Bystander Named Trump Blamed for Crash

Donald Trump is minding the people’s business in the Oval Office when he hears a commotion outside. He looks up and to his horror sees that the Resistance fence–jumper scheduled for Wednesday has gored himself on a spike and fallen on the White House lawn.

Trump grabs the nearest intelligence briefing and rushes outside in an attempt to stop the bleeding. Unfortunately the briefing book is so thin — the Deep State only trusts the opposition media with real secrets these days — that it has almost no absorptive power and the jumper bleeds out.

Is it Trump’s fault the Resistance jumper wasn’t wearing a p***y hat, which is great for absorbing blood? Or is it Trump’s fault the jumper’s tire sandals slipped and caused him to fall on the spike?

Of course not, so how is it Trump’s fault that House Speaker Paul RINO’s Obamacare Lite bill is still impaled on the fence outside the House?

Trump has proven he’s not exactly a demon on details, but Ryan’s small–ball bill didn’t bother to include the one Obamacare reform Trump promised on the campaign trail: Removing “the lines around the states,” which the rest of us refer to as the ability to sell health insurance policies across state lines.

That particular reform was coming on the promised “third prong,” which was supposed to arrive sometime in the indefinite future and contain “moderate Moslems,” a “deportation force” and a Mexican check for the wall.

As you know this version of “Obamacare reform” didn’t pass the House and in fact didn’t come up for a vote. I think there may be a silver lining to the legislative cloud. To learn what it is, please click the Newsmax link below for the rest of the column:

https://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/trump-obamacare-lite-paul-ryan/2017/03/29/id/781380/

National Review “Never Trumpers” Hold a Summit

Almost exactly 14 months since the editors at conservative National Review published an entire issue dedicated to being “Against Trump,” the magazine held an “ideas summit” titled “Working on a Path Towards Conservatism.”

This doesn’t exactly represent suing for peace, particularly since panelist Peter Wehner, of the Ethics & Public Policy Center, evidently believes the nuclear attack codes should be put in a blind trust during the Trump administration. Yet it appeared that, at least on the Trump side, there were no hard feelings, since Kellyanne Conway, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and HHS Sec. Tom Price appeared at the two–day event.

That may change after the rest of Wehner’s remarks reach the Oval Office. He had no problem personally attacking Trump by recycling the Opposition Media’s false attack lines.

That’s something that struck me about the National Review crowd. During the primary, when Trump appeared at the Values Voters Conference before an audience of evangelicals and conservative Christians, he made a passing reference to “Little Marco” and the crowd immediately booed him to show the remark was out of line.

Yet when Wehner emphatically declared Trump is “erratic, cruel, vindictive and morally corrupt” no one in the crowd of movers–and–shakers let out a peep. It was as if he was speaking before assembly line workers at the “Don’t Blame Me, I voted for Evan McMullin” bumper sticker plant.

The entire “Ideas Summit” atmosphere was one of lukewarm support for president. I can recall no speakers praising the Trump budget that zeroed out agencies conservatives have railed against for decades, yet the crowd gave Speaker Paul Ryan a partial standing ovation after he spent a half hour essentially asking the audience “are you going to believe me or your lying eyes” with regard to his Obamacare Lite bill.

But that’s not all! Ryan’s performance even reminded me of an all–time classic advertising account executive joke, but to learn which joke, you’ll have to click on the link below and finish my column at Newsmax.com:

https://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/national-review-obamacare-lite-against-trump-paul-ryan/2017/03/22/id/780209/

 

Ryan’s Obamacare Lite Is Another Travesty & Betrayal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ryan’s bill fails in three major areas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why should we pretend anymore?

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

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/

 

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?

What’s the Point of Having a Majority If GOP Doesn’t Use It?

Last week, during an aside in his speech at the Values Voters Summit, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R–TX) shared an insight into the timid appeasers comprising GOP congressional leadership. When he first entered the House in 2006 the talk was of the big things the Republican majority was going to accomplish.

stopfeeding_rinosThen he attended a GOP House conference meeting and found leadership worried. They explained that yes, the plan was to do big things. But there was “a small chance” Republicans might lose the majority. So to play it safe, the leadership wants to do small things, win the election and keep the majority.

Then, they’ll do great things.

Gohmert was just a freshman member at the time but he spoke up, “If there’s any chance we might lose, then this is the time to do the big stuff.” But Gohmert was ignored.

Conservative voters are still waiting for those “great things.”

Elect a Democrat and they wield power. Elect a Republican and they hold office.

GOP leaders hoard their majority like dwarves hiding under the Lonely Mountain, until the Dragon Pelosi shows up and snatches it away. This explains why a constitutional ignoramus like Nancy Pelosi in her four years as speaker did more to advance the leftist agenda than the last three Republican speakers combined did for the GOP.

This week conservatives have another example of GOP cowardice. The headline in The Hill read: “GOP averts vote on impeaching IRS commissioner.” “Averting” is a GOP leadership specialty.

Here a just a few times these surrender monkeys have ignored their conservative base:

  • House GOP Scurries To Avert Homeland Security Shutdown — allowing Obama’s unconstitutional illegal alien amnesty to continue.
  • Shutdown Averted: House Passes Funding Bill Despite Majority of GOP ‘No’ Votes — continued funding for Planned Parenthood and its organ harvesting.
  • Aiming to avert shutdown, Obama to meet with Congress leaders at White House — part of a plan to have the next funding bill passed during a lame duck session with                                       spending finalized before Trump may take office.

Each one of these surrenders only serves to make Congress more irrelevant and the president and his appointees stronger and more defiant. That’s why this impeachment vote was so important. The Obama administration turned the IRS into its political enforcement arm without any consequences.

Lois Lerner specifically targets conservative political organizations for IRS harassment. She delayed and denied tax–exempt designations for five years, while at the same time approving applications of groups supporting the administration.

Commissioner John Koskinen brought in by Obama to “clean up” the IRS, mislead Congress about disappearing email. Didn’t protect other IRS data that Congress specifically ordered him to preserve. Failed to protect subpoenaed documents and another 24,000 Lerner email messages. As Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R–UT) told the New York Times, “He provided, I think, a whole series of false testimony. You can’t be under a duly issued subpoena and mislead Congress, and when you provide false testimony there has to be a consequence.”

Koskinen and the IRS are tailor made for a visit to the woodshed. Although powerful, the IRS has no natural constituency outside government. Impeach the EPA director and every druid in the nation will be chaining themselves to the Cherry Trees. Go after Agriculture and it’s tractors and nutritionists laying siege to Washington.

But the only constituency for the IRS is lobbyists who milk it for tax loopholes.

What’s more, the IRS is beatable. Just ask the Church of Scientology. It fought a war with the IRS to force it to grant Scientology a church tax exemption. GOP leaders whine about the media and bad PR, yet there is no Fox News for cults to give the Scientology side of the fight. And the church lacked the base of the Republican Party.

Yet Scientology won, while the GOP surrenders. Scientology fought the IRS for 25 years. GOP leadership won’t fight for 25 news cycles.

The impeachment of IRS Commissioner John Koskinen was designed to send a message to a rogue executive branch that in the future Congress is going to assert its constitutional power. Unfortunately Paul Ryan was the messenger.

Now instead of a vote on impeachment, the House will hold yet another hearing where Koskinen will be able to peddle the same lies and half–truths he did before, content in the knowledge these putzes are powerless.

Then after the election — maybe on Christmas Eve! — a quiet vote on impeachment will be held and the issue will go away.

This is why Trump is the nominee instead of the establishment candidates. Conservatives are tired of a “leadership” that defines victory as holding a successful hearing and winning a news cycle.

We define victory by winning.

Amnesty: The Next GOP Leadership Betrayal

House GOP leaders prepare to negotiate amnesty with Democrats

House GOP leaders prepare to negotiate amnesty with Democrats

House Republican leadership is preparing to betray the base. Again. To illustrate the magnitude of the sellout I was going to use a hypothetical analogy with Democrats and their base. Initially I was going to posit that Sen. Tim Kaine (D–Secular) had changed his mind about abortion.

For years Kaine has said that although he’s personally opposed to abortion, he is not willing to impose his beliefs on a ‘woman’s right to choose.’ Essentially confessing that his Catholic faith is not strong enough to get in the way of his political ambitions. (In his last campaign he became even more weaselly, saying he didn’t want to stand in the way of a woman exercising her “constitutional choices,” unless the choice involved a handgun.)

In my hypothetical Kaine would announce he had decided that what the Catholic Church teaches and the Bible says is the truth and he will no longer support any abortion unless it is to save the life of the mother. Kaine would also declare that he will no longer vote for any taxpayer dollars to be given to Planned Parenthood since both his beliefs and opinion polls show Americans don’t think tax money should pay for or help support abortion facilities.

It’s a great analogy but it has one problem: No one, but no one would believe it. The Democrat base worships at the altar of abortion. The analogy is too fantastic for even temporary suspension of disbelief. Brent Bozell, chairman of ForAmerica, put it nicely this week: “So what’s the difference between Boehner and Pelosi and McConnell and Reid? Answer: The Democratic leadership honors its promises. Republican leaders have abandoned theirs.”

This House GOP leadership betrayal is passage of an amnesty bill, probably before the November election. Erosion in GOP leadership backbones started with Paul Ryan (R–Cheese Brains) when he began talking about a path to citizenship for illegals. Speaker John Boehner (R–Tanning Bed) went back and forth on “immigration reform.” And now House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R–Sellout) says the leadership supports an amnesty bill for 12 million illegals that includes tighter border enforcement as a sop to conservatives.

This means Boehner and his merry men pay far more attention to agitation from people who shouldn’t be in the country than they do to conservative citizens. And unprincipled businessmen who want a steady supply of imported serfs to compete with and lower the wages of US citizens are far more influential than mere voters.

National Republicans are forever pursuing the ‘independent voter’ at the expense of the base. GOP campaigns downplay ‘social issues’ in an effort to appeal to the uncommitted vote. Democrats on the other hand solidify their base first and then move to the independents. You think that might be why they win elections?

Besides the betrayal of the base, which is bad enough, what political goal do these masterminds in House leadership (to borrow an adjective from Mark Levin) think they are going to accomplish?

Boehner has picked an issue that was a failure the last time Republicans supported it. Ronald Reagan signed a one–time–only–amnesty–that–will­–also–seal–the–border–tighter–than–a–teenage–miniskirt.

The results of that amnesty were threefold:

  1. The bill gave citizenship to people who came and stayed illegally
  2. It produced millions of new votes for Democrats
  3. Legalized an influx of low–skill labor for employers that served to reduce wage rates for          citizens
  4. It attracted another 12 million illegals who came after and who want their amnesty now.

Does Boehner expect amnesty to make inroads into the Hispanic vote? There is evidence in California that has a direct bearing, not that he will pay any attention. Hispanics now make up the largest ethic group in the state as a result of Reagan’s amnesty and the subsequent Democrat failure to seal the border. Today there is not one Republican statewide official in office. California is a GOP desert as Hispanics proved singularly ungrateful.

Does Boehner think amnesty will improve the party’s image among independents? Today’s Gallup poll lists a total of 3 percent of the populace ranking immigration “reform” as a top priority and I’m guessing all their names began with Jesus.

Does Boehner think amnesty will mean more contributions from big business? That’s possible and it may last a cycle or two, but once the amnestied voters gravitate to the Democrats, Republicans will start losing. And the Business Roundtable doesn’t back or finance losers for long.

Amnesty is a payoff to big business, Democrat interest groups and tribal voters. There is no compelling Republican rationale for passage either morally or politically.

Immigration polling, which has evidently frightened the GOP leadership, is dishonest. Respondents are offered choices that simply don’t exist here in reality land, as Ann Coulter pointed out. For instance the Public Religion Research Institute proclaims, “This support for a path to citizenship has remained unchanged from earlier this year, when in both March and August 2013 an identical number (63%) supported a path to citizenship for immigrants currently living in the United States illegally.”

Yet their poll offers three choices that are false or too general to be useful: “become citizens provided they meet certain requirements,” “become permanent legal residents but not citizens” or “Identify and deport them.”

“Certain requirements” is not defined and therefore is useless in determining public policy. Poll respondents can interpret “certain requirements” in a number of ways ranging from “learn to speak English like Tom Brokaw & pay back taxes and a fine” to “stand in a long line for an autographed photo of Obama.”

“Legal residents but not citizens” is an outcome that creates a permanent helot class that won’t survive the first Democrat Congress. And no sane conservative has ever advocated mass deportation. We believe they got here under their own power and they can leave the same way.

I have yet to see a poll that asks a question that offers a conservative choice. For instance: Do you support a step–by–step approach to the immigration problem that begins by removing the economic incentive for illegal immigration thru a law that makes it a criminal offense for employers to hire illegal aliens?

I’ll even agree to change “illegal aliens” to “undocumented workers” if someone will just ask the dang question. But it won’t happen because the support it will receive doesn’t fit the MSM story line of overwhelming support for “immigration reform.”

If illegals can’t work and they can’t collect welfare and rebates from the IRS then the invasion will begin to reverse. Presto the “immigration problem” solves itself! Sure the bill won’t pass the current Senate, but so what? It offers a conservative alternative to the amnesty now crowd and it preserves the rule of law, but that pales in comparison to Boehner’s dreams of campaign contributions from the Business Roundtable.

Before elected officials — Republicans again — got cold feet in Prince William County, illegals were fleeing after an anti–illegal enforcement act was passed. The county saved millions as they fled to nearby “sanctuary” cities and states. The same can happen in a nation that takes its own immigration laws seriously.

Unfortunately that is not this nation and it’s not this Republican Party.

House GOP Doesn’t Listen Any Better than Walmart

New GOPOccasionally the wrong person takes a column to heart.

Earlier this month I wrote that Walmart doesn’t help its PR efforts when the company acts in a manner that only serves to reinforce its reputation as the Simon Legree of retail. (Details here.) In this instance an Ohio store had a display in the employee break room asking for donations to help other Walmart employees that had fallen on hard times during the Thanksgiving & Christmas season.

Asking employees who earn an average of $12.83/hour to contribute to other employees is a touching testimony to the innate decency of the Walmart workforce, but it also calls up unfortunate images of the widow’s mite particularly in comparison with the wealth of the Walton family.

The column concluded with a look at Walmart’s Associates in Critical Need Trust. This is a fund that dispenses up to $1,500 to employees suffering severe financial setbacks. (This does not include a bad losing streak in connection with the Powerball lottery.)

I liked the sound of that, until I learned that once again these donations are no skin off the Walton family’s stock certificates. This trust is funded by voluntary payroll deduction, again from the $12.83/hour employees.

And that’s when problems began at the Shannon household.

My wife announced that unless the Walton family stops being so selfish (they have $144 billion in Walmart stock) and makes a major contribution to the Trust we will be boycotting Walmart. Generally I have no problem with boycotts. It’s an individual decision that uses the market to bring pressure on a merchant. No government intervention required. Colonists did it during the run up to the Revolution.

For taste and political reasons, I never darken the door of Starbucks (homosexual marriage is “part of the corporate DNA”), Caribou Coffee (Sharia–compliant finance) or Chipotle (one of the nation’s leading employers of illegals).

On the other hand I’m also cheap, so I regularly shop at Walmart, in spite of linguistic encounters with Walmart employees that graphically illustrate what retail shopping is going to be like after John Boehner decides it’s safe to grant illegals amnesty.

The wife says Target is going to be the windfall beneficiary of Shannon shopping dollars in the future. But I have mixed emotions regarding that store, too. All too often in the Sunday advertising circular the clothes younger models wear contribute to the sexualization of tweenaged shoppers. Young girls are hard enough to shop for without major retailers urging them to dress like pint–sized Kim Kardashians.

This is not a problem encountered when viewing the frumpy models in a Walmart catalog. I don’t know for certain whom it is wearing those dowdy clothes, but most of them appear to be related to Fred and Ethel Mertz. Regardless of age there are no sex symbols in a Walmart catalog.

Besides the Target food section is mostly full of do–it–yourself yogurt mixes and it is about one third the size of Walmart’s. (Although, credit where credit is due, Target does carry Malt–O–Meal.) I do hate sneaking around behind my wife’s back. The fact that my future secret assignations are with a major retail chain and not a hoochie mama is probably a commentary on the dullness of my existence, but I plan to continue to visit Walmart.

On the other hand I won’t be visiting Republican members of the Virginia House delegation. Last week I wrote about the shameful Boehner/Ryan sellout they tried to spin as a “budget deal.” (Details here.) This capitulation raises taxes (fees), increases spending and negates the sequester.

Ryan is so proud of himself. The good congressman says he’s increased Pentagon spending by $2 billion, which means all the Coffee Colonels there can go back to using the Keurig instead of making do with Nescafe. In return for all this bounty Ryan agreed to let the Democrats increase their spending by $22 billion! That’s an 11 to 1 ratio and we’re on the short side.

GOP apologists talk about future spending cuts contained in the deal, but with these big spenders the cuts always remain in the future, just over the horizon, like a mirage.

You can’t bind a future Congress to a deal made today. Heck this Congress can’t even bind itself. Who do you think negotiated the original sequester?

Now Boehner is flush with positive MSM coverage and has declared war on the TEA party. He’s tired of having Obama hand him his hat, so the great strategist turns on his base. Now maybe Karl Rove will return his phone calls.

At times like this the favorite criticism of the TEA party centers on Senate candidates. The TEA party supported candidates that lost and that cost Republicans the Senate.

Establishment Republicans never foist a loser on the electorate. Just look at the great work being done by President Romney and Senator George Allen. Not to mention that paragon of tanning, Senator Charlie Crist from Florida. All these worthies are (or were, Crist became a Democrat this year) establishment Republicans with the full support of party elders.

The TEA party is not a monolithic closed structure resistant to outside ideas — wait that sounds like Boehner’s cabal — it’s a loosely affiliated collection of like–minded conservatives and tin foil distributors. (Just kidding.)

There is no national body that selects candidates. Local groups support local candidates.

The TEA party–backed candidate lost in Missouri because establishment Republicans in that state utilize a primary system that doesn’t have a runoff if no one gets 50 percent of the vote. That’s how Todd Akin becomes your nominee with fewer than 35 percent of the vote. Akin and his gynecological theories could have never won a runoff. The TEA party candidate would not have survived the primary if Missouri Republicans ran the party like Texas Republicans.

In Delaware, Christine O’Donnell was simply mislabeled. She would have had no problem winning as a Democrat. If Patty Murray of budget deal negotiating fame can win her first race running as “a mom in tennis shoes,” O’Donnell would have had few problems as “a mom who’s not a witch.”

Country club Republicans conveniently overlook the fact that TEA party energy is responsible for Boehner sitting in the Speaker’s chair today.

This wretched budget deal has now passed the Senate where Republicans with primary opponents voted against it as a sop to people like you and me. There was never a doubt as to House passage. If you want to see how your house member voted you can check here and here.

I’m sorry to say the deal passed with every GOP member from Virginia voting ‘yes.’ These Republicans are either too timid to vote conservative or they simply aren’t conservatives.

Regardless of the reason for their failure, I’ll be happily boycotting every one of these politicians until they’re out of office. No money and no votes from the Shannon household and I urge every conservative reading this to do likewise.

This is a boycott every conservative can get behind.

House GOP Has Nothing to Offer Conservatives

GOP surrenders principlesHere’s the situation: You’re in a high–stakes negotiation with an untrustworthy opponent. The opposition has violated every agreement the two of you have made in the past. Enforcement mechanisms are weak or non–existent.

In other areas of mutual interest your opponent regularly violates the law and dares you to do something about the violation. Your weak and vacillating leadership can’t be counted on in a pinch. And finally, the opposition lies shamelessly to the state media, doing its best to paint you as a fanatic and pathological liar.

So what do you do?

Bomb Iran is a good answer, but it’s not the answer for this question, because I’m talking about negotiating a budget deal with Democrats.

The Republican House leadership decision in this case was to sell out their conservative base in a brazen attempt to insure their own re–election at the expense of the nation’s fiscal future.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R–WI) and Sen. Patty Murray (D–Sneakers) have presented us with a plan that shatters the spending ceiling that was the main result of the bruising sequester fight, dilutes the small budget cuts from the sequester and raises taxes (Ryan calls it a “fee” but if the feds get more money and it comes from our pockets it’s the same as a tax).

Ryan even has the gall to say the deal will balance the budget in ten years and sidestep the threat of government shutdowns in January and October 2014.

And those dates are what are really important for craven House negotiators. In fact, the real motivation for the deal is Ryan’s shutdown statement. House Republicans still think they suffered a near–death experience in the recent government shutdown. But instead of seeing Jesus and a bright light, they saw a Mayflower moving van and a bright white resume. For them if it’s a choice between selling out to the Democrats and losing their cushy Congressional job, sellout is just another word for job security.

The risk of a potential shutdown in January and October of an election year was simply too much uncertainty for these stalwarts to bear. So instead of simply passing a continuing resolution as has been done for the past few years and keeping the sequester savings, Ryan decided to remove all uncertainly and cave in this year.

Ryan and Speaker Boehner (R–Risible) think they can get away with this lie to conservatives because the result of increased federal spending and budget busting won’t have the personal impact on voters that Obama’s insurance lie had. You don’t get a letter from the government cancelling your future. You get a Chinaman repossessing the Washington monument.

The rationalization for this total surrender is threefold according to our betters: The agreement restores some defense spending reduced by the sequester, cuts the budget and brings the entire budget into balance in ten years.

Let’s start at the top. Ace negotiator Ryan was able to restore $2 billion in Pentagon spending next year in return for letting Democrats increase wasteful social spending by $ 22 BILLION! That’s a ratio of 11 to one in welfare to warfare spending.

The sequester was bad enough — defense took half the cuts, while social spending took the other half spread over countless pointless programs — but this disaster in multiplication makes that deal look positively prudent.

Second the budget cut. I admire Ryan’s poker face as he announced $26 billion in cuts over ten years. This means the federal government will be cutting $2.6 billion a year out of a budget that’s over $1 trillion! For comparison purposes, the city of Washington, DC spends more than $2.6 billion in four months. In 2012 the IRS issued $11 billion in fraudulent income tax refunds. In the same year the government wasted $95 billion in programs identified by the Government Accounting Office that duplicated other wasteful government programs.

In federal terms, Ryan’s $2.6 billion is pocket change.

Finally, the budget balances in ten years. This is not because spending will finally be brought in line with revenue, which is how individuals balance budgets. No, Ryan is hoping that federal tax revenues will grow enough through a recovering economy to finally match the spending right now. In the other nine years the deficit continues to pile up.

This is like a drunk driver careening the wrong way down the interstate hoping his blood will absorb enough of the booze for him to regain control before the car hits the bridge abutment.

David Stockman, Reagan’s budget director who saw firsthand how Republicans agreed to increase taxes for Democrat spending cuts that never came, says, “First, let’s be clear—it’s a joke and betrayal. It’s the final surrender of the House Republican leadership to Beltway politics and kicking the can and ignoring the budget monster that’s hurtling down the road.”

Earlier this week reporter Paul Kane of The Washington Post seemed confused that TEA party members were mounting challenges to incumbent Republican senators. The answer is simple; conservatives have no reason to support big government incumbentcrats, regardless of whether they are Senators or Congressmen. Keeping the likes of Boehner or Ryan or Orrin Hatch in office is not the be all and end all of our existence. If nothing else even an unsuccessful primary can be a wakeup call for these whited sepulchers.

Why fight for them if they won’t fight for us? Why waste the gas necessary to drive to the polls to vote for these weaklings?

The only difference between these Republicans and Nancy Pelosi is we go broke slower and there’s a slim chance we won’t have to attend a same–sex marriage ceremony to qualify for Social Security benefits.

Retreating to a compound in Idaho is looking better and better. And since Janet Reno is no longer attorney general, we might even survive until the Chinese foreclose.

Gargoyle Joe Is Your Debate Firewall?

Biden’s new debate coach is not an improvement over John Kerry.

What does it say about a campaign when its hope for putting a stop to a precipitous decline in the polls is Joe Biden? Last night fireman Joe was at his pompous, bloviating best in the Vice President Debate with Cong. Paul Ryan. The most memorable line in his paper thin, fact–free rebuttals came when Biden looked directly at the camera and asked viewers, “Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?”

Earlier in the week Obama staffers were trying to pin the blame for the current President’s poor showing on John Kerry’s debate preparation, but I don’t think replacing Kerry with the Cheshire Cat was much of an improvement. In the split–screen shots Biden looked like a dirty old man staring at an elementary school swing set as he leered and grinned during Ryan’s answers.

When he wasn’t interrupting and talking over Ryan, Biden was muttering and chuckling to himself like Gollum in the underground lake. I suggest that whoever posts these clips on YouTube use Aqualung as the background music.

The only time I had any sympathy for “Good Old Joe” was when the camera showed a view of the back of his head and you could see where even his hair implants were thinning.

Believe it or not Biden took a full six days off the campaign trail just to prepare for the debate. To put this in perspective, Jesus didn’t require six days to prepare for the crucifixion.

Presumably the first three days of preparation were devoted to words Joe wasn’t supposed to say including but not limited to: gay, marriage, chains, crushed, taxes, jobs, 7/11, Slurpee, f–ing, deal, articulate, bright and clean. And the last three days to words he should say. In fact, according to a report in the Daily Mail, Joe was programmed with hand–me–down one–liners that Obama refused to use on Romney.

Fortunately, since the debate was held before a mixed audience, Biden did not have to adopt with the black dialect Obama affects when he’s speaking exclusively to minorities. Biden got to keep all his ‘g’s and was not be required to use “folks.”

The process wasn’t brainwashing per se, but it required at least a light rinse.

And somewhere during all this preparation Joe found time to rent a floor polisher so he could buff his teeth.

This focus on Biden brings back memories doesn’t it? Joe was added to the team for his “extensive foreign policy experience” and his “long term Washington expertise.” Yes, 69–year–old Joe was cashing a government paycheck and sticking his foot in his mouth at time when the 42–year­–old Ryan had to be content with his thumb.

This is why conservative columnists hav alwayse been grateful Biden is the white guy.

Last night while showing off his expertise, Biden claimed the US is Israel’s best friend and that Obama and Netanyahu have personally met 12 times. Both are lies: Obama pledged to create some distance from Israel and the two have met nine times.

“Foreign Policy” Joe stated emphatically that the consulate in Libya had not asked for additional security, intelligence experts did not warn of an attack and that he knows from security briefings that Iran is a long way from getting an atomic bomb.

Unfortunately Ryan failed to point out that Thursday’s Washington Post had printed the emails asking for additional security at the consulate and he failed to ask Biden if the “intelligence experts” who assured him Iran is a long way from the bomb are the same ones who promised him the Libyan consulate was in no danger.

After Romney won the first debate so decisively, one would have thought MSM coverage of the VP event would be reality–based. But that’s not so, the media remains an Obama co–conspirator. CNN reported its own poll of debate watchers “a draw.”

Yet the graph clearly shows Ryan won 48 percent to 44 percent. What’s more, 28 percent of viewers said the debate made them more likely to vote for Romney compared to the 21 percent who said they were more likely to vote for Obama. And Ryan was judged more likeable than both “Public Trough” Joe & Big Bird by 53 percent to 43 percent, both of the latter being outside the margin of error.

And a pathetic AP reporter by the name of Jocelyn Noveck claimed, “the vice president also came up with the two catchiest phrases of the night – “bunch of malarkey” and “bunch of stuff.” Both of which are trite and ancient.

Fortunately, participants in a Luntz debate focus group that — was not on the MSM or Obama campaign payroll — felt Biden was “arrogant.” Personally, I thought that if Joe had a few feathers he could play Foghorn Leghorn.

The best part about the debate was viewers now realize to their horror that a lying boastful buffoon is a heartbeat away from a President that is helpless without a teleprompter.

Or as Barbara Schribner wrote: Now we can put a set of teeth on the empty chair.