months to work with, Donald Trump was not able to field a team in Colorado who could have worked within the known system to garner delegates for him. Somehow he could figure out how to play the game in Michigan where he and John Kasich shut Ted Cruz out, but he couldn’t figure out how to do so in Colorado. So somehow there must be some cheating going on. Trump and his team waste no opportunity to suggest that Ted Cruz is somehow using “Gestapo tactics” by understanding the rules and using them to his advantage.

The irony is, that is exactly what Donald Trump has been doing his entire life… using the rules of the game… bankruptcy law, imminent domain, tax law, labor law etc. to win at business and accumulate a vast fortune in the process. But somehow, today, because he throws his towel into a ring where he’s unfamiliar with the rules and unwilling to spend the money necessary to understand them and succeed with them, the game is rigged. Trump claims that this is not how our democracy is supposed to work. That demonstrates in one sentence why Donald Trump should not sit in the White House. The United States is not a democracy and never has been. It is a republic, ruled by the rule of law, not the rule of man or of the mob or of the majority. If he ever bothered to read the Constitution he’d see that it’s all right there.

So, it’s not much of a surprise that we wake up this morning to hear more whining from Donald Trump. He’s very much a spoiled child. Given daddy’s fortune and connections Donald grew up not having to worry about what others said or wanted – at least as it relates to business and his public persona – and used that perch to learn the rules of a game that would serve him well for decades.

The funny thing is, Trump says he wants to change the system and Make America Great Again… he decries the fact that he’s an outsider and can’t within the GOP system. But of course he’s not an outsider. He’s been a crony capitalist his entire life.

The truth is, if Donald Trump really wanted to save the country, if he really wanted to be an outsider who upset the established apple cart, he would have run for president as a third party candidate from the beginning rather than throwing in with the GOP. Two thirds of Americans feel the country is headed in the wrong direction. If that was not a setup for a third party success then there never will be one. Half the Democrats hate Hillary Clinton. Half of the Republicans (and probably 95% of conservatives) hate the GOP establishment. Does one not think that in this environment, had Trump been willing to spend even 10% of his $10 billion fortune, that he could have almost walked into the White House?

But he didn’t run as a 3rd party candidate, instead he joined the GOP and tried to win the nomination in an established system that he didn’t understand. And now we’re supposed feel sorry that he’s feeling cheated? Either he didn’t have the courage to pursue his stated goal of taming Washington from without or he was not smart enough to recognize what it would take to win from within the GOP. Either way, he’s lost. If he wins the GOP nomination he will lose to Hillary – or Bernie if she’s indicted. If he tries to run as a 3rd party candidate now, after everything that has gone on in the primaries, the only thing he’ll accomplish is putting another Democrat in the White House. But of course that may have been his plan all along.

War is Hell: Ted Cruz, Dresden and Monitoring Muslim Neighborhoods...

I saw a segment last week of Ted Cruz on the Jimmy Kimmel show. Kimmel asked Cruz about his proposal to monitor Muslim neighborhoods.

Cruz answered, and then, not surprisingly, Kimmel asked whether or not monitoring those neighborhoods would just create more terrorists. In the end Kimmel stated that they would have to agree to disagree.

While theoretically it is possible that monitoring Muslim neighborhoods could, possibly, maybe, create terrorists from erstwhile peaceful Muslims, in the less theoretical real world Islamist terrorists are killing people and they’re often living in unmonitored Muslim neighborhoods. Indeed, Europe is chock full of no go zones where there is no monitoring whatsoever… and not surprisingly those areas are full of jihadis. And while it is certainly the case that many of those jihadis are streaming in over Europe’s wide open borders, many of them are home grown. One doesn’t have to look far to see that an insanely high portion of Muslims in Europe support terror as a mechanism to fight the West.

And so it goes that the left never seems to change, using wildly unlikely hypothetical problems to argue against policies that are targeting real actual problems. We see the same whether it’s the potential for “discrimination” associated with requiring photo ID’s to vote or the potential for “abuse” if union rules were changed to allow schools to fire teachers based on merit vs. tenure or the potential for global warming to annihilate mankind unless we abandon capitalism and free markets.

Unfortunately for Kimmel and much of the left, the real world requires that real problems be solved with real solutions rather than theoretical musings. The problem of Islamic terrorism exists today, has existed for decades and somehow the left thinks if we only hold hands with these misguided young men and sing Kumbaya they will suddenly throw down their bombs and guns and knives and matches and embrace us as brothers. But that is simply not going to happen. Indeed, Europe has spent the last 40 years opening their doors to Muslims and providing them with a panoply of benefits. The Europeans don’t require them to convert to Christianity – a religion which fewer and fewer Europeans themselves embrace – they don’t require them to live by European mores – polygamy, although often officially verboten is often overlooked – and increasingly Muslims have their own court systems to impose Sharia law. In other words, for decades Europeans have been allowing migrants from failed Muslim countries to move to Europe and import with them the failed cultures that drove them to escape in the first place…

Yet still a significant number of Muslims in Europe – and in some places a majority – reject the basic tenants of western culture: freedom, democracy and tolerance, and what’s worse, many have taken up arms against the very cultures that welcomed and often sustained them.

If Jimmy Kimmel and the rest of the left were right, Europe should have no problem with Islamic terror. Sure, they might have more crime due to sputtering economies driven by high taxes and socialist economic policies, but a stickup on a street corner or robbing a bank is different than blowing up a train or cutting Theo Van Gogh’s throat…

The solution to terror is not to bury our heads in the sand and passively wait for Muslim communities to turn in potential terrorists. History shows that is simply not going to happen. The way to stop terrorists is to hunt them down and arrest them or kill them in their tracks. Cruz said, when he talked about monitoring Muslim neighborhoods, he was talking about what the FBI did to break the back of the Mafia in the 1970's, 80's & 90’s or what police departments are doing across the country to fight gangs: Monitor, infiltrate and break the organization from within and without. So somehow it’s OK for the FBI to use these tactics on the Mafia operating in Italian neighborhoods around New York and New Jersey, or gangs in LA and Miami but it’s not OK to use them on Islamists hiding in plain sight in Muslim communities in Minneapolis and other cities around the country?

You can see Kimmel’s tactic regularly during debates and other venues when GOP candidates are asked if they approve of taking out terrorists when innocent women and children may be killed. Such questions ignore the realities of war. One need look no farther than WWII to see that, although regrettable, innocent civilians often die in war. Look up the history of Dresden or Hamburg or Tokyo during the war and see that the numbers of civilians killed during war can be in the tens of thousands. Should the Allies have let the war go on longer in order to minimize civilian casualties? How many more American soldiers or French farmers or Jews or Chinese would have died had the war dragged on for two more years? Civilian casualties may be regrettable, but war is rarely a clean, soldier to soldier battle. That’s particularly true when Islamist terrorists hide in hospitals, mosques, schools and attack civilians in restaurants, churches and transportation hubs.

War is as they say, Hell.  It's a dirty, bloody, regrettable endeavor, but once engaged it should be fought to win, not simply fought not to lose, or not to offend the bad guys or their relatives or supporters. Monitoring neighborhoods where Muslim terrorists seek to hide is not the same as putting Muslims in internment camps, nor is it the same as prohibiting the practice of their religion. It’s simply dealing with the reality that there are terrorists among us who want nothing more than to kill as many civilians as they can in as many ways as they can, and they are doing so while hiding in plain sight. (You can’t get any more in plain sight than Maj. Nidal Hassan…) It is time to stop worrying about political correctness and hypothetical problems and hurt feelings when it comes to protecting the country from Islamic terror. If political correctness imposes Muslim no-go zones here in America as they have done across Europe then Islamist terrorists will have a field day and we should expect a rapid increase in the number of Americans killed and maimed in malls and restaurants, airports and malls. Ted Cruz cares more about protecting the American people – including honest, hardworking Muslims – than he does about hurting feelings of people who might be so off balance that they can be swayed to terror simply by a cop in their neighborhood or the FBI questioning of their Imam. That’s a good thing… and the country will be better for it when he’s president.

Donald Trump as the Isolationist in Chief... Not a Recipe for Success

As I’ve said before, if Donald Trump is the nominee I will vote for him over anyone the donkey party runs. Why? One reason… the single greatest threat to our nation is open borders and the continued entry of people from failed states with no understanding or appreciation for limited government or individual rights. The Democrat Party, which has a similar disdain for both things, has almost destroyed the country on its own and with open borders it seeks to tip the scales of our Republic towards their tyranny by packing the voting rolls with such invaders…

The candidate who promises to build a wall and curtail illegal immigration gets my vote… and my hope that he will actually do so.

But I have to say, Trump continues to make it much more painful to be willing to support him. From his thin skin and childish Twitter tirades, it makes one wonder how temperamental a President Trump might be. Something more consequential that forces some soul searching when considering voting for him is his unserious perspective on international relations. When he says things about not sending money to countries that hate us, that makes pretty good sense and makes a great place to start with foreign aid. But he doesn’t stop there. There are two things that are particularly troubling about his foreign affairs perspective. His populist tirades against free trade, and his statement of two weeks ago that the United States should pull back from its leadership in NATO.

On the former, Trump cries that the United States is losing out on trade with China and Mexico and other nations around the world and that these countries are taking the jobs of millions of Americans. Both of those suggestions may indeed be accurate, but he is wrong in that they are a symptom, not the illness itself. The primary driver of those issues is not that Mexico or China are cheats. They may be manipulating their currencies or labor markets, but that’s not why American companies choose to build iPhones in China or cars in Mexico. It’s American taxes and regulations… Think about it, China is a Communist country separated from the US by 6,000 miles of water and Mexico is a dysfunctional quasi state where the politicians and population are perpetually intimidated by narco terrorists. And somehow it makes sense that a US company would want to manufacture widgets in those places rather than in Detroit or Pittsburgh? Yes. Sure, labor costs are a problem, but it’s regulations and taxes that are the real drivers of trade deficits. According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, federal regulations cost American consumers almost $2 trillion in lost economic productivity and higher costs in 2014. And that’s just the federal government! That $2 Trillion was almost four times the entire US trade deficit with the whole world that year! Add to that the fact that US tax rates are the highest in the developed world and that giant sucking sound of jobs you hear is not because of China or Mexico’s cheating, but rather because the US government is simply making it too difficult to operate profitably in the United States. If Trump wanted to make our trade balance more balanced and bring back jobs he’d focus on eliminating regulations here rather than spending most of his time demagoguing the rest of the world.

The bigger problem with Trump’s world view is his fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the United States in said world. Two weeks ago he suggested that the United States should take a step back in its leadership of NATO. We could do that and it would certainly save us billions of dollars a year. But it not only would it lead to a world war, but it would be the catalyst for a collapse of the world economy and western culture. Why? Because it was American military power, presence and a willingness to use both that has kept the west largely at peace for the last 70 years and driven a greater increase in world prosperity than in any period in all of human history.

To understand the impact of a United States led NATO, one simply has to look at the history of Europe. For two millennium, from the rise and fall of the Roman Empire to the rise and collapse of the British Empire, Europe was at an almost constant state of war either within itself or without, and often brought much of the rest of the planet along with it.  That reality culminated in the two world wars of the first half of the 20th century that cost the lives of over 100 million men women and children. Post WWII however, after the United States military brought order to a world in chaos, Europe and much of that world have enjoyed an unprecedented period of relative peace, and as a result saw wealth and prosperity grow and expand at levels unprecedented in human history.

None of that happens without a NATO led by the United States. It was NATO that kept the Russian bear at bay for half a century and American leadership in the Pacific that kept the Red Chinese from swallowing much of Asia. And as a result Europe and Asia have become critical trading partners with the United States and have provided both markets for our goods and sources for things that make our lives better.

And now Donald Trump wants to abandon NATO leadership. In the name of populist rhetoric he wants to turn his back on a successful world that the United States largely designed and benefits from. That would be a mistake. For our partners in NATO, for much of the world that relies on the west for leadership and trade, and, most of all, Americans. The solution to a troubled planet isn’t to pull up the drawbridges and hide behind the moat… But that seems to be the Donald’s plan.

It would be a tragedy if American leadership having already devolved from Ronald Reagan defeating the Soviet Union and winning the Cold War to Barack Obama embracing anti American thugs across the planet and unleashing ISIS on the world is followed up by Donald Trump reviving the isolationist policies of the 1930s that led to WWII… because with bellicose and acquisitive states like Russia and China unrestrained by American strength it would not be long before WWIII was at our shores.

But, such is the nature of populist candidates. Say and do anything that will get cheers from the crowds and ignore the consequences down the road. Let’s hope in November we have a Ted Cruz lever to pull

Angry GOP Voters and Donald Trump - The Enemy of My Enemy is Not My Friend

I’m angry. I’m actually damn angry. I’m angry that Americans have twice voted into the highest office in the land a man who is demonstrably anti-American, who sows racial tension, who has sought to destroy free markets, who has turned much of the nation into a welfare state and who has crippled the American military and destroyed American influence around the world. To me, Barack Obama is a cancer on the American body politic and the nation.

But I’m not angry at Obama… well, I really am, but he’s not who has animated me the most in the last six years. It’s actually the GOP establishment. I’ve gone to Tea Party rallies near and far. I’ve voted for candidates who claimed they were conservatives. I’ve donated money, I’ve manned phone lines, I’ve put up signs along the highway. I even gave lectures on the constitution and started writing a blog. All for what?

We have Obamacare, lock stock and barrel, and its numerous exceptions, extensions and a plethora of executive orders. We have a NLRB that thinks it can tell companies where they can invest and who they must hire. We have an IRS that’s become a thug enforcement arm of the Democrat party. And of course we have trillions more dollars of debt than we did eight years ago.

Needless to say, I’m angry at the betrayal. In 2010 we were told that the GOP couldn’t do anything because they were a minority in the House. So we voted them into power. Then we were told that we needed the White House, and somehow the GOP was able to screw up an election that should have been theirs on a silver platter. Then in 2014 we were told that they still couldn’t do anything because Harry Reid ran the Senate. By 2015 he was on the sidelines. But now we’re told that they can’t do anything because Democrats control the White House.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 4 times shame on me. Exit poll after exit poll shows that Republican voters are livid with the GOP and want to burn it and Washington to the ground… hence the attraction of Donald Trump. Millions of people across the country who are disgusted with the GOP are flocking to the banner of a guy who will definitely not be held hostage to political correctness. A guy who doesn’t care about sucking up to minority voters. A guy who says what’s on his mind. Indeed, Donald Trump with his big business billions and his big mouth make many Americans stand up and say “Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about!” He makes them feel like an NFL receiver spiking the football right in front of a safety who blew his coverage. In a word, they want a winner who will destroy the liars in Washington.

The problem however is something that was revealed in a 2013 study by Washington State University. The first line of the piece says it all “Being confident and loud is the best way to win an argument - even if you are wrong”. The study basically suggests that people are more drawn to someone who sounds confident and is loud – even obnoxious – than they are to someone who’s right. And with Donald Trump that’s exactly what we have. GOP voters want someone who’s unabashedly pro-American. That’s Trump. They want someone who says he’s going to seal the border. That’s Trump. They want someone who’s immune to political correctness. That’s Trump.

Unfortunately, in this case the ancient adage “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is simply wrong. Donald Trump may indeed be anti-establishment, but that’s different than being pro freedom, pro prosperity and pro limited government.

Those are the things necessary to change Washington, the things that are necessary to rein in the leviathan of government, the things that are necessary to restore the freedom of the American people and unleash the prosperity that comes with it. Those are the things that Ted Cruz offers, but may not get the opportunity to execute because voters are too busy focusing on the bombastic guy at the other side of the bar.

That of course is Ted Cruz’s challenge over the next month: Demonstrate to GOP voters that trash talking will not fix what’s wrong with the county. Convince them that braggadocio will not dislodge an entrenched bureaucratic borg that seeks to control virtually every aspect of a citizen’s life. Articulate why his constitutional principles make him the correct vehicle for their anger, and not Donald Trump. If he can do this, there is some hope for redemption for the party as it’s redefined by conservative principals. If not, not only will the party be gone, but much of what made America great in the first place. Ideas like free markets and individual liberty are already on the ropes. Let’s hope they don’t go down for the count.

The Art of the Steal... Democrats voting in GOP contests make a HUUGGEEE difference

UPDATE:  The infographic below did not originally include ID, MI and MS.  Their addition only strengthens the premise of this post.

Back in 2008 Rush Limbaugh had a bit called “Operation Chaos” where he suggested Republicans in Ohio and elsewhere cross over and vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democrat primary. The goal was to keep Clinton in the race to blunt the lead of Barack Obama and cause more chaos on the Democrat side. Well, Operation Chaos was pretty much a failure as Obama steamrolled Clinton.

While Limbaugh is not calling for an “Operation Chaos” this year, something along those lines is definitely happening… but it doesn’t have anything to do with Hillary Clinton this time, but rather, Donald Trump.

The turnout for this year’s primary contests is surging with record numbers of voters participating on the GOP side. No doubt there are Republicans who sat out in 2012 and 2008 who are now participating. But that’s not the driver of the numbers. The driver is… Democrats. In Massachusetts as example, according to the Boston Herald 20,000 Democrats switched to the Republican Party before the primary. That works out to fully 5% of the GOP ballots cast. Interestingly, Trump’s 31% margin of victory in Massachusetts was the largest he’s has had.

In Pennsylvania the same thing is happening. According to CBS 46,000 Pennsylvania Democrats have already switched to the GOP to vote for Trump. If the participation in the Pennsylvania primary exhibits the same kind of increase Massachusetts did (up 12% over 2008, the last year with a lame duck president in office) then those 46,000 Democrats will make up 5% of the 900,000 GOP voters.

But of course that’s not the only way Democrats are influencing the GOP primary. In Massachusetts and Pennsylvania they switched because both are closed states in that registrants of party can’t vote in the primaries of another party. Massachusetts is officially open however as unaffiliated voters can vote in any party’s primary. That means that the only way Democrats in those two states can vote in the GOP primary is by changing parties.

But in a large number of states you don’t even have to do that. Those states have “Open” primaries or caucuses where voters can vote in either party’s primary, regardless of which party they are registered in. That makes a HUUGGGGEEEE difference. (And for course, Ohio is an "Open" primary.)  To give you an idea of how big, consider the following:

There have been a total of 14 open primaries and caucuses where Democrats are able to vote in the GOP contest. Donald Trump has won 12 of them. At the same time, there have been a total of 9 primaries and caucuses in closed states… and Ted Cruz has won 6 of them, while Donald Trump has won only 3 of them.

So in the states where only Republicans can vote in the Republican primaries and caucuses Ted Cruz has won 66% of the contests while Donald Trump has won 34%... and those are states where data shows that tens of thousands of Democrats are switching party affiliation for the specific purpose of voting for Trump in the GOP contest. At the same time however, in states where Democrats are free to vote in the GOP contest Donald Trump has won 85% of the time.

Conservatives like myself find ourselves growing horse explaining that Donald Trump is no conservative, that he loves big government and is no friend of liberty… all to no avail. The Trump train keeps rolling on. We wonder, how is it even remotely possible that someone so antithetical to the principals of limited government and individual freedom could be leading in the GOP race when a guy like Ted Cruz, who lives and breathes and bleeds those things is on the same ballot? Well, now we know. Republicans are not the ones making Donald Trump the front runner, Democrats are.

While you can make the argument that some of them may indeed be moving to the party to vote for Trump rather than playing out a reverse of Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos”, you have to ask yourself how many Democrats who voted for Barack Obama are going to be pulling the lever for any Republican in the general election?

So it should be no surprise why poll after poll shows Donald Trump getting trounced in the general election by either Clinton or Sanders… It’s Clinton’s and Sanders’ voters who are picking the opponent for their candidate! Picking the players on your side and the players on the other side. That’s a pretty good position to be in, it almost sounds like something right out of the Art of the Deal. Hmmm, you don’t say…

What will Rush Limbaugh’s legacy be: Footnote or Patriot? Now is his time to decide...

I’ve been listening to Rush Limbaugh since about 1992. Although he claims to be right 99.8% of the time or something like that, I find that I only agree with him about 97% of the time.

I’ve listened with great interest as he has eloquently exposed the left’s perniciousness in situations where I saw nothing sinister at all. More times than I can count I listened to the news or read a paper and simply took what they said at face value. Then I would listen to Rush talk about the exact same event and discuss the media’s coverage of it and like Russell Crowe’s John Nash in A Beautiful Mind he would lay out in great specificity what was really going on. He is as skilled at revealing the underlying machinations of the left and the media (the same thing, really) as Nash was at solving codes.

At the same time, he has been equally successful in highlighting the hypocrisy of the GOP establishment’s embrace of big government and open borders.

For more than a quarter century I’ve listened to Rush trumpet the virtues of conservatism. For more than a quarter century I’ve listened to Rush proclaim that if Americans only had an articulate conservative champion to vote for they would and the nation would be saved. Now that the country has one in Ted Cruz – for the first time in a generation, where's Limbaugh?

I’ll tell you where he is… he’s sitting in his south Florida studio explaining why Donald Trump is so successful in outsmarting the pundits. Sure, he offers the requisite “Ted Cruz is a rock solid conservative” a couple of times a week, but he spends most of his time explaining why Trump seems to defy the odds that no one else would have a shot at.

It’s his show and he has every right to do exactly what he wants and say anything he wants. My question is however, does Rush Limbaugh want to be remembered as a political gadfly who uses his microphone to poke fun at liberals and illuminate the folly of the ruling class, or does he actually want to be a hero? He can be one or he can be the other, but he can’t be both.

If he truly believes what he has been saying over the last 28 years then now is the time for him to put his microphone where his mouth is. I’ll take Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, but Donald Trump doesn’t solve the problems that are undermining the country as we speak. Donald Trump will not end big government. Donald Trump is not a champion for individual freedom. Donald Trump is not an enemy of crony capitalism. Donald Trump is not a fan of separation of powers or limited government. Ted Cruz is all of those things and more.

At the end of the day, Donald Trump embodies many – but not all – of the things Rush Limbaugh has been railing against for the past quarter century. So the question is, does Rush really believe what he says or is he simply trying to sell advertising? Not that there’s anything inherently wrong with the latter. I love watching the Big Bang Theory, but not for one second do I think the actors on that show are going to give Stephen Hawking a run for his money on a physics quiz. And they don’t expect me to believe it, they’re actors, I know they’re acting and it makes for great entertainment for me and they make lots of money. Great setup.

But the Rush Limbaugh Show is not a Hollywood sitcom. People don’t listen to Rush to listen to fiction. They listen to see the left exposed and listen to the heartfelt commentary from someone who cares about the United States, who champions freedom and explains (with examples) how liberty and free markets make the world a much better place than socialism, communism and most of what came before the United States was born.

And so, people like me look at Rush today and wonder if his heart is really in it or is he like a union leader who plays to the base while enriching himself at their expense? Although our expense in this case is time rather than money. We wonder if wrapping himself in the American flag and American values is simply a ploy to generate advertising dollars.

Right here, right now is where the tire hits the road. Donald Trump is well down the path to winning the GOP nomination. That might lead to a Trump or Clinton presidency. Neither would be good for the country nor for freedom… although a Clinton presidency would surely be worse. But we’re not there yet, and now is when the voice of Rush Limbaugh could actually make a difference. It won’t matter in the general because coming out of the conventions most minds are already made up, and the ones that aren’t are likely not listening to Rush.

This is not a call for Rush to savage Donald Trump. That’s not necessary. What is necessary however is to stop the with wall to wall “exposing” of the hypocrisy of the GOP establishment – which we all see – and the media’s duplicity as they prop up Trump only to knife him once the general campaign begins. What is necessary is for Rush to simply talk about how Trump doesn’t comport with most of the things he has championed for the last quarter century. To explain that Trump is an enemy of free markets, limited government and no fan of individual freedom. And explain why those things are important and why his posture on those ideas puts him closer to Barack Obama than they do to Ronald Reagan.

There are times in our lives when we are faced with real, consequential choices, and it’s up to us to us to decide what we want to leave behind when we’re gone. For 28 years Rush Limbaugh has eloquently stated the case that the United States is the greatest nation in the history of the world, our Constitution is possibly next to the Bible in importance in helping to improve the condition of man and that our free markets have driven more prosperity than the world has ever seen. He’s right… but the cancer of liberalism has put all of that at risk. The question is, a century from now, when people look back on Rush Limbaugh’s life, will they read about a political gadfly who entertained people between long commercial breaks or will they read about a patriot who helped the country survive the scourge of progressivism and helped bring about a conservative revolution that not only turned back the tide of big government, but unleashed the forces of freedom (both individual and markets) that ushered in a period of growth and prosperity unprecedented in all of human history?

That’s a choice Rush will have to make. Does he want to go down as a footnote in history or does he want to join the pantheon of giants who used their influence to make a difference as have Ben Franklin, J.P. Morgan, William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman?

A Donald Trump presidency will be the death of the Republican party. Good riddance!

It looks like Donald Trump may run the table towards Cleveland, or close to it. Although it may end up being a two man race after the SEC Primary – John Kasich doesn’t count and Ben Carson is irrelevant – it may end up being too late to matter.  So why would Donald Trump be the end of the Republican party? Because other than building a fence – which is important – it’s likely that not much will change…and things might even get a bit worse.

Trump is attracting the attention of millions of Americans from across the spectrum. Somehow he attracted the votes of tens of thousands of evangelicals in South Carolina while at the same time drawing attention from minorities and millennials and self professed “conservatives”. His numbers are actually increasing, having won 45% of the vote in Nevada, almost a 50% jump from South Carolina less than a week before.  As I said last week, Trump 2016 is like Obama 2008 in that he is, for his fans, an empty vessel into which they can pour their dreams. That’s great for him on the campaign trail, but it might not be such a good thing for the country when he’s in the White House.

All of the people who are flocking to Trump are doing so for what they read into his “Make America Great Again” slogan. (Rush again on Monday disingenuously claimed the slogan is somehow more substantive than “Hope and Change”… He’s wrong, it's not.) Trumpkins are understandably frustrated with a government that doesn’t work. They are frustrated with a government that is involved in too many things. They are frustrated with a government that seems unresponsive to their needs and demands.  They want a government that protects their individual freedoms.  Those are all real concerns… but the problem is, Donald Trump will not likely change much of that, and to the degree that he does, he may well do so unconstitutionally.

And that’s the rub, and that’s why the Republican party will be doomed by a successful Trump run for the White House. The Republican Party is on the ropes in the first place because its candidates run on conservative ideas and then run away from them once in office. Whether it’s vows to stop Obamacare or promises to cut spending, GOP voters vote for one thing and via the magic of Washington, they get something else. Most GOP voters are simply sick of it. That explains the Trump phenomena and the strength of Ted Cruz.

So how exactly does a Donald Trump presidency doom the GOP? Simple. Because a significant faction of the GOP voter base is ready to walk already – myself included - because the party has lost its way and become liberalism light, but because Ted Cruz is in the race many of us are at least hopeful that it’s possible to end up with an actual limited government conservative nominee and president. Another significant portion of the voters are looking for something different than the status quo… hence Trump. Together those groups make up half if not more of the party, and a Trump in the White House will not only not be conservative, he’ll likely not change much at all.

Change doesn’t come easy, particularly when you’re fighting a leviathan. And Washington is nothing if not a leviathan. It’s entrenched in almost every aspect of American life. It’s dysfunctional and provides money and services to millions of America's who have become fat and happy suckling on the nanny state teat. And don't forget the millions of well paid bureaucrats and supplicants doing the same.

Bobby Kennedy learned as Attorney General, that changing anything in Washington is almost impossible, and the leviathan of government is exponentially larger today than it was then. Even Ronald Reagan, who famously wanted to kill the Departments of Energy and Education, was stonewalled. And Washington is more entrenched now than it was then.

In order to change Washington one has to have a visceral hate for big government, because it won’t go away without a fight. There are too many people, on both ends of the government industrial complex who have vested interests in maintaining it as it is. Add to that the fact that Trump is a big government crony capitalist and you can see where this is going, or not, as the case might be. Sure, he’ll build a wall and rename Obamacare, but will he rein in the NLRB or the EPA or HUD?  Don’t count on it. Will he eliminate the Dept of Education or the CFPB or agriculture subsidies? Not likely. And perhaps most importantly, will he put a constitutionalist on the Supreme Court to replace Scalia? No chance.

And that’s why a Donald Trump presidency will be the death of the GOP. Nothing will change.  Washington will likely function very much the way it does now… only the people running it will have Rs by their names rather than Ds. Once Republican voters have their guy in the White House and nothing changes, the factions of the party that seek something other than go-along-to-get-along big government, crony capitalism, and the nanny state will have no choice but to form a third party.  Maybe it will be a conglomeration of Tea Party groups. Maybe it will be a amalgamation with the Libertarian Party. Maybe they go for the fence and create an entirely new party focused on limited government, free enterprise and individual freedom. Whatever it turns out to be, it’s happening because the Republican party no longer stands for anything but itself. In Donald Trump it has its man. Good riddance to it.

Trump voters in 2016 are not so different from Obama voters in 2008... Here's why

If Donald Trump gets the GOP nod against Hillary or Bernie, I’m voting for Donald. Frankly, after watching the debate on Saturday night I’d probably want to take a shower after pulling the lever for him, but pull it I would…

That being said, Saturday’s debate demonstrated Donald Trump to not only be a rude bully, it showed him to basically be a disingenuous one and someone with, shall we say, an odd understanding of history. While rebutting Rubio’s statement that Bush kept the US safe after the Iraq invasion, he chimed in that 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch. That statement is of course true, but it didn’t have anything to do with the point Rubio was making as it came prior to the invasion and was one of the catalysts that put Bush into the mindset that action had to be taken in Iraq. This of course came about the same time that Trump called GW Bush a liar, suggesting that he knew there were no WMDs in the country and stated he lied about them in order to invade. That is a page directly out of the truther’s handbook and with the level of intensity he argued the point, it suggests that Trump actually believes it. He also spent time supporting eminent domain (really, the abuse of such) as well as the funding of the “good parts” of Planned Parenthood. Those are, to say the least, unusual positions for someone running for the GOP nomination.

The debate was more like a schoolyard brawl fight than a debate, where the teacher couldn’t get or keep control. One has to wonder however if the Trump supporters will notice that their guy was obnoxious and nonsensical. And if they do, will they care.

Watching the numbers Trump is putting up in the GOP race and the throngs of passionate supporters his events draw despite the fact that he’s basically a liberal, not even conservative clothing, is beginning to make me think that many of the GOP voters in 2016 are doing exactly what Democrat voters did in 2008: They are pouring into an empty vessel exactly what they want to see. Barack Obama was indeed an empty vessel for most voters. The truth is, his “Hope and Change” is not so different from Trump’s “Make America Great Again”. Most certainly it is different in that Barack Obama pretty much hates everything great about the United States outside of golf courses and basketball, while Donald Trump loves pretty much everything including golf courses and imminent domain.

At a minimum one would expect Trump to make better deals than the one Obama made with Iran and not seek to divide the country by race and gender and sexuality and religion as Obama has done. But beyond that, when it comes to the actual work of governing, and doing so within the confines defined by the Constitution, one wonders what his supporters see in him. They say he’s going to build a wall. That’s an absolutely necessity, but Ted Cruz has promised to do the same. They say things like he doesn’t take crap from anyone and he says what’s on his mind. Both are true, but what do they have to do with governing? Barack Obama is a horrible president, but it’s not because he got into shouting matches with crybabies Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, it’s because he’s anti-American and thinks he’s king. Would Trump’s obnoxious behavior somehow make 535 congressmen and women more likely to follow his lead? Would it act as a moderating influence on power hungry bureaucrats?  Would his rudeness somehow convince the leaders of Russia, China and Iran to suddenly play nice on the geopolitical chessboard? How does boorish behavior translate to actually doing a good job of governing the country? It doesn't.  Sadly, sometimes listening to Trump supporters makes me think back to John Ziegler’s video from the 2008 election “How Obama Got Elected’.

The problem with Trump is that he has no fundamental convictions other than what is good for Donald Trump. He’s not a conservative. He professes to not be a liberal but his history tells a different story. He’s not a major supporter of individual rights and limited government. Very much like Barack Obama he sees the presidency as an opportunity to “get things done” and like Obama he will likely take a dim view of the constraints on his actions dictated by the Constitution.

But for his voters, none of that seems to matter. While I can appreciate the desire to have someone from outside Washington, from outside the establishment come in and shake up a heavily dysfunctional government, it matters what they want to do and how they want to do it. Everything you need to know about a Donald Trump administration can be seen in his comment about Carrier moving manufacturing to Mexico. He said “I'm going to tell them right now, I am going to get consensus from Congress and we're going to tax you when those air conditioners come.” Aside from the unconstitutionality of such a move, what he’s not saying is “How do we make it more economically viable for companies to manufacture in the United States?” No,Trump’s natural inclination is to use unconstitutional coercion against those with whom he disagrees (sound familiar?) rather than asking why it makes economic sense for someone to decamp to Mexico in the first place, and figuring out how to make America more compelling for employers in the first place.

At the end of the day, during this primary season Trump supporters need to ask themselves is Donald Trump the best person in the GOP field to lead the nation to prosperity? The best person to protect individual liberty? The best person to roll back the unconstitutional expansion of government undertaken by presidents over the last 25 years? The best person to appoint the next Supreme Court justice? The best person to make the government work for the people rather than the people work for the government? The best person to defy Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce and rein in a regulatory environment bathed in job killing and prosperity killing crony capitalism?

If they find that the answer to these questions is no, then perhaps they should put down the Kool Aid and open their eyes and ears to some of the other candidates. Elections aren’t WrestleMania events and the bluster on the stump and in the debate may be fun to watch, but unlike WWE, entertainment isn’t the fundamental goal of debates and elections.  No, the whole reason we're engaging in this quadrennial cage match is the pursuit of effective, constitutional government.  That's something someone with a long history of crony capitalism and little appreciation for the Constitution is unlikely to deliver.

Why Palin and Limbaugh Are Supporting Trump: Fame and Legacy

It was with great disappointment that I listened a few days ago to Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Donald Trump. I was similarly disappointed the next day when I heard Rush Limbaugh proffer simply that “Nationalism and populism have overtaken conservatism in terms of appeal.” It’s tough when you find that your heroes are less than they had led you to believe, or, perhaps, what you chose to believe…

I’ve been a big supporter of Sarah Palin since the moment I saw her walk out on the GOP stage in 2008. I penned a piece titled “Why I love Sarah Palin” discussing exactly why I found her so compelling. I liked the fact that she was not part of the establishment. That she had not spent her life in Washington. That she had lived a normal, imperfect life that many Americans could relate to… and, most of all, she was conservative and traveled around the country touting the virtues of a limited government.

I’ve been a big fan of Rush Limbaugh since I first heard him on the radio in 1990 while in college in Florida. Throughout that quarter century I’ve listened to Rush talk about conservative values, government overreach, media spin and endlessly skewer epic government failures both big and small. Although I don’t agree with him 100% of the time, it’s pretty damn close.

This week it became clear that both Palin and Limbaugh are paper conservative tigers. Both have shown that they are conservatives when it’s easy, when it’s convenient, but when the chips are down, they are consummate politicians. As I myself have written, I will vote for Trump over anyone that the donkey party produces, but until that becomes the choice, I’m not a Trump guy. He’s simply not a conservative in any sense of the word. From limited government to abortion to gun control to taxes, Donald Trump has no idea what a conservative is. And he doesn’t care.

There are however two different things going on here. The first is Palin, who with her ringing endorsement of Trump betrays the very principles she has spent eight years publicly espousing. The conclusion I’ve drawn is that she has become a Kim Kardashian wannabe. She became enamored with the fame, with the media spotlight, with the money, and she decided that a better avenue back to that spotlight was to jump on the Trump train, principles be damned. Donald is a rock star and Sarah is a groupie seeking to reignite her career in his shadow.

With Limbaugh it’s something different, although it’s kind of the same. He’s not overtly supporting Trump, and in fact he constantly says that if you want a rock solid conservative, Cruz is your man. Limbaugh of course doesn’t need Trump to shine. As a matter of fact, if Hillary or Bernie won his audience and fortune would probably increase. No, when he spends three hours simply “explaining” what’s going on with Trump is he’s feigning objectiveness while tacitly pushing him to the front of the stage. Which he has every right to do, as it’s his show… but then don’t waste our time whining about the GOP establishment never giving Americans a conservative to vote for.

Make no mistake, this is a choice. Limbaugh claims that he’s just “explaining” what’s going on, that he’s just reacting to the news cycle, but in reality he decides what goes on on his show. Guaranteed if he wanted to he could spend three hours talking about Iowa governor Terry Branstad’s attempt to crucify Cruz for opposing ethanol, and given it’s Rush it would be entertaining. But rather than do so, he spends days on end explaining why Americans find themselves entertained by a strangely coiffed professional entertainer. And why might he do this? Fear. Trump is the easy play. Trump is the fun play. And there’s no risk with him. If he loses, then he was just a clown that entertained people for a while. If he wins, well, great, a guy who’s not part of the establishment who will leave plenty of terrible government programs to skewer. But Cruz… he’s a real conservative. He’s the guy Limbaugh has been telling America we’ve needed for almost three decades. What happens if he gets the nomination and he loses? Then suddenly Limbaugh is shown to be wrong… he’s shown to have been a fool all these years when he was telling his audiences what Americans really want and need and weren’t getting from the GOP... a conservative nominee.

So there we have it, two giants of modern conservatism who, when the chips are down, decided to betray their principles. One for fame and the other for fear of losing his legacy. Unfortunately, after being a fan of both for years the only thing that comes to mind is a quote from P.T. Barnum: “There’s a sucker born every day.” My guess is more than a few other conservatives feel the same way.