Beware the ‘Conservative’ Who Grows in Office

The maddening problem facing conservatives fighting the growth of Big Government is that much of the growth is fertilized by former conservatives who start growing first. The phenomena is most evident in benighted lands that don’t impose term limits and have legislative bodies that meet year around.

And just as a cancerous growth is no respecter of persons, politician growth isn’t limited to the federal government.

State Sen. Bill Stanley (R–Clueless) busy growing in office.

Symptoms are evident on the state and local level. In Virginia we have a politician who initially ran for office as a small–government, conservative and unfortunately failed to resist temptation to meddle and build a ‘legacy’ the longer he stayed in the capital.

Bill Stanley promised to “fight to reduce state spending and the size of state government” in his first race for the Virginia Senate. Two crucial promises that work in tandem. Without increased spending, government can’t grow and expand its interference. Cutting spending also cuts the size of government since the Commonwealth must balance its budget.

Stanley’s first legislative session was promising, considering he’s a defense lawyer. He introduced a bill that would require local courts to try repeat juvenile violent offenders as adults. Choosing the right health insurance policy may be so daunting that it takes 26 years to prepare for the decision, but choosing between right and wrong is binary and consequences should apply at a much earlier age.

Six years later it appears Stanley’s fallen under the influence of Social Justice Warriors. He’s gone from tough–on–crime to touchy–feely.

He’s introduced a bill that would forbid local school districts from suspending any student in preschool through the third grade.

I wanted to ask the senator a number of questions regarding this state government expansion into the affairs of local school boards, but eight days wasn’t long enough to work me into the schedule. I did speak with a staffer and as far as he knew there is no epidemic of pint–sized suspensions in the district.

It might have been useful for Stanley to interview a few teachers before he began meddling. My daughter is and teacher’s classroom discipline experiences are instructive. For example, there is the third–grade boy who made an obscene gesture as he exited the bus and entered school. This violation was reported and when the vice principal asked him about it, the boy struck the principal.

That earned him his third suspension for this year. One might be tempted to say that three suspensions prove suspensions don’t work. It’s time to try the gentle Stanley Rule, which would force elementary schools to create an alternative, in–school behavior program.

That ignores the immediate benefit of a suspension: It gives his teacher a break.

When not taking a swing at administrators, this child routinely shouts in class disrupting the room and destroying the learning environment. He bullies other children and exhibits disrespectful behavior that other, easily–led boys imitate.

The prospect of his moving into fourth grade is so foreboding that more than one fourth grade teacher has applied for a transfer to another school.

Taking away suspensions removes the only leverage administrators have these days. (Historical note: When I was in elementary school, discipline problems were solved with a paddle. That’s why there were routinely 35 students in a class. Today, teachers ask for UN Peacekeepers when they have more than 25.)

Suspending this kid doesn’t bother him bit, but it bothers the parents a great deal. It means stay home from work, arrange short–term daycare or dial 1–800–Im–Ur–Jailer. Enough suspensions and parents may finally become engaged and discipline their delinquent. Stanley’s meddling means the punishment is inflicted on the children in the delinquent darling’s classroom who obey the rules and are trying to learn. An impossibility because the teacher’s time and attention is spent trying to deal with Rosemary’s Baby.

Stanley’s staffer contends the outbursts “mean there are other issues going on at home.” Exactly. And a conservative response, that respected the rights of well–behaved children, would have directed school administrators to make a referral to the dreaded Child Protective Services after the second suspension.

Classroom decorum is preserved and conditions in the home are investigated without disrupting the school or creating in–house discipline programs that siphon more money away from the education of the kids who aren’t a constant problem.

Conservative legislation seeks to serve the law–abiding, rule–following majority without imposing new burdens or taking away their ability to act independently.

Stanley’s bill fails that simple test. It’s legislation in search of a problem. It also may put him in search of a new job when the parents of kids who follow the rules learn what he’s done to their child’s classroom.

Advertisements

Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Shutdown?

This weekend the United States Treasury will bump up against the “debt ceiling.” This debt ceiling is to the government like the credit card limit is to your dreams of really furnishing your man cave.

When your credit card is maxed out it’s no use going to The Big Screen Store to buy the new 90” TV for the Super Bowl. Your card will be declined shortly after its swiped. For the feds reaching the debt limit means the Chinese will get some temporary relief from Uncle Sam putting the bite on them for another series of loans.

There the similarity ends. You can’t borrow additional money until you either pay down your credit card debt or the postman delivers another credit card application that’s “reserved just for you!” Congress can start borrowing again just as soon as both houses pass a bill that increases the debt limit without any provision for debt payment. For politicians, operators are always standing by.

If the debt limit increase isn’t passed by this weekend the government enters “shutdown” mode and Trump will have to buy a burner phone to get back on Twitter. Or so the Opposition Media would have us believe.

The facts are these shutdowns were non–events until recently. Over the years there have been a number of shutdowns and the republic was none the worse for wear. Normal people went about their normal business, while the political class had a nervous breakdown.

The last time the government ground to a halt in 2013, Obama was in the White House and racial peace reigned throughout the land. Then the sinister Ted Cruz filibustered the debt increase and the feds were without funding for a harrowing 16 days. During that fortnight plus two Mexico annexed a defenseless Texas, the Bundy Gang seized much of the public land in Southern Nevada and rioting middle income taxpayers burned down Obamacare enrollment offices to protest skyrocketing insurance premiums.

You don’t recall that? That’s because it’s Fake News. Nothing much happened. It was so quiet the Obama administration decided to punish taxpayers by closing the Mall, national parks and other facilities that didn’t require closing. The goal was twofold: Generate hysterical shutdown news coverage and mobilize the dependent class to call a politician.

The truth is bumping up against the debt limit doesn’t shut off the money spigot. The feds are collecting tax money every day. Just before the Great Cruz Control Experiment the Washington Post published an interactive page where readers could take the $172.4 billion available even after the shutdown and decide who gets paid and who doesn’t.

I took the money and paid all the essentials: Social Security; T–bill debt service; Medicare; Medicaid; federal salaries and benefits; unemployment insurance; food stamps & TANF; military pay; Veteran’s Affairs and even that seat of Deep State Resistance — the Dept. of Justice.

There was no default. I even had $700 million left over for the odd drone strike or Congressional sexual harassment settlement. That’s why you won’t see that mistake in the Post again. The facts undercut all the shutdown predictions of doom.

Republicans took the blame for the Cruz Control, but suffered no lasting ill effects. In this season’s shutdown follies one would think that even the Slinky–spined Republican leadership in the House and Senate could win a confrontation with Democrats.

The difference between the two sides is stark.

On one hand the GOP is trying to keep the government up and running under the sure hand of legislative ‘mastermind’ and Curator of the Senate, Mitch McConnell. On the other, leftist Democrats are threatening to hold taxpayers hostage by shutting down the government. They believe rewarding illegal alien lawbreakers is more important than serving the citizens that elected them.

RINOs and herd–followers in the Swamp have trouble pointing out this obvious contrast because they can hardly wait to surrender to Democrat demands for a DACA amnesty. It’s just taking longer to negotiate terms than they expected.

The fact Trump won the presidency on a promise to “end DACA,” build the wall and deport illegals has escaped the notice of these serial appeasers. What citizens believe is only important until the polls close.

In all the OpMedia buildup to the potential shutdown, I have yet to read of any Democrats fearing they will be blamed for the shutdown. Like General Grant on the second day of a battle, they would have to more pretty fast to get ahead of the GOP jellyfish caucus who is already trying on their hair shirts.

Republican ‘leaders’ and their enablers are always willing to resort to preemptive surrender before the battle is joined. To win one must fight and their heart just isn’t in it. They always have an exit strategy for everything but leaving office.

Pay As You Go Amnesty

The current controversy involving granting amnesty to approximately 800,000 Delayed Accountability for Contemptuous Aliens (DACA) is nowhere near the end of demands to appease mass lawbreakers.

The people who naïvely think that after the DACA surge is legalized the country can get back to normal are the real dreamers. Unchaining those demonstrators from the furniture in Congressional offices and TV studios only makes room for the next shift of disgruntled illegals to take their place.

The DACA surrender is just the beginning.

The cultural Marxists in charge of the media, academia, commerce and government are, for the most part, convinced blanket amnesty for illegals is the way to go and the sooner the better. It’s those pesky and unenlightened citizens who’re the problem. Telling the truth, that amnesty for illegals rewards lawbreaking and creates incentives for following waves of illegals expecting the same give–away, produces a negative response.

(The term ‘immigration reform’ is also misleading. There is nothing wrong — excepting the anchor baby interpretation and Ted ‘The Liar of the Senate’ Kennedy’s chain migration law — with our current immigration statutes. What’s missing is enforcement. Real ‘immigration reform’ would be vigorous enforcement of the laws we have now.)

That’s why descriptions of the problem use touchy–feely, focus–group language to hide the facts.

Which brings us to another ‘reform’ proposal. The Immigrant Tax Inquiry Group has a Five + Five plan that is supposed to “Enable Unauthorized Immigrants to Generate More Tax Revenue.”

Any ‘reform’ that relies on misleading adjectives makes me suspicious. What’s an “unauthorized immigrant”? Is it someone who innocently wandered into an area that’s off limits, like the employee breakroom at Costco? Or is it someone who intentionally crossed the border into a nation where he had no right to be?

And why would immigrants need a Tax Inquiry Group in the first place? Legal immigrants are covered by the same tax laws as the rest of us.

The questions answer themselves. So, misleading adjectives aside, how does the program work? Does Five + Five = immigration pacification?

The program is a pay–as–you–go amnesty described as a tax that’s split equally between employee and employer. The attraction for Juan is he doesn’t have to flee routine traffic stops anymore. The attraction for his employer is Juan is paying half the tax.

And there, I suspect, is the real motive for Five + Five and the reason ITIG doesn’t list its donors. It’s a ‘guest worker’ program that outsources the cost to taxpayers and while the benefits go to the employers.

ITIG was unintentionally candid, “The small tax is reasonable, as employers have traditionally paid unauthorized workers 25 percent less than others, and these workers do jobs others are unwilling to do. The employer still receives a 20 percent wage advantage over other legal workers, including those whose country of origin is the U.S.”

For the first time in history serfs pay for the privilege of bringing their wage scale north! Employers do even better. They can now legally discriminate against citizens in favor of cheap foreign workers. It’s a win–win, unless you’re a citizen who would be willing to do US jobs for US wages.

After agreeing to pay the tax the illegal is granted a REALcard. This lets Juan be a member of Uncle Sam’s Club. He can work in the US legally, qualify for Medicaid, take English language classes, enjoy “continuing education,” apply for a visa, apply for a driver’s license and “other benefits.” And just like a Sam’s Club card, the whole family can share his membership for one low price!

The REALcard is good for ten years or until Democrats take control of Congress and grant mass amnesty to these “second–class citizens.”

ITIG claims the program will generate $210 billion in new tax revenue over ten years, but I have my doubts. Let’s say Juan is making $40,000 a year and has two anchor babies. Five percent of the gross is $2,000, but that is much less than the $5,616 he qualifies for when he can legally claim the Child Tax Credit.

And that’s just one of many questions the plan generates that unfortunately will remain unanswered. After initially insisting I interview ITIG Founder Mark Jason, the interview was canceled after it became evident I wasn’t an open borders cheerleader.

Possibly Jason thinks Five + Five is an equitable solution that is fair to everyone. I don’t. Rewarding lawbreakers only encourages other lawbreakers. The fact illegals haven’t been caught doesn’t give them a claim on our compassion. As far as I’m concerned, a sincerely held believe that in the end is bad for the country is no improvement over an outright malign belief that actively seeks do to harm to the country.

The #MeToo Movement and Mike Pence

If women had only known all it took to shatter the glass ceiling was to accuse your boss of sexual harassment, workplace history would have been very different! Of course — much like a frontal assault on a machinegun nest — the first over the top aren’t getting the plum jobs, but their sacrifice makes it possible for rear echelon women to either achieve or guilt their way into the ‘C’ suites.

The bosses were all for wiping out the barriers that produced a serviceable work–life balance if it meant women were handy 24/7. For them, taking work home meant road testing the new intern.

All this is why it was so refreshing to find a man in a powerful position who had strict rules regarding workplace harassment. More important, he followed those rules to the letter. That meant he was permanently immune to Gloria Allred–type ambushes at Groping Gulch.

Those rules keep his reputation intact and, equally important and often overlooked, the rules keep the reputations of the women who work for him equally intact. His is an office run on performance and not pheromones.

In short, this man is nothing short of a paragon workplace ethics and respect for women. So, you can imagine my surprise when I visited the websites of the National Organization of Women, Emily’s List, the Feminist Majority and even Jezebel and found zero recognition for this pioneer in establishing workplace boundaries.

I soon got the impression you’d see Mitch McConnell attend a Roy Moore Victory Party before these feminist organizations would recognize Vice President Mike Pence.

Way back in March of this year, before our current runaway testosterone tempest, the Washington Post breathlessly announced that Pence had strict rules for his office. The commandments banned Lauer Locks on his office door, because he didn’t hold closed–door meetings one–on–one with women. No intimate after–work dinners with single women either and no attendance at functions where alcohol is served if his wife isn’t there with him.

Pence wouldn’t even wear a hotel bathrobe unless there’s a swim suit under it and he’s at the pool with his family.

Think of it. Following these four simple rules would have kept potted plants unmolested by sperm donors and saved the jobs of Harvey Weinstein, Leon Wiesletier, Michael Oreskes, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Bill O’Reilly, Mark Halperin, Garrison Keillor, Glenn Thrush, Harold Ford, Jr., Joe Barton, Al Franken, John Conyers and the rules probably would have salvaged Trent Franks, because I doubt he would have popped the surrogate question in a general staff meeting.

Optimist that I am, I even think if Bill Clinton had followed the rules Hillary would be a happier woman and Chelsea might have a sibling.

Think of the relief it would bring to a young woman knowing she could spend time with her boss without being sent an unsolicited souvenir cellphone photo of the star attraction or a brief personal exercise video after she got home.

Maybe the response of women at leftist media institutions was caused by the Stockholm Syndrome for it was uniformly negative. You’d have thought Pence had stated sex was determined at birth, rather than by a family meeting sometime around age five.

The truth is the feminist and sophisticate reaction to Pence’s refusal to sexually harass women or put them in an awkward situation was so extreme you’d have thought Charlie Rose invited them to join him in a three–legged race around his desk.

The LA Times asked, “Mike Pence won’t dine alone with a woman who’s not his wife. Is that sexist?” An angry UCLA gender professor (is there any other kind?) dredged up by the Times thundered, “I believe this is gender discrimination. If you don’t go out to dinner with a woman, it’s hard to have a woman be your campaign manager or your chief of staff or whoever you need to regularly meet with.”

Although I think she’s confusing a caterer with a campaign aide.

What woman in her right mind would want to miss the chance to network with Harvey Weinstein’s hands?

And Aaron Blake, a male at the Post jockeying for the role of feminist fraternizer, sniffed Pence’s rules “reeked of sexism.” Which I would think beats reeking of John Conyers’ cologne, but that’s just me.

And Vox, which is currently conducting an in–house purge of its own sex harassers, was ready for a special persecutor, “Vice President Pence’s ‘never dine alone with a woman’ rule isn’t honorable. It’s probably illegal.”

And I could find no evidence of any OpMedia change of heart.

All this leads me to conclude as far as our leftist cultural arbiters are concerned, when it comes to sexual harassment, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

Any Chance Conservatives Will Finally Fight Back?

(This column was written before the deluge of sexual assault accusations hit the Roy Moore campaign in Alabama. At the time Codevilla’s advice was spot on, now I suppose now all conservatives are left is hope.)

The best moment for conservatives during the Claremont Institute’s panel discussion on “The Resistance and the Violent New Left” came at the end during the question period. An appeaser popped up and asked the panel how can “we” encourage more “leaders” like Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Lisa Murkowski to run for office instead of “embarrassing” candidates like Alabama’s Roy Moore?

His question was met with dead silence from the panel of William Voegeli and Angelo Codevilla (of the Claremont Institute), Michael Walsh (author and media critic) and Henry Olsen (Ethics & Public Policy Center).

After a lengthy pause Codevilla leaned over toward the microphone and observed Moore “hasn’t lost yet” and we can “vote and hope,” which was the conclusion of the optimism portion of the event.

In a single anecdote the audience saw the problem confronting conservatives today. We are assailed from without by, in Codevilla’s words, “a compact ruling class,” — where establishment Republicans are full participants — along with bike–lock swinging members of Antifa functioning as storm troops. While inside the GOP accommodationists and other Quislings want to restore tranquility by electing more politicians whose first instinct is preemptive surrender.

The situation doesn’t appear to hold much possibility for improvement in the panel’s view, in spite of or possibly because of the election of Donald Trump. Codevilla’s opinion is, “The Resistance has convinced itself Trump is a passing phenomenon.” And a brief one at that. “Trump was elected to be revolutionary against the ruling class and GOP establishment, but in office he has equivocated.”

It’s his belief that what he terms the Cold Civil War will continue to heat up.

Live–and–let–live conservatives are confused by the left’s increasing rhetorical and physical violence in what appears to be a Whittaker Chambers’ moment for the right. In sports, when one side appears to completely outclass its opponent, it’s not uncommon for the victor to display good sportsmanship and ease up rather than pad the margin of victory.

Conservatives see a cultural landscape where their moral positions have been routed. And an indifferent Big Government appears impervious to influence by average voters or election results.

Naturally, many conservatives assume they’ve lost. So why all the leftist violence? Isn’t it time to put the all–conference agitators on the bench?

As Mr. Dooley, not on the panel, said, “Politics ain’t bean–bag.”

“Cultural Marxists are sensing a win and it’s a fact movements get more violent the closer they get to ultimate victory,” explains Walsh. Voegeli posits that when a faction thinks it’s only a matter of time before total victory and the assumption of power in a permanent majority, any display of inhibition is a betrayal of the cause.

Furthermore, the left’s violence and the ideology isn’t likely to be coherent. “A [movement] united by impulse is likely to be impulsive,” Voegeli wryly observes.

The bad news for accommodationist Republicans, like the questioner, is when the left wins there aren’t likely to be many prisoners taken, ideological or otherwise. Academia’s cultural Marxists are marinated in aggressive outrage and moral arrogance. “The Left is taught they’re inherently superior,” Codevilla said.  And as ideologically superior beings, those who disagree are by default intellectual sub–humans with all the tender care and feeding the sub–human label encompasses.

Adapting to the left’s views is going to be difficult if not impossible for principled conservatives, although Lindsay Graham and John McCain may offer conversion therapy.

Olsen says the left defines America as “individual freedom. Anything that stands between desire and its fulfillment is null and void.” This leftist definition of America is intensely personal and subject to abrupt change (Voegeli’s “impulse”), while for conservatives the definition is institutional and relatively fixed. Olsen and Codevilla are united in their belief the differences between left and right are “intractable.”

Consequently, there’s no room for compromise in this ideological fight to the finish. Codevilla warns there are real consequences, “The Resistance expresses the evolving framework of ruling class thought.” The absurd and aggressive ideology one can read with distaste in the HuffPost is a harbinger of the next Democrat administration’s policy. Even Hillary Clinton, according to Codevilla, planned to “crush the deplorables and buy off the pitiables” on her way to victory.

With the exception of Olsen, the panel is united in a belief the left must be confronted and defeated in the street and in the voting booth. Conservatives need leadership, like Trump, that will get in the faces of the left and, not like Trump, be consistent in their opposition.

Walsh in particular has had it, “I can’t emphasize enough what miserable sods these people are. The left is an insane cargo cult of fascists. Until baby boomers are dead you will have no justice and no peace.”

Virginia Governor’s Race Is the Establishment’s Revenge

November’s off–year Virginia governor’s race is what conservatives would have faced in 2016 if Trump had done a Hillary as he descended the escalator for his announcement and wound up in A Place for Mom instead of the Oval Office.

Our nominee would have been a bland, white, country club Republican who talked lukewarm TEA Party. A nominee that would have looked just like “Establishment Ed” Gillespie the caretaker conservative running as the Republican in Virginia.

These off–year elections are supposed to send a message to Washington and specifically the White House. If a Democrat wins nationally and Virginia elects a Republican the following year, the result is supposed to mean voters are angry because Democrats went too far.

Conservative voters dissatisfied with the nominee are given a binary choice by party leadership: Hold your nose and support some housebroken Republican or be personally responsible for electing the Democrat.

This hobbling choice is not limited to Virginia. Conservatives nationwide regularly confront this dilemma as yet another cocktail conservative holds their vote hostage to the Democrat alternative.

After years of just following orders my nose is as pinched as Ichabod Crane’s and I’m tired of it. This year instead of sending a message to the White House, where one of the Javanka twins would no doubt intercept it, I want to move the targeting solution about 3 miles from Pennsylvania Ave. to the Republican National Committee.

Instead of an interparty message, I want conservatives to deliver an intraparty message.

Ed Gillespie is a perfect example of a candidate that feels genuine conservatives are good enough to help him win, but not good enough to influence policy once he’s in office. It would have been difficult to find a candidate more out–of–step with the conservatives than Establishment Ed.

The National Review recently endorsed Gillespie and they unintentionally damned him with faint praise. According to those Never Trumpers, Ed deserves our vote because:

  • He joined the Bush White House when George W was low on friends
  • A Gillespie win will send a message
  • Ed wants to cut taxes
  • Gillespie wants someone to open more charter schools

Big deal. For conservatives, the most important issue in Virginia is transportation: Base voters want new roads for a speedy trip in to work and new enforcement for a speedy trip back to Central America for illegals.

Naturally, Enervating Ed is on the wrong side of both parts. He doesn’t mention roads and Giveaway Gillespie supported the failed Gang of Eight bill. He’s part of the Delusion Caucus that’s convinced surrendering to Democrat demands to import more voters will someone result in GOP victories.

As befits a former lobbyist who made a living torturing innocent words, Gillespie assures conservatives he didn’t support “amnesty” for illegals, he only supports “legalization.” So, let me explain to Gillespie — who only speaks conservative–as–a–second–language —any result allowing illegal aliens to remain in the US is AMNESTY, regardless of how you try to focus group your way out of it.

Ed’s idea of tough–minded leadership on illegals is keeping a lid on how many other benefits the piñata holds.

The Washington Post reports that Gillespie is so concerned about conservatism potentially rubbing off on him that he promised business donors that he won’t champion any cultural issues from the governor’s office. This failure to grasp that politics is downstream of culture is why Ed and his cronies are long run losers.

It also appears that groveling doesn’t sell particularly well. The candidate of the rich is trailing the Democrat in fund raising by a two–to–one margin.

Conservatives next year are faced with a president who is ready to betray his promises on ending DACA for younger invaders and Virginia voters this year have a gubernatorial candidate who is just as soft on the rule of law.

My advice is don’t allow your vote to be held hostage by placeholder Republicans. When my family goes to vote in November we will be sending a message to the RNC in the only manner they can understand. We will be voting for write–in candidates for every spot on the ballot. And it’s going to be the same write–in each time.

For the first name, we will write DACA and for the last name Betrayal. We will no longer go–along–to–get–ignored. The only way Republican leadership will pay attention to the base it relies on for victory is when the victories stop.

My advice for Virginia voters is write in “Senor DACA Betrayal: and take a photo of your ballot. Send the picture to your state Republican Party and another copy to the RNC. Let’s show them voters are angry because the GOP hasn’t gone far enough.

Is a Shortage of Brownies Next?

What a man considers a crisis tells us a lot about his character. In the past governors have declared a state of emergency for hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, riots, epidemics, crime waves, Trump rallies and earthquakes.

Evidently in Nevada Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval thinks those problems are too 20th Century for him. He’s declared a state of emergency because Nevada is running out of marijuana! Maybe Sandoval had a severe case of the munchies that clouded his thinking or maybe his priorities are just different, but mobilizing the state government because of a “wacky tobaccy” shortage breaks new ground in emphasizing trivialities.

Nevada has legalized the sale of mota for “recreational” uses (are there truthfully any other?) and just two weeks after the chronic crop went on sale retailers began warning their supply is almost down to seeds and stems.

Personally I question the need for a state of emergency. I was under the impression maryjane users were a calm, mellow lot more prone to expressing outrage if stores ran low on Cheetos after a “bake sale.”

While it was the sellers who were more prone to violence.

Yet blaming the governor for the laughing grass shortage is probably unfair, since he didn’t support dope legalization in the first place. The blame rests on a supposedly “conservative” Republican legislature that let crony capitalism get in the way of the competition they allegedly support.

So what did the legislature do? How could it foul up something as simple as legalization? Why do I feel strangely lethargic and uncompelled to post the Newsmax link?

Okay, I’m better now. Complete details available at:

https://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/marijuana-mary-jane-yerba/2017/08/08/id/806537/

 

“Draining the Swamp” Isn’t a Part–Time Job

When the leftists at the Washington Post start offering relationship advice a Republican knows he could be on the cusp of something big. A recent WaPost headline warned, “Trump’s baffling attacks on McConnell could be costly to the president.”

“Cost” here is mainly a function of how often Trump is hoping to eat in the Senate’s invitation–only dining room. Otherwise what’s “baffling” is how long it took the notoriously impatient Trump to sound off.

After six months McConnell has failed to repeal Obamacare, failed to fund the wall, failed to reform the tax code, refused to return the Senate to pre–1970 filibuster rules and dismissed out of hand debating the one change that would do more to correct what’s wrong with Congress than any other: Term Limits.

The real risk to Trump and any hope he has for accomplishments in his first term is the status quo.

Currently Trump has achieved the unthinkable: Bi–partisan cooperation in Congress. Republicans are blocking what Trump wants to do and Democrats are blocking what Trump wants to do.

Something tells me the man who built Trump Tower didn’t win the presidency so he could be Mitch McConnell’s autopen.

Naturally there is division over how to persuade Congress to support Trump. I’m sure the General Staff, or at least the generals, advocate doubling down on the “hearts and minds” strategy to win over recalcitrant Congressional leadership.

Just schedule a few more summits, golf games, White House lunches and Twitter tutorials. Soon Trump will be able to emulate the success our high command has produced in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And continuing this strategy will produce results very similar to Afghanistan. McConnell will continue to be passive–aggressive and the Taliban aggressive–aggressive. Mitch, author of the unread tome “The Long Game,” and the Taliban both plan to outwait their opponents. Their intention is to be around after Trump and the Army are long gone.

The alternative to the appeaser’s long, slow defeat strategy is letting Trump be Trump.

The outsider who said during his inauguration, “For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.” The outsider who promised to drain the swamp, not stock the White House with reptiles.

The principle obstacle here is Trump. He is our first ADHD president. Moving an inert mass like McConnell’s Senate requires persistence and focus. So far Trump lacks both.

For example:

On July 27th Trump criticizes McConnell for failure to repeal Obamacare.

On August 8th Trump reverses course and endorses McConnell’s candidate, Luther Strange, in the Alabama special election.

On August 10th Trump lurches back into drive and says McConnell should resign from Senate leadership.

On August 15th Trump repeats his strange endorsement of Strange.

A tortoise like McConnell is immune to whiplash from this back–and–forth, but it only serves to reinforce what the WaPost says, “For some time, it has been apparent that members of Congress do not fear the president.”

That must change. Trump needs to play his “long game” and make opponents pay a price. Trump is holding a rally in Arizona next week, the home of craven media hound Jeff Flake who is conveniently up for re–election in 2018.

That’s the perfect time for Trump to announce he’s personally donating $50 million to the Make America Great Again PAC that will be supporting primary opponents of senators who are blocking the platform on which he won the presidency.

He can consider adding Utah’s Orrin Hatch and Tennessee’s Bob Corker to the list. It’s important that Trump doesn’t make the effort based on these lizard’s opposition to him personally, but rather their opposition to making America great again.

The primary opponents Trump supports don’t even have to win. They just have to make targeted incumbent’s life a living hell and an example of the consequences resulting from betraying the base.

Could it happen? Yes. Will it happen? Probably not.

The Strange endorsement proves Trump’s White House political operation is either second–rate or angling for jobs with the establishment GOP after Trump leaves.

Trump is also notoriously cheap, as his reneging on his pledge to fund his own campaign proved, so funding a PAC to support primary challengers is unlikely.

Finally, Trump has the attention span of a short circuit.

I’m afraid instead of reforming a political system run solely for the benefit of the elites; Trump will wind up being George Bush with an angry Twitter account. Forced to accept whatever crumbs and statist legislation McConnell and Speaker Paul Rino, excuse me, Ryan send him.

Way Past Time to Let Congress Enjoy Obamacare

Every presidential administration reaches a pivot point. Many observers thought Trump’s came when Anthony Scaramucci walked in the White House door. Others thought it came 10 days later when Scaramucci walked out the door.

For me the Scaramucci Saga was just part of the excitement when the circus comes to town.

The pivot point I’m looking for is when President Trump finally learns he has only enemies and bystanders among the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill.

Mitch McConnell, Curator of the Senate, is happy to keep polishing Senate rules, while aging whiz kid Speaker Paul Ryan is proud of slightly reducing the velocity of the socialism–bound train that is the House of Representatives.

Ryan and McConnell have no respect for Trump. He doesn’t have their years of political experience or expertise in the arcane working of the legislative process. The fact the voters know this and elected Trump anyway escapes them.

Neither of these hacks is going to expend a dime of political capital to advance the Trump agenda. Their primary goal is protecting the GOP majority in both houses and maintaining their comfortable offices and the perks that come with leadership. They are both corporate incumbents, not conservatives, and their pitiful legislative records prove it.

Both of these swamp creatures expect to be in Washington, building their federal pensions, long after Trump has returned to Trump Tower for good.

There is no legislative outreach that can bridge the gap between the White House and Capitol Hill. Reince Priebus couldn’t do it and new chief of staff Gen. John Kelly won’t either. The only thing the invertebrates that make up the GOP will understand is negative consequences for their failure to support the Trump agenda.

Fortunately, Trump has just the weapon.

After Congress failed to keep their promise to repeal Obamacare, Trump threatened to make it live under the same rules, regulations and premiums the rest of us must endure.

It’s a little–known fact that Congress exempted itself from Obamacare in violation of the law.

During the frenzy to pass it Sen. Chuck Grassley (R–IA) slipped in an amendment that required Congress to buy its insurance on the exchanges just like the rest of us. Once the bill passed and members learned, to their horror, what was in it, they wanted no part of this leftist moral crusade.

So they created an Obamacare Sanctuary where the law didn’t apply to the people who passed it.

In a demonstration of the utter moral corruption that characterizes our political ruling class, Congress persuaded the Office of Personnel Management to issue a ruling that the 16,000 people employed by both houses qualified as a “small business.”

This allowed members and staff to buy their insurance on the DC Small Business Exchange, UNLESS the officeholder used another sleazy loophole. If staff is designated “non–official” it grandfathers them into the federal Employee Health Benefits program where they continue to receive premium subsidies and access to policies with coverage denied to the rest of us.

Regardless of which dodge the members chooses everyone gets a $10,000 to $12,000 subsidy to pay for their health insurance that is not income based. Meaning while you are selling the bass boat to make your premium, a rank–and–file Congressman making $174,000 a year gets a 12K subsidy for his insurance.

These sound bite patriots don’t feel pressure to repeal Obamacare for two reasons. One, base conservative voters aren’t their health insurance constituency; hospitals and insurance companies are and that’s who is calling the shots. And two, since they’re immune to the punishing Obamacare premiums and deductibles, they feel no personal motivation to keep their word.

Trump can end their lies and duplicity with the stroke of a pen. He can cancel the OPM ruling and throw every last swamp creature into the clutches of the DC Obamacare exchange. No more subsidies and no more special treatment.

Even better, these hypocrites can’t do anything about it. Trump controls, in a manner of speaking, the executive branch and if politicians went to court to try and keep their Obamacare exemption it would be a PR disaster on the scale of Anthony Scaramucci.

Trump should ignore the accommodationists and Congressional appeasers in his office.

A principled revocation of Congress’ special privileges would be a home run with the public; prove to the RINOs that Trump plays for keeps and it could force McConnell and Ryan to honor their promise to repeal Obamacare.

Trump could take a lesson from North Korea’s Kim Jong–un. No one likes him either, but the world worries about what he’s going to do next.

Trump doesn’t need love or respect from Congressional RINOs. Fear of consequences will do nicely instead. Trump should end Congress’ Obamacare Sanctuary now!

Losing the House to Win the Future

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is worried about the failure of Republican governing reality to match Republican campaign rhetoric. Newt told Fox News, “I would say the highest focus ought to be on getting the tax bill through because if we don’t have economic growth next year, I think we’re in real danger of having Speaker Nancy Pelosi.”

Big time Texas donor Doug Deason has already told Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell that his wallet is a dry hole until McConnell and Speaker Paul Ryan “produce results on health care and tax reform.” And Deason isn’t the only donor heading for the customer service window hoping someone is there to ask for a refund.

Sean Lansing, of the Koch brother’s Americans for Prosperity, told Lifezette there should be “consequences” for repeated failure.

Now that “legislative mastermind” McConnell has failed to “repeal and replace Obamacare” followed by failure to just repeal, it looks like Deason is going to have a long–term increase in his disposable income.

Members of the base like you and I can’t pressure the likes of McConnell and Ryan individually with our wallets, but we can pressure them with our votes in aggregate.

That’s why I propose conservative voters to join together and help make Newt’s fears come true: Let’s “Lose the House to Win the Future.”

The corporate Republicans running the House and Senate view the conservative base, which loyally keeps them in office, in much the same way arrogant Victorian explorers viewed the natives in Africa: Dangerous savages who are useful for toting ballot boxes on their heads, but need to be house–broken before allowed into polite society.

That’s why the bubble–dwelling GOP establishment must be sent a message that will break through the impervious barrier of complacency and arrogance that surrounds their Capitol Hill offices. And Nancy Pelosi is just the person to deliver it.

This requires conservatives to change their voting behavior in November 2018. In the past conservatives held their nose and voted for RINO Republicans, because the thought of the Democrat alternative in office was too terrible to contemplate.

As a result the base was rewarded with accommodationist weaklings who preside over the Vichy government that currently rules us.

Now it’s time to embrace the alternative. Conservatives must refuse to vote for all Republican House incumbents — unless your representative is a member of the House Freedom Caucus. This doesn’t mean you vote for the Democrat.

Instead conservatives will vote for a write–in candidate. Resist the temptation to write in Mickey Mouse. Cartoon character votes, although relevant to the current GOP leadership, will only serve to have your write–in dismissed as a frivolous vote.

Instead I suggest all participants in my “Lose the House to Win the Future” campaign write in Rep. Mark Meadows, the chairman of the genuinely conservative Freedom Caucus. Thousands of write–in votes for Meadows, spread across the country will be an obvious protest vote by conservatives that cannot be ignored by the Rep. Barney Fife’s cowering in DC.

There’s nothing like listening to Speaker Pelosi diesel on about evil Republicans to demonstrate to McConnell and Ryan that serial conservative betrayals come with a cost. Ideally the two founding members of the Can’t Do Caucus will be ruminating on their failures from the backbenches of the respective houses after they’ve been ousted from their pitiful leadership charade.

Meadows and the rest of the Freedom Caucus will be the framework around which a new conservative House leadership can be built — ready to resume power when conservatives vote for House Republicans in 2020.

Let me stress House votes are to be the only change for conservatives. Votes for Senate GOP candidates will remain unchanged, even if your only choice is a nose–holder like media parasite Lindsey Graham (R–MSNBC). It simply takes too long to regain control of the Senate. Besides, just the shock of the House loss may inspire Graham and his ilk to find those conservative campaign promises that have evidently slipped down between the sofa cushions.

Sure Democrat wild–eyed pistol takers in the House will pass gun confiscation bills, grant illegal aliens citizenship and demand Baptists dance at same–sex weddings, but it won’t matter. The same McConnell–sclerosis that clogs the Senate will stop those bills, too.

My “Lose the House to Win the Future” is like the old joke about the farmer and the mule. Before every turn the farmer would jump down from the wagon seat and hit the mule with a 2X4. A passerby saw this and asked why hit the mule, since the wagon made all the turns?

The farmer replied, yes that’s true, but first you have to get the mule’s attention.

Losing the House in 2018 will be the biggest attention–getter possible.