Business Learns Trump Giveth and Trump Taketh Away

Conservatives always knew Trump’s policies would be a dog’s breakfast of competing initiatives and impulsive proposals. His State of the Administration speech only served to confirm it.

There were solid assurances to reestablish the rule of law and promises to develop a “historic” tax reform program that will make US businesses more competitive with other countries.

Unfortunately, waiting for tax reform from a Republican Congress that supports business because it makes campaign contributions and ignores competition because it doesn’t, is like waiting for a pause in an Obama monologue.

Rather than wait, Trump issued an order that requires the executive branch to remove two old regulations for every new one it issues.

That’s a great start; although something tells me at least initially the regulations deleted are going to be those covering the sodium content of salt pork issued to the Army of the Potomac.

But how does removing burdensome regulations on US business square with requiring those same businesses to provide paid family leave? I know it’s a logical progression from universal Pre–K, which is taxpayer–funded daycare, to paying mothers to raise their own babies, but it’s not logical for Republicans trying to make America competitive.

Trump’s new Commissar of Motherhood is going to be regulating up a storm. What number employees is the cutoff for coverage? Will men get to take advantage of paid leave? What about men who can’t decide if they are a man or a woman? Can homosexuals take off to raise a surrogate child? Is a polygamist limited to children from one wife or do all qualify? Does a mother of twins get twice as much leave? Can a divorced husband take off if he still gets along with the ex–wife and she has a child? Will leave only apply to immediate family or will it be like chain immigration and apply to cousins, uncles and people with similar last names?

Do mothers who abort their child get time off to sooth a guilty conscience? How long does the leave last? If a woman gives birth to a girl and a few years later she decides she’s a boy, can mom take another leave to help with the transition? If a woman adopts an infant, does she qualify? If a woman serves as a surrogate mother can she take paid leave, too?

Will the payment be a percentage of salary or a fixed rate? Will there be a means test? How about a citizenship test? Does a woman continue to earn seniority as she cares for junior? Does the leave clock for a premie start when the child was born or when it should have been born? If a mother’s state already has a paid leave program does she have to choose one or can she double–dip?

Just answering those few questions will generate reams of regulations. Will the Commissar get a free pass on the new one–for–two regulatory rule and start from scratch? Or will he have to persuade other agencies to donate old regulations he can sacrifice on the altar of red tape?

I’m sorry, but this has Ivanka’s fingerprints all over it and no one that I know of voted for her.

This program better left to the states. California, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Rhode Island already have leave programs. The other states are free to follow their lead and burden their businesses, too.

This is not to say I downplay the importance of motherhood. I don’t. Conservatives put much more emphasis on the nurturing of the nuclear family than the left does. Strong families build a strong society.

Let’s say Virginia, where I live, wanted to encourage working mothers to stay home with their children for the first three months. I could support a plan that takes inspiration from the foster parent program.

Virginia pays foster parents $462 a month for children under age four. It could start a new Leg Up on Life program that pays working mothers a similar amount for the first three months of the child’s life. This encourages mothers to take time off from work to establish a relationship with the newborn and removes some of the financial pressure.

In the interest of equity I would allow both working and non–working women to be eligible. In the interest of keeping the program simple, the payment would not be means tested. If women already had paid leave from their place of employment, they could collect both payments.

This program has the advantage of being simple, non–federal and no burden on business. It encourages mothers without discouraging job creation. Best of all it doesn’t establish a federal entitlement Democrats could increase at some time in the future, like Trump’s does.

Finally! Democrats Support Cutting Off the Money

It hasn’t made the national news (except for this column) but for a brief time it looked like Democrats around our nation’s capital were going to accept the fact the federal government can withhold funds from states that don’t cooperate with the feds.

And this wasn’t a mere threat to turn off the spigot; funds for Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia have been cut off.

metro-cartoonYet no Democrats are vowing to fight to the last ditch to get their money. No state attorneys general are rushing to the courthouse hoping to find a federal judge willing to write legislation from the bench. No legal defense funds have been established. No lawyers have been hired. No posters have been printed. And no protestors wielding superglue and PVC pipe have blockaded entrances to buildings.

Why George Ramos wasn’t even thrown out of a news conference for asking impertinent questions.

If you’re thinking now that Trump has vanquished the Sanctuary City movement, it’s time to move on to Obamacare repeal, I have bad news.

Now I’ve got you. You’re wondering what bad news? The question is easily answered by clicking on the link below and reading the entire column on Newsmax.com:

http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/city-federal-funding-sanctuary/2017/03/01/id/776296/

 

 

Ryan’s Obamacare Lite Is Another Travesty & Betrayal

Freshman Rep. Moira Walsh had an unusual explanation for some of the bad lawmaking in her state capital during an interview on Rhode Island’s WPRO, “It’s the drinking that blows my mind. You cannot operate a motor vehicle when you’ve had two beers but you can make laws that effect people’s lives forever when you’re half in the bag?

Too bad Moira isn’t in Congress. Booze would be a more acceptable explanation for Paul Ryan’s Obamacare replacement bill than the truth, which is this bill is a betrayal of conservatives seven years in the making.

As the Heritage Foundation points out this slap in the face protects the Democrat base that got free or heavily subsidized coverage at the expense of the GOP base that earns the money to pay for Democrat’s discount insurance.

As I’ve pointed out to friends in the past the price of an Obamacare policy isn’t bad if you remember your premium is buying for two policies: One for your family and another for the moochers.

Ryan evidently believes Republican meddling in the health insurance market is such a big improvement over Democrat meddling that he’ll rule for decades. The truth is the base didn’t vote to swap incompetent meddlers we don’t know for incompetents we do know.

Our mistake was believing the lie that once Republicans controlled all three branches of government they would repeal Obamacare.

My doubts began when “repeal” was amended to “repeal and replace.” Why replace Obamacare’s socialized medicine with the Republican’s Obamacare Lite?

A simple return to the situation that existed before the passage of Obamacare could mean a reduction of up to 30 percent in the cost of insurance premiums and the return of the missing doctors. That alone should be enough win re–election.

The insurance market circa 2008 will cause problems in the dependency class that doesn’t like their handouts interrupted. But I have news for Ryan and his RINO gang — they don’t vote for you anyway. Your voters are the people this bill continues to burden.

Ryan and the rest of his brain trust would rather betray the voters who supported them than risk headlines from the Opposition Media about taking free insurance away.

Ryan’s bill fails in three major areas.

First it does nothing to increase competition in the insurance market. Insurance companies still can’t sell nationwide, the “lines around states” Trump mentioned in the debate. This change alone would lower prices because companies would compete against each other. That’s why you can afford homeowner’s insurance and you can’t afford health insurance.

Second it does nothing to lower prices because the onerous and expensive coverage requirements for every policy are still included. If the consumer wants to buy a policy that covers him from Q-tip to transplant, fine he can pay for it. But if all he wants is major medical, he should be able to make that choice.

Finally it penalizes Republican states that didn’t expand Medicaid and rewards Democrat states that ran up a tab on Uncle Sam. The bill promises this will be phased out in the future, but we’re supposed to believe a Republican Congress that won’t boot 25–year–olds off daddy’s policy today will find the backbone to cut Medicaid tomorrow?

This debate isn’t really about health insurance and discussing it in those terms lets leftists set the parameters. This debate is about personal liberty. The liberty, as an adult, to make your own decisions regarding the future.

Government isn’t the national airbag saving the impudent and foolish from the consequences of their own stupidity. This only encourages more irresponsibility among the demographic whose only long–term commitment is a tattoo.

Healthcare isn’t a right. You don’t have the right to make someone go to medical school, graduate and then treat you for a price you think is reasonable, any more than you have a right to make the barber cut your hair.

I hope there are enough conservatives in the House to defeat Ryan’s disingenuous travesty. Because if they don’t it, means Obama won.

It’s obvious only difference between Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House and Paul Ryan is velocity. The train just moves slower and the conductor’s assurances are less believable under Ryan, but the final destination is still Greece.

Passage of this bill will raise a very pertinent question for conservatives: Why do you have a stronger belief in conservative principles and the power of the free market than the politicians who get your vote?

Why should we pretend anymore?

My suggestion next November is vote for the politician who promises to give away the most; at least he’s not a hypocrite. Maximize benefits now and hope the money doesn’t run out until after you’re dead.

Ordering Dinner With a Side of Sanctimony

A nationwide group of restaurants is now offering diners a chance to stick it to the man while simultaneously putting the fork to their tofu. Those of you who’ve wanted to join a great moral crusade, but never got around to cleaning up the basement and inviting a Syrian “refugee” to move in, can now eat locally and be served globally.

Restaurant Opportunities Centers United has launched a “Sanctuary Restaurant” movement for eatery owners who want to stay current with the latest moral–posturing on illegal immigration.

Now diners in New York, Minneapolis, Detroit, Boston, Oakland, California and Ann Arbor, MN may encounter a sign in their local bistro that reads, “Sanctuary Restaurant: A place at the table for everyone.”

I suppose if the establishment adheres to a dining policy that’s anything like Obama’s immigration policy, the sign means when an illegal sits down at your table for lunch, you’ll be picking up the tab.

This is why I like eating at Red Robin. Management doesn’t spend time trying to demonstrate its empathy and there’s an E–Verify sign on the front door that means everyone working in the restaurant is legally in the US.

That certainly isn’t the case even in non–“sanctuary restaurants.” A diner at a Virginia Chipotle would have a better chance of sharing a meal with Hillary Clinton than being served by a citizen.

According to WNYW, “Roughly 80 restaurants are participating” in this low–level criminal conspiracy to harbor lawbreakers and obstruct justice. The idea is to publically position management as social justice warriors, while privately protecting their profit margin by keeping their illegals working for wages citizens won’t accept.

At least 1.3 million illegals are working in the restaurant industry and the wage exploiters hiring them tell Washington they need a “robust pool of workers,” which really means a cheap pool of workers. Just like Georgia plantation owners, whoops, make that commercial farmers warn that fruit will rot in the fields if they can’t pay Juarez wages to Juan, restaurant owners predict food will sit uncooked and unserved if diners expect to be attended by citizens.

Naturally, that’s not how participants describe the conspiracy. Oh–so–compassionate backers want Trump to “alleviate the fear of deportation and other harassment” for illegals. The goal is to “protect” the illegals, but from what? Heartburn? E.coli? Paying for Trump’s wall? Their authority to write policy ends with the menu.

Instead they come off sounding like the prayer in Luke 18:11 where the Pharisee loudly proclaims: “God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers or deportation supporters.”

I wonder if dining–while–smug patrons have thought their choice though. Patronizing a business harboring criminals has a potential downside. Management may draw the line at breaking immigration law, but there’s no evidence the staff won’t be tempted to branch out. Once they’ve violated the border, what’s a little identity theft or trafficking in stolen credit card numbers?

And if management opposes sending the help back to their home countries, what’s the policy on sending a bad meal back to the kitchen?

One thing is different in “sanctuary restaurants.” Instead of giving patrons a signaling device that glows and vibrates when their table is ready, the staff carries the black box and the premises clear out if an ICE agent enters

“Sanctuary restaurants” give the staff “know your rights training” and webinars on how to demand the feds produce some paperwork before a raid. The conspirators are also supposed to adopt “anti–discrimination policies” that I suppose mean if a Trump supporter mistakenly wanders in and orders in English he has a 50–50 chance of being served.

The fact that an organization supporting millions of illegal aliens, who continue to defy the law, can describe enforcing immigration law as “harassment” and publically recruit other businesses to join the conspiracy, without any fear of legal repercussion, is a stark indication of how official support for the rule of law has collapsed in favor of the rule of feelings.

Illegal immigration may be the hope for the future of the Democrat party and the secret shame of RINO Republicans, but I can guarantee you his promise to enforce the law is one of the main reasons Trump won.

Aside from waiting for food that’s never served, the other bugaboo of the anti–deportation crowd is higher prices. They claim if xenophobes insist on forcing restaurants to hire citizens, then prices are going up, because those sorts of people won’t work for Karjackistan wages.

For me, that’s no deterrent at all. If the choice is between paying a buck more for a hamburger or doing away with press one for English,” well, here’s your dollar.

Civil Servants Foment Civil Insurrection Against Trump

The United States is the only nation on earth where the saboteurs are both well paid and impossible to fire. Some nations call them spies, other nations — Iran comes to mind — claim they are Zionists, but here at home we call them “public servants.”

trump-why-doesnt-what-american-people-want-happenFederal employees have decided they’re the 4th branch of government and if you can believe the opposition media, they intend to do what they can to make the Trump presidency a failure. As Steven Hayward has written, “That bureaucratic government is the partisan instrument of the Democratic Party is the most obvious, yet least remarked upon, trait of our time.”

This is why it’s not surprising the New York Times writes, “Across the vast federal bureaucracy, Donald J. Trump’s arrival in the White House has spread anxiety, frustration, fear and resistance among many of the two million nonpolitical civil servants who say they work for the public, not a particular president.”

That concept is a convenient misunderstanding of the role of public employees by pretentious public employees. “Working for the public” means they are claiming to work for a concept. One that doesn’t issue annual performance reviews or provide direct supervision.

These “non–political” public employees — who just happened to send an astonishing 95 percent of their presidential campaign contributions to Pantsuit Nation in 2016 — will now claim to act as oracles who can divine the will of “public” and formulate appropriate policy.

If they get their way, it will be the Obama administration all over again without the annoying self–regard and afternoon tee times.

Now I’ve got you wondering: Who will save us? It depends. If someone sends the rest of my Newsmax.com column to President Trump and he takes my advice, there’s hope. See for yourself how I would put recalcitrant bureaucrats in their place by clicking here:

http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/employees-federal-public/2017/02/14/id/773615/

 

Future Is Cloudy With Occasional Trump Gusts at National Weather Service

How many weather people does it take to change a forecast? Evidently more than we currently possess.

The National Weather Service Employees Organization is issuing a severe hiring freeze warning. The union is afraid if Donald Trump’s freeze order is applied to the National Weather Service it will be a cold day in hell before it can add another employee.

global-warming-forecasts-mckeeThe union hopes it can slip through a loophole under cover of a rhetorical fog bank. Trump’s order doesn’t apply to agencies involved in the military, public safety or public health. The Washington Post says the NWS is hoping to reclassify itself as an integral part of the nation’s public safety apparatus: First responders when the precipitation hits the fan.

If NWS brass has its way, soldiers fighting for our freedom, anti–terror agents protecting the homeland and doctors battling dread disease will be joined by the guy who eyeballs the rain gauge at the airport. Each doing their small part in the vital effort to keep taxpayers alive and paying taxes.

Normally you would call this sort of bureaucratic aggrandizement “mission creep” but in the case of the weather service we’ll call it moisture creep.

The real problem facing weather wizards is it’s difficult to make the case for 650 new hires before Hurricane Donald arrives, when the desks have been empty for years and no one, outside the cleaning crew that dusts the monitors, has noticed.

A union functionary claims the vacant slots are “Emergency Essential” and it’s a big deal, “meaning those employees are critical to the life-saving mission of the NWS, so they must report to work (in hurricanes, floods, blizzards, furloughs, etc.).”

That’s a confusing explanation. I’d have thought an employee who shows up at the office after being furloughed is a potential source of workplace violence, not a reason to consider NWS workers the equivalent of Marines with barometers. As for the rest of the examples, when the morgue is empty it’s easy enough to claim your agency was responsible, but where’s the evidence these vacant slots represent a “life–saving mission?”

When a city is short of cops or has a surplus of demonstrators crime goes up. With a shortage of doctors patients pile up. But it will take some convincing to persuade me a shortage of weather oracles encourages tornadoes.

Making the case the NWS is a public safety necessity is difficult when the weather service has trouble coping with normal weather. Last week, while a blizzard was slamming into Maine and California was wondering if leftist sanctuaries would protect citizens and illegals from flood waters, the NWS system went offline.

A case could be made the cat was out of the bag and Maine and California were already familiar with the weather, but knowing if the rain was expected to stop would have been helpful to the sandbag crew.

Instead two “core routers” failed and the system was offline for three hours. The WaPost’s weather blog reminds us NWS systems failed as Hurricane Matthew was bearing down on Florida last October and in July it experienced another network issue.

It’s almost as if Hillary is the IT consultant.

Even if NWS bureaucrats can convince Trump a weather watcher wielding a weathervane is the public safety equal of a doctor brandishing a thermometer, there is the vetting problem.

In a government that yawns over classified phone call transcripts being leaked to the opposition media there’s a surprising amount of paranoia regarding the five–day forecast. Higher level NWS employees are for some unknown reason required to have a security clearance.

It’s not like you can hide the weather, just go outside and you know as much as President Trump. The only forecasts that have any usefulness are next day predictions. Three and five–day forecasts, which you can get from any weather poodle on TV, are about as reliable as a Republican Congressman’s promise to repeal Obamacare.

I suppose if your life is wrapped up in humidity the staffing shortfall is a big problem, but to me it looks like a good way to save money. It would be cheaper to let NWS focus on gathering weather data and let the private sector handle the forecasts. Using the same data the NWS employs, the Weather Channel is already more accurate and if you don’t like those global warming fanatics there’s always your local TV weather babe.

Why fight it? The missing 650 employees are approximately 14 percent of total employment. Since Trump wants to cut the federal workforce by 20 percent, the NWS’ head start puts it well on the way to meeting that goal.

It’s new motto could be: All the Weather at 80 Percent of the Cost!

Congressional GOP: The Dogs that Caught the Obamacar

Pity the poor Republican leadership in Congress. There they sit – paralyzed by the power for which they pleaded over the last four elections.

In 2010 when the GOP took control of the House they were powerless because Republicans didn’t have control of the Senate.

obamacare-crushes-middle-classIn 2014 Senate control fell into their hands, yet they were still powerless because Democrats controlled the White House.

Now they control the House, Senate and the presidency, but they remain powerless. This time because the left still controls the media and Jake Tapper doesn’t stand for re–election.

The Obama presidency was really the good old days. Congress could bravely vote to repeal Obamacare secure in the knowledge the bill would never take effect because Obama would veto it. And it he did.

All those votes were so many talking points in a re–election commercial. Now a vote to repeal Obamacare will pass and result in the Opposition Media’s veto. And our timid, public trough–feeders fear the consequences.

Damn, no one told them winning in 2016 would mean they’re now responsible!

So what are Congressional Republicans going to do? You’ll have to read the rest of my column on Newsmax to find out. Plus there’s a bonus: I answer the main arguments leftists have against repeal. Clip and save for your member of congress. Thanks for reading.

http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/Obamacare-premiums-repeal-replace/2017/02/23/id/775154/

 

Federal Judges Rewrite the 2nd Amendment

The most confusing dependent clause in the history of the nation, at least as far as personal liberty goes, is the one that begins the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights. The full text of the amendment reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

gun-control-cagle-cartoonTo understand what the Founders meant it helps to understand how much the former colonists disliked a standing army. As far as the Continental Congress was concerned the Revolution could be fought and won using an army composed entirely of citizen volunteers organized into local militia companies.

George Washington, the man actually in charge of the fighting, thought this was madness. He and the Congress had a running battle throughout the war over recruiting, equipping and paying a regular army. Washington believed only a professional, disciplined body of troops armed with military weapons could defeat the British.

Militia units simply wouldn’t stand up to line infantry. Civilians in the colonies usually owned rifles, not muskets. This meant a civilian could fire accurately at longer distances than a smooth–bore musket, but his rate of fire was not as rapid as the easier–loading musket.

Rate of fire, however, was secondary to the main problem with civilian arms: The inability to attach a bayonet to the rifle. Regular infantry charged with fixed bayonets and the men with spears always overwhelmed the men with clubs.

Militia members weren’t forbidden to buy muskets with bayonet lugs on the barrel. It was simply a matter of choice. Civilians would rather shoot a deer at 100 yds. and walk up to claim dinner, as opposed to chasing Bambi down and stabbing him with a bayonet.

As the war progressed militia units were used as skirmishers to pepper British troops with long range fire and then retire behind the regulars as the lines closed. So in the end both Washington and Congress were partially correct.

Once the war concluded under the Articles of Confederation the regular army languished, except for a remnant that manned frontier forts. State militias, again composed of volunteers bringing privately own weapons, provided defense against Indian raids and other disorder.

Before the outbreak of the Civil War there was private militia cavalry and even artillery companies operating without government control.

The role of civilian militia volunteers was codified in the Bill of Rights by the 2nd Amendment and the lasting rancor against a large regular army was found in the 3rd Amendment, which prohibited quartering troops in private homes.

The word “militia” in the 2nd Amendment means the “arms” citizens have a “right” to bear are by definition weapons of war. The Constitution doesn’t give us the right to own a BB gun or participate in paintball conflicts.

The Constitution gives us the right to own and bear light infantry weapons.

That fact escapes all leftist judges. They think government grants the right, when the Constitution obviously holds the right exists independently of government, which shall not infringe upon it.

The case that cannot be made by anyone reading the plain language of the amendment and knowing anything of history is that the 2nd Amendment does not cover weapons that are either military in nature or resemble military weapons.

Yet that is exactly what the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals did when it voted 10–to–4 to uphold an unconstitutional Maryland law that bans ownership of “assault weapons and large–capacity magazines.”

Ignoring “militia,” “arms” and “shall not infringe” the court sounded more like Chief Justice Oprah Winfrey when it concluded, “Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war.”

Only the justices don’t have to extend anything, the 2nd Amendment already protects “weapons of war.” Their job was to stop an obvious infringement upon that right.

Evidently the justices equate a militia to a sort of colonial bowling league. Just as you wouldn’t want bowlers rolling a cannonball down the lane, you wouldn’t want civilians owning a “military style” rifle. The problem with that reasoning is the militia was designed and expected to function in place of a regular military and to fulfill that role civilians must, by necessity, have weapons of a “military nature.”

Enlightened judges may not like the language of the Constitution. They may think the language is outmoded and superseded by modern life. But it is a violation of their oath of office to re–write the document to their liking or ignore provisions with which they disagree.

The Founders wisely provided a mechanism to amend the Constitution. It involves Congress, the states and voting. It does not include 10 politicians in black robes.

Trump’s Wall Can Be a Memorial, Too

There’s been a great deal of controversy regarding who is going to pay for Trump’s border wall. The option that’s most popular is sending Mexico a bill. This would require the man Mark Steyn calls “President Piñata” to bring a big check to the groundbreaking ceremony or possibly pay on the installment plan — like rent–to–own furniture in an illegal’s crash pad.

trump-wall-if-you-build-it-they-wont-comeShould the Mexican check not materialize or if it bounces like a jumping bean there are alternatives. Oklahoma has a remittance tax that puts a one percent fee on all wire transfers sent out–of–state. According to the Center for Immigration Studies a similar US tax would mainly fall on illegals and could bring in between one a two billion dollars a year.

More than enough to pay for the wall with some left over for environmental stalling studies.

Or there’s always the even more controversial tariff on imported Mexican goods.

Frankly, I don’t care who pays as long as the wall is built, but my wife did have an innovative idea to provide seed funding while details on the larger payments are worked out. It has the dual advantage of not requiring tax dollars and proving to the opposition media there is broad–based support for Trump’s wall.

She wants Trump to sell individual bricks or cinder blocks to Americans who want a part of the wall for themselves. The American public made it possible to tear down the Berlin Wall that kept Germans in; why not let them make it possible to build the border wall to keep illegals out?

This is an ideal solution for a capitalist entrepreneur like the president. Each commemorative block could contain a message from the donor. It could be something as simple as “Thank you President Trump” or pointed as “Why Isn’t Ted Kennedy Buried Under this Wall?”

Her original idea was more specific regarding sales. She thought victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens would be happy to buy a brick. I like this, too, although I would have a sliding price scale for each brick depending upon the crime involved. I think the two bricks I buy for friends killed by drunken illegals should get a discount, while the man who wants to immortalize “I was frightened by illegals in the 7/11 parking lot” should pay full freight.

The brick commemorating my daughter’s car that was totaled by an illegal would fit somewhere between the two extremes.

Trump could save on construction expenses by requiring all illegals in federal detention be put to work building the wall inspired by their law breaking. The symmetry certainly has its appeal. Currently there is no real penalty to being repeatedly caught violating our border, other than processing delays before Obama holdovers send you north.

A few months operating a shovel for free might serve as a real deterrent.

If the brick idea doesn’t appeal to the White House, how about taking the money Trump doesn’t send to Sanctuary Cities and spend that on the wall? The solution is a twofer: Financing and poetic justice.

Until recently I’ve been stumped trying to understand the motivation behind declaring one’s city a safe haven for lawbreakers. Why should the Mexican who steals privileges that don’t belong to him get a free pass and the citizen who steals a cellphone be arrested?

What possible benefit is it to law–abiding residents for elected officials to encourage the in–migration of a criminal underclass? Unless the underclass is all in the backyard, celebrating Cinco de Mayo with the rest of the family.

California State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Leon introduced a bill to make the entire state of California a Sanctuary, because “half of my family would be eligible for deportation under [Trump’s] executive order.”

De Leon is more than willing to risk forfeiting millions of dollars in federal money if it means he won’t have to travel to Matamoros to enjoy grandma’s tamales.

It’s also De Leon’s belief that if Americans can donate half their insurance premiums to pay for Obamacare coverage for someone else, they should have no problem splitting their identity with a “hard working” illegal. After all De Leon contends identity theft is “…what you need to survive, to work in this country.”

Personally I wouldn’t want to dine in a restaurant that wouldn’t let you send back a bad entre and I wouldn’t want to live in a state that won’t send back a bad hombre.

De Leon and the rest of the illegal enablers participating in a conspiracy to obstruct federal law are not only importing members of their tribe at the expense of citizens, they also appear to be importing the corrupt Mexican politics the “refugees” are supposedly fleeing.

NFL Advertisers Open Re–Education Camp for Fans

When I made political commercials I was often asked what the difference was between political ads and commercial ads. There are many similarities: Exaggerated benefits, bait and switch promises and sleazy, egomaniacal clients; but the main difference is political ads must make all the sales on a single day.

It’s Black Friday, After Christmas, White Sale, Tech Monday and Fire–Blazing Prices all taking place in a compressed 14–hour day with an unalterable deadline.

super-bowl-gagaSo you can imagine my surprise as I watched Super Bowl LI and saw millions of dollars of in–kind advertising for Hillary three months after the election!

I thought the left wanted to overturn Citizens United and get corporate money out of politics. Yet there was on corporate Super PAC ad after another. The only difference being instead of a brief title card at the end with “Paid for by Committee to Crush Republicans” the identification was for Audi, Budweiser, 84 Lumber and KIA, among others.

None of the subject matter had much to do with the products marketed by the companies footing the bill, although the Audi spot did have wheels. Instead the ads were what marketers call “borrowed interest.” Only in this instance they were borrowing the interest of topics that appeal to only half the country and insult the other.

Celebrity endorsement ads are all borrowed interest and potentially risky, particularly if RGIII was your celebrity. But when your borrowed interest ad involves borrowing Chuck Schumer’s thumb to stick in the eye of potential customers, it’s time to re–think your marketing strategy.

Or better yet, the customer’s buying philosophy.

You can discover the three ads I thought were by far the worst, along with my play–by–play when you click on the Newsmax.com link below:

http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/super-bowl-reeducation-camp-commercial-84-lumber/2017/02/08/id/772562/