Missing the Connection Between Politicians and Consequences

Today we have two widely separated instances of voters unable to grasp the connection between the people they elect to office and the policies and taxes that make them angry.

In Montgomery County, MD — a bastion of Democrat Leftist compassion and social justice — incumbent members of the county council are contributing funds from their campaign accounts to defeat a referendum designed to impose term limits.

What, you thought they’d use their own money? These are incumbent politicians, they use other people’s money to affect social change.

Just like vampires use other people’s blood for sustenance.

The term limit referendum is a voter–led response to a council that boosted it’s salary to $135,000 a year, for a job that’s supposed to be part–time, and increased property taxes 9 percent. The prime mover behind the referendum is a local activist, Republican and, if truth be told, jerk named Robin Ficker.

Ficker, on the side of the angels here, calls the incumbents “self–serving tax increase specialists” in coverage by the Washington Post. And he claims “44 percent of the signatures [on the referendum petitions] came from registered Democrats.

If passed, the referendum would limit council members to three consecutive terms for a total of 12 years in office. That might be long enough for the government to indoctrinate your child, but for a politician it’s barely enough time to settle in at the government trough.

Politicians and the interest groups that control them really hate term limits. The politicians because they’ll have to find honest work and the interest groups because they’ll have to go to the trouble to capture new politicians when the old ones were already house trained.

That’s why the “No on B” campaign attracted the politician’s donations and support of the Montgomery Education Association (putting teachers first since its founding), Casa in Action (an illegal alien, sanctuary city support group), the African–American, Latino and Muslim Democrat clubs (racial bean counters) and the Democrat party as a whole.

Ficker is unimpressed, “Quite frankly, I hope they all put in a million dollars. I hope they spend all their money fighting this. We need change in Montgomery County.”

Strangely enough, the situation is somewhat similar in Gaza. There the incumbents are from Hamas and they never tire of talking about their compassion for the Arab people and corresponding hatred for Jews.

The difference is in Gaza term limits initiatives are of a more kinetic nature and typically originate in Israel. Since being voted into power in 2007, Hamas has been responsible for starting and losing three wars against the Little Satan.

Gaza was in the news when the Post covered an outing of senior citizens allowed to visit Jerusalem: “A few hundred older Palestinians may now exit the coastal strip on Fridays and take the 90-minute bus trip to Jerusalem to pray at al–Aqsa Mosque, the third-holiest site in Islam.”

Residents of Montgomery County who want to visit a free land have only to get in the car and drive a few miles to Virginia. In Gaza visitors must run a “security” gauntlet. The first stop is the Hamas checkpoint where green-uniformed thugs give travelers the stink eye. The next stop is the Palestinian Authority checkpoint where the thugs Hamas ousted do their own rousting. Here the seniors were arbitrarily told they could not bring food or water into Israel lest it fall into the hands of the Jews.

Final stop is the Israeli checkpoint where bags are x–rayed for bombs, — the PA takes food from travelers, but explosives are waived right through — passengers are scanned and papers examined.

Once In Israel the Arabs were amazed at how green the country is, how smooth the roads are and how the basic infrastructure functions. Back home they live in squalor because the damage from three wars is mostly unrepaired because Hamas steals construction material to build missile–firing bunkers and more tunnels to invade Israel.

Hamas has outsourced any government functions that don’t involve explosions to “humanitarian groups” and as a result 70 percent of the population lives on handouts.

In the end though, neither population is capable of understanding the type of government they support is responsible for their woes. There’s an excellent chance the term limits question will pass in Montgomery.

The old sullen Democrats will be forced out of office by an unrelenting calendar only to be replaced by newly elected Democrats that will continue the tax and spend policies that generated the initial outrage.

There won’t be another election in Gaza anytime soon, but residents will continue to blame the Jews and not Hamas for all their problems.

How long until either realizes its the ideology and not the implementors that must change.

 

The Freshman 15 Now Refers to Drinks

Typically its the embarrassment connected with a low ranking that galvanizes a college administration into action.

The football coach is fired. Assistant coaches tell their families to start packing. And the college president assures everyone the next head coach will be the one who can finally balance academic excellence in one hand and a bail bondsman in the other.

But this time it was a top 20 ranking that built a fire under the College of Charleston. The Princeton Review ranked that school at #15 on the list of the top 20 party schools in the nation, joining the other members of the Bacchanal Conference in offering a bachelor’s in binge drinking.

Shortly thereafter President Glenn McConnell placed a temporary ban on serving alcohol at fraternity and sorority parties. McConnell didn’t mention the Princeton ranking, but he did refer to out–of–control parties and students so drunk they required an ambulance to transport them to the emergency room.

“Enough is enough,” McConnell announced. “This type of reckless and dangerous behavior will not be tolerated.”

And then what happened? You can find out how the College of Charleston response differed from the difiident approach of the University of Virginia, but first you’ll have to click on the hyperlink below and finish reading my column at Newsmax.com:

http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/alcohol-drinking/2016/10/06/id/751967/

 

Final Debate Answers Dictator Question

Compared with the second debate, the final encounter between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton was mostly a snooze, but we did clear up one point of contention.

Now the American people know who to support if they want to complete the Latinization of the United States and install a tin–pot dictator in the White House just like South of the Border.

A vote for Hillary will be a two–fer: She’ll undermine the Constitution while changing the drapes.

Hillary’s answer to a question regarding her criteria for appointments to the Supreme Court cleared up everyone but the media’s confusion. A crucial question since the next president will fill one open seat and potentially two to three more as leftist hacks move on to the final venue.

In 416–words Hillary didn’t bother to mention the Constitution until the next–to–last sentence and even then it was an incorrect procedural reference to the confirmation process.

Instead of appointing judges who will defend the Constitution, her goal is to make the Supreme Court a mini–legislature where she determines the membership and the decisions.

Even worse, Hillary — like other tin–pot dictators — intends to tell judges how to rule BEFORE she appoints them. The Clintonista judiciary is to “stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy. For me, that means that we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women’s rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, [and] will stand up and say no to Citizens United.”

That’s not a litmus test — those are marching orders.

Hillary’s philosophy is a fundamental perversion that overturns a constitutional order dating from the founding and the rule of law itself.

The law is not to be a respecter of persons, or as Leviticus 19:15 instructs: “[Judges] shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.”

The role of the Supreme Court is to apply the law, in this case the Constitution, to the case at hand, regardless of the social standing or sexual preference of the individuals involved in the case. Lawsuits aren’t handicapped like horseraces. A judge doesn’t give a poor minority the benefit of the doubt; he gives him the benefit of the law.

Hillary’s whims will determine what is constitutional and what is not. Take her differing views of two court decisions. Roe v Wade re–wrote the Constitution to permit killing as long as the victim was under a certain age.

Citizens United held that money in campaigns was a form of speech and laws passed by Congress that banned this speech/money violated the 1^st Amendment. At that the ban only applied to certain commercial enterprises. Corporate money was banned, but union money — just as commercial — was not banned, since that money helped elect Democrats.

Both decisions can theoretically be overturned by a future court, as long as it’s not a Clinton court. Hillary says Roe v. Wade “guarantees a constitutional right” to abortion, as if the wording is actually part of the document, while Citizens United is a decision “[judges] must stand up against.”

If you are interested in learning how Hillary’s philosophy of appointing judges whose first loyalty is to the left and not the Constitution works in practice just look at the situation in Venezuela. Bloomberg News reports strongman President Nicholas Maduro has used his appointed judiciary to block a citizen–generated recall vote guaranteed in the country’s constitution.

Maduro’s unilateral edicts and the political situation is eerily similar to ours: “Even after losing power in Congress 10 months ago, Maduro has managed to stifle constitutional attempts at removing him …In coordinated actions, courts in five pro­government states suspended signature collections on Thursday, prompting the national electoral council to halt the process nationwide.”

That ends any hope for a recall vote.

And don’t take comfort in the false assurance that we won’t be facing a recall situation here. Maduro uses his court for routine government, much like Hillary would like to if she gets the chance. Does this divide between the executive and legislative sound familiar? “The legislature and executive remain at loggerheads, paralyzing the democratic process. Maduro even approved his 2017 budget through the supreme court, bypassing legislators.”

A Hillary Clinton administration will be a continuation of eight years of Obama decline, only she will add to the Oval Office collection of office supplies.

Hillary will have a phone, a pen and a rubber stamp Supreme Court.

Target “Solution” Adds Uncertainty to Bathroom Etiquette

There’s an interesting controversy contrast between two of America’s leading retailers. Walmart controversies typically occur out in the parking lot and are signaled by raised voices or the occasional gunshot.

Walmart executive involvement is normally limited to calling 9–1–1.

Target controversies take place inside and are kicked off when an ever–vigilant socialist media commissar spots a political correctness violation. Target honchos actively participate in both the cause and the occasional apology.

A few of Target’s more recent sensibility offenses include:

• A T–shirt boasting the word “Trophy” on the front. (I think the fact it didn’t come in XXX–Large had something to do with it, too.)
• A Christmas T–shirt that read: “OCD Obsessive Christmas Disorder.”
• Another T–shirt that replaced Princess Leia with Luke Skywalker.
• A Photoshopped swimsuit ad that gave a young girl a “thigh gap” and an arm long enough for an Orangutan.

Customers should have gotten an inkling Target wasn’t content to confine the outrage to haberdashery when the “Boy’s Bedding” signs were changed to “Kid’s Bedding” and other departments were put on notice by the company newsletter that, “our teams are working across the store to identify areas where we can phase out gender-based signage to help strike a better balance.”

Fortunately those uproars were mostly optional. The Angel of Outrage passed over if you didn’t buy the T–shirt and you could always purchase Roscoe’s Star Wars sheets at Walmart. Assuming you made it through the parking lot.

Target’s latest internally–generated outrage has the potential to affect any customer who just finished a Big Gulp prior to shopping. Bulk bathrooms —that serve more than one customer simultaneously — are now gender fluid. Nathans who feel nelly can enter the bathroom of their choice.

Target PR flacks assured the Washington Post that some customers “are really supportive.” I suppose that includes the Idaho man arrested in a female fitting room — he was feeling frilly that day — while he took photos of the woman in changing in the next cubicle.

Personally I’ve always felt anyone was welcome to join me in the men’s room if you can use the urinal without sitting in it.

Others are less supportive.

The American Family Association decided this was the straw that broke the toilet paper dispenser. It launched a nationwide #BoycottTarget campaign in response to what it termed a “dangerous” bathroom and changing room policy. In no time at all women threw down their “Trophy” T–shirts and demanded Target conduct its outreach to the mentally ill in a location that didn’t involve baring your behind.

Normally, trendy retailers consider offending Christians one of the perks of being in business. What fun is it if you can’t poke the Bible–beaters in the eye once in a while? I’ll bet it was was all Baptists and tranny jokes in the break room until the sales figures rolled in.

Home Depot had “robust earnings” and the National Retail Federation “revised its forecasts upward.” In contrast, Target sales down by 7.2 percent and foot traffic declined for the first time in two years.

The only area to show any increase was online sales, where customers are pretty sure who is sharing the bathroom with them.

Did the Christians finally win one? Did the almost 1.5 million signers of the boycott petition make a difference?

Target says no. “It’s difficult to tease out one thing that’s driving results.” But if that’s the case why is Target now spending $20 million to add one–holer bathrooms to all its stores? These bathrooms are specifically designed to accommodate female shoppers who don’t want to play stall roulette.

The only downside I see is most American’s aren’t prepared for a return to 1960’s gas station bathroom etiquette. Back then there was many a time when I’d shot the bolt on a restroom door only to be interrupted shortly thereafter by a tentative jiggling of the door handle.

What to do? Maintain a discrete silence and hope they go away? Try to concentrate on the business at hand and clear out quickly? Before I could make up my mind they usually escalated by knocking.

Now I’m wondering: What are they thinking? The door is obviously locked. If it locked accidentally, knocking isn’t going to solve their problem. And since the bathroom is occupied, do they expect me say, “Hey, come on in, I’ll slide over and you can join me!”

Target runs the risk of today’s unfamiliar customers being so deferential they cross their legs and wait in agony before a door that’s merely closed.

Maybe the situation calls for another T–shirt, this time reading: “I used the bathroom at Target & survived!”

Republican Party Now Controlled by Depend Caucus

For a guy who’s billed as the next great Republican political wizard, he sure makes a lot of rookie mistakes.

No, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Speaker of the House Paul Ryan — the Hamlet of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Now Ryan is doing the Hokey–Pokey over Trump’s just–released video “How to Impress Women Like the Stars Do.” I say now, because this is only the most recent example. Ryan earlier was weathervaning over Trump’s Twitter war with the Democrat’s angry Arab. Before that it was Trump vs. the ethnic–supremacist judge. Prior to that it may have been the disabled reporter. Somewhere in there we have Carly Fiorina’s face.

Unless you have a Democrat opposition researcher in the family it’s hard to keep track.

The only thing that’s certain is the joy in the enemy camp as Ryan predictably dances to the mainstream media’s tune and the rest of the Depend Caucus wrings their tiny hands.

There’re a number of problems with Ryan’s performance of the Politically Correct Polka, beginning with the fact it makes him look weak. This confirms what conservatives have been saying for months, but going public demonstrates Ryan’s fecklessness to the entire nation.

Politically Ryan’s weakness is an even bigger mistake for GOP members of the House he’s supposed to be leading. Responding to media inquiries regarding Trump’s shambolic campaign only serves to nationalize House races, which incumbent House members should certainly avoid. House races should stay local.

Incumbents talk about the pork they’ve brought home not the pork–brain at the top of the ticket.

House members, including the Speaker, have no control over presidential candidates. Regularly commenting on the Improv Impresario at the top of the ticket means what happens there also reflects on those members.

It’s the equivalent of the Uber passenger in a self–driving car being held responsible for the robot’s tickets.

Nationalizing a House race is what challengers do to try and ride the coattails of their presidential candidates and overcome the incumbent’s name ID and record within the district.

Ryan’s continuing comments on the Trump race puts pressure on all House candidates to answer Trump questions from local reporters who take their cues from the networks.

This idiocy won’t hurt Ryan — he’s in a safe district, otherwise he wouldn’t be Speaker — but it damages incumbents in marginal districts and it really handicaps GOP challengers. Instead of signing on for color commentary of the Trump race, Ryan should have told national reporters from the very beginning that he is focused on increasing the Republican House majority and he doesn’t have time to be an advisor for the Trump campaign, too.

The media won’t accept that answer, so he’ll be pressed. He repeats those questions are a distraction for House members concentrating on (insert message sound bite). Voters will have a chance in November to decide the presidential race and they don’t need my help to do it.

Then Ryan refuses to answer any more questions about Trump.

The media will tire of badgering him and move on to reliable RINO weasels and backstabbers like John McCain and Lindsay Graham. For proof this technique works we have only to look at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. He finally shut up about Trump and the media stopped asking.

Ryan’s silence regarding the Trump campaign would allow other House members to do likewise. When a local news poodle asks them to comment on the latest Trump communication adventure, all they have to do is say, like Speaker Ryan, I’m concentrating on my own race where (insert political BS). Voters can make their own decision regarding Trump and Hillary in November.

Then they can shut the heck up.

Ryan’s failure to adhere to this obvious and sensible strategy calls into question his motives. Is he trying to appeal to GOP contributors that might otherwise stop giving? If so, he can tell them in private what I’ve written here. Does Ryan want to cozy up to the next administration? There’s probably a better chance for good relations with Hillary than with Trump. Or does Ryan want to be the national GOP leader acceptable to the media? He can ask Mitt Romney how that worked out.

A wise friend contends Ryan’s diarrhea of the mouth isn’t a mistake — it’s a fallback plan. Originally, Ryan wanted to block Trump’s nomination so the party would turn to him as nominee without subjecting him to a primary campaign.

Now Ryan just wants to defeat Trump regardless of the cost to the nation. Gov. Mike Huckabee contents the Republican RINO and consultant complex isn’t afraid Trump will lose.

They’re afraid Trump will win.

I’m beginning to think the governor and my friend are correct.

Can the Hair Be Convinced to Train Like the Tortoise?

Instead of trying to turn Donald Trump into Mitt Romney, I suggest the campaign junta stop trying to construct a Debatetron 5000 and instead get Trump to utilize the assets that won him the nomination: Humor, the ability to connect with an audience and a willingness to say what programmed politicians won’t.

He’s not trying to convince the New York Times subscriber base to vote for him. Trump is trying to persuade independent voters who aren’t obsessed with politics to support him and, equally important, go to the polls.

Thinks of it this way: Trump isn’t after the people who stay in his hotels. He’s after the people who built and work in his hotels. (Assuming they’re citizens.)

And speaking of the Times, they’ve found another group of anonymous Trump staffers who’re going to single–handedly whip him into shape for the next debate. The term used is “rigorously prepare.”

Good luck, I can’t see them making a silk tongue out of a rabble–rouser’s ear.

The campaign can’t make Trump what he isn’t. He’s not going to sit still for some memorize–the–Koran debate workout. Instead of trying to make him into Meryl Streep, accept the fact he’s John Wayne and try to find a role that fits the venue.

Trump debate preparation should be fun, if the junta expects his willing participation. The bulk of it can consist of him watching his favorite person — Donald Trump — in one of his favorite activities: Speaking to adoring crowds at rallies.

Explain to him that when Hillary talks about crime or a crime–related question comes up he should respond with an illegal alien crime sound bite and then play the rally footage. Ask him to repeat what he just heard. The next day rearrange the order of the topics and clips.

Instead of treating the debate like Masterpiece Theatre, treat it like a sitcom. Trump can be engaging and funny. Bring those sides out. One of the most memorable occasions in the Bush Vs Gore debates was when Albert the 1st invaded Bush’s personal space and George W. looked at the camera and made a face.

It connected with the audience and expressed what all normal viewers were thinking. Trump should do the same. The debate audiences don’t help him because they are so stodgy. Trump feeds on the energy of the crowd. (Hillary feeds, too, but more like what happens in The Strain.)

Absent a loud crowd, let him look at the camera — since he’s on a split screen anyway — and try some non–verbal communication. It’s a technique Hillary is constitutionally incapable of adopting (also the only known instance of Hillary obeying any type of constitution).

The next debate is where the media will really be looking to trip Trump and make him look callous or insensitive as he relates to the “Millennial–in–the–Street.” This is the “Town Hall” session that consists of a crowd of angry leftists moderated by two condescending leftists.

The debate commission will assemble probably the only people in America who know less about the Constitution, the federal governments’ role and how government functions than Trump does and invite them to ask inane questions.

These questions typically consist of two parts. The beginning where the “independent voter” looks at the camera and hopes mom remembered to set the DVR and the conclusion where the “independent” puts her vote up for auction and the candidates then compete to see who can spend more tax dollars on her behalf.

You never see a questioner ask how long it will take to deport all the illegal aliens. Instead they ask why the government hasn’t flown the rest of their family up from Bogotá.

It’s a hostile venue with a hostile audience and Trump will have to be better prepared.

Right now Trump supporters boast he won the first part of the debate, but being proud of winning the first 30 minutes of a 90–minute debate is like being proud of winning the flat stages of the Tour de France.

Hillary probably couldn’t have passed the test at doping control after the race, but she crossed the finish line first.

Donald the Defiant Dominates Debate

The only way Sunday’s Town Hall debate could have been better was if Trump had come whirling onstage like Jim Carrey in “The Mask” and shouted, “Somebody STOP me!”

There are candidates who would have been chastened after political archeologists unearthed a tape of them boasting like high school jocks about their way with women. Those candidates might have begged Hillary on behalf of all females to forgive them. They might have thanked the “unbiased” moderators for giving them the opportunity to grovel before millions of viewers.

But they wouldn’t be named Donald Trump.

Trump is the John Paul Jones of presidential candidates. With water sloshing over the deck Trump yells, “I have not yet begun to fight!” He’s one–armed Gen. Phil Kearny at Chantilly, surrounded by Confederates, trying to cut his way out with a cavalry sabre. He’s America’s Populist Id defying the false cordiality and empty smiles of politics.

Don’t get me wrong here. I know Trump is going to lose.

Like Kearny he’ll be shot down by the Clinton cabal and its eager media volunteers, but like Kearny, Trump is going down hard.

I’ve attended comedies that didn’t generate the laughter and joy that Trump produced as he lit Hillary up. Trump went after Cruella Clinton in a way conservatives have wanted to see since she slithered into public life.

The Bushes, the Rubios, the Grahams and the Kasichs would have debated Hillary as if her bloviating about plans and “smart solutions” really merited serious consideration — while ignoring the rotten character and its accompanying failures that are the real issue with Hillary.

I’ve selected my five favorite Trumpisms from the debate, but you’ll have to go to my Newsmax.com column to discover which ones made the cut. Just click here:

http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/graham-kasich/2016/10/12/id/752960/