You can say all you want about President Obama.  He is a consistent man of his beliefs.  He may permanently damage the United States with his loathing of anything American, but you cannot deny that from day one in office that he has remained laser focused on obtaining his ultimate goals.  Whether it is the destruction of the finest healthcare system in the world, endangering the strongest military in the world, destroying the reputation of the United States as an ally who can be counted on or in the promotion of every single item on the socialists’ dream list, Barack Obama has been unsurprisingly consistent.

As many astute observers pointed out during Obama’s rise to the Presidency, you can get to know someone by looking at the company he keeps.  Look at the mentors who helped nurture and develop Barack Obama and you’ll not be surprised by any of his policies nor pronouncements.  He is focused on remaking the United States by using every tool in the Presidential arsenal including executive orders, a willful disregard for the U. S. Constitution, promoting a strangling Federal bureaucracy and attacking just about every piece of the American fabric.  However inept, crude and bumbling that the President may have been in executing his agenda, he has made up for it with a singular devotion to the greater goals of those who have made his accidental Presidency possible.

Which brings us to the sorry state of affairs in the Democrat Party.  President Obama gave no thought to the long game as he put together his administration of misfits and miscreants.  His policies and legislative agenda did a superb job of clearing the Democratic bench of some of its best players in both the U.S. Senate and the House.  Just about any Democrat with a moderate bone in their body has gone down to defeat in the off-year elections of 2010 and 2014.  Obama’s cabinet appointments have been excellent for promoting redistribution of wealth and the implementation of the President’s vision for his America, but not a single cabinet member, save Hillary Clinton, has emerged from the pack as someone with a potential future in elective politics.  Finally, President Obama squandered an excellent chance to perpetuate his questionable legacy by not choosing a Vice-President who could be a force at the polls and continue the current race to the bottom.  Of course, Joe Biden was never a threat to the President but neither was he a potential threat to Republicans.

President Obama’s failure to attend to the health and future of the Democrat Party will ultimately doom his legacy.  As the days of 2015 begin to dwindle down, we are left with the best that the Democrat Party has to offer for 2016.

We have the frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, and all the glories of times past.  Devoid of original ideas or any scintilla of inspiration, she brings nothing to the Presidential race except the same dirty money, financial manipulators and apologists who were the hallmark of Bill Clinton’s Administration.  The nuclear financial meltdown of 2008 can be directly traced to the same people who are supporting Hillary Clinton’s current campaign.  She reminds me of Greece, lots of ruins to look at but nothing that speaks to the future.

Then we have Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.  He is an unabashed socialist.  The best I can say about Senator Sanders is that he is at least honest about what he wants to get done.  His campaign rallies have been one part Woodstock and one part One Up on Wall Street.

Finally, we have has been Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland.  He did such a great job as Governor in his perpetually blue state that a Republican now leads the people of Maryland.  His current strategy seems to be to go shirtless as much as possible.  Let’s hope his Democratic opponents don’t try to match that strategy.

The bottom line is that the Democrat Party has sunk to unimaginable depths when it comes to new ideas and talented spokesmen.  They are like a professional football team that finishes last in the league, is at the salary cap and has no draft picks.  Do wa ditty, trouble in Demo city!

In contrast, the Republican Party has an embarrassment of wealth when it comes to new ideas, fresh faces and eloquent spokesmen and spokeswomen.  The bench is deep and getting deeper by the minute.  In fact, the biggest challenge facing the Republican Party is how to run an effective winnowing process involving so many talented candidates without it being portrayed by a desperately liberal press as a political circus.  The Democrats should be lucky enough to have this problem.

It now appears that there could easily be sixteen or more serious contenders for the Republican Presidential nomination representing the considerable breadth and depth of the Republican Party.  Extremely capable candidates who can not only express a vision for our country, but also raise campaign funds to get that vision exposed to the voting public.

The difference between the Democrat Party and the Republican Party at this time is somewhat akin to the difference in toilet paper options between a grocery store in Russia and a Krogers in Muncie.

One wonders when that sickening feeling of nausea will begin to sink in with the leadership of the Democrat Party when the realization hits them that the party that they decried as dead in 2008, is now poised to completely eat their electoral lunch.  It is not a good feeling.  As a Republican, I’ve felt the feeling before.  That my friends is the nature of the political beast.  If you let your guard down for one minute, your world can be upended before you know it.

To paraphrase Dickens, 2015 is the best of times and the worst of times for the tale of two political parties.  Madame DeFarge awaits the Democrat Party in 2016.

In poker, they call it “all in”.  In the circus, they call it a “one trick pony”.  As my dad used to tell me, “Remember, Lady Godiva put everything she had on a horse.”

I’m referring to the increasingly perilous strategy of the Democrat National Committee to bet everything they have on Hilary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential Sweepstakes.  In the cotton candy mind of DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democrats best chance at furthering the Obama agenda into the future is by putting all their chips on Mrs. Bill Clinton.

That’s why, when you see seventeen Republican candidates line up to duke it out in nationally televised debates in August, you have to scratch your head and ask why the Democrats aren’t debating anything, anywhere at any time.  There is a method to their madness and the fingerprints on this plan belong to Ms. Rodham-Clinton.

It would probably suit Mrs. Clinton’s deepest political fantasy if she did not have to discuss a single significant policy issue with the press or the American public until after the primaries are concluded next June.  The trick bag that every Democratic Presidential candidate finds themselves in is the need to list the political ship to port during the primaries and then move the ship to starboard during the general election.

The Republican candidate has the exact opposite problem.  They must run to the right to secure the nomination and then take a much softer and gentler approach in the general election as not to spook foggy-minded voters who let John Stewart, David Letterman, Kim Kardashian and NBC news sway both their propensity to turn out and vote and their choice of candidates.

Unfortunately, most voters don’t tune into the political process until after Labor Day, in a Presidential election year.  Until then, the vacuous statements, false pledges and outright fibs go unnoticed by all but the most politically aware voters.  The only political class that seems to hang on every word uttered during the long run up to the November election is the press and the internet.  Words spoken in an Iowa coffee shop to a small group of voters can be resurrected in the final sixty days of a campaign to serve to torpedo a thriving candidate.  Mom used to say that words can hurt and that may be the only thing that my mother and Hilary Clinton ever had in common.

You see Hilary Clinton is in a most precarious position.  Unlike President Barrack Obama, who didn’t leave any dirty footprints in the snow in his public life leading up to his 2008 Presidential campaign, Clinton has a detailed record as First Lady, Senator from New York and Secretary of State.  She’s on the record and her words and actions are fair game for political combat.  Any investment prospectus will tell you, “Past performance is no indication of future performance.”  In politics, past performance tells you everything that you need to know.  Mrs. Clinton would prefer that she not have to defend her words, votes, behavior and record until she squares off against the eventual Republican candidate.

Until that time, Hilary would prefer to talk about that old nasty Republican war on women, nasty Republican attitudes about gay people, nasty Republican attitudes about immigration and nasty old, wealthy white men who rob from the poor and give to 527 PACs.

While most Republicans relish the opportunity to hear seventeen pretty capable people debate issues, ideas and philosophies for the next few months, the national Democratic leadership would prefer that Hilary Clinton waltz through the primary season without getting pinned down in a “I’m more Socialist than you” battle with Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley or in a pragmatic discussion with moderate Democrat Jim Webb.  She would prefer to define herself after the primary season and not before her nomination is safely locked up, lest the wheels come off of the cart.

Why would the Democrat Party tee it up for one candidate at the expense of a fair and straightforward exchange of ideas?  Because the Democrats one and only chance of winning the White House in 2016 rests solely with Hilary Clinton.  Without her, there is no one of real substance waiting on the bench.  She’s it.  She has been it since President Obama won his second term.  The lady in waiting waits no more.

All that the pretenders to the throne, O’Malley, Sanders, Webb and possibly wacky Joe Biden can do is force Clinton further to the left on issues and nail her down on her explanations regarding Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and the sewer of Clinton Servergate.  None of this would be good for Hilary’s November 2016 chances.  She would go limping into the election with all of her many political warts exposed.  Not a pretty sight!

For good or bad, you will have ample opportunity to know everything about the eventual Republican candidate.  They will have debated in nationally televised debates at least eight times, been exposed to endless interrogations by the media and had opposition research conducted on them by some extremely well-funded Republican opponents.  The Republican candidates are showering in a glass box for all to see.

On the other hand, the Democrats duplicitous strategy is to carefully craft candidate Clinton’s image and roll out Hilary version 4.0 in the narrow window from the Democratic National Convention to Election Day.  The philosophy of the Clintonites and Democrat string pullers is to nominate a can of Play Doh and sculpt something for public consumption down the road.  It is a sickening strategy that will serve neither the voters nor the United States.

Personally, I like the stable of Republican Presidential candidates.  I believe that the grueling process that they will face will bring the voters a qualified and extremely capable President.  The Democrats perilous strategy may only bring a lame old nag to the starting gate.

And they’re off!

Sometimes the lamestream media makes a big boo boo and actually asks the right questions.  They may ask the right question for the wrong reason but the results turn out the same.  This most recent serendipitous event occurred twice in the last week, at the hands of, Democrat apologists, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and NBC’s Chuck Todd.

National Democrat Party Chairman Debra Wasserman Schultz was asked what the difference was between socialists and the Democrat Party and she refused to answer the direct questions.  Her refusal to answer the question led me to take an in depth look at the political platforms of both the Democrat Party and the American Socialist Party.

In order to make this an informational and fun experience, I thought that I’d turn this into a game.  I’ve taken key planks out of both party’s platform.  It’s your job to try and determine which planks belong to which party.

Here goes:

• We demand the immediate withdrawal of the United States from NAFTA
• We call for a minimum wage of $15 per hour, indexed to the cost of living
• We call for a full employment policy with a guaranteed living wage
• We call for re-regulation of the banking and insurance industry
• We call for a steeply graduated income and capital gains tax
• We call for a luxury tax
• We call for a National Pension Authority to hold the assets of private pension funds
• We call for increased and expanded welfare assistance
• We call for expanded unemployment compensation for the full period of unemployment
• We support a program of massive federal investment for infrastructure reconstruction
• We support tax benefits for renters equal to those for homeowners
• We oppose the court-created precedent of “corporate personhood”
• We call for withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan
• We call for an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank
• We call for an end of U.S. arms sales throughout the world
• We support the right of soldiers to form unions
• We call for the closing of Guantanamo
• We support the right of public sector employees to strike
• We support unionization by card check
• We call for the repeal of the Hatch Act
• We call for increased health and safety regulation of business
• We call for a 30 hour work week and six weeks of vacation
• We call for reparations from the federal government for its role in the slave trade and the genocide of the American Indian
• We oppose efforts to declare English an official language
• We call for the right to retirement at age 55
• We call for jobs and training for seniors who do not wish to retire
• We support every woman’s right to choose when, if and how to have children
• We call for public funded abortions
• We call for 16 months paid leave to be shared by new parents
• We oppose measures that increase responsibilities and penalties on youth to curb crime
• We call for the end of parent consent and notification laws for reproductive health services
• We call for lowering the voting age to 15
• We support guaranteed incomes and grants for artists and performers
• We call for full funding of community and school arts programs for people of all ages
• We call for full and equal funding of public education
• We call for an end to public funding of private schools
• We call for forgiveness of all outstanding federal student loans
• We support public childcare
• We call for vigorous affirmative action programs in education
• We believe in universal health care with revenues derived from a graduated income tax
• We call for a healthcare system that emphasizes preventive care
• We support the right to choose or refuse medical treatment, the right to die and assisted suicide
• We call for extensive public transportation
• We call for fully funded high speed rail services
• We support publicly funded development of renewable fuels
• We oppose all forms of censorship
• We believe in the free movement of people across borders
• We support the rights of all immigrants to education, health care and full civil and legal rights
• We support unconditional amnesty for all undocumented people
• We support the public funding of all candidates
• We support voting rights for all prisoners
• We call for moratorium on new prison construction and elimination of privately run prisons
• We call for an end to all “3 strikes” laws
• We call for immediate implementation of the Kyoto Protocol
• We call for public ownership of all natural resources
• We call for the elimination of property foreclosures
• We recognize that animals have rights

Okay, test finished.  Put your pencils down.

Did you find a balance between the Socialist Party and the Democrat Party?  Well, I played a trick on you.  Each of these planks is directly from the American Socialist Party Platform.  But wait!  You say that you’ve heard each of these planks advocated by Democrats on the National, State or local level.  You say that our President has openly advocated most of these platforms.  Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid include these talking points in their fundraising speeches as they shear the Hollywood donors at fundraising sheepfests.

It is confusing.  Debra Wasserman Schultz has every reason to try and avoid answering the very simple question of what is the difference between socialism and the Democrat Party.  She knows that if she says that there are differences, she will lose the support of the openly socialist wing of Democrat Party.  If she says that there are no differences, she will lose the support of most of the American public.  She can’t win with any answer that she gives.

What is the answer to the question, “What is the difference between the American Socialist and Democrat Party?  The Democrat Party Platform dances around many of these issues and you have to read between the lines and look for nuances to determine what is being said.  The American Socialist Party Platform deserves kudos for being amazingly transparent.

Therefore, my very humble and understated opinion is that, the difference between socialists and the Democrat Party is the lack of specificity of Democrats.  Remember that difference as you are asked to choose between Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is poised to be the next Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. Last year, I had the great fortune of spending some time with him in Kokomo.

Most high ranking government officials get a little squeamish in the springtime as the seemingly endless string of rubber chicken and dried beef dinners that we Republicans fondly know as our annual Lincoln/Reagan Dinners roll around. In addition to generally questionable food for the masses, we subject our Republican leading lights to a barrage of questions and comments delivered up close and personal by folks exercising their rights to free speech. The hand that moments before held the chicken wing now pumps the hand of the guest speaker and John Q. Public grills them on the more remote aspects of the law, religion, government or pop culture.
The typical Lincoln/Reagan Dinner experience leads the average politico to want to rush in, rush out and get another calendar page turned. Obligations fulfilled. No damage done. I’ve seen my share of political “dine and dash” and in 2014, at our Howard County Lincoln/Reagan Dinner, I expected to witness another.

When Fourth District Congressman Tod Rokita contacted me to see if Howard County would be interested in hosting United States House Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy as our Lincoln/Reagan speaker, I jumped at the opportunity. You see, there is this basic formula when it comes to political events: Big name speaker equals big attendance equals big cash flow equals less begging for bucks later on. A House Majority Leader definitely filled the equation!
To be honest, I expected Kevin McCarthy to arrive late with an entourage like the Pope, give a short canned speech and then leave before the locals had time to ask him if his job was anything like Frank Underwood’s on House of Cards. Boy, was I wrong!

McCarthy arrived with Congressman Rokita when the doors of the banquet hall opened. He mixed and mingled, shook everyone’s hand, answered tough questions with candid responses and then asked his own questions of our Republican faithful. After the pre-dinner reception where he obligingly posed for photos with everyone, he moved into the banquet hall and worked the crowd tirelessly. He absolutely wowed the Lincoln/Reagan Dinner crowd with his friendly demeanor and willingness to rub elbows with them. Kevin McCarthy was no ordinary politico!

McCarthy’s meteoric rise is the story of legend. The son of a staunchly Democratic firefighter, McCarthy was another of those who were brought to the Republican Party by President Ronald Reagan. An entrepreneur at an early age, McCarthy found a way to buy and sell used cars at a profit while still in high school. He cashed in big when he was one of the first winners of the California lottery. McCarthy invested his $5,000 winnings into a sandwich shop and launched a successful business career at age nineteen. It was through the process of running his business that he acquired his interest in government. Nothing quite exposes a person to bureaucracy, taxes, onerous regulations and governmental roadblocks to success like owning your own business. McCarthy learned quickly that, despite what President Obama believes about who is responsible for your success, when you run a business, it is you against the world.
If there was one theme that I believe sums up McCarthy’s political philosophy, it would be an Abraham Lincoln quote the Majority Leader used. Lincoln said, “Property is the fruit of labor. Property is desirable, a positive good in the world. Some shall be rich shows that others may become rich and hence an encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is homeless pull down the house of another, but let him labor diligently and build one for himself and thus by example assuring that his shall be safe from violence.”

Kevin McCarthy’s advice to President Obama may reveal his own managerial philosophy. McCarthy advised the President to make decisions and expect results. Expect subordinates to succeed, replace them if they don’t and reach beyond the typical to find success. I don’t expect McCarthy, if he ascends to the Speaker’s position, to go down the well-worn path of gridlock and no results. He impressed me as a man of action who is willing to take calculated political risks to achieve a greater good.

McCarthy also emphasized that our governmental leadership should be focused on the next generation. He expressed a distinct objective that our children and grandchildren enjoy the same privileges that we have all enjoyed. He also called upon the President to stop the finger pointing, stop the class warfare and stop harping on wedge issues and unite the country. I didn’t get the feeling that McCarthy was merely talking the talk. He struck me as a man who has a servant’s heart and will act in the best interests of his country. He also strikes me as a man who knows that to make an omelet, you need to break a few eggs.

The United States Congress is full of people who have made their careers by playing to narrow interests who refuse compromise and put their own interests ahead of the country. P. J. O’Rourke calls it the “Parliament of Whores.” Kevin McCarthy will need to deal with a caucus where some are flexing their muscles and crowing over their destruction of Speaker John Boehner while at the same time needing to coordinate strategy with a Senate that offers the same challenges faced by Boehner. Getting his own house in order will be his first business before he can hope to forge a productive relationship with the Democrats in the House, let alone a lame duck President.

I wouldn’t bet against Kevin McCarthy. If past is prologue, he will find success in the Speaker’s chair. I know that he will have 300-400 friends in Howard County rooting for him!

One of my first jobs in my career was working for a large public utility in southern Indiana. One of the old hands that I worked with told me a story about an occasion when he disconnected the service, for non-payment, of a woman that he was pretty sure worked as a lady of the evening. He told me that after he cut her service off, she stormed into his office to complain about the disconnection. When he told her that her service would not be restored until she paid the bill and a deposit, she proceeded to remove her high heel shoe and beat him with the stiletto. In fact, she worked him over pretty good and sent him to the hospital.

Last Wednesday, while watching Carly Fiorina field a question about Donald Trump’s insulting comment about electing her face, I got the opportunity to view the verbal equivalent of a beating with high heels as she decimated the blustery billionaire. Not to mix metaphors, but game, set and match to Carly Fiorina!

I won’t recite the highs and lows of the debate again, but I would like to give my view of where the Republican Presidential quest stands at this point in time. I’ll divide the candidates into three groups: Stick a fork in them, long shots and contenders.
First, those with a fork protruding from them or please open your mail so you get the memo:
Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore: If you can’t even qualify for the junior varsity debate, that’s a pretty clear signal that you are toast.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal: A very smart man lacking in essential charisma. I believe his days are numbered.

Former Senator Rick Santorum: I can’t believe that Santorum seriously believes that he has a chance at this point. His slim opportunity was in 2012 against a far weaker field. Too many other candidates share his beliefs and his base. Game over.
Senator Lindsey Graham: He may hang around until the South Carolina primary, if for no reason other than having a chip in a potential poker game at the Republican National Convention. If he doesn’t win his state’s “third in the nation” primary, count him out. He’s currently on life support.
There’s a growing list of long shots who will probably fall to the wayside but who might conceivably catch on fire:

Governor Scott Walker: When I heard him speak at an Indiana Republican Party State Dinner I was surprised at how unexciting he was. I am no longer surprised. To gain traction as a candidate you must have a message that resonates with the voters and the ability to get their attention. Walker is barely registering a pulse at this time.

Senator Ted Cruz: Brilliant, dogmatic, combative and focused, Cruz lacks a critical likability factor. I sense no warmth in him and just can’t see the average voter willing to cozy up to him. He needs to learn to smile every once in a while. This presidential run may just be a trial run for a bid in 2020. He has the money to hang around for quite some time and can go deep into the primary season before crying “uncle.” He could inherit some of Jindal’s and Santorum’s support should they fold their tents.

Mike Huckabee: If you could blend Huckabee’s likability with Cruz’s brilliance, you might be able to work up a respectable candidacy. It’s hard not to like the former Arkansas governor. I met him at the Midwestern Republican Leadership Conference as we rode down the elevator together. I mentioned that I was meeting my wife in the lobby and he insisted on coming over to meet her. You can’t teach that skill. Unfortunately, Huckabee’s human relations skills get overridden by a message parroted by too many other candidates and a media bent on dragging his religious beliefs into every discussion. As a conservative client of mine told me last week, “I liked Huckabee until he supported the Kentucky county clerk. He lost me there.” He’ll be back on Fox News in time to cover some of the late-March primaries.

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul: Although his libertarian beliefs are appealing on many issues to a large number of Republicans, he will always carry the baggage of a reluctance to use the military and the stigma of marijuana legalization. At this time of great challenges in confronting ISIS, North Korea and Russia, it appears voters are a little reluctant to embrace a candidate whose views come off as isolationist. I believe he’ll be done well before the Kentucky Senate Primary.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie: He talked tough before Donald Trump entered the picture but the lingering controversy over Bridgegate and the emergence of Trump has sealed Christie’s fate. There are still a large number of Republicans who won’t forgive the “Obama hug.” New Hampshire will probably be his swan song. Christie’s future may well rest in the Attorney General’s office.

Pediatric Neuro Surgeon Ben Carson: Mr. Carson is very smart, personable and popular with a chunk of Republican and Tea Party voters. Lack of governmental experience is both his weakness and his strength. It is obvious to me that he needs to do some serious study work on government policy, legislation and procedures. His low key demeanor turns on some supporters and turns off others. He is the polite outsider in the race. A lack of funds will severely limit his ability to get his message out during the critical month of March. Carson will most likely run the distance fueled by his army of true believers. As the field shrinks due to attrition, I see his support remaining relatively constant. He too could pick up a chip for the Republican National Convention poker game should a brokered convention occur.

This leaves us with the five candidates who I believe are the most serious contenders for the Republican nomination:

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush: Experienced, smart and well-financed. He should be dominating the primary field. His biggest stumbling block is serving as the apologist, defender and explainer-in-chief for his brother, former President George W. Bush. Many Republicans that I talk with greatly respect Jeb Bush but just don’t want to go through the media assault of “Oh no, not another Bush!” However, his huge campaign war chest and bevy of talented political experts bodes well for his long-term chances. He’s in it to win it.

Ohio Governor John Kasich: The man is razor sharp, forceful and quick on his feet. He is compassionate and has a winning message of working together to make our country great. He will most likely get stronger as the months unfold. His weakness is that the typical Republican primary voter may view him as a moderate, the political kiss of death. He should be able to finance a run to the finish.

Billionaire Donald Trump: He has the outsider image and the slick, easy message of throw the politicians out and “I’ll hire the best people to make America great!” This message always draws a big early crowd of supporters but generally fades when a lack of details kills the buzz. Usually the money fades with the poll numbers and the candidate makes a March exit. However, Trump has the money to fight it out to the finish and take it to the convention. While I just can’t see Trump winning the nomination, I could see him causing a brokered convention. Then, as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright might say, “The chickens will come home to roost.” Trump’s verbal abuse will come back to haunt him.

Carly Fiorina: I’m not sure this dynamo can be kept off of the Republican ticket. She has proven to be tireless, inspirational and crystal clear with her message. She is a great speaker, a superb debater and certainly counters the old “war on women” attack. Time will tell if she can go the distance but if she fails to get the Presidential nomination, she will be on everyone’s short list for Vice-President.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio: This guy is the real deal. He gets it. He is eloquent, has a great message of living the American Dream, brings a needed demographic element to the Republican Party and demonstrates an amazing depth of knowledge. He might just be the guy to electrify both the Republican base and the vast number of young, ethnic and independent voters. He has the funds to survive and will go all the way to the convention. If he fails to grasp the brass ring, he’ll also be on everyone’s short list, except Bush’s, for Vice-President.

If I had to handicap the contenders today, I would rank their chances as follows: Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina, John Kasich and Donald Trump. Of course, this is how the contents of the Republican field looks to me today, but shifts in popularity can change on a whim. Just as my box of Wheaties cereal says, “Contents of box may settle during shipping.” Shift happens!