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)

 

Advertisements

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)

The Kabuki of Gun Control

 

Kabuki… Kabuki theatre is known for the stylization of its drama and for the elaborate make-up worn by some of its performers… Kabuki is a term used by American political pundits as a synonym for political posturing” – Wikipedia

Another day, another anti-gun screed. Or – as was the case on 29 March – two, when The Signal published a letter by Richard Myers entitled “No fear of guns” and a column by Anthony Breznican entitled “Stop saying that Parkland students are fakes, actors”.

Myers’s letter was a reaction to my column of March 15 (“The Second Amendment and the Militia”) in which I outlined the legal and historical context of gun rights. He didn’t even try to dispute any of the facts in my column, he simply indulged in an emotional outburst echoing the standard anti-gun talking points.

“As for your claim that we need a present day unorganized militia in the event our government becomes tyrannical, I can only say—baloney”, he rants. Well, okay. I’m probably not going to get a flat tire, either, but I still keep a spare in my trunk. Better to have a spare tire – or a gun – and not need it, than to need one and not have it.

Breznican’s column is allegedly a rebuttal of one by Ron Bischof that was published on 22 March as “Talking about school safety”. Breznican writes: “…writer Ron Bischof suggests a conspiracy theory…”.

But in reality Ron does no such thing. What he actually says is: “Isn’t it rational to conclude they’re being orchestrated by media producers and other organizations with political objectives?”

After all, if the news media is truly objective, as Breznican suggests when he writes: “When those individuals don’t wish to be interviewed, it’s important and ethical to respect that. When they actually do want to talk, it’s vital to listen”, then why haven’t the major news media been giving any attention at all to the many Parkland survivors who hold views opposing those being expressed by the kids whose faces are plastered all over the place while screeching for gun confiscation?

That’s not a “conspiracy”. It’s political Kabuki. The fact is that according to a USA TODAY/Ipsos poll taken after the shooting (Link) fewer than half of teens between the ages of 13 and 17 think more gun laws would prevent mass shootings. But we don’t hear much of anything about them.

That’s because the worker bees of the major media are, by a very large margin, living their lives in the left-wing echo chamber. Antipathy to gun rights is in their nature and their culture, so their natural inclination is to seek out and publicize those who agree with, and validate, their own prejudices and agenda. It’s so ingrained that it doesn’t need a “conspiracy”; the script is already well-rehearsed.

Political Kabuki.

As to Breznican’s various other claims about the Supreme Court Heller decision and how Congress should act and all of that, it’s interesting to note that retired (thankfully) Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote an op-ed column published in the 27 March edition of the New York Times in which he calls for the repeal of the Second Amendment.

Though I vehemently oppose such a repeal, and think it has absolutely zero chance of actually happening – just look at any map and tell me where enough states would approve such a thing – I do think his column does something important.

It’s one of the very rare instances when an anti-gunner proposes substantive changes to gun laws in a way that actually conforms to the Constitution. And it puts the lie to the constant refrain of “We support your right to own a gun, BUT…”.

Stevens’s column was Kabuki-free.

 

 

©Brian Baker 2018

 

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

Let’s Hear It For Censorship

I know I’m doing something right when I’ve got leftists setting their hair on fire.

A little over a week ago my local newspaper, The Signal, published a column written by me entitled “Some ideas to address school shootings” in which I took local pol Katie Hill to task for immediately trying to politicize the recent school shooting tragedy in a blatant bid for votes: “I’m running for Congress to put an end to these senseless tragedies.”

Anyone following the development of the story knows that since Hill’s and my columns have run more revelations have come to light, including the fact that there was a cop on scene who did precisely nothing while the shooter was gunning down helpless kids and teachers. He was soon backed up by other sheriff’s deputies who joined him in doing nothing. In fact, the shooter apparently left the school grounds and headed out to a fast-food joint before cops even entered the building.

All of which supported my premise that, at least in this case, the only hope those victims could have had would have been if one of their fellow victims had been armed and able to return fire, robbing the killer of complete control of the battle space, and seizing back the initiative.

The response to my column from local leftists was prompt and energetic, both online and in the published letters. Patrick Comey (“Stop the name calling”) and Roselva Ungar (“Consider censorship”) both took offense at my characterization of the “ethically and morally bankrupt Dem/socialist party”, which makes me wonder where their sanctimonious outrage was when local writers such as Gary Horton and Charles Vignola were characterizing the Republicans as “jihadists” and “blackmailers” when those writers didn’t like certain GOP policy proposals.

Got hypocrisy? The rules are for thee, but not for me?

Further, in her letter Ungar asks The Signal “to consider censoring, or at least limiting, any writer whose language does not adhere to a respectful use of language.” I guess that must only apply to writers with whom Ungar doesn’t agree. Otherwise, everything’s just hunky-dory.

Censorship: the go-to device for wannabe tyrants. If there’s any question as to why I characterize the left as “ethically and morally bankrupt”, here’s yet another illustration for you.

 

©Brian Baker 2018

(Published in the print edition [only] of The Signal on 2 March)

 

 

How Did We Get Here?

I found Maria Gutzeit’s 28 November column “Watching the world burn” (link) to be very interesting and well-written. But I think her wish for a society free of partisan politics, though admirable and well-meant, is at its heart naïve and unrealistic.

The problem, I believe, is that we’re currently engaged in a cultural civil war in this country that’s every bit as profound and fundamental as the one that took place in the 1860s, though so far pretty bloodless. Thank God for that, at least.

Historically, political rancor, and even violence, is nothing new in this country. Elected representatives were known to whack one another on the head with their canes right on the floors of Congress; Burr killed Hamilton in a duel over politics; and, of course, there was the afore-mentioned Civil War itself.

World War II was the event that created a rare period of national unity which lasted well into the post-war era of the ‘50s and early ‘60s, when the world was rebuilding from that war’s destruction. That was the “Leave It To Beaver” era for which so many wax nostalgic, or mock mercilessly, depending on their political inclinations.

That era came to an abrupt and dramatic end with the riots at the 1968 Democrat Party convention in Chicago, which underscored the rise of the counter-culture that rejected the ethos of the later-named “Greatest Generation” – their parents’ generation – in favor of a radicalized vision of what American culture should be.

That counter-culture, firmly rooted in the ideology of collectivist socialism, ironically found its home in the very Democrat party it had so violently rioted against, and in the subsequent almost half-century rose to positions of prominence and power within that party. As a result of their de facto takeover of that party they’ve managed to radically alter its underlying principles to the point that they now reflect much of the agenda of those original radicals who rioted in Chicago.

We see much of its strategy deriving directly from Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”, a primer for the counter-culture of the ‘60s and ‘70s, which is essentially a blueprint for political disruption and manipulation. This is evidenced by class warfare pitting the “haves” against the “have-nots”, and the demonization of the “one-percenters”, as well as the creation, proliferation, and perpetuation of “victim” groups, which then go on to even compete against each other for prioritization, leading to further fragmentation and balkanization of the society and culture.

In such a noxious and confrontational political climate, our national motto, “E Pluribus Unum” – meaning “out of many, one”, a message of unity – has been effectively reversed for all intents and purposes into its mirror-opposite, “out of one, many”.

In her column, Maria writes: “The win will come when we all sit down and acknowledge common goals and work on that without uttering the words ‘democrats’, ‘republicans’ or ‘politics’… Imagine if we focused on electing people to improve and implement good policy, rather than ‘win’ for ‘our side’.”

While I think that’s a very nice thought, I also think it’s about as realistic as a kid’s Christmas wish list as he tells it while sitting on Santa’s lap at the mall. The reality is that “politics” is how we determine public policy in this country, and there’s at least one very sizeable portion of the body politic that seems determined to completely redefine the social and cultural fabric of our society. To destroy it in order to replace it with a system that is completely alien to traditional American ideals and constitutional principles.

In consequence, we see the politicization of almost everything, even sports, which used to be one of the few remaining bastions of political neutrality. Instead, we see the NFL immersed in their “taking a knee” controversy. We see popular media – TV, movies, and even books – showcasing political correctness at the expense of entertainment value. Higher education has become, at many universities, a venue of indoctrination rather than enlightenment.

In this adversarial climate, I believe the wish for reconciliation and cooperation, though well meant, has very little chance of being realized.

 

 

©Brian Baker 2017

(Also published today in The Signal)

Both Political Parties’ Establishments Don’t Get It

Donald Trump’s election to the presidency was as clear a clarion call as there could be that “business as usual” was no longer acceptable to the voters. The GOP Establishment seems to be utterly deaf to the message.

We’ve seen this reality play out from Trump’s first announcement of his candidacy right through to the present day.

During the election primaries, none of his opponents thought he had a slightest chance of actually winning the nomination, an incredulousness shared by the party machine. They mocked and belittled him, refusing to take him seriously. They were utterly stunned when he went on to actually win that primary.

But did that win alert the GOP that something profoundly different was going on this time around? Nope.

Many of Trump’s former opponents refused to endorse his candidacy, a few even threatening to endorse his opponent, Clinton. The GOP’s candidates for other offices continued to run on the promise to “repeal and replace Obamacare” in their own campaigns, repetition of a 7-year-old party campaign theme. But clearly, most of them didn’t take Trump’s campaign seriously, either.

How do we know this? Because when the most shocking and unexpected event took place, and Trump actually won the General Election, nobody was prepared to actually move forward and fulfill the promises they’d campaigned on for many years.

Having secured both chambers of Congress and the White House, was the GOP now prepared with a “shovel ready” plan to actually live up to and fulfill that years-old campaign promise of getting rid of Obamacare?

Not even close. They had absolutely nothing, because, as a party, they’d banked on the idea that Trump had absolutely no chance of actually winning the election.

In scientific parlance, this is what’s called “stupid”.

Compounding the problem, that stupidity continues, with no sign of abating. The “Never-Trumpers” are still in full roar, glorying in their “moral superiority”, reminiscent of Nero fiddling while Rome burned, utterly oblivious to the voices of that plebian mass in fly-over country that elected Trump. Elitist snobbery personified.

On the other side of the aisle, Hillary Clinton’s defeat was sending the same message to the Democrat Party, with the same result: deafness and denial.

When the campaign season opened the Establishment Democrats deemed Clinton the ordained candidate, and no other “mainstream” Democrat even threw their hat into the ring.

And then along came Bernie Sanders, the Democrat equivalent of Trump, an “outsider” who wasn’t even a member of the Democrat Party, having been elected throughout his career in the House and Senate as an “Independent” who only caucused with the Democrats.

To the consternation of the Establishment Democrats, Sanders’s candidacy put the coronation of Clinton in serious jeopardy, to the point that party officials conspired with Clinton campaign people to cheat Sanders out of any chance of winning that party’s nomination. Needless to say, the Sanders supporters were outraged by this when it became publicly known.

Once Clinton had secured the nomination, the DNC and her campaign apparatus evidently felt so confident of her chances of winning, and so scornful of Trump, that they decided to concentrate their campaign on the coastal urban centers and special-interest coalitions that in reality were already in the tank for her, utterly and completely ignoring everyone in “fly-over country”, as well as the masses of people who were ardent and now-outraged Sanders supporters, essentially wasting their time, energy, and resources.

Then the unthinkable happened. Trump actually won.

The result? A Democrat party in complete disarray and dissension, to the point of being in a shambles. A schism over what the meaning of such an unexpected and catastrophic loss means.

The Clintonistas are welded to the idea – really just an excuse – that it was “the Russians” and Comey at fault, unwilling to accept that Clinton was a terrible candidate who ran an incompetent campaign.

The Establishment, with a very few exceptions, can’t seem to decide whether their message to the electorate was too far to the left, not far enough to the left, too married to “corporate” interests, or what.

The very few who seem to get it have said that their party needs to take a serious look at the direction they’ve taken and the policies they’re promoting, and that it could be that the emphasis on social engineering – letting men use the same bathrooms as little girls, amnesty for illegal aliens, and the like – taking priority over bread-and-butter concerns about jobs and the economy may just be a very big mistake. The far-left culture-war policies that play so well in the coastal blue regions and some other major urban areas don’t go over at all well in areas outside of those enclaves.

Unfortunately for the Democrat party, if they want to be relevant on a national scale moving into the future, those voices really are being lost in the wilderness.

I think voters are clearly signaling to their respective parties that the old “Establishment” way of doing business isn’t going to cut it anymore. In the case of the GOP, that means they’ll no longer accept empty campaign promises that aren’t followed up with serious and concerted effort to actually implement the promised policies if elected. For Democrats, it means dropping the obsession with Social Justice and class warfare, and directing attention to matters that are of more concern to average everyday Americans.

Will anyone in either party “Establishment” pay any attention?

I don’t think Trump is the causative agent of any of this. The success of his primary campaign, and Clinton’s failure to beat him in the general election, are merely symptomatic of a greater dissatisfaction in the body politic, and the results of the last election – from primaries to general election – were the overt expression of that exasperation.

What’s truly interesting is how both parties are suffering at the same time from the same kind of malaise and disaffection. How this will play out at the polls is anyone’s guess.

Or in the streets.

 

 

©Brian Baker 2017

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

Waving the White Flag of Surrender

On June 14th, my local Santa Clarita newspaper, The Signal, published a column by Steve Lunetta entitled “In search of elusive compromise”, in which he tries to rationalize his support for government-run healthcare by claiming that “compromises” could be made that would make it more palatable to conservatives.

Early in his column Lunetta rattles his electoral saber:

“Even if the Republican AHCA is signed into law, four years later, if the Democrats control Congress (and current trends say they will), the AHCA will be swept aside for yet another program.”

Back in October “current trends” at the time were solidly showing that the Pantsuit Woman was going to be President. Look how that turned out.

There’s an old joke that goes like this: What’s a camel? It’s a horse built by a committee. The point being that “compromise” isn’t always a solution to an issue. In fact, it’s often vastly overrated, especially when you’re talking about core principles.

What if the Founders had tried to find a “compromise” with King George? Look how well Chamberlain’s “compromise” with Hitler turned out. There’s the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which ended with a little dispute called the Civil War.

The plain fact is that some differences are so fundamental that there’s no compromise possible.

Once again Lunetta’s trying to rationalize his support for socialized medicine. This time he’s taken a couple of the proposals that I and others like me have made – medical tort reform and the removal of state barriers to product sales – and proposed that there be some “compromise” to modify them to fit into the mold of socialized medicine, completely ignoring the fact that those proposals are made to provide a stark alternative to having the government involved in health care at all. That wouldn’t be a compromise on the part of free-market advocates; agreeing to such a proposal would amount to waving the white flag of abject surrender. It would render those proposals moot and meaningless.

On top of all of that, we have the historical record which clearly shows that over the past half century at least, any ground the left gains through “compromise” doesn’t end the debate on an issue. It merely becomes the starting point for their next set of demands. It’s slow suicide by conservatives and Republicans.

The final truth is that what he’s trying to do is very akin to trying to be a little bit pregnant. In reality, you either are or you ain’t. Steve supports government-run healthcare, which is socialized medicine, whether or not he wants to admit it. I, and people like me, don’t. It’s that simple and fundamental.

 

 

©Brian Baker 2017

(Published on 21 June 2017 on my blog and in The Signal)

Impeachment Hysteria Versus Reality

 

Our family is very politically aware (and fortunately for us and family comity, all conservatives), and as everyone with a pulse knows, virtually from Inauguration Day there have been calls for President Trump’s impeachment. The hysteria seems to be reaching a crescendo recently, dominating news coverage, and as a result I received an email the other day from one of the younger members of our clan, a Millennial:

“Hello there!

“What do you think the odds are of Trump getting impeached? That’s all I see in my news feed now!

“Brett R.”

To answer Brett’s question, I think the odds of that are pretty much zero. First of all, you’ve got to understand that the “news” feed is all pretty much just biased – and I mean to a point I’ve never before seen in my lifetime – agenda-driven rubbish.

But to the actual legalities, there has to be actual “cause” for impeachment. Per the Constitution, that means “high crimes or misdemeanors”. So, what actual “crimes” or “misdemeanors” has Trump actually committed? None that I can think of.

Then there’s political reality. Impeachment takes place in the House, and conviction takes place in the Senate and requires a 2/3 vote of the Senators to do so and remove him from office. Both the House and the Senate are controlled by the GOP. So, what are the odds of ANY of that actually happening?

Precedent. Only two sitting Presidents have ever been impeached: Andrew Johnson and “Quick-Zipper Bill” Clinton. Neither was convicted. Johnson’s impeachment was purely politically motivated, based on his Reconstruction policies, and his conviction was one vote shy. Clinton actually had committed a crime – perjury – and yet wasn’t convicted in the Senate. So, particularly in light of Pantsuit Hillary’s federal felonious actions with her email rig and the failure to indict HER, I can’t see any way an actual impeachment takes place.

Another political reality. I think impeaching Trump would actually BENEFIT him. We saw the same dynamic when Billy-Bubba was impeached: his popularity actually increased. I think the same dynamic would inure to Trump. There’s a VERY large percentage of people in this country that are simply fed up with the SOP of how both major parties have been conducting business over the last few decades. Trump’s election is the embodiment of that frustration. Impeaching him… the consequences of that could be beyond imagination.

All these impeachment noises are being made by left-wing radicals spouting moronic sound bites for public consumption; people like Maxine Waters and “Nancy the Red” Pelosi. It’s become Dem/socialist SOP to act like silly, spoiled children. And all the while they’re doing it they’re losing actual political power all across the country with the exception of a few blue coastal states like Commiefornia and Taxachussetts.

I see this as simply political Kabuki from the American socialists. Think about it. If Trump’s impeached and convicted, that doesn’t roll back the election clock and make the Pantsuit Lady President. Mike Pence becomes President! They know that as well as I do. And that would be about the worst thing that could happen to them and their agenda, because he’s as clean as a whistle, and a great conservative. It would absolutely CRUSH their political aspirations. The whole point of this impeachment drivel is to try to keep Trump off balance, and to delegitimize him in order to try to weaken him. An actual impeachment would be a huge strategic error on their part.

Like I said, I think the chances are pretty much zero.

 

 

©Brian Baker 2017

 

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

 

Political Finger-Painting

On April 5th The Signal published a column by Gary Horton entitled “America Has A Complex Complex” which brought a memory to mind for me.

When my daughter was a little girl she’d do finger-paintings for me. She’d sit at the table and smear random colors all over a piece of paper, and then turn to me.

“Look, Daddy”, she’d say proudly. “A sunrise!”

Of course, all I could see was paint smeared randomly all over the page.

That’s what we have with this Horton column: a little kid’s finger-painting of what’s wrong with America. It makes no sense to the person reading it. Only in the mind of the “artist” who created it do any of the shapes or colors coalesce into a meaningful whole, as they’re randomly selected and applied.

Horton’s painting of an “industrial-congressional-complex” makes as much sense as my daughter’s finger-painting of a “sunrise”, meaning none. It’s a very pretty picture, quite colorful, but not at all representative of anything in the real world.

He’s taken disparate elements of our society which he considers flaws or shortcomings in its fabric and tried to tie them together into a neat package of cause and effect. But the fatal mistake in this approach is that it ignores the benefits that derive from that very same system.

We live in a society unique in the world, with freedoms and liberty, guaranteed in our Constitution, that are unparalleled anywhere. We’ve also – whether willingly or not – been forced to assume the mantle of being the defender of those freedoms on a global scale, both for ourselves and our allies.

There are costs, both overt and hidden, that accrue to those kinds of benefits and responsibilities. That’s just the way the world works.

I know Horton, and those like him, have a utopian vision of how they think things should be. I’ve been active in politics for about five decades, and have been debating these issues for all of that time. But utopia doesn’t exist, and never will. That’s just a fact.

Any society with freedoms such as ours is going to be a messy place. Open debate, electoral politics, federalism, equal access of competing interests, free-market economics, free speech, property rights, individual responsibility, open competition… these are all concepts that, when put in practice, will naturally lead to uneven results.

Equality of outcome can only be assured by the imposition of tyranny.

So… which system would you prefer?

 

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

 

Who’s To Blame for the Failure of the Healthcare Reform Bill?

 

 

On March 29th The Signal published a column by Gary Horton entitled “What’s next after health care”.

This absurd column was full of hyperbole and hysteria, with a lot of ad hominem thrashing about thrown in for good measure. A return to his old “style”.

That’s a shame, too, because his last few columns were pretty good. But those were on the topic of Measure H, on which he took an actual “conservative” position, so maybe what we’re seeing here is an illustration of how conservatism is easy to support rationally, while socialism needs wild-eyed ranting to seek its justification.

As to the latest healthcare debacle, there’s a lot more blame to go around than just facilely throwing it at Trump, though I’m sure he’s the bogeyman Horton likes to target. House GOPers have had over 6 years to come up with a viable plan, something that actually made sense and included realistic elements that would address the free-market shortcoming of the current wealth redistribution scheme in place. The “Ryan plan” was a non-starter from the jump; in reality just a place-holder they could point at when asking for votes in the past elections.

Now that they finally had both chambers of Congress and the White House, to have seriously rolled out that tired piece of garbage as their offering was stupid beyond belief. There was no way it was ever going to be passed, as bad as it was. It was hardly better at all than Obamacare. What would have been the point?

They should have taken their time and crafted something that actually would have repealed and replaced Obamacare, not just tinkered with it a little bit. And Trump’s biggest failure was in not making them do exactly that. Maybe due to his own political inexperience, I don’t know.

As I’ve written before, we need to get government out of the healthcare and insurance equation. Government is the problem, not the solution.

 

(Also published today in The Signal)