A Field of Rakes

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pulled the trigger and announced the start of an “impeachment inquiry” targeted at President Donald Trump. I’m not really sure what exactly an “impeachment inquiry” actually is. In fact, as of my writing this, apparently no one else is, either. As far as I can guess, it seems to be just sticking a name to something the Dem/socialists have already been doing, from pretty much the day Trump was sworn in.

This may be Pelosi’s method of trying to quell the discord within her own ranks, particularly from the ultra-radical element as personified by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her “posse”.

As an aside, I have to note that just a very few years ago Pelosi was the face of radical extremism in the Dem/socialist party; now she’s the “voice of reason”? Yet another illustration of how that party has lurched so far to the left that they’re falling off the edge of the map, and has become unrecognizable.

Of course, all this furor of the last two and a half years is rooted in the leftists’ refusal to accept the fact that Trump legitimately won the 2016 election. They’re convinced he somehow “stole” that win from their sainted Hilary, and they’ve been flailing ever since trying to, basically, reverse that outcome. For over two years they were convinced that the Mueller investigation was the sound of the cavalry bugles just over the hill riding to their rescue only to learn it was really the mournful notes of the sad trombone.

I have to scratch my head and wonder how they think this ends well for them, because I can’t think of any way it does.

If the House votes to impeach Trump it will be meaningless because there’s just no way he’ll be convicted in the Senate and removed from office. That requires a 2/3 vote for conviction in that chamber. The votes simply aren’t there.

Even if that were somehow to miraculously happen, Saint Hilary still won’t be President; Mike Pence will be. He’s the Vice-President. Hilary’s nobody, the political equivalent of three-day-old sushi, and she’s never again coming even within sniffing distance of the Oval Office.

If Pence assumes the office, the leftists will look back on the Trump era with nostalgia, as Pence’s conservative credentials are pretty much impeccable, and his life is so squeaky-clean that he’ll be unassailable on that front.

So what’s the goal of this “impeachment inquiry” if actual impeachment isn’t going to succeed? Is it to provide a fig leaf of legitimacy for the Dem/socialists to continue their endless thrashing around in trying to besmirch and delegitimize Trump, at least until the next election?

I suspect that’s the case, and if so I believe that they’re not just stepping on a rake, but doing a jig in a field of rakes.

I believe the leftists have overplayed their hand, and pushed this mess to the point of becoming farce. Obviously, there’s no way they can portray themselves as the “loyal opposition”, the traditional position of the party out of power, since there’s nothing at all “loyal” about refusing to accept the legitimate outcome of an election.

Though this kabuki no doubt plays well to their radicalized political base, I think most normal people have become bored and inured to it, particularly in light of the economic boon that’s taken place over the last couple of years.

In fact, according to a Quinnipiac poll released on 25 September (https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3641) “… only 37 percent of voters say that President Trump should be impeached and removed from office, while 57 percent say no, he should not be impeached.”

Think about that. After over two years of their endless shenanigans the Dem/socialists have convinced a little over a third of the electorate that Trump should be impeached, with the remainder either against impeachment or not caring enough about the issue to even have an opinion. Further, my guess is that the third who do want to impeach him have wanted that from election night. I doubt the leftists have moved the needle a single iota in all this time.

If they’ve been hoping to gin up a groundswell of outrage leading to Trump’s repudiation by the populace, I’d say that effort has been a pretty epic failure.

I think that if they continue down this impeachment highway they’re in for a very big and unpleasant surprise. The American people have only a limited appetite for base political opportunism, especially when it’s unfounded and perceived as “unfair”. The leftists have now painted themselves as being extremists, not only with their endless persecution of Trump, but also in light of their obsession with Justice Kavanaugh – more impeachment talk – as well as the clown car of radical leftist candidates they’re fielding for the presidency itself.

I doubt this ends well for them come November 2020. The American people have a tendency to rally behind those they see as being unfairly and baselessly persecuted, which is exactly the perception the Dem/socialists are fostering.

As I said, they’re dancing the jig in a field of rakes.

 

 

©Brian Baker 2019

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

 

Advertisements

“Minority Report”: When Movies Come True

From the Bill of Rights:

“Amendment V
No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

“Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

 

In 2002, 20th Century Fox and DreamWorks released the Tom Cruise starrer “Minority Report”, which was based on a novella by Philip K. Dick (who’s turning out to be almost as prescient as Orwell).

The story takes place in the near future, the basic premise being that three mutant humans, known as “precogs”, have the power of precognition (foreseeing the future) when working together in concert, which gives them the ability to see murders take place before they actually happen. Based on their visions, the police have the authority to get to the scenes of the crimes and arrest the murderers before they have the chance to actually kill their victims, thereby not only being able to prosecute and imprison the offenders, but also saving the lives of the victims.

But there’s a fly in the ointment. It turns out that very occasionally a crime is foreseen for which one of the precogs sees a differing vision, that vision being the titular “minority report”, and the administrator (and inventor) of the program has kept this fact secret, as it might endanger the validity of any resulting prosecutions of the “future crimes”, and therefore the existence of his bureau. And, in fact, it turns out that innocent people have been snared by this program.

Substitute “red flag laws” for “precognition program” and we bring the plot elements of a dystopian-future movie to our current political discussions.

Red flag laws would allow the authorities to confiscate the guns owned by a person if that person is accused by someone else – and there’s a pretty broad range of acceptable accusers (real-world “precogs”) depending on the jurisdiction – of possibly being a danger to themselves or others. Based on the accusation a hearing takes place – of which the accused isn’t even notified, let alone allowed to attend and defend themselves – after which the authorities can carry out the confiscation.

This is exactly the process that takes place in the movie.

I see all kinds of problems with these laws. To begin with, the accused is being deprived of his gun rights and property (the guns) without being convicted of any crime, nor being medically diagnosed as being psychologically unsound, in clear violation of the Fifth Amendment requirement for due process.

A hearing or other legal mechanism is taking place, in secret, without the accused even being notified or allowed to attend and defend himself, in clear violation of the Sixth Amendment.

Only after his guns have been confiscated does the accused get an opportunity – at some future date which might be months down the road – to appear before some form of tribunal to make his case in defense of his rights, at which point he has to prove his innocence of the accusation, a very clear violation of the presumption of innocence upon which our criminal justice system is allegedly founded.

That raises the question of how one proves that they’re innocent of a crime they haven’t even committed, and prove that they’ll never do what others have said they “might” do. This is all very Kafkaesque.

Notice that these laws aren’t even aimed at acts that people will surely commit; only acts they might commit. I can’t think of anything that’s more speculative than that. Apparently it’s crystal ball time.

Where does this kind of thing lead? Did you ever drink too much at a party? Well, you might commit a DUI at some point in the future, so maybe we should revoke your drivers license until you can prove you won’t ever drive under the influence. Maybe take your car away just to “be safe”.

Why not? More people are killed in car accidents than are murdered by gunfire.

The reality is that anybody can accuse any other person of anything. That’s the principle reason why our judicial process requires actual proof, and the accused enjoys the presumption of being actually innocent absent that actual proof. Red flag laws turn that premise onto its head.

Further, there’s absolutely nothing that prevents people from maliciously manipulating the system with false accusations, based on a host of reasons: personal or political enmity, divorce disputes, feuding neighbors, or even simple anti-gun hysteria, just to name a few.

This entire red flag bandwagon is leading to some very bad law. It’s a case of a movie – “Minority Report” – coming true.

 

©Brian Baker 2019

(Also published today in The Signal)

The Ten Dollar Bill

 

Take a ten dollar bill out of your wallet or purse. Take a look at it. What’s it worth?

“Obviously, ten dollars, Brian”, you’re thinking.

Maybe.

The actual intrinsic value of any object is the cost of its production and/or its rarity. Gold, for example, derives its value from its rarity. But that ten dollar bill isn’t rare at all and is nothing more than a small piece of rag paper and a smidgen of ink, less than a penny’s worth of material. So its intrinsic value is also less than a penny.

But it does have “worth”, a value we as a society agree on as to what it represents. That could be a specific quantity of something that has intrinsic value, such as a rare metal. We saw this when this country was on the gold standard, at which time that ten dollars represented about 1/3 ounce of refined gold metal. You could take the bill to a bank and exchange it for the appropriate amount of the metal.

Once the dollar was delinked from gold, its worth became a much more fluid property subject to the fluctuations of governmental policies. The only physical limit to the production of more ten dollar bills is the availability of ink and rag paper, and since there’s no shortage of either the government can crank those bills out in unlimited quantities should it so deem.

But creating physical ten dollar bills doesn’t create more actual “worth”. In fact, the opposite can take place.

Our current ten dollar bill’s actual worth is based on its buying power. How much of a person’s labor or the physical goods they produce – through agriculture, manufacture, or intellectual creation – does societal consensus allow that ten dollar bill to purchase?

If I raise cattle, John makes cloth and you sell gasoline, how do John and I pay you for the gasoline you sell us? Do you have to accept some amount of cows and bolts of cloth, as well as all the other disparate products and services people produce, to sell your product? The ten dollar bill is the method used to assign a universally accepted value to facilitate the exchange for transactions, replacing the need for actual barter.

As our country’s economic base – our ability to produce goods and services – has increased our supply of ten dollar bills has also increased to make those transactions possible. In a perfectly balanced system there will always be just enough ten dollar bills available to accurately reflect the relative value of each product or service.

If our economic base shrinks, it’s also important to remove some of those ten dollar bills from circulation to maintain balance and currency value. But the real problem arises when the government – which doesn’t actually create anything of value itself (government is a “consumer”, not a “producer”) – turns on the printing press and cranks out a lot of ten dollar bills that don’t reflect any increase in societal productivity. Those “excess” ten dollar bills flood the market, and since they don’t reflect an increase in societal productivity, they dilute the actual value of the ten dollar bills that are already in circulation.

This is what is meant by “inflation”, which is a decrease in the buying power of money. The ten dollar bill buys less.

In fact, graphic examples abound of what happens when governments turn on the printing presses with abandon. In a few short years Venezuela went from being the most prosperous nation in South America to an economic wasteland, its 2018 rate of inflation being an incredible 929,789%. Its money is essentially worthless. In 2008 the inflation rate in Zimbabwe was 250,000,000%. Following World War I the inflation rate in Germany hit 344% per month!

Which brings us to the current Democrat party presidential primary. The current gaggle of candidates seems to be in a race to see how much “free” stuff they can offer to the electorate (pretty much legal bribery, in my opinion). The list includes “Medicare for All”, including illegal aliens; eliminating private health insurance; open borders; “free” college; writing off current student loan debts; “guaranteed monthly income” of $500 – $1000 per month depending on the candidate; “free” universal daycare and pre-K, the “Green New Deal”; and a plethora of smaller programs too numerous to get into.

How do they propose to pay for this largesse? It pretty much boils down to “tax the rich”. Sadly for them, the reality is that even a complete confiscation of everything “the rich” own won’t come close to paying for this cornucopia of “free” goodies. Their only alternative will be turning on the printing presses, and cranking out more and more of those ten dollar bills.

Ultimately, you’ll need a barrel full of ten dollar bills just to buy a gallon of milk… IF there’s even any milk on the shelves.

If they win we’ll get to find out personally what it’s like to live in Venezuela. Is that what you want?

 

©Brian Baker 2019

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

TDS and the Border Wall

I must applaud Gary Horton’s column of 26 December, “Border Wall Shutdown Is a Bad Gift for Christmas”. It’s a glorious illustration of TDS: Trump Derangement Syndrome.

When Dem/socialist Obama was President and the Republican-controlled Congress blocked his proposals, leading to government shutdowns, the leftists bellowed that it was the Republicans who were at fault for being obstructionist.

Now that Republican President Trump’s border wall proposal is being blocked in the Senate by Dem/socialists, leading to a government shutdown, to those with TDS it’s still magically the Republican’s (Trump’s) fault.

If Trump were to announce he was on the verge of finding a cure for cancer Horton and his cohorts would demand he stop his “war on cancer”, their TDS is so bad.

As to the government “shutdown” itself… Meh. It’s the boogeyman doll the Dem/socialists like to wave around every time they don’t get their way when they throw a tantrum. I mean, really… who cares?

Have you noticed any effect at all on your own life? Some government workers are going to be having a paid-for-later vacation. A few parks may be shut down for a while, in the middle of winter, not exactly the big tourism season anyway. Big whoop.

The fact is that the border wall was Trump’s signature campaign issue, and he’s finally thrown down the gauntlet. There’s absolutely no doubt that a big part of the blame lies with Paul Ryan and his incompetent Speakership in the House while the Repubs had control until they lost it in the recent mid-term election. Ryan’s now gone; good riddance.

But make no mistake. This particular shutdown lies squarely in the laps of Pelosi and Schumer. They’re the ones leading the charge against funding the wall, all while trying to throw the blame off for their own actions onto Trump.

Not only was the wall Trump’s main issue, but it’s also an effective method of border control. I know the left likes to decry that reality, but all one has to do is look at Israel to see how effective a wall is to control a border.

This is an issue that’s worth going to the mats for. I hope Trump sticks to his guns.

 

 

©Brian Baker 2018

 

(Also published today in The Signal)

Judicial Insanity

In what is quickly and disgustingly becoming a new norm, yet another low-level federal judge has issued a national injunction against one of Trump’s policies. In this case I’m referring to U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar’s action barring Trump’s plan to require those seeking asylum to do so at a regular port of entry.

Per the Constitution, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is a branch of the government that is CO-EQUAL with the President, not superior. Certainly, no inferior court, such as one at the District level, has status or authority equal to SCOTUS. Therefore I see no constitutional reason why the President, in this case Trump, is bound by any holding of any Court other than SCOTUS.

Secondly, this phenomenon of District courts issuing rulings with national effect is completely new. The only court with national jurisdiction is SCOTUS. Lower courts have jurisdiction within defined geographical boundaries, and their rulings only apply WITHIN those jurisdictional boundaries. Each District covers certain defined areas and each Circuit is comprised of several Districts. The Circuit assures uniformity of the law within its own boundaries by ruling on the conformity and propriety of rulings of the Districts within its jurisdiction.

From there one of SCOTUS’s main functions is to settle conflicts between the rulings of the various Circuits in order to assure uniformity of the application of law throughout the nation.

With that in mind, barring a SCOTUS ruling, I maintain that Trump – or any President – can tell any lower court judge to stick it where the sun never shines.

In fact, I have to stress that even SCOTUS is only co-equal to the President, not superior. A President doesn’t even have to obey a SCOTUS ruling. As a matter of further fact, we have an example of one President who refused to do so.

In the case of Worcester v. Georgia SCOTUS handed down a ruling that Andrew Jackson chose to completely ignore. Though this resulted in the Trail of Tears tragedy, it did illustrate the principle that SCOTUS doesn’t have authority superior to the President.

The bottom line is that Trump, or any President, can tell a court to pound sand. Of course, there could be political consequences if that court is SCOTUS. It could end up being a “constitutional crisis”. It would certainly be a constitutional conflict. But it may be one worth having, as the courts seem to have lost all sense of their rightful place in the scheme of things.

©Brian Baker 2018

(Also published on 27 November 2018 in my local newspaper, The Signal)

The Kabuki Starts in Three… Two… One…

It was an interesting and emotional mid-term election, and the results were pretty much in conformance with historical norms: the out-of-power party – in this case the Dem/socialists – took control of the House, and the party in power – this time the GOP – retained control of the Senate.

The Dem/socialists eked out enough seats in the House to win a slim majority, but sadly for them it was at the expense of “moderates” who were more likely to “cross the aisle” to find compromise with them than those GOPers who remain. In the Senate they actually lost seats, widening the gap and ceding even more power to the GOP and Mitch McConnell, as well as the newly-energized Lindsay Graham.

In other words, the “Blue Wave” that was expected turned pretty much into a trickle.

The wild-eyed Sturm und Drang we’ve seen coming from the left will now be institutionalized. Pelosi unleashed! Maxine Waters on the prowl! Why not?

To get any proposed legislation actually enacted into law will mean it will have to make it through the Senate and past Trump’s potential veto. But that kind of compromise and moderation isn’t the face the Dem/socialists put on their campaign. This is the party of the “#Resistance”! This is payback for defeating Ms. Pant Suit in 2016! It’s time to get even!

That’s why I think we’re in for a couple of years that promise to be highly entertaining; in fact, I think it will be a spectacle.

Much of Pelosi’s House contingent is made up of hardcore zealots who will consider their new majority as being the sign of a mandate to advance their radical agenda. So I think there’s a real chance we’ll see proposals for much more draconian gun control, universal “free” healthcare and education, and a repeal of the recent tax cuts, along with proposals to actually increase taxes.

Now that they’re no longer facing an electorate that might react adversely to such antics – at least for the next two years – the extreme fringe nuts – yes, Maxine, I’m looking at you – will push hard for “investigations” and impeachments; certainly of Trump, and maybe even others, such as the recently-seated Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Of course, the political reality is that none of these antics are going to actually produce any tangible results. The Senate and the veto, again. But think of the theater of it all! Great political Kabuki!

Pelosi’s problem is compounded by the fact that she probably doesn’t want the House to end up looking like an impotent joke. So she’s faced with a real tightrope walk. How does she get legislation proposed and enacted into law while at the same time appeasing the far-left base that gave her party the House, all while facing a Senate and President who vehemently oppose the agenda of that base?

What a predicament!

Meanwhile, Trump will be calling her and her party out as being obstructionist – the “party of ‘No’” – as they try to block his agenda. Trump is also a president who isn’t afraid of government shutdowns, as he’s already demonstrated. We’re not talking about a Bush here. This is The Donald.

The upshot is that I think this actually paves the way for Trump to enjoy a casual cruise to re-election in 2020.

He’s a master at ridiculing and belittling his opposition. Like it or not, he does it masterfully, and Pelosi and Company are going to give him plenty of ammunition.

If Pelosi’s House actually does impeach him – which will be a futile gesture since conviction and removal from office will die in the Senate – it will be viewed as the political stunt it is and redound to Trump’s benefit.

Mueller’s eternal joke of an “investigation” will be revealed as the waste of time and money it was, and will be over, gone, and forgotten.

All the while Trump and McConnell will be ushering judicial and other presidential appointments through the Senate confirmation process, the same process that brought us Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, among many others.

The Dem/socialists don’t even have a viable presidential candidate, at least as of now. Who are they going to run? “Lie-A-Watha” Elizabeth Warren? Cory “Spartacus” Booker? “Lunchbucket” Joe Biden?

I have to say, I’m kind of looking forward to the next couple of years. It looks to me like a lot of good material to write about.

Let’s raise the curtain! It’s show time!

 

 

©Brian Baker 2018

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

A Conservative Guide to Voting in Santa Clarita (and Commiefornia)

I’ve said it before, right in these pages: we’re in the midst of a civil war in this country every bit as profound and fundamental as the one that took place in the 1860s. So far it’s been pretty bloodless, but make no mistake. We’re in a battle for the very soul of this nation.

In the two years since Donald Trump put an end to Hillary Clinton’s “unstoppable” ascendancy to the Oval Office the Dem/socialists have cranked their outrage meter all the way up to eleven, culminating in the outrageous and despicable attempt at character assassination targeted against Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation process as a Supreme Court justice.

Fortunately, that attack failed and Kavanaugh has been seated. But that battle may well not be over. Many of the Dem/socialists’ leading voices – luminaries such as Nancy “The Red” Pelosi, Cory “Spartacus” Booker, and Maxine “Muddy” Waters, among others – have intimated, if not outright promised, that they will explore the possibility of impeachment, not only of Kavanaugh, but Trump himself, too, if they manage to take over control of the House of Representatives.

It doesn’t matter to the unhinged left that there aren’t any “high crimes and misdemeanors” upon which to hang an impeachment charge, nor that removal from office requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate, a level impossible to attain. This is all political kabuki, theatrical melodrama designed to impede the political process while chomping from a bowl of sour grapes.

We need to put an end to this right now.

The first step is to make sure that Katie Hill doesn’t win election to the House of Representatives. She’s already made her position clear on Kavanaugh, calling him a “serial predator” in a tweet (https://twitter.com/KatieHill4CA/status/1045009222918799361). As I discussed in my September 19th column (“A Lynching in the Senate”) there was no actual evidence to support the outrageous accusations, but that evidently didn’t mean anything to Hill. Is that the mindset we want to see in the person representing us in the US House of Representatives? Guilt and personal destruction by unsupported accusation? Do we want to send her to Washington so she can hop on the impeachment bandwagon?

Throw in the nature of the policies she supports – gun control, government-run healthcare (which will destroy both healthcare and the economy), amnesty – and you have a hard-left activist who I believe doesn’t represent the values of our community.

Let’s re-elect Steve Knight.

We have our work cut out for us at the state level, too. If and when the Sacramento socialists get a super-majority, bad things will happen. You think the gas and car registration tax hike was bad? Well, buckle up if they get even more power!

To that end, it’s a big “NO” on Christy Smith and a “Yes!” for Dante Acosta. For those of us in the north part of the SCV, Tom Lackey gets the nod over Steve Fox.

The race for Governor is pretty much a no-brainer. It’s interesting how, in his media ads, Gavin Newsome tries to come across as reasonable and moderate. All you have to do is look at his tenure as Mayor of San Francisco to see the real face behind the mask. John Cox is the guy to vote for.

Leftist extraordinaire Xavier Becerra is being challenged by Steven Bailey for the post of state Attorney-General. This is an often-overlooked position in people’s election thinking, but it really is quite important. Let’s support Bailey.

At the local level, I’ve previously mentioned that we have a group of radical leftist activists who have “endorsed” certain candidates for some of the offices on the ballot. To me, that’s a list of candidates to avoid. Here they are:

City Council: Haddock, Trautman, and Logan Smith. There are 12 other candidates from which you can choose, including my friend Jason Gibbs.

Saugus Union School District: Barlavi, Arrowsmith, and Chris Trunkey.

Hart Union School District: Donna Robert and Kelly Trunkey.

You may have noticed I didn’t mention the race for US Senate. Feinstein versus De Leon. Well, it reminds me of a movie: “Dumb and Dumber”. I’m sitting that one out.

I’m not a member of any political party, so, as a conservative “independent”, those are my recommendations for the upcoming elections.

Vote as if your kids’ futures depend on it. Because they do.

 

 

©Brian Baker 2018

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

A Lynching in the Senate

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” –

Lavrenti Behria, head of Stalin’s secret police.

 

There’s a reason why legal proceedings, both civil and criminal (with a very few exceptions such as for murder), are subject to statutes of limitations, meaning that such court proceedings must be initiated within a prescribed and limited time frame.

The reason is because as time passes, evidence disappears or is no longer attainable; people’s memories of events fade and become unreliable; witnesses move away, becoming impossible to find, or they simply die off.

Further, in our legal system the burden of proving the offense, criminal or civil, lies with the accuser—the prosecutor or plaintiff. The defendant doesn’t have to prove his innocence; he enjoys a presumption of legal innocence that must be overcome.

But we seem to have entered an era that proves why there’s an actual need for statutes of limitations. This is an era of hysterical accusation, as typified by the #MeToo movement, in which any allegation of impropriety at any time in a person’s past has the potential of destroying that person’s life without benefit of the protections of any legal proceeding at all. It’s mob-sanctioned character assassination and personal destruction.

This is reminiscent of the Salem Witch Trials, in which completely fabricated and fantastical accusations by hysterical teenagers was enough to condemn women to death unless they could prove their innocence of the accusations, an impossibility. Basically, a lynch mob.

We saw something similar in the 1980s when a completely unfounded hysteria swept the nation about children in preschools being subjected to satanic rituals, including human sacrifices, all of which led to the infamous McMartin Pre-School trials, in which the defendants were ultimately exonerated and the nature of the hysteria finally understood.

The latest iteration of this phenomenon is Senator Dianne Feinstein’s incredibly cynical and despicable act of accusing Judge Brett Kavanaugh of committing the criminal act of sexual assault well over 30 years ago while he was in high school, an accusation she leveled during the last day of the committee hearings concerning his appointment as a Justice to the Supreme Court.

If she knew about this claim for months, as she’s said, why did she wait so long to bring it to light? If this is anything other than a Hail Mary attempt to derail the confirmation process, why didn’t she raise the matter much earlier, when it could have been addressed in an orderly fashion? Why, after examining the “evidence”, did the FBI decide not to pursue the matter?

Why did the alleged “victim” wait literally decades before telling anyone about this assault? Why didn’t she report it to the cops at the time, or at least her parents? She claims Kavanaugh was drunk. How do we know it wasn’t she who was actually drunk, this whole thing being just a figment of her fevered imagination?

Both Kavanagh and his friend – who would be an “accomplice” to this “crime” – have stated that the incident never happened. Why shouldn’t we believe them? How does Kavanaugh prove something didn’t happen over 30 years ago? Why should he have to, since that flies against all the foundational precepts of our justice system? Scores of his high school contemporaries have stated that they don’t believe the accusation, and that it doesn’t conform with his personality. Why should anyone believe the sole accusing “victim” over all the others who have made statements about the matter?

As I said, this is why we have statutes of limitations; so we don’t have a “show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” society.

Think about it. How would you like to wake up one morning and find out that some kid you went to high school with three decades ago has, out of the clear blue sky, falsely accused you of committing a major felony all those years ago? And that to top it off they were making the accusation to local reporters, maybe right here in The Signal for example, so that all your friends and neighbors, relatives and business associates, would have that accusation staring them in the face over their morning coffee.

Well, that’s exactly what happened to Brett Kavanaugh thanks to the shameless manipulations of Feinstein.

This is the closing run of the Dem/socialist clown car that they’ve driven through this whole confirmation process. I thought Kamala Harris and Cory “Spartacus” Booker were absurd, but Feinstein’s managed to take the cake with this.

Remember this when it comes time to vote on November 6th.

 

 

©Brian Baker 2018

 

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

 

A Race in Commiefornia

 

I often say that when it comes to politics the only person I agree with 100% is… me.

I think that Ronald Reagan was the greatest President this country’s had in at least my lifetime – I’ll be seventy in a few months – and even he did things I didn’t agree with.

The same can be said for Steve Knight, our incumbent congressman for the 25th District, who is facing off against Katie Hill, a local Dem/socialist, in this mid-term election cycle.

To give you an example, I think Knight’s off base on his approach to dealing with our illegal alien issue; he’s a bit mushy. He’s not pro-illegal alien, but he’s also not firm in advocating an approach he endorses to address the broader aspects of the issue.

However, on many other issues, notably Second Amendment rights (an issue near and dear to my heart), he’s a hard charger, a true stalwart. He opposes Common Core in our schools; is a strong “law and order” guy (no surprise given his background as a cop); believes in election integrity and promotes it by supporting Voter ID laws and opposing “all-mail-in” ballots; he supported Trump’s tax plan, which has led to the economic boom we’re currently enjoying; has voted to repeal Obamacare; supports our alliance with Israel; and in general has proven himself to be a Representative who actually represents the values that I believe are held by a majority of the residents of this district and the SCV.

On top of that, Knight brings experience to the table. He’s an Army vet, former cop, and served in both the state Assembly and Senate. He’s completing his second term as our congressional Representative, and currently serves on three committees in the House: Small Business; Science, Space and Technology; and Armed Services.

Hill is a whole different ball of wax. She has no voting record to which I could refer, never having served in elective office at any level, so I had to refer to her web site (https://www.katiehillforcongress.com/home) to get any useful information about her. In other words, she’s an utter tyro.

Here’s what I found there: “Katie resides in Agua Dulcé with her husband and animals on a small farm… She openly identifies as bisexual… a new kind of candidate, who will work on behalf of all members of this community… is a proven leader… running for Congress to give a voice to the people of California’s 25th district… a proven track record as an advocate for progressive policies… She will continue to be an energetic progressive leader… healthcare that puts patients before profits and the 21st century infrastructure for a sustainable equal-opportunity economy. Katie is running to be part of a new generation of leaders in a new House majority…”.

A “proven leader” how? A “new kind of candidate” in what way? Why do I need to know she “openly identifies as bisexual”? In what way will she “work on behalf of all members of this community” that’s any different from any other partisan political candidate? How would that even be possible, when the chasm between the Republican and the Dem/socialist is wider than the Grand Canyon? Whichever one wins will be representing the interests of the people who voted for him or her. It’s called “winning” and “losing”. I can’t imagine any “progressive” representing any interest with which I agree. “Progressive” is Orwellian Newspeak for “socialist”.

This is borne out by her positions on certain key issues. She’s for “Medicare for all”, which means government-run healthcare. If you like your doctor, too bad. An absolutely budget-busting idea that promises to destroy our economy and medical system.

She’s anti-gun, touting her support of useless gun bans. She spouts the usual “Income Inequality” rhetoric of socialism and class warfare. She opposes school “privatization”, AKA vouchers. On a wide range of important topics, such as foreign policy, defense, and the military, she’s silent.

But the most important part of her message is that of being “part of a new generation of leaders in a new House majority”.

Ah, yes… that hoped-for “new House majority”. That’s the “new majority” that wants to impeach Trump, and that has as members Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison, among a host of other radical socialists. That’s poised to welcome the latest self-proclaimed Socialist crackpot in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – a woman whose sheer and unabashed ignorance is worthy of a column of its own, complete with laugh track – into its ranks. That wants to roll back the recent tax reform, and return to socialist wealth redistribution.

That’s the “majority” to which Hill wants to contribute and be a part of. Even if she objected to some of their policies – and there’s absolutely nothing on her site that suggests to me that she would – can a young first-term neophyte, with no previous elective experience, be expected to stand up to the likes of Pelosi, Waters or Sanders?

Are you kidding me? Are you ready to hear the words “Speaker Pelosi” again?

And in what way do any of those policies conform to the values of the majority of people in this district and valley?

When I started this column I wrote that I’ve never agreed 100% with any candidate. But I’m here to tell you that the inverse isn’t true. In Hill I believe there’s a candidate with whom I disagree 100%.

How about you? How will you vote this November? I know that I’m going for Steve Knight.

Please join me.

 

©Brian Baker 2018

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

Deplorables: Making America Great Again

Back when Ronald Reagan was President the mainstream press hated him as much as they hate Trump now, and there was a joke that made the rounds that I think is just as applicable today. It goes like this:

If there had been a press corps a couple of thousand years ago like the one we have today, and they covered Jesus like they cover Reagan, the day after He walked on water the headline would have been: “JESUS CAN’T SWIM!!!”

To quote Yogi Berra, it’s déjà vu all over again. In fact, in the age of Trump, I think an updated version of that punch line would read: “JESUS IS AN ANTI-SWIMMER NAZI!!!”

The volume of the hysterical outrage from Dem/socialists and Never-Trumpers is a wonder to behold. Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is in full and marvelous bloom. The added irony is that as their outrage level gets cranked ever higher, Trump’s popularity simply seems to increase in direct response. It looks like we Deplorables just aren’t buying the snake oil. In fact, as of July 26 the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll had Trump’s approval rate at 46%, which is higher than Saint Obama’s numbers at the same point in his presidency.

Now, I have to admit that I had very grave doubts about Trump during the 2016 election cycle. If you’re interested you can go into the Signal archives, or my old blog entries, and read my columns from that time. I was a hardcore Ted Cruz guy. But as Election Day in November came rolling near, and it became clear the choice was a binary one between Trump and Hillary “Whiny” Clinton, I reluctantly threw my support to Trump, since I viewed Whiny as a disaster-in-waiting for the country.

Much to my delight, Trump’s turned out to govern as the single most conservative President since Reagan. Who’da thunk it?

I know, I know… I’m just a Deplorable who “cling(s) to guns or religion” per Saint Barrack; a racist, xenophobic, homophobic, gun-loving, small-government, nativist, greedy, ignorant Nazi. Bummer.

The problem for the TDS crowd is that we Deplorables just don’t care about the things that whip them into such a lather. Did Trump have girlfriends back in the day? Who cares? The guy was a rich guy in show biz. Didn’t they all? I voted for a guy to be President, not saint.

“But, but… Mueller!…” Yeah, what about Mueller? A year and a half of wasted time and taxpayer dollars on an “investigation” that’s wandered very far afield of what it was supposedly investigating; that’s lost any semblance of objectivity (Strzok, Page, McCabe); and has only managed to indict a bunch of Russian internet trolls located halfway around the globe. How utterly underwhelming.

“Treason!” That’s the latest meme from the loony left. They don’t like how he’s carrying out foreign policy, so now they’re accusing him of “treason”. Seriously! Check out the Boston Globe, Chicago Trib, Baltimore Sun, Congressman Ted Lieu, Anderson Cooper on CNN, among many others. Talk about unhinged. This is exactly why normal people can’t take TDSers seriously.

One of the most ironic “treason” accusations came from former CIA Director John Brennan. The irony stems from the fact that in 1976 Brennan voted for Gus Hall for President. Hall was the nominee of the US Communist Party. How this guy ever got a security clearance is beyond me. When I was in Army Intelligence that would have been an immediate disqualifier. Instead, he rose to become CIA Director.

Between that and the Mueller “investigation”, not to mention James Comey’s outright malfeasance with the investigation into Whiny’s home brew email rig, there’s certainly credence to Trump’s complaints about the operations and objectivity of the intelligence apparatus, at least to my mind. The Intel community sure has changed since I was a member.

Trump has a summit with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un? “Terrible” per the TDSers, though Saint Barrack bowing and scraping to every tin pot dictator in sight was a great thing. Trump gets Kim to make concessions? “Meaningless”. What did they expect? That Kim would ask to be annexed as a state?

Trump pressures other NATO members to start hauling their own weight? “Outrageous”, per the TDSers. But guess what? That sounds like a GREAT idea to us Deplorables!

Meanwhile, the economy’s cooking, people are taking home more money, they’re paying less in federal taxes, there are more jobs than applicants, unemployment’s at record lows, the stock market’s at record highs, we’ve pulled out of the Paris Accords “climate change” scam, we’ve had a great new Supreme Court Justice seated in Neil Gorsuch with another terrific nominee in Brett Kavanaugh awaiting confirmation, and we’re really on our way to “Making America Great Again”.

It’s time for the TDSers to grow up and put their big boy pants on. The election’s over. Whiny lost and is never going to be President (thank God). Trump’s not going to be impeached and removed from office.

That’s just the way it is.

 

 

©Brian Baker 2018

(Also published today in The Signal)