There he was, stripped bare and standing in the middle of the debate stage.

Donald Trump was eviscerated in last Thursday’s debate (2/25). Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz took turns pummeling the founder of Trump University with his own words, his own history, and delivering body blow after body blow.

It was more than enough to convince any thinking person he was not a serious candidate for president. But Trump isn’t your typical presidential candidate. He’s Barack Obama-light, in every sense of the term.

What does Donald Trump stand for? What will he do if elected? What core conservative principle will he advance?

If you’re being honest, the answer to each of those questions is you have no idea.

Don’t feel bad, neither does he.

That’s not entirely true. He was fairly unambiguous about one thing he’d like to do: change the law so he can sue newspapers. When it comes to solutions to the nation’s problems, Donald Trump is the equivalent of a constitutional dumpster fire; and that’s just fine to his worshipers.

[Skye’s posts on the Forum are among the most valuable assets to being a TTPer. His is the voice of calm reasoned argument. I have treasured his friendship for well over 40 years. As someone whose IQ could not be measured by MIT as it went so far beyond the upper measurable limit of 220, Skye’s words deserve our careful consideration. --JW]

Everyone is scared witless by the potential outcome of the upcoming election.  Some more, some less – but there is more than enough reason for much of these fears. 

Conservative, libertarian, and constitutionalist Republicans fear populist Republicans.  Establishment Republicans fear all of the above and vice versa.  Establishment Democrats fear populist/socialist Democrats and vice versa.  Republicans fear Democrats, Democrats fear Republicans, and Independents fear both.

Unfortunately, these severe fears are not paranoid delusions.  The central government has become so powerful, so out of control of both the Constitution and the electorates, so deeply wrapped around the roots of everyone’s everyday life, that the “other” truly has become an existential threat.

The only hope that I can think of for escape from the onrushing Armageddon of Americans warring against Americans with the guns of the central government is restoration of constitutional restraints on the central government.

Thus the vital question: who among the various candidates is the most determined to restore constitutional limitations on the central government?

In his victory speech in South Carolina, Donald Trump vowed to sweep the twelve primaries held on Super Tuesday, March 1, and implied the race would then be over: “Let’s put this thing away!”

He also belittled rivals who claimed that as the field shrinks, they will be able to close on Trump and deny him the nomination. “They’re geniuses!” he mocked. “They don’t understand that as people drop out, I’m going to get a lot of those votes also.”

Not so fast, Donald.

Trump is the front-runner, but he has to find a way to win a majority of the delegates, and the kind of campaign he’s running is making it harder for him to crack a ceiling of about a third of the vote.

In the run-up to South Carolina, Trump came out in favor of the health-care mandate, defended Planned Parenthood, accused George W. Bush of lying about the Iraq War, and stood by his call to impeach Bush. (He later retreated on the mandate and on Bush’s supposedly lying.)

His consistent inconsistency helps explain why only four in ten GOP voters in a new Associated Press poll view Trump in a positive light. He will have trouble growing his coalition to win a majority of delegates, even as more candidates drop out.

The current crash in oil prices is sowing the seeds of a powerful rebound and a potential supply crunch by the end of the decade, but the prize may go to the US shale industry rather OPEC, the world's energy watchdog has predicted.

America's shale oil producers and Canada's oil sands will come roaring back from late 2017 onwards once the current brutal purge is over, a cycle it described as the "rise, fall and rise again" of the fracking industry.

"Anybody who believes the US revolution has stalled should think again. We have been very surprised at how resilient it is," said Neil Atkinson, head of oil markets at the International Energy Agency.

Contrary to widespread assumptions, the IEA report said Saudi Arabia and the OPEC club will lose market share, treading water as North America and Brazil's "pre-salt" basin in the Atlantic account for most of the growth in global output by the early 2020s. Algeria, Venezuela, Nigeria and Indonesia are all going into decline.

Iran’s fields are 70 years old and on the wane, while Russia will be the biggest casualty of all.

This is a pretty astounding clip from an Obama press conference yesterday. Obama was waxing poetic about the obligation of the Senate to confirm whatever judicial nomination he throws up there when a reporter stunned Obama into literal silence with what should have been an easily foreseeable question. When Obama finally stumbled and fumbled his way into an answer, he basically admitted that he and his party were a major part of the problem with judicial nominations.

The sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia has sharpened the divide between the progressives’ idea of technocratic federal power, and the Constitution’s limited government that Scalia eloquently championed for almost 30 years. This division has a long history that transcends the failed presidency of Barack Obama.

The Democratic Party grew out of opposition to the elitist Federalists, whose president John Adams was known as “His Rotundity” for his girth and alleged aristocratic tendencies. James Madison in 1792 established the contrast between the two parties that persists to this day: the Federalists were “more partial to the opulent,” and believed that “government can be carried on only by the pageantry of rank, [and] the influence of money and emoluments.”

Those who would become Democrats, Madison wrote, believed “in the doctrine that mankind are capable of governing themselves,” and he charged that power lodged “into the hands of the few” is “an insult to the reason and an outrage to the rights of man.” In short, the Democrats were about power to the people rather than to privileged elites.