But as ecstatic as I am with the result of November 8th, there is now a monumental question facing the soon-to-be President Trump: Will he remain the maverick who won our allegiance during the riveting and cantankerous campaign of the past 16 months? Or will he get dragged into the septic muck of Washington's perennial con game of "promise what the people are calling for," but once in office govern so as to appease the CFR elites, Wall Street moguls, and bureaucratic careerists of the Imperial City? Will the phony Americanists prevail as they have for the past 80 years since FDR and J.M. Keynes came to visit us?
Is Donald Trump really the mountainous man of independent strength and patriotism he appears to be, or is he an unprepared dilettante who is destined to find out that draining the Washington swamp is not like challenging Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz? Can Trump drain the swamp with advisors who are basically swamp people? Is the prototypical swamper, Reince Priebus, guiding tough revolutionists into Trump's cabinet or soft insiders more interested in riding around in black limousines?
For the past month the media have been their usual gaggle of hypocrites responding to Trump's cabinet picks like petulant children who just got exposed for telling fibs to the teacher. Their mournful mindset is to merely repeat leftist gripes that the country so decidedly rejected on November 8th. They are clueless as to the profound ideological shift that has swept over the voters of America.
1) Still there are statements from Trump that are alarming. For example, his twitter burst in response to the imbecilic flag burners, that they should pay a heavy fine and serve a year in jail. Good grief. Does The Donald not realize that these hapless mediocrities are merely expressing the emptiness of their souls and the subservience of their minds to their leftist professors? They are of no importance in the vast sweep of history that makes up our country. Moreover they have the right to express themselves, repugnant though they be. But if Trump is alarmed by such examples of mindlessness, it is a sign that there is something missing in his overall philosophical grasp of freedom.
2) Trump's cabinet picks are basically strong and promising; but are they far enough removed from the swamp to truly lead a clean up? There are a few choices that are quite scary. For example, Mike Pompeo as head of the CIA. Witness his statement that NSA whistleblower, Edward Snowden, should be brought back from Russia, given proper due process, and then executed. This is a budding Orwellian speaking who believes that the surveillance state should be allowed to subvert American citizens' basic rights, that freedom must take a back seat to the state's necessity to oversee our lives with observatory powers that the computer age has given it. Snowden is a hero to individualist Americans cognizant of the danger of the nefarious NSA. Snowden is not the criminal here; the NSA is. It is not treason to defend one's rights against Big Brother. This indicates a dangerous myopia on the part of Pompeo.
3) General James Mattis, as Secretary of Defense, has all the credentials of rightful Americanism so desperately needed today. The man is what being a Marine is all about. Gallant, courageous and tough-minded, he has served heroically in battle and truly earned his four stars. But all the sparkling attributes and achievements become of little value if one's worldview is in error. Here is where Mattis is flawed. He still subscribes to the neocon fallacy that Russia is an "imperialist nation." Neocon ideology has demonized Russia ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall. This is because neoconservatism requires a foreign enemy to hold up in front of Americans as a terrible danger that justifies Washington's subversion of our basic rights.
But the geopolitics of cold war times no longer prevails. The fall of the USSR ended the communist drive for world conquest. Putin's Russia is no longer desirous of gobbling up Eastern Europe. The recent Crimea incident was instigated by the Crimeans themselves "voting voluntarily" to return to Russia who they had been part of for 300 years prior to Khrushchev attaching them to Ukraine in the 1950s. Putin actually wants to join the West and contribute to a peaceful accord with America. But the neocons of Washington have demonized him because such a smear serves their interests in achieving a hegemonic foreign policy.
Unfortunately it appears that Mattis still subscribes to the old view of Russia in cold war days, that of an imperialist nation bent on expansion. In a speech to the Heritage Foundation last May, he remarked that among global threats, "in the near term, I think the most dangerous might be Russia. I would just tell you that as you look at the Russia situation, I think it is much more severe and much more serious than we have acknowledged."  If this is Mattis' view, then it does not comport with Trump's view that Putin can be dealt with, that Russia is not the threat the neocon elites claim.
4) Additional questions and potential pitfalls arise from the Trump vision: How is he to finance his infrastructure rebuilding that he has placed so much emphasis on without running $1-2 trillion dollar deficits? Are the cabinet picks being assembled around Trump "constitutional" conservatives, or are they "neo" conservatives? Does Trump understand the real implications of the "big, fat, ugly bubble" that he warned us about when debating the stooge, Hillary, who obviously doesn't grasp the implications? Most importantly will Trump build the wall, push Congress to enact E-verify, and end welfare services to illegals? Or will Paul Ryan and the RINOs do what they have always done - appease Wall Street with lip service to "real reform" while looking the other way?
The saving grace that transcends the above negatives is Trump's choice of Chief Strategy Advisor, Steve Bannon. He is a stalwart defender of the free-market conservative cause for America.
In an incisive 2014 interview with the Human Dignity Institute, he shows clearly that he understands the difference between "crony capitalism" and "laissez-faire capitalism." And most importantly he realizes that the battle is not just about economics and politics, but primarily about morality and philosophy. He sees that the Judeo-Christian West is in crisis, not just over the merits of capitalism, but over the entire essence of our civilization. He asks the Big Questions, and he ponders the answers. He sees that the West is being secularized in a most damaging way. 
He worked for Goldman Sachs from 1984 to 1990, and thus got an insider's view of what this mega-banking firm and all the others pockmarking our economy today are doing to destroy the nation's freedom and economic sanity. In his interview, he demonstrates his grasp of this vital perspective explaining that the mega-banks' union with the Federal Reserve is the primary source of our economic woes today, and it has to be brought under control. 
We must remember that just because Steve Bannon and Steven Mnuchin worked for Goldman Sachs doesn't mean they are "globalists" intending to diminish America's sovereignty and push us toward a world government. Their experience at Goldman could just as easily have opened their eyes and forged a desire to fight the mega-bank domination now consuming our economy. Bannon expresses precisely this awareness in his interview. And it is not unreasonable to conclude that Mnuchin has similar convictions. Sometimes one has to work for the devil before he can see the devil.
Unfortunately, however, as astute as Bannon is on issues crucial to our country, our economy and our civilization, he buys the Russian myth perpetuated by the neocons to which Mattis subscribes. Bannon sees Russia as an imperialist power that wants to expand. 
If Bannon and Mattis are able to convince Trump of this, then America is headed for continued tension with Russia and ultimately war if neoconservatism is not purged from our foreign policy community. Thankfully Trump's view on Russia appears to prevail, and the Bannon / Mattis view does not.
A good indication that this is true is Trump's brilliant choice for Secretary of State, the Chairman and CEO of Exxon Mobile, Rex Tillerson. Tillerson is a powerful and patriotic entrepreneur who is every bit the tough negotiator and deal maker that Trump is. He has dealt with hundreds of foreign leaders over several decades. He has shrewdly operated in the world's hot spots and has the savvy to promote our nation abroad in a winning manner. He will put America first; no doubt about that.
Also of great importance is that Tillerson has dealt with Putin extensively over the past 15 years. They know each other personally. This is a huge positive, not a negative as the media dummies are opining. Both Trump and Tillerson know full well that the world is an imperfect arena of powerful rulers and regimes, and we don't have to approve of a given ruler's governance in order to deal effectively with him.
Tillerson's pick as Secretary of State is a clear signal that Trump intends to pursue accord with Russia and move to shut down the disastrous neocon pursuit of hegemony over them. Thus the Bannon / Mattis view of Russia has obviously not won over Trump. He is his own man and rejects the neocon view of foreign policy. There could be no better news for our country. Russia is not our enemy. Good to have the Bannon / Mattis perspective in the administration to maintain a healthy wariness of Russia, but the "hegemony over Russia" insanity of Bill Kristol and the neocons must come to an end. Trump and Tillerson will bring this about.
The Two Roadblocks
Extensive, much needed policy reforms are now possible for America via a Trump presidency; but two crucial roadblocks stand in the way of bringing them about.
1) America must go through a nasty recession that will begin in 2017 and quite possibly morph into a full-scale depression. This will upset the Trump vision dramatically. A favorable Congress with a reasonably big picture view of political affairs will most likely sink into a squabbling coven of special interest promoters more interested in bringing home the bacon to their constituents than passing the provocative trade, immigration, and foreign policy reform goals of Trump.
2) Can those conventional Republican operatives joining the Trump administration transcend the warped worldview they have held for so many decades of their lives and commit to radically changing the course of America? In other words, can men like Reince Priebus, Mike Pence, et al (who are old Republican hands) truly climb on the super train of revolution that Trump is proposing? It's one thing to preach revolution, but can these trusted advisors to Trump really live it? Do they possess the strength of will and independence of thought to not care what the leftist media thinks of them? Or will they capitulate to the RINOs in Congress so as to look good in the public's eyes and not be thought of as "obstructionists"?
Trump is a Bunyanesque figure who transcends the prosaic politicians around him like Secretariat transcended the ponies he ran against for the Triple Crown. But can Trump prevail in face of the guaranteed onslaught of tyrannical worldviews and bureaucratic careerists that will converge upon him to vehemently oppose the enactment of his revolution? Can he navigate his way through a nasty recession and possibly a full-scale depression to point America back toward the Founding Fathers?
The hatreds of the statist left run deep and dreadful, lurking always in the background of any attempts to turn the tide of collectivism and restore America to a rightful Republic. So the future looks perilous, indeed. But thankfully it is Secretariat who is leading our country and not the donkey, Hillary, at the helm.