So here they are.....Hermetically sealed in a mayonnaise jar on Funk and Wagnalls front porch....My predictions for the Iowa Caucuses.

1.  Mitt Romney will pull out a very small win over Ron Paul.  Paul will claim this as a huge victory, even though the Governor of Iowa has already declared it meaningless, EVEN if Paul pulls out a win as a vast majority of people who will caucus for Paul aren't Republicans at all.  Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen said it best, “I don’t think any candidate perverting the process in that fashion helps [the caucuses] in any way."

2.   There are still 41% undecided or willing to change their minds.  This will bode well for Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, which will finish 3rd and 4th respectively. 

3.   Rick Perry will finish a distant fifth with Michele Bachmann following in sixth. Bachmann's campaign will be over by the end of the week.  Perry will fight on until South Carolina.

4.  Jon Huntsman, by no surprise, will end up last.  Unless you count Thad McCotter and Buddy Roemer.  Huntsman will continue to be a burr under Romney's saddle in New Hampshire, but won't survive much past that. 

All in all I think the biggest surprises will come from the better than expected finishes of Gingrich and Santorum and the worse than expected of Bachmann. 

I have recently been very critical of Congressman Ron Paul on WeArePolitics for a myriad of different reasons that main one of which is that I feel that he is very detrimental to the Republican Party.  A party that he has absolutely no loyalty to nor allegiance.

Paul, as I have written before, has run a slash and burn campaign in Iowa, and it is certainly working for him....At the expense of a few of the other candidates and in particular former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.  Paul's campaign has been running non stop ads in Iowa about Newt that contain outright lies.  Over the last few weeks, Paul himself has come under the scrutiny afforded to the front runner status as the infamous newsletters that he has tried so hard to hide have reared their ugly heads again.  In recent days, there has been an orchestrated internet effort to link the dsiclosure of these newsletters to Speaker Gingrich.  (For the record, these newsletters were released first in1996 by Paul's opponent Lefty Morris, although there are a lot of folks who falsely think that they came from Republican primary opponent Charles Laughlin who Newt Gingrich endorsed.  The newsletter letter story pretty much died out until they resurfaced again when a writer for The New Republic named James Kerchick wrote an article in 2008 called "Angry White Man".)

Paul has refused to take responsibilty for the newsletters claiming he didn't write them and didn't even bother to read them.  His supporters argue that he was a busy doctor at the time to bother himself with the trivalites of a newsletter with his name on them.  Yet they want him to be President and leader of the free world.  Makes sense huh?  There has also been a concerted, organized effort to try and blame Speaker Gingrich for the release of the newsletters.    As I have already stated, the newsletters have been out there for years.  Further, Paul supporters are claiming that since Kerchick is a Fellow at The Foundation for Defense of Democracies and that Speaker Gingrich is a member of the think-tank's Leadership Council, Newt had something to do with getting the newsletters out there again.  Sorry to disappoint you again, but Kerchick was just named a Fellow in November of 2011.  The article was written in 2008.  There is no connection.  Quit fishing for something that isn't there.

Since the newsletters re-release, Paul has been endorsed by David Duke along with Don Black, both of KKK fame.   The scary part isn't the actual endorsements, but the fact that Paul refuses to disavow them.  It should come to no surprise though.  This is a guy who just went to the 50th Anniversary celebration of the John Birch Society. You remember them don't you?  They're the ones Conservative icon William F. Buckley virtually got thrown out of the GOP back in 1964.)  Oh yeah....and as for Don Black, Ron Paul refused to give back a $500 donation from him back in 2007.  The fact that Congressman Paul won't repudiate Black and turn his back on him should come to no surprise in light of this either then.

Now, onto the Constitution that Congressman Paul and his supporters throw in the GOP's face at every opportunity that they can.  I have been accused on several occasions of just 'slinging mud' and being a 'crap-stirrer'....So let's dissect a few of the Congressman's policies as they relate to the Constitution.  Congressman Paul wants to do away with the Federal Reserve, right?  Everywhere we turn, we hear him and his suppporters preaching to END THE FED....  Further Ron Paul and his supporters will argue with you til the death about his social policies.  I hate to break it to them again....The Constitution of the United States of America does not give the President the authority to dictate the economy nor social policy.  It reads:

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

That's it gang....That's the ONLY powers per the Constitution afforded to the President given by The Founding Fathers. 

I agree with Michael Medved who wrote last week,

"This means that those who back Paul's domestic policies but ignore his isolationist, moral-relativist approach toward America's position in the world are actually saying they care more about presidential roles not specified in the Constitution than they do about the chief responsibility the Founders themselves had in mind. Dr. Paul wants America to play a less robust leadership role in the world—apparently agreeing with Barack Obama, but disagreeing with great Republicans Lincoln and Reagan."

I sincerely hope that the people of Iowa don't fall for the bait and switch, slash and burn tactics of Congressman Paul and his campaign.With Iran stating that they now have their first nuclear fuel rod, can we afford to leave them alone anymore as Congressman Paul suggests we do?   He does not and will not represent the VAST majority of our party and the sooner that we as a party realize it the better.