Imagine you are hiring someone for a very important job, let’s say president of D.C. Comics Entertainment Division (because let’s face it, they need some help).

Imagine they’re sitting across the desk from you, and during the interview as you’re trying to discuss the survival of D.C. Entertainment and the direction it will take in order to have a sliver of hope of competing against the Marvel Cinematic Universe, they keep telling you how great they are at making coffee.screenshot-2016-09-30-at-12-14-17-pm

Now, don’t get me wrong, coffee is vitally important and arguably the main force behind the world continuing to turn. However, it has nothing to do with making D.C. movies that are competitive in the Marvel dominated superhero movie market.

The person sitting across from you may be the world’s greatest, most talented barista…ever. However, that knowledge, that desire to make coffee, does not make them qualified to be at the helm of the constantly faltering D.C. movie department.

Furthermore, if all they want to talk about is coffee, and they demonstrate absolutely no knowledge or interest in creating, producing, or promoting quality movies that don’t completely bomb (*coughgreenlanterncough*), you have a problem.

It would quickly become apparent that they either don’t care about the true purpose of the job, or else they are completely ignorant and incompetent.

Either way, you’d do well to show them to the door posthaste.

Using this clever illustration, I am obviously metaphorically demonstrating just how absolutely skunked we are in this 2016 presidential election.

Pointedly Missing the Point

The first presidential debate has completely dominated the news cycle this week. People have been obsessively analyzing who won, why didn’t Trump say this or that, how did Clinton manage to remain upright for 90 whole minutes, was Trump more sexist than usual, who won the flash polls, and (most importantly) why the heck did Hillary wear that awful Star Trek red pantsuit?screenshot-2016-09-30-at-12-16-05-pm

The analysis we’ve seen from almost every quarter of the media is very befitting this particular debate. Because just like the debate, it completely and utterly misses the point.

Just like a potential D.C. Comics Entertainment president fixating on coffee brewing techniques and never once mentioning movie making, we had two potential presidents of the United States debating for 90 minutes about who’s better and who’s more corrupt, never once mentioning the Constitutional role of the president.*

Never once.

Fit or Unfit?

Going back to our clever illustration, what would make your coffee obsessed applicant for president of D.C. entertainment fit or unfit for the job? In order to answer this question, we must ask another – what is the job description?screenshot-2016-09-30-at-12-16-49-pm

If the job description involves making delicious hot beverages to warm you and hyper-stimulate your nervous system, then this person would be a perfect candidate. However, if the job requirements involve improving upon the storytelling of Superman Returns (come on Man of Steel, it shouldn’t have been that hard), then this candidate is not qualified at all.

Applying this to the 2016 presidential race, in order to answer which candidate is fit for office, we must first answer: what is the job description of President of the United States?

If the job description involves providing health insurance, creating jobs, forcing businesses to do your bidding (minimum wage, paid family leave, etc.), or making the wealthy pay their fair share, then you are faced with a real tough choice between a Clinton and Clinton donor.

However, if the job description a willingness to take an oath saying “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” then you are truly skunked.screenshot-2016-09-30-at-12-17-31-pm

Because neither candidate on that stage believes in the principles of the Constitution. They are vying to be the one to take that oath, yet neither has any intention of keeping that oath. Clinton and Trump have clearly demonstrated that they either don’t care about the true purpose of the job, or else they are completely ignorant and incompetent.

They are battling to become president while promising to make you coffee.

America should be asking “will this candidate preserve, protect and defend the Constitution?”, but instead they’re asking which candidate will make the better “triple, venti, half sweet, non-fat, caramel macchiato”.

The Excitation Paradox

The Constitution and the Declaration are not exciting to most people (much like the Dark Knight Rises, aka the Dark Knight Rises…Very Slowly). However, Americans need to ask themselves –

Do you want to be free? Do you want to be prosperous? Do you want your children to have it better than you ever did? Do you want innovation and real economic progress? Do you want to be able to make your own decisions and live in liberty?screenshot-2016-09-30-at-12-26-43-pm

If you answered yes, then your only hope is the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution. Placing hope in politicians offering you big government programs, handouts, and bailouts is merely digging yourself deeper into your own grave.

That is why the Constitution and the principles of the Declaration must be the rule by which we judge every policy, every leader and every law. The media and the candidates on stage will try and take your eyes off what matters.

Bring it back to the Constitution. Every time. All the time.

The 2016 presidential race is essentially a “skunked either way” situation at this point. Now, all we can do is hope that D.C. Comics Entertainment did a better job of picking a president than America has.

Justice League, don’t let me down.screenshot-2016-09-30-at-12-18-24-pm

*Lester Holt, the debate moderator, and Hillary Clinton both used the term “unconstitutional” once in regards to the “stop and frisk” laws in New York City. However, this was just commentary about what the courts had to say and hardly constitutes addressing the proper role of government or the president’s constitutional duties.