Naked Judicial Activism and Overreach

On March 15th, for the second time, a federal district judge – this time in Hawaii – issued an injunction against President Trump’s executive order restricting immigration from several specific countries. U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson, in the case of State of Hawai’I and Ismail Elshikh v. Donald J. Trump, had the temerity to order that “Enforcement of these provisions in all places, including the United States, at all United States borders and ports of entry, and in the issuance of visas is prohibited, pending further orders from this Court.” In other words, this judge in the district of Hawaii issued a restraining order that supposedly has nationwide enforceability.

The only problem is, he has no authority to do so.

Article III of the US Constitution establishes the Judiciary, and defines its powers, authority and limitations. Section 2, Paragraph 2 clearly states that: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”

What that means is that, barring a constitutional amendment, any case in which a state is a party must be heard by the Supreme Court, the only court with the authority and jurisdiction to hear such cases. Since one of the plaintiffs in the case at issue is the state of Hawaii, District Judge Watson had no jurisdiction, nor authority, to even hear the case. The same holds true for the several other District Courts that have heard and/or issued rulings on cases of like kind.

That paragraph goes on to state that: “In all the other Cases before mentioned (in Paragraph 1), the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” Under that authority Congress went on to enact the Judiciary Acts of 1789, 1801, 1865, and 1925. These various Acts established the judicial system we have today, consisting of nine Supreme Court Justices, the various Circuit Courts of Appeal, the various District Courts, and their various jurisdictions, responsibilities and powers.

Part of that structuring defined court power to establish that the only court with national jurisdiction is the Supreme Court. For example, any ruling handed down by the Ninth Circuit Court only has enforcement power within the geographical boundaries of that Circuit, which are the nine Western states, including California. That’s why it’s not unusual to see different Circuits hand down conflicting rulings on the same issue, with the Supreme Court then stepping in to address and resolve the conflict by issuing a determinate ruling with national authority, thereby assuring a consistent application and rule of law across the nation.

The geographical jurisdictional and enforcement power of a District court is even smaller, as it’s a subset of the Circuit Court. So, just as the authority of a ruling by a Circuit Court is constrained by its geographical boundaries, so is the authority of a District Court’s ruling constrained to its own.

From this it’s easy to see that, in addition to hearing a case over which he had no jurisdiction, District Judge Watson issued a ruling and restraining order that he unlawfully attempts to apply outside the geographical borders of his own limited authority.

This is beyond unacceptable; it’s a repugnant attempt to usurp and arrogate power.

Were I Trump I’d instruct the State Department and other involved agencies to ignore these illegal rulings by this, and other, District judges who have far overstepped their legal authority. If these tin pot local judges want to set up a confrontation between the Judiciary and the Executive branches, then let’s bring it on.

Thomas Jefferson expressed his concern that the federal judiciary was potentially “the most dangerous branch” of government because, once seated, judges were installed for life and not accountable to the electorate. Unfortunately, particularly in recent decades, we’ve been seeing those fears realized as arrogant activist judges have taken to regularly exceeding their authority in order to facilitate their own political agendas, as facilitated by the cynical practice of “judge shopping” by litigants eager to promote and achieve their own political ends, goals they generally can’t achieve through the regular political process.

This must come to a halt, even if that has to be done through a constitutional confrontation.

 

 

 

©Brian Baker 2017

(Also published today in my local newspaper, The Signal)

Repealing Obamacare

(The following was published today by my local newspaper, The Signal, as an opinion piece on 15 March 2017)

 

In the Weekender edition of The Signal published March 10th was an editorial by Jim de Bree entitled “Long road to fixing Obamacare”. Unfortunately, I think his column is very far off the mark.

The first clue: his use of the term “level playing field”. Every time I hear that nonsense, I know I’m about to be hit with some Big Government socialist scheme that usually involves wealth redistribution, and government interference in this arena is a perfect example.

What Jim doesn’t seem to accept is that government isn’t the solution to the problem; government IS the problem.

We need to get the government OUT of the health insurance field altogether. The Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity, not of outcome, so the government has no legitimate role to play in “leveling the playing field” while interfering with free-market solutions to the problem as would be realized by competitive product availability, as well as private philanthropic and charitable activities.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. There are three simple steps to addressing the problems in this arena:

  1. Remove the barriers to interstate sales of health insurance products. Free market product competition will, by its very nature, lower prices and increase choice options for consumers.
  2. Streamline the FDA drug approval process. It can currently cost upwards of a billion dollars to bring a new drug to market, or a medical procedure to accepted practice.
  3. Institute major medical tort reform to eliminate the need for the practice of “defensive medicine”. Patients are often subjected to unnecessary testing and other procedures their doctors require simply in an effort to indemnify themselves from potential future lawsuits. Defensive medicine is a significant cost multiplier.

Do those three simple things and we’ll see healthcare and related costs stop their spiraling ascent, and return those costs to an actual basis reflecting real needs and usage as determined by free market principles.

Socialized medicine, under whatever guise, is NOT the answer.

 

Still Searching For A Solution to Homelessness

(The following was published today as a Guest Column in my local newspaper, The Signal: https://signalscv.com/2017/03/09/brian-baker-still-searching-solution-homelessness/#comment-3196757063)

On March 8 The Signal published a column by Gary Horton entitled “Deciding to decisively end homelessness.”

It seems that Gary and I agree on this issue, and I’m sure that blows his mind as much as it does mine.

In his column he called Measure H a “boondoggle of epic proportions,” and I’m right there with him. He also states, “We’ve got to have the backbone to declare homelessness plainly unacceptable and even ‘illegal.’”

The problem, as I pointed out in my own column urging a “no” vote on Measure H, is that the measures that used to be in place to combat homelessness – and they were pretty effective – were deemed decades ago to be violations of the rights of homeless people to self-determination and autonomy.

The “declare it illegal” strategy, as effective as it was, was nullified. That ship has sailed.

I actually believe that was proper, because if one class of people can have their rights taken away based solely on their economic status, none of us is safe.

Gary speaks of “zoning to allow both government and private enterprise to build affordable, or even free, housing,’ and maybe there’s a partial answer there.

But that has to be done in a realistic manner, putting aside the pie-in-the-sky approach so many bleeding hearts want to impose by forcing “affordable” housing into existing or developing communities in which such housing isn’t a natural fit with the rest of that community.

Sticking Section Eight or other “affordable” housing units in the middle of a planned gated community, for example, isn’t going to work, on many levels, and it also unfairly penalizes property owners who will suffer loss of the value of their homes when such units are dropped in their midst like meteorites falling from the sky.

Yes, areas can be specifically zoned for such housing, but then we have to accept that we’re just creating more “projects,” like Nickerson Gardens in Los Angeles and other such disaster areas.

And that still doesn’t address the unfortunate fact that, unlike in the movies, you can build it and a lot of people still won’t come.

It doesn’t acknowledge the reality that some homeless choose to be so, or are unable to live in such units due to mental deficiency or substance abuse, and simply won’t avail themselves of such accommodations.

So it seems he and I agree on the nature of the problem, and the fact that Measure H is going to be less than useless in actually “solving” it, but differ on what can actually be done about it.

Gary said he’s going to make some proposals in an upcoming column, and I’m eager to see what he proposes.

Frankly, I don’t see an actual solution that’s practical and legal.

 

 

FLHHC

FLHHC? What the heck is Baker babbling about now, right?

Well, my friends, that’s an acronym. It stands for:

Facts,

Logic,

History,

Human nature, and the

Constitution.

Those are the five things non-conservatives – of any party – have to be able to ignore in order to advance their arguments.

In my experience, any argument on any political topic that observes those five precepts will end up, by definition, being truly “conservative” in nature. In contrast, any argument advanced by leftists to support their position on a topic will by necessity have to ignore at least one, and generally several (if not all), of those elements.

Try it out for yourself. Have some fun with it. I think you’ll find it’s a very accurate litmus test, and once you do you can use it when you’re debating your not-so-conservative friends to hopefully show them the error of their ways.

Remember: FLHHC.

 

 

©Brian Baker 2017

 

 

#Calexit To Nowhere

calexit-2

 

It’s official. The Electoral College has spoken. Donald Trump is the President-Elect of these United States of America. Those last four words are important, because they describe the nature of this country: individual states united into a nation.

But to hear the hysterical left carry on about it, you certainly wouldn’t know it.

In my last three columns I discussed how unglued they’ve become since Trump’s Trumanesque victory over Clinton, and I thought I was done with the subject. Well, it turns out that just when I thought they couldn’t get any crazier they went ahead and proved me wrong.

Have you heard of #calexit? It seems that there’s a contingent here in this state that wants to collectively and figuratively stamp their feet in frustration, take their ball, and go home.calexit By that, I mean they want this state to secede from the Union. The word “calexit” is obviously fashioned after the term “brexit” which resulted in the start of the withdrawal of Britain from the European Union. A petition is in circulation for a ballot proposition to advance the act of seceding from the Union.

With great sadness, however, I have to inform them that their plan is a non-starter. When a state joins the Union, it’s kind of like the Mafia: once in, never out. It’s not a membership in a health spa or gym. In fact, we actually had a little event known as the Civil War back in the mid-1800s that made that point rather dramatically.

The Constitution goes to great lengths describing the process a state has to go through to join up. There’s not one single word about ever being able to pull out again. In fact, there have even been Supreme Court cases confirming that reality.

The crazies promoting this idea like to point out that if it were an independent country California’s economy would be the eighth largest in the world. All well and good, but they also ignore other realities that attach to being an independent country.

About ¼ of the illegal aliens in this country, approximately 3 million of them, live in this state. Additionally, about 1/3 of the nation’s welfare recipients live here, all while the state has only about 1/8 of the nation’s residents.

The only reason those demographics haven’t further bankrupted the state is that the costs of supporting these groups is defrayed and subsidized to a very large part by funding from the federal government, both directly and indirectly, through various grant, aid, and direct funding programs.

But if California were to secede from the union that flow of money would stop dead in its tracks. Then what? Jack up taxes on the already overtaxed people in this state who already are subject to about the highest tax burden in the country?

Of course, this fantastical new Republic of California is going to have to be able to conduct foreign affairs, and defend itself militarily, a huge new expense currently borne exclusively by the United States. Where’s the money going to come from for all the new embassies everywhere, and professional diplomats? And for the new army, navy, and air forces we’ll need, not to mention coastal security, meaning some form of Coast Guard?

Every country in the world has to have some kind of military capability to defend its existence and autonomy, at the very least, and the Republic of California is no different. And don’t kid yourselves; in the eyes of ISIS and the rest of the Islamic jihadis, the new Republic of California will be just as much a “Great Satan” as the rest of the United States, meaning we’ll be participants in the “war on terror” whether we want to be or not. We don’t make that decision, they do.

So, how do we fund this stuff? Even more new taxes? I sure don’t see any other way to do it. Do you?

All of a sudden it starts to become clear that the only reason this state is “the eighth largest economy in the world” is because so many of the financial burdens of its very existence are borne by the country of which it’s a part. But if that support goes away, and as the already high tax burden on its remaining residents increases, not only will that economy collapse, but those remaining productive tax-paying residents will vote with their feet and start an exodus that will deplete this state of its last source of income.

calexit-6The new Republic of California will turn into Venezuela North.

 

 

 

 

©Brian Baker 2017

(Also published today in my local newspaper, The Signal)

 

 

 

 

 

Write It On Ice

 

write-on-ice

 

In my last couple of columns I’ve been discussing how the American Left has blown its collective mind over the election of Trump, and their hair-on-fire antics in trying to turn the tides of time back to pre-November 8, when their queen bee in waiting, Miss Pantsuit, was still just a stone’s throw away from her coronation.

As I’m writing this (who knows what they’ll come up with tomorrow?) the Next Big Thing is that Russia hacked the DNC computers because “they wanted Trump to win”. It’s splashed all over the place in the leftist media. Big headlines; op-ed topic du jour.

But let’s examine this for a moment. Left unexplained is why the Russians would want Trump over Clinton. Are the Dems trying to imply that he’s a Russian agent or something? A Manchurian Candidate? It certainly can’t be that the Russians were afraid of Clinton. After all, as Secretary of State she was an abysmal failure, and all of her policies led to disastrous consequences, from the Arab Spring meltdown, to Benghazi, to China’s resurgent aggression in the South China Sea, to Russia’s own newly energized militarism in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. So no, that can’t be it.

Another aspect of this issue the Left doesn’t seem to raise, and in fact wants to distract people away from thinking about, is really basic: if there was nothing in those hacked emails to hide, what’s the big deal anyway? This is the modern computer era. Everybody gets hacked. That’s a given. There’s even a phrase for it: “The internet is forever”. Never write, post, publish, or email anything you don’t want to see splashed all over the web. Even kids know this. So what was in those “hacked” emails that supposedly brought Clinton down?

Truth. The simple truth.

Those emails, whether hacked by the Russians or someone else, revealed the depths of the corruption of the Clinton cabal in their maneuvering to win office, from the manipulations of Debra Wasserman Schultz and Donna Brazile in stealing the primary from Bernie Sanders, to the complicity of the Clinton team in her illegal email rig, to the cooperation of the allegedly “independent and unbiased” press, right on down.

But there’s also a further reality. Those hacked emails didn’t actually reveal anything people didn’t already know about Clinton. All they really did was confirm what people already knew: that Clinton is cynical and corrupt to her core, and surrounds herself with like-minded people. Nothing new here, move along.

Thus the net impact of those hacked emails, in reality, was pretty much a big, fat zero.

Let’s face it. This latest burst of sanctimonious outrage is nothing more than another effort to deny the reality of the election outcome, and a lame attempt to besmirch and delegitimize the guy who won the election fair and square: Donald Trump.

My Armenian mother told me there’s an old-country maxim that goes: “Write it on ice”. In other words, if you write something down that you might not want people to see later, it will disappear forever when the ice melts, but you never know about anything written on paper – or nowadays in emails.

So the lesson for the Dems is this: next time, don’t document your corruption in emails. Better yet, why not consider abandoning that corruption altogether?

 

©Brian Baker 2016

(Also published today in my local newspaper, The Signal)

Baseball and the Electoral College

In my last column I discussed the hair-on-fire reaction of the American Left to the electoral rejection of the pantsuit woman in favor of the guy with the world’s biggest combover. Since then, more hilarity has ensued.

kabukikWe have the political Kabuki of Jill Stein, hitherto a virtual political unknown non-entity, trying to force vote recounts in three (as of this writing) states. Of course, she has a better chance of winning the Powerball lottery than actually reversing the results in any of those states, but that doesn’t really matter. She’s now catapulted herself from complete obscurity and irrelevance to being nationally known, not to mention being in control of millions of dollars not previously available to her. Think that might come in handy in… oh, say… four years, when her presidential aspirations are as sure to resurface as a dolphin gulping for air?

You tell me.

Then, of course, we have the complete and utter outrage that Miss Pantsuit can win a couple million more popular votes than Mr. Combover but still lose the actual election, all due to the “arcane, unnecessary and outdated” institution of the Electoral College (EC). Naturally, this leads to bleats for the elimination of the EC altogether.

Wake up time, snowflakes. The EC isn’t going anywhere, since it would take an amendment to the Constitution to do that.

But here’s where the so-called “logic” of the Dem/socialists falls to pieces. Our national election is just like the baseball World Series, in that the election consists of 50 individualscoreboard contests for electoral delegates just as the World Series consists of seven individual games. The outcome is based on who wins the most of those individual contests (in the election) or games (in the Series), not the cumulative total of home runs… or votes. That team with the most states – or won games – wins the election or the Series.

There’s another huge gap in their “logic”. There’s a built-in assumption that if the election were a straight plebiscite the vote totals would be the same as they are under our present system. But here’s a dose of reality. I know of several personal acquaintances – and I’m sure they’re typical of many based on simple human nature – who are conservatives and/or Republicans, who simply never vote for President because they know that this state’s 55 EC delegates are going to the Dems no matter what. They consider their votes a waste of time, or an opportunity to make some other “statement”, a la the NeverTrumpers.

But if those people had known their votes would actually have a direct impact on the actual outcome of the election, I have no doubt they’d have showed up in droves to vote, not for Trump, but against Clinton.

As of now Clinton’s popular margin is around two million more votes than Trump, but I’d bet big money that if there weren’t an EC he’d have gained around a million votes out of California ALONE. Throw in New York, Massachusetts, Washington state, and Illinois and he’d have cleaned her clock in the popular vote, too.

I often say that in order to be a leftist you have to be able to ignore five things: facts, logic, history, human nature, and the Constitution. If you can ignore those five things you, too, can be a practicing leftist.

Well, take notice of how this latest umbrage over the EC covers all those bases with the possible exception of history. A perfect fit!

 

 

©Brian Baker 2016

(Also published today in a slightly edited version in my local newspaper, The Signal)

 

Grow Up, Snowflakes!

Internet “memes” are images or pictures that have some kind of ironic or caustic message in words printed over them. There’s a very funny one going around that shows an image ofrepublicanriotmeme an empty city boulevard. On the top are the words “Picture of riots when Obama won 2008 & 2012”.

That really sums up pretty well where we are at this point in our political history. In the days following the election we’ve all been inundated with news reports and scenes of leftists running around and rioting, burning stuff down, screaming at cops and other citizens, blocking freeways and roads, and just generally making pests and fools of themselves. Spoiled brats throwing a collective tantrum because Clinton lost the election.

They’ve even added to the comedic element by coming up with some absolutely wild-eyed, tin-foil hat schemes, like California seceding from the rest of the country, an idea with a pretty poor chance of actually happening, as the Confederacy learned during the Civil War, and which these snowflakes would actually know if they ever bothered to learn any actual history. A degree in ethnic basket weaving doesn’t really cut it in formulating political action plans.

Then there’s the idea that somehow, enough state electors sent to the Electoral College (EC) – which officially determines the election outcome – will change their votes to completely overturn the results of the election, and either A) make Clinton President, or B) make the election a tie and prevent Trump from being certified. My guess is that this idea apparently comes straight out of some dude’s now-legal bong pipe, because it doesn’t even make any sense. If the electors vote a tie, it goes to the House of Representatives to make the decision, and they’re controlled by the GOP. If the electors tried to throw the election to Clinton, these snowflakes would find out what a REAL revolt looks like. So that idea’s going nowhere.

There’s also the idea, even proposed by Pelosi in her infinite wisdom, of doing away with the EC altogether, through some sort of legislation. Unfortunately for Nancy the Red, doing away with the EC requires a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.

Now, to a certain extent I understand their angst. For the last eight years, under the uber-community organizer in the White House – Obama – they’ve gotten used to running roughshod over the actual rights of everyday citizens – the Joe Sixpacks – and seeing their radical agenda implemented at their every whim. So the realization that a new day has dawned, and there’s a new sheriff in town, must be alarming, to say the least. And a group which has gotten used to demanding “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” must find this change disturbing, I’m pretty sure.

Well, snowflakes, there’s a life lesson in this for you. If you push old Joe too far, he’s going to push back. And that’s exactly what we saw in this election, much to the surprise of you, the Dem/socialist party as a whole, and even the Establishment GOP. Plus it certainly didn’t help that you chose to run an unindicted felon and career corruptocrat as your nominee.kids-vegetable-3

So the party’s over, snowflakes. You can still have a seat at the table, but you no longer OWN the table. The Sixpacks are there, too. And if you want to stay for dinner, you’ll have to learn how to behave yourselves.

 

 

©Brian Baker 2016

(Also published today as a column in my local newspaper The Signal)

Is There A Lesson In Trump’s Win?

trump5

 

Well, the election’s over, and now we know who’s the clear and indisputable loser: Clinton, and the country dodged a major bullet.

But I’m more interested in considering what dynamic was in play that propelled a candidate like Trump to win the GOP nomination at all, and ultimately the election.

For about twenty-five years, since the administration of Papa Bush, the Establishment GOP has continually drifted leftward, all the while trying subtly to redefine “conservatism” while claiming to support the traditional principles represented by the official party planks (or positions). This manifests itself each election season when the candidates on the stump promise to aggressively fight for those principles, but once elected fail to follow through on those campaign promises, instead offering tepid resistance to Dem/socialist programs, and half-hearted efforts to further a conservative agenda, when they’re not offering their own “progressive” programs, such as Bush 2’s “No Child Left Behind”, Scrips for Seniors, and amnesty for illegal aliens; McCain’s amnesty support and lack of Second Amendment support; the despised Common Core; as well as other examples.

This is also illustrated by considering their presidential candidates post-Bush 1: Dole, Bush 2, McCain, and Romney. Not one of them is a bona fide conservative. It’s also underscored by their congressional leadership: Boehner (until recently) in the House and McConnell in the Senate.

Predictably, as this drift has become more and more obvious, the traditional “base” of the GOP has become ever more disenchanted and disaffected. We saw this manifest itself with the rise of the Tea Party, a phenomenon to which the Establishment GOP reacted badly,2008-tea-party_004 with scorn and disdain instead of contemplating it as a symptom of organic and systemic problems. The Establishment elites simply knew better; the Tea Party was a disorganized bunch of uneducated yahoos who didn’t know what was good for them; and they could be minimized and ignored with impunity. All the while the percentage of the electorate registered as Republicans continued to fall while the percentage registered as Independent continued to rise in virtually direct proportion, a crystal clear bellwether to anyone actually paying attention.

Unfortunately for the Establishment GOP, they weren’t paying attention.

And this time around, the pressure in the boiler had built up so much that it exploded. One man put himself forward as the anti-everything: anti-Establishment GOP; anti-liberal; anti-illegal alien; anti-mainstream media; anti-gun control; anti-Big Government… all those hot-button issues that the “uneducated yahoos” the Establishment GOP so despised found so important. Further, he didn’t talk down to those “yahoos”. He COURTED them! He catered to them. He spoke THEIR language!

And how did the Establishment GOP react to that? By trying to rally around and promote more of their same, tired old offerings: Jebbie!!! and Kasich, “moderate” drones. What about the actual conservatives in the race, Cruz and Rubio? Well the Establishment hated them almost as much as Trump, and didn’t have any qualms about making that clear.

So when the dust finally settled, and Trump was the official nominee, did the party regulars and the rest of the Establishment GOP rally around their candidate and do all they could to help him succeed? Far from it. In acts of astonishing perfidy, not only did they abandon supporting him, but many of them – yes, I’m looking at you, Bushes – actually made a point of supporting his opponent, the despicable Clinton, an act of betrayal that will be long remembered.

That perfidy actually goes to the heart of the problem: that the Establishment GOP, at least at the national level, suffers from an elitism – “Beltway-itis” – that’s made them blind to the reality of what they need to do to regain and maintain their viability as a truly k-street“national” party. They inherently disdain the Joe Sixpacks that make up their natural base. They apparently prefer acceptance at K Street social functions over getting down in the mud with the people they absolutely need if they want to succeed.

Trump was the natural result of that disease. He was the revolt the GOP has long had coming, and to which it was willfully blind. And his success, and ultimate election to the office of President, IN SPITE of the Establishment GOP, should make them step back and take a long and hard look at how they want to approach the political arena as the country moves into the future.

The question now is: will they actually learn something from this?

 

©Brian Baker 2016

 

(Also published today in  The Signal)

Three Men in a Small Boat

A Modern Parable

Three men are in a small boat far from shore. The boat is being circled by hungry sharks boatwhen it suddenly springs a leak. Two of the men start desperately trying to fix the leak and bail out the boat, but the third man starts examining the tools, and complaining about the quality of the bucket.

That’s pretty much where we find ourselves in this election cycle.

There are two lousy candidates running for President (and two minor candidates who are a complete waste of time and attention as they’re an irrelevant sideshow). One of those two is going to be elected President. That person will be deciding who to nominate to replace Scalia on the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), possibly THE most important decision a President can make, because the effect of that decision can last for decades. That President will most likely be appointing one, and possibly two, more within a pretty short period.

Trump has promised to replace Scalia with a nominee of like kind, and has released a list of very appealing candidates. Clinton has very publicly stated that she thinks the Citizens United (First Amendment) and Heller (Second Amendment) rulings should be reversed.

That issue alone makes the choice a very easy one. One candidate will do his best to nominate SCOTUS Justices who will work to preserve our constitutional rights; the other will try her hardest to sink those same rights.

It’s an easy choice for any conservative to make. As repulsive as Trump is, Clinton is worse by orders of magnitude. And we have a ship of state to save!

Oh, but wait…!

The NeverTrump people are much more concerned with preserving their own conservative “purity”, and won’t vote for Trump. The quality of the bucket… or candidate… is belowboat2 their standard of acceptability. They absolutely REFUSE to compromise their “integrity” by deigning to use such low-quality tools. For them, it’s nobler to let the damned boat… or country… sink than to soil their hands with such demeaning material.

They fail to recognize, or accept, that when the boat goes down those hungry sharks are going to gobble them up right along with the guys who tried desperately to keep the boat afloat.

Because the sharks don’t care.

©Brian Baker 2016

 

(Also published today in my local newspaper, The Signal)