Russell Moore: A Baptist Shepherd Who Doesn’t Care Much for His Sheep

Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, may not have to suffer deplorables gladly for too much longer. This week he met with the head of the SBC’s executive committee to discuss his estrangement from the 81 percent of Evangelicals who voted for President Trump.

Moore survived the meeting, but I wouldn’t advise asking for money to redecorate his office next year.

To his credit Moore is a staunch defender of marriage, the unborn and the Bible’s instruction on homosexuality, but his grasp of other culturally relevant theology is spotty at best. When Moore discusses illegal aliens, race and politics it sounds like New York Times Revised Version.

Moore is so out of step on those topics I’m surprised he wasn’t invited to be a speaker at the Herd of Heretics conference sponsored by the Virginia Baptist General Assembly, details here.

Moore could probably finesse those issues if he wasn’t such a Pharisee concerning Trump. He was and is a loud and incessant Never Trumper. As former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee observed, he’s “utterly stunned that Russell Moore is being paid by Southern Baptists to insult them.”

Moore cast a write–in ballot for president, observing, “If you lose an election you can live to fight another day and move on, but if you lose an election while giving up your very soul then you have really lost it all, and so I think the stakes are really high.”

Moore can enable the victory of a candidate who believes the unborn have no rights without getting so much as a smudge on his angelic robes, but voting for Trump means your soul is powering the HVAC in Trump Tower.

To learn more about Rev. Moore the White Guilt pastor and the response of Deplorable Baptists to his hectoring you’ll have to click on the link below and finish reading at Newsmax.com.

https://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/baptist-evangelical-sbc/2017/03/14/id/778689/

 

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/

 

McConnell & Ryan Join Trump Troika Under Duress

It appears the Trump, McConnell, Ryan honeymoon is over before the marriage was consummated.

term-limits-adSure Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker Paul Ryan made the right noises just after Trump’s astonishing victory. On the Senate floor McConnell said, “Speaker Ryan and I have had productive discussions with the president-elect last week and we’re both looking forward to working with him.”

McConnell was even ready to take on Obamacare, “It’s pretty high on our agenda, as you know. I would be shocked if we didn’t move forward and keep our commitment to the American people.”

Yes it’s been on Mitch’s “honey–do” list for almost a decade, just under “defund National Endowment for the Arts,” “zero out PBS” and declare war on North Viet Nam.

I always had my doubts as to the durability of this menagerie of three. As 1 Corinthians 14:8 advices: “For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle?”

And as McConnell has proven over the years his whoopee cushion call–to–action inspires neither his troops nor the voters. (For complete details on McConnell’s reluctance to fight for conservative principles see my earlier column here.)

Now that Trump is serious about “draining the swamp” and the denizens thereof, not only is a divorce in prospect — the fight over who gets custody of the GOP is going to be nasty. In a post–election interview with “60 Minutes” Trump declared, “We’re going to put on term limits, which a lot of people aren’t happy about, but we’re putting on term limits. We’re doing a lot of things to clean up the system.”

That choking noise you just heard was McConnell gagging on his Senate Bean Soup.

So what’s the time–server’s response and the Trumpista solution? You can find out by clicking the link below and traveling to my Newsmax.com column:

http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/president-elect-trump-mcconnell-paul-ryan-term-limits/2016/11/22/id/760234/

 

Mitch McConnell, Trump’s Uncertain Senate Trumpet

It turns out Donald Trump and Abraham Lincoln have a lot more in common than a passing reference in the second presidential debate. You may recall a leaked transcript from one of Hillary’s closely guarded speeches had her admitting “both a public and a private position on certain issues.”

Hillary explained she was only following the duplicity precedent set by Abraham Lincoln during passage of the 13th Amendment.

Gen. George McClellan & Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McClellan

Gen. George McClellan & Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McClellan

It was an audacious lie, but a lie nonetheless.

As Trump said, “Now she’s blaming [her] lie on the late great Abraham Lincoln…okay, Honest Abe never lied…That’s the big difference between Abraham Lincoln and you.”

It’s not surprising Hillary would use the dead to buttress a lie — rumor has it she blames Vince Foster for the email server — what’s surprising is learning Trump and Lincoln both confronted a similar governing situation.

Both lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College. Lincoln and Trump were met with riots instigated by political opponents. Each wanted to take control of the capital, although in Lincoln’s case it was Richmond.

Lincoln’s top priority was success on the battlefield, while Trump’s is success in the political arena, yet both must rely on subordinates who oppose their plans and hold them in contempt.

Lincoln’s burden was Maj. Gen. George McClellan. Trump’s is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McClellan.

Whoops, make that Mitch McConnell.

The parallels between these two timid, ineffective, self–protecting “leaders” and the damage they do their putative cause are remarkable. You’ll be amazed at my insight, but you know what comes next: First you’ll have to click on the link below to be taken to Newsmax.com to read the remainder of the column.

As always, feel free to re–post:

http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/lincoln-mcconell/2016/11/17/id/759488/

 

I Was 100 Percent Wrong About Donald Trump

msm-covers-for-hillaryIt’s been a decade or more since I’ve enjoyed watching election returns on TV. Republicans are always being told not to give up hope; the campaign is gaining momentum in the last week. I remember four years ago there were reports from the Romney campaign that prospects for victory were looking up.

Instead of three little old ladies waiting in line for Mitt outside a Florida Golden Corral, there were now four.

Even in the midst of such encouraging news I still felt like a German soldier on the Eastern Front waiting for the advent of winter.

This year Trump was barnstorming the country like the Great Waldo Pepper with thousands of people packing areas to hear him speak. Yes, it looked very impressive compared to the handful Hillary allowed to stand at her bedside, but how much credence could one give to Trump’s reports of eminent victory?

I was briefly encouraged when the director of the FBI performed an encore of the Hokey–Comey, but the last move he busted was to take his right foot out and proclaim Hillary was again disingenuous, negligent and unindictable.

Then there was the problem of which network? Could I take hours of smug Megyn Kelly gloating over a Trump defeat she eagerly anticipated?

As it turned out, Megyn and I both got a big surprise.

Trump extended his record of proving me 100 percent wrong.

Once acknowledging a Trump victory was unavoidable, watching the pundits squirm became very entertaining. The pathetic Karl Rove was claiming Trump owed Speaker Paul Ryan for his victory in Wisconsin. If Ryan is the measure of support, then Trump should be equally grateful to illegal aliens for providing the rioters that roughed up his supporters outside rallies.

Dana Perino allowed that veterans of the Bush administration might hold their nose and agree to work with Trump, which is quite an understatement. Trump will soon discover it’s easier to rid himself of head lice than it is to shed Bush hangers–on wanting a place on the Trump train.

Many on Fox couldn’t rid themselves of their condescending, establishment mindset, even with the results of Trump’s victory starring them in the face. Sean Hannity, an early and vocal Trump backer, was asked if he thought Trump could find a way to reach out to Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Hannity injected a note of realism when he observed tartly that those two had better figure out a way to reach out to Trump.

Currently the opposition media is speculating regarding what the effects of a Trump victory will be in the next few months. But I say he’s already had an impact. The good news is “assault rifles” just became a lot cheaper.

On the other hand Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees took a big hit. She’ll be lucky if she can land a job cutting ribbons for new Chipotles and chances are she’ll be paid in burrito bowls. No more demands for private jet transportation. Hillary will have to depend on the coyotes to get her there like the rest of the help does.

The exodus from the Clinton Corruption Foundation will look like Occupy protestors fleeing a meth lab explosion. The only jobs Hillary ever created were at the foundation and it took donations to make that possible. Now the charity–funded, administration–in–waiting has the same fund raising potential as Trump University.

What does the future look like if your only marketable skill is selecting the pantsuit of the day?

Bill will feel the effects, too. He won’t be picking up any more hotties on billionaire’s executive jets. He’ll be back at the bus station scouting talent with the rest of the chicken hawks.

Clintons and their hangers on aren’t the only economic victims of the Trump victory. Election day was a nationwide experiment in the value of a paid GOTV (Get Out the Vote) ground game. Experts griped that Trump’s lack of one was yet another reason he wasn’t fit to be the nominee.

Today consultants peddling manpower–intensive GOTV programs just saw the market for their services plummet. Trump’s “Ringling Brothers, Barnum & Bailey” campaign proved those anecdotal people showing up at a rally also show up at the polls.

And speaking of refugees, what about the more–conservative–than–thou #NeverTrump crowd? The Weekly Standard and the National Review were both hotbeds of the anti–trump commentariat. I wouldn’t be surprised if embarkation process for the post–election cruises both magazines sponsor resembles Saigon in 1975.

I briefly considered joining one of the cruises to gloat, but then it struck me: Do those embarking on the #NeverTrump cruise plan to come back?

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.

diapers-term-limitsIn 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.

 

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.

hillary-dictatorA 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 1st 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.

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.

ryan-good-bad-stupid-678x381Now 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.

robottrump_march_8He’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.