The Out–of–Control Gun Control Advocate

Gun control is a powder keg of an issue anyway, but selecting an individual as spokesman that reasonable people agree should never be allowed to own a gun, only makes the effort more prone to misfire.

And that’s exactly what happened in Virginia.

Democrats are convinced the next election is always going to be the one where “gun control” pays off. Except it doesn’t: Election after election after election this favorite issue is a dud at the ballot box. Bitter clingers always manage to out vote eager grabbers.

The problem is particularly acute in off–year, non–presidential elections. Making gun control’s appearance in Virginia’s legislative races even more puzzling. The Democrat base is composed of a significant number of voters that aren’t ideologically motivated. Their participation is reward–based and presidential elections promise high caliber booty for the winners: Free daycare, free healthcare, free phones, free college and free citizenship.

Off–year Democrat voters are ideologically motivated — that’s why they’re voting in the first place. Highlighting gun control, appealing to Democrats that are already going to vote, is only firing blanks if it motivates Republicans who may not have voted if they didn’t fear losing 2nd Amendment rights.

This is why gun control failed again in Virginia. Long–time Clinton family bagman, and current Gov. Terry McAuliffe desperately needed to win an open–seat race in the Richmond area to gain control of the senate. McAuliffe’s legacy freebie was supposed to be Medicare expansion, but convincing the base to embrace scheduling a doctor visit and putting Election Day on their calendar was proving to be a daunting prospect.

Then it happened, a high–profile shooting ripe for exploitation. Only using it created a self–inflicted wound. Read my complete Newsmax column here:


San Francisco Too Expensive for Socialists to Live There

Socialism right for youLeftists have been so successful at turning San Francisco into a “social justice” paradise that it’s getting harder for the rank–and–file cultural socialist to afford to live there. Statists who are already residents are being squeezed by higher property taxes and rising rent, while lefties who make their own Hajj to Bagdad–on–the–Bay and want to remain in the city can’t afford to buy or rent.

What’s a libertine to do?

In San Francisco they try to take out their frustration on someone else’s success. It’s the “social justice” way. In this instance the housing covetous tried to pass a referendum that would limit the number of days a resident could rent his house or apartment to tourists. This makes perfect sense in San Francisco the city that wants to register your guns and your spare bedroom.

The ballot initiative was called Proposition F officially and the Airbnb referendum colloquially. For those unfamiliar with the company, Airbnb is Uber for houses. Uber participants loan their car and their driving skill to the company in return for access to its app. The app then matches drivers with hot single women who get in your car all alone and pay for the privilege.

Something seems wrong about that last paragraph. I know! Sexual assault is a bug, not a feature. Uber just wants to match drivers who have a car and time on their hands with men and women who have a destination in mind and are willing to pay strangers to get there. As a result a company whose entire inventory consists of a list of drivers and a second list of passengers is worth billions of dollars.

Naturally Airbnb wants to get in on that action — not the assaults – just the valuation. Airbnb matches San Francisco residents with a spare bedroom, basement or hidden dominance room with other people who need a place to stay or be spanked while in town.

Do–it–yourself Hilton has always seemed to be a risky way to make money. Giving the keys to your home or apartment to a bunch of strangers while you leave town is the equivalent of Uber having you toss the car keys to someone you just met at WaWa. Some homeowners return to a dumpster fire and at least one renter has been held as a sex slave — evidently the Uber driver didn’t show up — but on the whole there are enough naive part-time landlords to make the system work.

So Airbnb is another company with two lists and a heap of enemies.

Market ignoramuses behind the referendum blame Airbnb for the high price of housing mostly because they are capitalists and deserve to be hated. Evidently they convinced themselves that if it weren’t for Airbnb, and that devious profit motive, they would be invited to stay in those spare bedrooms for free. As one spokesperson told CBS, “These units should be used to provide much-needed housing for local residents instead of being rented to short-term tourists.”

It’s too much to expect residents to blame the real causes: Rent control, NIMBY fanatics, red tape–manufacturing city bureaucrats and confiscatory “historical designations.” That would be calling into question the ideology they support lock, stock and no vacancy sign.

It’s easier to build a new house in East Jerusalem than it is in San Francisco. As a result a 765 sq. ft. shack — built as relief housing after the 1906 earthquake — sells for $408,000 after a bidding frenzy. Now, after paying almost half a million for a glorified storage shed, the new owners will be able to do almost nothing to improve the building because it has a “historic” designation that imposes heavy fines if you remove the derelicts from the backyard.

Supply and demand dictates what when you have a very limited supply of housing and an ever–increasing demand prices are going to go up. But SF residents only understand the demand part of the equation, so they make demands using ignorance and a ballot box as weapons.

Proposition F would have limited nights a home or bedroom could be rented to 75 per year. Pocket Marriotts would have to file quarterly reports with the city and even worse neighbors could’ve formed an impromptu STASI and sued if their infrared cameras detected new heat signatures on the 76th day.

Airbnb pumped approximately $8 million into the “anti” campaign, while supporters could only raise $800,000 from unions and hotel owners who didn’t want more competition. It was a good investment; Proposition F was defeated 55 to 45 percent, meaning locals can still have strangers and the strange in their domiciles for almost as long as they want.

Robot Cars: The Return of the Sunday Driver

self driving car licensePerceptive conservatives have long been suspicious of ‘mass transit’ because of the term’s Karl Marxian connotations. For the left that’s a selling point because wedging the masses into mass transit allows ‘experts’ to decide where we will work and where we will live. The only roadblock, so to speak, is the automobile.

People like cars because personal vehicles embody individual transportation decisions, which in turn is why the left hates the automobile. As far as it is concerned individual transportation decisions have been nothing but trouble. Mobility nannies blame the horse and wagon for making Manifest Destiny and the westward expansion possible —a grievous example of sprawl that killed the buffalo, put asphalt on top of the aquifer and finally produced Ronald Reagan.

(Simultaneously lefties are strangely silent on the northward expansion that brought us a quarter of Mexico’s population, closely followed by the rest of Central and South America. This may be because illegals didn’t drive here and it’s hoped these new residents will prove to be bus riders.)

Since individuals are proving to be so stubborn, planners are adopting an incremental strategy. Uber had real promise as a bridge solution because it bypassed sclerotic, unresponsive cab companies and increased utilization of cars that were already on the road. Unfortunately enthusiasm dissipated after female riders found trading dirty cabs for dirty drivers was no improvement.

Now the people who know what’s best for us have decided that robot or self–driving cars are the stepping-stone to a mass transit future. Assuming they can pry the steering wheel out of our cold, dead hands — whoops, bad analogy, particularly when USA Today reports “self-driving test cars are involved in crashes at five times the rate of conventional cars.”

Naturally human error, instead of programmer error is blamed. An explanation that creates more than a little skepticism among computer users who have had to reinstall Windoze. Trial lawyers aren’t too happy either. Robot cars may have four times the injury rate, but the injuries aren’t ambulance–worthy — meaning cable viewers probably won’t have to endure a deluge of “have you been injured by a robot car” commercials.

In my view are two factors causing the increased accident rate. Robots are extremely cautious drivers that obey all the laws. Think 16–year–old student driver out for his first test drive. And the robot’s software doesn’t assume human drivers are idiots, which is the only way to avoid most accidents.

Here are a handful of situations robot drivers may not anticipate in time to avoid collision:

  1. When robots perceive flashing blue lights on the shoulder it’s no cause for concern because authorities have the situation well in hand. Humans immediately rubber–neck to see if the victim was the fool that cut them off earlier.
  2. Robots may have no experience with drivers whose lives are so filled with spontaneity they are unable to predict turns early enough to use a signal.
  3. Robots can’t tell if a motorist comes from a culture where driving is such a cause for celebration that alcohol is liberally applied to both pilot and passengers.
  4. Robots may not accurately predict levels of distraction because they aren’t required to document their lives for future generations through texts, selfies and conversation.
  5. Being childless, robots have no experience with turning around to admonish unruly toddlers or fishing sippy cups from the floorboard.
  6. Finally, robots don’t routinely hit their brakes before changing lanes and might fail to realize many drivers use their brake in place of thought.

So far the only real advantage to robot cars is their lack of vigilante spirit. You won’t find a robot convinced the car has been deputized to reduce speeding by camping in the leftmost lane of the highway at exactly the legal speed.

Did Hillary Clinton Approve the CNBC Debate Panel?

Can someone please refresh my memory? When Donald Trump met with Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus to sign a loyalty pledge did anyone check to see if Priebus had signed a similar pledge to all the other candidates?

Watching Wednesday’s CNBC grudge match between Big Government Leftists and the GOP makes one wonder. The Benghazi Panel gave Hillary more respect than Republican candidates received from the Quick and The Dense.

With the exception of Jim Cramer and Rick Santelli, the rest of the inquisitors were arrogant, dismissive and argumentative, or as Chris Christie observed, “I’ve got to tell you the truth, even in New Jersey what you’re doing is called rude.”

The question for conservatives and Republicans (some overlap, but not always the same — as Juan Bush proves) is who takes the fall and what can be done in the future?

Fortunately, I have all the answers in the rest of my column, which you can find below at Newsmax:

Competition Bombshell from Apple Proves Markets Work

The vast majority of high–end cellphone users are blissfully unaware the $200 they pay to upgrade their phone is a heavily subsidized price. Most of us think the $200 is bad enough, but if customers were paying full retail for their newer phone the price would be in excess of $650 for a model from Apple.

That’s a lot of money to pay in one big chunk for a device your teenager is likely to drop in the toilet.

Cell service providers cushion the blow by folding the rest of the cost into the contract. That’s why early cancelation fees are high. The company is recovering the cost of the phone.

This system worked fine as long as competition in other areas of the business was at a manageable level, but that’s changed. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T–Mobile and other providers are cutting prices and beefing up bundles on minutes, data and contract length. Consequently, financing phone purchases is less attractive.

This is where competition works to your advantage. Apple knows if customers have to pay the entire cost upfront, sales decline as customers wait longer between upgrades.

So Apple will now finance iPhone purchases for $32 per month AND allow customers yearly upgrades. In addition, Apple includes its premier AppleCare service ($99/yr.) as part of the package.

Finally, Apple will give customers the option of switching cell carriers every year, marking the end of the two–year contract and repaying cell provider’s decision to stop financing phones.

What’s more, this instance of competitive creativity would solve many of the lingering, intractable problems of Obamacare. How? Click the link below to find out in my Newsmax column:


Why Mr. Ed Gives Better Lifestyle Advice than the Media

Mr Ed Gives AdviceParaphrasing William F. Buckley, I’d rather take lifestyle direction from 200 randomly selected people in the phone book than follow the advice found in the 200 most prominent media outlets. Reporters are fad–conscious professionals at the expense of common sense. If they can identify a trend first, they become media experts and their journalistic prestige — if there is such a thing today — increases among their peers.

Since the media has the attention span of Joe Biden, it doesn’t matter if the trend makes sense or even exists outside a few malcontent exhibitionists. What matters is novelty. Putting the story in context could only take the luster off a scoop, so it’s rarely done.

I fell prey to this as a freelance writer in the 70’s. Some eastern media outlet, where I desperately wanted to work, ran a story on a decline in coffee drinkers. The tyranny of the young was making itself known by switching from coffee to carbonated drinks. (What an innocent age. Now the young drink powdered alcohol.)

Consequently coffee beans rotted in the warehouse, cocaine production was looking better and better and Mrs. Olsen was considering switching from Folgers to Metamucil.

Eagerly trend–surfing I contacted a coffee distributor, interviewed the owner of a well–known diner and talked to random customers sitting behind a coffee mug.

I would soon be Oklahoma’s caffeine–conversion expert. Only I didn’t know Starbucks had opened about three years earlier and was gaining fast on the Bunn complex. Soon a cuppa Joe would be an “Espresso Macchiato,” and the trend cycle would resume with carbonated beverages replacing coffee as the liquid on the decline.

A trendy Wall Street Journal story concerning high–end steakhouses is another cycle entry.

You may recall steakhouses, and meat for that matter, were dead just a few years ago as the Kale Revolution swept America. Food that had heretofore only been fit for rabbits was now appearing in the White House as youth (those wretches) traded flavor for regular bowel movements. Since it was a trend other businesses, with superficial easily stampeded management, had to hop aboard or be thought uncool.

Ronald McDonald was so eager to attract skinny herbivores it instituted a new “healthy” menu featuring the McCompost. In spite of McDonald’s subsequent sales decline, Subway felt the social pressure and hired a child molester to promote produce in a bun.

Steakhouses weren’t eager to serve malnutrition on a cracker, but it didn’t matter because a vile cabal of granola–heads and the USDA was busy ruining beef with another fad. Instead of corn–fed beef that produced tender, marbled steaks, anti–fat crusaders gulled beef producers into going back to “natural” grass–fed beef.

Now two generations of Americans have no idea how steak should taste. They try to masticate Florshiem–like steaks from cows that look like the herd in Lonesome Dove and think it’s a luxury.

When I was chasing the extinction of Juan Valdez diners could get a fork–tender steak at a mid–priced restaurant. No longer, today you must visit a den of one–percenters and contrary to past predictions, high–end steakhouses are prospering. The WSJ reported: “Eight of the top 15 highest-grossing restaurants among business diners in New York City are steakhouses.”

A popular dish — bulk food for bulky people — is the 40–ounce cowboy ribeye that sells for $59.95. This posse–sized meal of meat alone might be good enough for the late Cecil the Lion, but most diners want a side dish or two. Unfortunately all your $60 bucks gets is meat and utensils, everything else is a la carte.

It’s like buying a new car and discovering you have to pay extra for “options” the rational would consider basic. (Oh, you want tires with that?) Iceberg lettuce that Whole Foods hides in the Mitt Romney section at the back of the store sells for $9.00 a wedge.

These restaurants aren’t obsessed with attracting female customers, running contrary to other trends. Smith & Wollensky founder Alan Stillman explains in a quote that may indicate grammar ignorance is hereditary, ‘“I know a tremendous amount (sic) of women that love to go to our restaurants…but they’re the outliers.” By contrast, at Quality Meats (sic), developed by his son, around 45% of the customers are women, Mr. Stillman said.’

The moral is take any media lifestyle advice with a large grain of salt, if you’re still allowed to do that. As a wave of steakhouse trend stories begins to break over the nation, keep in mind fad stories are a blurry snapshot in time with about the predictive power and relevance of a political survey taken last year.

Turning the Tables on Verizon & Other Cable Buccaneers

Cable guyCharles Murray’s new book — BY THE PEOPLE: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission —urges conservatives to embrace civil disobedience, but with a difference: We won’t loot CVS stores.

In the face of all–pervasive government demanding we obey picayune regulations, Murray urges us to: “…withhold that compliance through systematic civil disobedience. Not for all regulations, but for the pointless, stupid and tyrannical ones.”

The worst offenders include the “Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Environmental Protection Agency and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.” One example of over–reach is the DC Good Samaritan who rescued a duckling. Being unable to place the baby with nearby woodland creatures, he took it home so it wouldn’t die a swift death.

The Washington Post reports two months later “Nibbles” was following his owner around like a dog and starring in videos. That’s when animal control functionaries got wind of the Kidnapping of the Century and made the Samaritan release a thoroughly domesticated duck into the wild.

Murray’s solution is to stop following stupid rules and exploit Big Government’s weakness: “…its enforcement capabilities are far inferior to its expansive mandate.” If Refusnik Americans force Big Regulation to take them to court — Murray proposes a national legal defense fund — the time, money and effort expended in putting down thousands of tiny rebellions will force bureaucracy to retreat.

It’s a fine idea and I hope the Koch Brothers take his call, but it’s too useful to limit to government. Beleaguered citizens can use a similar technique to take on impervious and imperious companies perpetrating abuses in the private sector.

I’m talking about you Verizon.

The last time I renewed my indenture with the cable company I called both bands of cutthroats: Verizon and Comcast. Still smarting from Verizon’s removal of college football from our package, I didn’t want a repeat.

My specifications included college football, NFL Network, Rugby and cycling be included in the deal. Verizon packages are based on the number and quality of channels. First is Entropy that only contains PBS and CSPAN. This is followed in order of increasing expense by: Extreme, Ultimate and Excruciating (where you have every channel known to man and can watch real–time drone video of Hellfire missile strikes).

I re–upped for two years after securing my preferred channels.

Last week in the middle of the first round of the Rugby World Cup Championship the sport disappeared. I called Verizon and had the following conversation:

Me: I’m no longer getting what I paid for, what kind of refund can I expect?

Verizon: You won’t be getting a refund.

Me: Verizon can remove channels and make my package less valuable without reducing the price?

Verizon: Yes.

Me: So my two–year agreement only works one way?

Verizon: It doesn’t lock Verizon in, the channel lineup can change but your payment stays the same.

All the flexibility is on Verizon’s side and all the responsibility is on our side. These cable agreements are so unfair contracts specifically prohibit participation in class–action suits.

Taking Murray’s advice, cable subscribers can fight back, not by being sued, but by suing in small claims court. Small claims is the great leveler of jurisprudence. You don’t need a lawyer and judges are often very sympathetic to plaintiffs. The term to use with the judge is “unconscionability.” This is applied to contracts where one of the parties involved is at a great disadvantage, cable agreements and Chinese organ donors being prime examples.

Small claims commonly awards three times actual damages, but no pain and suffering. Hours spent watching “Call the Midwife,” with your wife, don’t count. Here’s a sample calculation: Six months remain on your contract when Verizon arbitrarily removes a favorite channel without compensation (Univision doesn’t count either). Six months of $75.00 cable bills = $450 X 3 = $1,350.00.

Your case is unlikely to go to court because Verizon’s lawyers are expensive. Instead you’ll get a call from a nice man asking what the company can do to make you happy enough to drop the suit.

The tables have turned. Either demand the return of your channels for free or demand to be released from the contract AND receive a check to cover a refund for every month where you paid for what you weren’t getting, plus the cost of filing the suit.

If enough outraged customers file the expense, even for Verizon, would be astronomical. Management may decide it’s cheaper to be honorable.

Cable companies impose draconian contracts because consumers don’t fight back. Besides small claims court you can contact your city and state consumer affairs department, your local legislator and the Better Business Bureau to complain about abusive business practices.

Consumers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!

In Seattle Bad Ideas Cost $70,000.00

Dan-PriceTypically leftists are insulated from the consequences of their bad ideas by a nice cushion of money, but Dan Price cut it a bit too close. Price is the CEO of Gravity Payments and his company has learned what goes up may come down — hard.

Back in April, Price announced to the world that he was raising the minimum wage for his staff of 120 to $70,000 a year. Price told The New York Times he intended to get the money by cutting his $1.1 million salary and using up to 80 percent of the company’s projected $2.2 million profit.

Blowing all the profit for salaries, with almost nothing left for investment or contingencies, would qualify Price to challenge Hillary for the nomination, but it looks like his plate is full at home.

Complete details on how to raise pay, lower productivity and alienate your best employees can be found by clicking here:

Kevin McCarthy, Message Wizard, Replaces Former Wizard Boehner

Obama So Sue MeIt is axiomatic in politics that you can’t beat someone with no one. It’s a lesson one would think House Republican conservatives are well aware of, but I’m beginning to think that is not the case. As an outsider who has been active in politics for decades, I assumed that the effort to oust John Boehner as speaker included a consensus conservative nominee that would attempt to replace him.

But not only is that not the case, it appears that no conservative House member with name identification exceeding that of the current head of ISIS is even interested in the job.

Forcing Boehner’s resignation now doesn’t resemble a coup so much as it resembles a suicide bombing: Blow the place up and see who wanders in to survey the wreckage.

Right now Kevin “Benghazi” McCarthy is looking over the rubble for souvenirs he can sell on EBay.

It’s ironic that in a year when we have so many Republican presidential candidates that we could loan the RINOs to the Democrats without any drop off in quality among the remainder, House Republicans may have to hire beaters to flush an opponent out of the bushes to take on Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

Or was that the strategy all along? Defeat Boehner so his second–in–command could take over where he left off? A member of the crack Boehner message team that was outwitted by the pajama boys in the Obama administration every time they faced off, and who is already carrying on the Boehner tradition of lame brain public relations errors?

Are rebellious House members planning to go after all the dominoes and hope they can persuade a conservative to join the queue at some time in the future?

This could be an opportunity for outside intervention. I personally would like to know who conservative firebrand Sen. Ted Cruz thinks should be the next speaker. I have a pretty good idea who he doesn’t think is doing a good job as the leader of the Senate, so why not go positive and say something supportive about House conservatives that have been ignored for so long?

Sure a Cruz endorsement will be construed as meddling in the affairs of the House, but during his first term in the Senate Cruz has ruffled more feathers than Frank Perdue, so what’s a few more? At the very least he might inspire someone to get organized in the other house.

The important point is that regardless of the source of the impetus, conservative House Republicans need to get busy or risk becoming a noisy activist group, like Code Pink, that is always ready with a complaint, but in no condition to lead.

The clock is ticking.

Donald Trump: Mane Man in the Values Den

Trump GOP LogoDonald Trump — America’s loveable Boor in a China Shop — was an eagerly anticipated speaker at the 2015 Values Voter Summit, a conference that brings hundreds of evangelical activists to the nation’s capital. Think of Values Voter as the Christian answer to Burning Man, without the gratuitous sex, drug use and an important reversal in which the goal is to avoid burning.

Many were confused by the Trump invitation, since The Donald is not exactly known for showcasing a religious emphasis in his life. But if a Pharisee like John McCain merits repeat invitations to speak, surely a recent convert qualifies.

In a nice touch, for a candidate notorious for lack of preparation, Trump brought the Bible his mother gave him as a child. As Trump waved the keepsake overhead — hoping it would serve as tangible proof of his Christianity — the gesture reminded me of a gopher–faced Mitch McConnell brandishing a musket at the Conservative Political Action Conference, because I had a feeling neither has been used this century.

What has been used before are a number of applause lines Trump employs and the crowd enjoys. The Donald doesn’t have a stump speech that he recycles regularly, like the majority of politicians. It’s more a stream–of–consciousness assessment of the political landscape that, because of Trump’s surprising likability, never degenerates into a rant.

There are so many asides and digressions during a Trump speech that even a transcript proves to be of limited utility.

Mentioning Squeaker Boehner’s resignation was a sure–fire applause generator all day. Trump’s dismissal of the leader of the Surrender Caucus was classic, “And we had some big news today with Boehner…Speaker Boehner – you know, some people like him on a personal basis. Do people like him on a personal basis? Anybody? (Laughter.)”

Trump also has a gift for pointing out smaller facts that tell a larger truth. The public overwhelmingly opposes Iran nuclear appeasement and, as a consequence, is convinced the negotiators were, to use a Trump word, clowns. Trump reinforces this by pointing out the American citizens Iran is holding as prisoners indicate a complete lack of respect for Obama as negotiator: “…by the way, it used to be three [prisoners] at the beginning of the negotiations, now it’s four.”

The low point of his appearance came when Trump dismissed Marco Rubio as “this clown,” evidently not aware of how much enthusiasm the senator generated previously. The putdown generated instant boos and was the featured event in most of the hostile media coverage. The booing, though, was just a blip, Rubio finished fourth in the straw poll to Trump’s fifth. And even though his language was tactless, Trump was right and the contrast with Rubio is instructive.

Rubio is just the latest young and gullible conservative to come to Washington and convert. As Trump says, “…what happens? They become different people.” Instead of being a TEA Party conservative as he was billed, Rubio became another enabler in the RINO project to commit political suicide by granting amnesty to 12 million illegals.

His participation in the Gang of Ocho made him popular on Wall Street and torpedoed him on Main Street.

Even without that disaster, Rubio’s philosophy has nothing to offer conservatives regardless of how young and personable he is. Rubio’s speech was long on hard–working Cuban parents and short on concrete proposals to shrink the size of the federal government.

Evidently the crowd missed it, but Rubio wants to repeal and REPLACE Obamacare, when the solution is to end federal meddling in the healthcare market. Rubio has the usual bromides about cutting spending, but trimming spending without ending programs is a fool’s errand. Rubio’s government will be like the hefty female personal trainers who try to assure us one can be fat but fit. When Rubio’s term ends, so does Uncle Sam’s diet.

Trump’s lack of time–serving, back–patting Washington experience is supposed to be a negative, but right now you can’t throw a rock in Washington without hitting an officeholder who is is full of “experience” and where has it gotten us?

Trump is also criticized for being caustic and dismissive of the other candidates in the race, but Rubio’s slavish support of establishment Republicans is the accommodation fueling Trump’s rise. In an angry departure interview, Boehner inadvertently explained just why he and “leaders” like McConnell have to go. The put–upon Squeaker whined that he’d done his best to defend the institution when the truth is his job is to defend the Constitution and he failed miserably.

Trump has not been captured by the “institution” and is unlikely to suffer that fate in the future.

Besides, power has a likability all its own — just ask Obama.