Virginia Is a Preview of What Gun–grabbers Would Do Nationally

A surprising development is occurring among staunch members of the left at the Washington Post and elsewhere. These woke scolds have come out strongly against sanctuary cities and counties. Before it was either silence or tacit approval for government sheltering a population that was “in the shadows,” which makes sense when you remember they’re running from the law.

Beeler – Columbus Dispatch

Sanctuary jurisdictions serve to protect a criminal class estimated to be 22 million strong at the expense of law–abiding citizens.

And what an expense it is.

These serial law breakers are responsible for the deaths of approximately 3,000 American citizens every year. Over the course of an average lifetime, the total cost to taxpayers for supporting people who have no right to be in our country is estimated by Center for Immigration Studies to be $746.3 billion.

And even those figures don’t include the cost to individual citizens of identity theft, property crime, lowered property values, assault, gang activity, crowded schools, packed emergency rooms and ‘Press One for English.’

The WoePost referred to sanctuary movement as “disturbing,” “reactionary,” “ugly,” and “dangerous.” Sanctuaries were even compared to “slavery” which makes perfect sense when you recall the idea behind sanctuaries is to protect cheap, controllable labor for unscrupulous employers.

WoePost columnist Petula Dvorak wrote “sanctuary cities” are populated by “extremists.” Virginia Delegate David Toscano compared sanctuaries to the Massive Resistance backlash that opposed public school integration.

Only I need to clarify. The WoePost wasn’t condemning sanctuaries that protect illegal aliens from richly deserved punishment. It was condemning the new 2nd Amendment sanctuaries protecting the constitutional rights of law–abiding citizens from undeserved collective punishment.

That’s because the extra–legal selective law enforcement the left uses to protect people who have no right to be here is out of bounds for citizens to use to protect rights granted them at the founding of the nation.

And that’s not the only contrast. Illegal alien sanctuaries are imposed on an electorate from the top down to protect a pool of future leftist voters. The 2nd Amendment sanctuary movement is a grassroots effort that petitioned elected officials to protect constitutional rights and the officials responded.

Even the WoePost admits the “movement has driven throngs of people to show up at boards of supervisor’s meetings. Their numbers are remarkable — 400, 800, even 2,000 in attendance.” As this is written over 110 Virginia counties, cities and towns have passed some form of 2nd Amendment sanctuary resolution that says that jurisdiction will not enforce or impose unconstitutional gun ownership restrictions on its residents.

Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt has one of the best explanations of the 2nd Amendment sanctuary movement, “Sanctuary resolutions are important because they provide the best way for local officials to inform the newly elected General Assembly and the governor that if they rush forward to create new felony crimes to jail law-abiding Virginians — just for exercising their most fundamental and natural right of self-defense — then they cannot expect localities to enforce such unjust laws.”

Gun owners are right to be concerned. This isn’t the anodyne “common sense gun regulation” that is so innocent during the campaign. It’s always different after they win.

Richmond is now controlled by the angry left. Gov. Ralph ‘Coonman’ Northam has discussed requiring all owners of so–called ‘assault rifles’ to register their weapons with the state. And he requested an increase in the prison budget to cover the “increase in the operating cost of adult correctional facilities resulting from the enactment” of gun grabbing laws.

When gun confiscation speculation was running rampant in Richmond, US Rep. Don McEachin suggested the governor call out the National Guard to confiscate weapons.

Del. Dan Helmer introduced a bill that would ban indoor shooting ranges in buildings with more than 50 employees. Ranges that survived would be required to keep an Orwellian log of each shooter’s name, address and phone number.

Presumably so the state police could call ahead and have the owner pack his weapons for faster confiscation.

Del. Mark Levine’s bill would confiscate any magazine that held more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Those who didn’t turn their property over would be felons.

And that’s just the beginning.

There’s nothing “common sense” about these precursors to confiscation, which is the end game for the left. These despicable people subvert the law to protect their protected class of illegal aliens and future Democrats while using the law as a club to punish gun owners who vote Republican.

David French hit the nail on the head when he described the left’s gun fixation, “All too often gun-control proposals operate as a form of collective punishment on the law-abiding while serving as barely a speed bump in the path of the criminal.”

Sports Commentariat Demands More Inequality in College Sports

Sports was much more enjoyable when reporters covered sports. Now print and broadcast coverage is cluttered with breathless opinionating regarding race, ‘gender’, inequality and which high school will next host barnstorming Colin Kaepernick’s Aerial Circus.

Koterda Omaha World Herald

The latest social justice crusade for the sporties is what Sally Jenkins terms the NCAA’s “economically preying on athletes rather protecting them.”

This doesn’t mean the NCAA is forcing scholarship athletes to pay for housekeeping in away stadium locker rooms. It means the NCAA is using player’s images to promote college football without paying the athletes. The NCAA also stifles individual initiative by forbidding athletes from cashing in on their reputation while they are still playing in college.

Or as Jenkins with high umbrage terms it, “NCAA denies athletes their natural economic rights, and hijacks their names, images and likenesses for financial gain. Ohio State’s Chase Young is a star who may not sign his own autograph for money or endorse a Columbus car dealership.”

She then pulls out an apples–to–oranges comparison that supposedly wins the debate, “What member of a university marching band is told that they must not profit from the trumpet so long as they’re at the university?”

The answer right now is none, but when the Pride of Oklahoma starts recruiting trumpet players like the football team recruits the next Baker Mayfield, we’ll have to revisit the trumpet’s last call.

Fact is the football players Jenkins is putting up for auto dealer adoption are already being paid. In 2011 Dr. Patrick Rishe – at the time an Associate Professor of Economics at Webster University – ran the numbers on the value of a football scholarship.

At the University of Oklahoma, the out–of–state scholarship value was $124,556. And that’s not all, “intangible benefits associated with the scholarship [include] free gear, free publicity, free high-quality training and coaching, free access to trainers and fitness centers [and] lower unemployment rates for college graduates.”

Plus, the relief of avoiding the ball–and–chain of student loan debt.

Rishe concludes, “adding the short-term cost savings to the long-term earnings enhancement, the value of a college football scholarship at the Top 25 schools is potentially as high as $2.2 million for those student-athletes that complete their degrees.”

Those were 2011 numbers. The total value would be higher now.

The players, whose pain SJW sportswriters are feeling, represent maybe three percent of all the scholarship players on a team. Clemson QB Trevor Lawrence might cash in by endorsing hair salons but the vast majority of the team would remain anonymous and uncompensated.

And if you think the college football and basketball recruiting process is sleazy now, wait until boosters can bid for 5–star recruits! The players may as well list themselves on Ebay during their last semester of high school.

John Feinstein, another player pay supporter, does make an interesting point. Non–revenue or minor sport athletes, usually also–rans for collegiate attention, could benefit handsomely. “Why not pay a star swimmer, soccer player, tennis player or golfer to put on clinics for local kids? When Oklahoma State wins the NCAA golf championship, maybe local businesses around the state might want to use some of their players to promote products — or their golf courses.”

California just passed the “Fair Pay to Play Act” that will allow in–state athletes to go on the auction block. Other states are checking with head coaches who have winning records to discuss feasibility. While a miscellaneous congressman wants to strip the NCAA of its tax–exempt status if it doesn’t surrender.

Jenkins is convinced the NCAA is doomed because a political consultant told her so, “once the public suspects an organization’s motives don’t align with its mission, ‘we often see a rapid decline in the public seeing that organization as indispensable.’”

Maybe if Jenkins had been a paying client she would’ve been told the rest. Individuals often despise an organization overall, say Congress, but heartily approve of their individual congressman. The same is true of the NCAA and universities.

The situation may not be perfect, but players on a football team currently enjoy a rough equality. Some are more famous than others, but they all labor under the same economic system. And they are all getting more compensation than the rest of the student body.

Players are only undercompensated when compared to the NFL, which most of them will never join.

What Jenkins is advocating will replace this equivalence with a permanent caste system that geometrically enhances the inequality the left purports to abhor.

Think California, only in cleats.

Chase Young, Jenkins’ pet, will be making buckets of money, while the lineman next to him continues to labor in obscurity and now relative penury. It’s a recipe for jealousy, dissention and team disintegration.

Only Murderers Are Allowed to Be Amateurs

Even coverage of an attempted mass shooting successfully stopped by the NRA’s “Good guy with a gun” is not immune from the Opposition Media’s anti–gun agenda. One of the bedrock beliefs of the gun–grabber crowd is the average citizen has no need to own a gun, unless the weapon is strictly for hunting and safely stored somewhere in the Fortress of Solitude.

R McKee The Augusta Chronicle

All other uses of firearms should be restricted to government–approved experts, criminals and random crazy people. Law–abiding citizens need not apply.

That’s why early reports on the shooting at the West Freeway Church of Christ — located in White Settlement, TX — made a big deal about the hero, Jack Wilson, being a “former FBI agent.” It fit perfectly with the experts–only mindset of the OpMedia. Both the Daily Mail and the CBS outlet in Dallas, to name but two, highlighted that description in early coverage of the event.

Verifying that someone actually was a “former FBI” agent shouldn’t be that hard and certainly should be part of the story. One could begin by asking Jack, himself. And a call to the FBI would also be in order to completely verify. Lord knows the FBI should be eager to cooperate if it was true. An ex–agent stopping a shooting would provide some much–needed positive PR for the tarnished, Comeyfied institution.

Since Wilson was a candidate for county commissioner, those reporters could’ve checked for a bio on his website. But “former–FBI” like “Russia collusion” was just too good to check. The good folks at AR15.com did and discovered Wilson was a former reserve deputy with the Hood County Sheriff’s Dept. Not a former FBI agent.

That revelation presented a real quandary. If there is one class of law enforcement the OpMedia despises more than police, it’s reserve police. Reserve officers, which include deputies, are usually unpaid volunteers who are frequently only required to attend abbreviated law enforcement training.

Snobby reporters view reserves as little more than vigilantes with a badge and certainly not someone decent folks would feel comfortable around if they knew reserves were armed.

The experts–only narrative was saved when it was learned that Wilson was also a firearms instructor and formerly owned a gun range. That’s why the WoePost ran the headline: “Firearms instructor took out gunman at Texas church service.”

A follow–up editorial in the WoePost asserted, “The hero in Sunday’s shooting was not, as gun advocates would want us to believe, an ordinary churchgoer …but rather a firearms instructor and gun range owner who has been a reserve deputy with a local sheriff’s department. It’s not hard to imagine an even greater tragedy if there had been someone less skilled than Mr. Wilson…”

A hysterical editorial page writer at USA Today’s AZCentral.com echoed that sentiment, “In other words, he’s exactly the kind of man you want around with a firearm. But we know nothing about the at least six other parishioners who also appeared to draw their handguns at West Freeway Church …And that’s terrifying.”

Mike ‘Big Nanny’ Bloomberg — Democrat presidential candidate and moneybags behind Everytown for Gun Confiscation — even weighed in. When asked about the shooting he opined that, “It’s the job of law enforcement to have guns and decide when to shoot. We just do not want the average citizen carrying a gun in a crowded place.”

In other words, Bloomberg’s message for the 247 members in the congregation when the random crazy person opened up with a shotgun was leave it to the experts.

Keep Calm & Hope You Don’t Die.

Judging by the video of the shooting, Wilson has kept his firearms instructor license current. But in spite of what the credential–crazy media would have you believe he hasn’t been in law enforcement for over 33 years and his range closed in 2016. Wilson’s definitely better than the average bear, but he’s not John Wick.

And if Wilson had not been attending church that day, I’m guessing the congregation would have been happy if any of the other six armed parishioners had engaged the shooter. Particularly when the only other choice was to wait nine or more minutes for the experts to arrive.

It’s really not that complicated. People with concealed carry permits carry a gun because they’re too weak to tote a cop.

It’s been said time is money, but time is also life during an emergency. This idea that Americans can outsource their personal defense to the authorities is false. You are personally responsible for your family’s immediate safety. The gunfight inside West Freeway Church of Christ lasted only six seconds because the congregation had immediate responders who didn’t wait for first responders.

And that made all the difference.

Trump Trips on a Pygmy

It must be very frustrating for President Trump. He’s clearly sees what needs to be done politically to counter attacks from the left, but the political pygmies that surround him refuse to cooperate. And I’m not referring to the Democrats. This particular pygmy is Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell.

The Curator would be much more comfortable if Trump were not the president.

Basley Salt Lake Tribune

McConnell wouldn’t be under any pressure to defend the White House. He wouldn’t be expected to push legislation past Hillary’s veto. He could quietly be his preferred passive–aggressive self.

Blocking Hillary’s Big Government initiatives when required. Dodging social issues supported by the base. And gaining the occasional favorable headline from the Opposition Media in exchange for passing ‘bipartisan,’ budget–breaking spending bills.

McConnell could continue to burnish his reputation for inertia by claiming he’s playing his risible “long game,” when the only time horizon he’s interested in lengthening is his time in office.

Trump might as well have Bartleby the Scrivener as Majority Leader.

Here is an example of what McConnell might do if he were an ally of conservatives and the president. The Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is Cong. Adam Schiff (D–Bug Eyes). His latest in a long line of abuses of power is the release of phone records of the ranking Republican on the committee, Rep. Devin Nunes.

The Washington Examiner reports Schiff claimed he found “it deeply concerning at a time when the president of the United States was using the power of his office to dig up dirt on a political rival, that there may be evidence of members of Congress complicit in that activity.”

The fact there is no crime alleged, there was no probable cause and Kommissar Schiff isn’t part of a law enforcement agency doesn’t bother the Opposition Media or the left. Anyone is fair game in their effort to nullify the 2016 election.

This is where Mitch McConnell should demonstrate that two can play at that game. He would quietly instruct the chairman of the Senate equivalent to subpoena Schiff’s records and then release the information.

That would immediately get Schiff’s attention and more important get Nancy Pelosi’s attention. I predict Pencil–neck Schiff would soon find himself on a very short leash.

Democrats get away with these abuses of power because there are no consequences. And there will continue to be no consequences on McConnell’s snooze. A source told the Examiner, “the GOP is considering ‘a wide variety of strong responses’ to Schiff’s actions.” No doubt ranging from sending a hot letter to hiring hot lawyers. Neither having any deterrent value for Schiff.

McConnell won’t even punish the leftist House for its Illegitimate Impeachment. Trump’s instincts here are exactly right. He’s been under a constant barrage of negative coverage over the so–called Ukraine scandal.

Schiff’s committee wouldn’t allow Republicans to call witnesses and Schiff blocked some questioning. The entire show trial was a one–sided attempt by the power–hungry left to propagandize the American people.

Trump has a chance to clear his name during the Senate trial. In a report from CNN that’s remarkable for finally portraying Trump accurately, the president is eager to finally have a chance to tell his side of the story and turn the tables on the left.

“[A highly visible Senate trial] is exactly what Trump wants. He’s made clear to advisers privately that rather than end the trial as quickly as possible, he is hoping for a dramatic event …He wants Hunter Biden, Adam Schiff and the whistleblower to testify. He wants the witnesses to be live, not clips of taped depositions. And he’s hoping to turn it into a spectacle, which he thinks is his best chance to hurt Democrats in the election.”

The public will have an opportunity to hear the other side of the ‘impeachment’ story that Democrats and their leftist stenographers in the Opposition Media have done their best to hide.

It’s a once–in–an–administration opportunity for Trump to finally set the record straight in a forum the OpMedia won’t be able to ignore.

Naturally, McConnell won’t do it. Mainly because there’s nothing in it for him.

Acting as the modern embodiment of Edmund Burke’s despised “false, reptile prudence,” CNN reports McConnell told the White House, “he hopes to end the trial as soon as he can, an effort to both get impeachment off his lap and protect his conference from potentially damaging votes should the process break out into partisan warfare.”

McConnell’s own words prove he’s either an idiot or a coward. “Partisan warfare” broke out almost three years ago. The question is will Mitch continue collaborating with the enemy or will he finally join the fight to support the administration and the 63 million voters who elected it.

Trump Tip Rule Exploits Workers

It looks like Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia is tired of dining in relative peace and obscurity and he’s decided to pick a fight with the people serving his food.

Sack Star Tribune

Eric Trump has been spit upon by a waitress in Chicago. Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell and his wife Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao were confronted at a Louisville restaurant. And former hand–wringing Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen was heckled as she tried to eat at a Mexican restaurant (which if you ask me was a risky ethnic choice in the first place).

And none of the above had done anything to interfere with the livelihoods of restaurant personnel, give or take the odd deportation.

Scalia, on the other hand, is preparing to launch a preemptive strike on wait staff employees that will limit his dining out options to the department’s in–house cafeteria — assuming he can send a lackey to pick up his lunch.

The Wall Street Journal reports the Labor Dept. is proposing a new rule that would let restaurant owners steal tips more easily and more frequently than the busboy who swipes a few of the waitress’ tip dollars as he cleans the table.

“Businesses would more easily be able to require workers to share tips under a Labor Department proposal released Monday. The rule would allow employers to require workers such as restaurant servers to pool tips with colleagues who traditionally don’t get tips, such as dishwashers and cooks.”

Notice how businesses have no objection to restaurant socialism when they aren’t forced to participate.

This isn’t a strictly intramural conflict. Restaurant customers also have a dog in this fight. I wrote recently about restaurant reviewers — who eat and tip on the company dime — demanding diners pony up regardless. The WoePost’s reviewer was quite clear, “Poor service? You still have to tip 20 percent, no matter what.” This benevolence–by–proxy insulates him from the cost of his bright idea and transfers the expense to other easily persuaded leftists.

Even if a weak–willed diner let Mr. WoePost badger them into participating in this virtue extortion scheme, the customer knew who was getting the money. Scalia’s proposed rule even takes that small bit of agency away.

One of the few positive actions the Obama administration took was attempting to ban this tip–skimming scam in 2012 and now Scalia wants to bring it back. Evidently, he hasn’t gotten the word that Trump decided Republicans don’t have to reflexively support big business whenever it wants to gouge another penny or two from the staff and customers.

Naturally professional liars have an excuse for this latest strong–exploit–the–weak innovation. “Business advocates say tip-pooling ensures workers unseen by customers are fairly compensated.”

This is an echo of the WoePost critic’s mandatory tip regime, “I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about tipping in America. Diners have been led to believe that tipping should be based on the quality of the service. But this is not the reason we tip. We tip because restaurateurs in America have shifted the burden of paying for some of their labor costs to diners. So when you don’t tip, it affects the wages of servers.”

This changes a night on the town into a GoFundMe shakedown. If business is worried about the behind–the–scenes staff not making enough money, restaurant owners should stop picking the wait staff’s pocket and give them a dang raise!

This tablecloth piracy affects customers in two ways. First it removes the server’s prime motivation for giving exemplary service. Why go out of your way to make a customer’s dinner experience outstanding when Hugo Chavez is going to sieze your tip money anyway? Second you may be giving a bonus to the guy who burned your steak.

Free market capitalists should be outraged by this new imposition on the exemplary working man. It imposes a hidden tax on servers that hits the hardest working the most and it allows restaurant owners essentially to pay their best employees the least. You make up the rest.

It appears there is something about the food industry that brings out the cannibal in management. Even woke tech companies are repurposing (stealing) your tips. The WoePost found “DoorDash …recently made headlines for using customers’ tips to offset workers’ wages.”

What that means is if a DoorDash serf is guaranteed a $10/hr. wage and you tip your delivery person $5, DoorDash overseers count that as half his wage, only pay him an additional $5 and the Internet titan in effect embezzles your tip.

I hope Tucker Carlson mentions this on his show so Trump will veto the policy. Otherwise, restaurant customers are going to get great service in the future just like Venezuelans get reliable electricity.

Christianity Proves Expendable for Chick–fil–A

Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.”

John 12:42–43

Rick McKee Atlanta Chronicle.png

Maybe the timid, cultural Christians in corporate Chick–fil–A know something regarding Mayor Pete’s presidential campaign that’s escaped the rest of us. This week the corporation jettisoned its last connection with any Christian charities that believe in the Bible lock, stock and marriage.

Both the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes have been weighed in the corporate balance and found wanting.

When asked about this obvious rejection of biblically sound charities, Chick–fil–A did what any secular corporation would do: It lied. A corporate SpokesPharisee told the Christian Post, “Beginning in 2020 the Chick-fil-A Foundation will introduce a more focused giving approach, donating to a smaller number of organizations working exclusively in the areas of hunger, homelessness and education.”

Or as Matt Walsh put it, “[Chick–fil–A] will stop donating to charities that help with education, homelessness, and hunger, in order to focus more on education, homelessness, and hunger.”

This is the final act in a drama that began in 2012. CEO Dan Cathy told an obscure Baptist newspaper, “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about.”

Grievance archeologists discovered the quote and faux marriage supporters ginned up a faux crisis. Cathy proved to be a conscientious objector in the resulting culture fight. He canceled his public appearances for the rest of the year.

Christians failed to take the hint.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee didn’t examine the chicken entrails either. He organized Chick-fil-A Appreciation day. Hundreds of thousands of Christians, overjoyed that a corporation finally agreed with them on a social issue, stood in line under a hot August sun to show their gratitude.

Pastor Rick Warren said the company set a sales record with seven hours left in the retail day.

While Christians were celebrating, the company was quietly “growing” in its interpretation of the Bible. It severed all connections with any Christian charities in 2012 except for the Salvation Army, FCA and the Paul Anderson Youth Home.

Now it’s done with those three, too.

The Salvation Army deserves credit for not quietly slinking away. “We’re saddened to learn that a corporate partner has felt it necessary to divert funding to other hunger, education and homelessness organizations — areas in which The Salvation Army, as the largest social services provider in the world, is already fully committed.”

How does insulting every Christian who stood in line during Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, in order to curry favor with Consonant Crusaders, pay off in the long run? Chick-fil-A has grown from a $4.6 billion corporation in The Year of Controversy, to a $10.5 billion corporation today.

In every one of those years sexual orientation totalitarians did their best to damage the corporation. And nothing worked.

Now that Chick-fil-A is the third–largest fast food company, it appears to be treating Christianity like Turkish Premier Erdogan’s Democracy Streetcar, “When you come to your stop, you get off.” How does Chick-fil-A intend to continue growth after showing its Christian base that they’re expendable in favor of an obsessed sexual minority whose activists hate everything associated with Christianity?

Chick-fil-A could start grilling Christians along with chicken and it still wouldn’t land the concession contract at a Buttigieg inauguration. The Gaystapo doesn’t just demand acceptance. It requires positive public affirmation and approval. Is Chick-fil-A ready to go that extra mile?

The Chick-fil-A surrender sends a crushing message to small business and run–of–the–congregation Christians. If a $10 billion corporation doesn’t have the willpower to defend biblical truth, there’s no hope for a mom–and–pop operation that runs afoul of the Tolerance Police.

Individuals had best be content to practice religion in the privacy of their own home, maybe in a closet. As long as it’s “safe religion” and the kids aren’t exposed, lest it be reported and social workers take the children for deprogramming.

COO Tim Tassopoulos tried to justify his craven pandering to BisNow, “…as we go into new markets, we need to be clear about who we are.”

Which is evidently just another money–grubbing corporation that worships Mammon.

One surprising lesson from this abject surrender. Judas Iscariot was a better businessman than Chick-fil-A. He got his 30 pieces of silver up front, before he betrayed Christ.

Ghosts of the USDA

I’m wondering when the WoePost will stop haunting readers with stories of the US Dept. of Agriculture’s brutal forced migration from Washington to the primitive hellscape of Kansas City.

Rick McKee Augusta Chronicle

This week it’s low moans from former researcher Andrew Crane–Droesch who tries to convince us moving his department was a loss to research that rivaled the burning of the library in Alexandria.

Egypt, not Virginia.

If I’m reading Andrew correctly, humanity managing to feed itself over the centuries, without the help of scientists at the USDA, was just a lucky fluke. “Humanity’s dependence on the environment is made explicit through our food systems; without the right combination of weather, soil and labor, nobody eats.”

When bureaucrat uses the word “systems” it means the topic is too complicated for mere farmers or other laymen to understand. “…they need experts to make sure that food systems work efficiently and public funds are spent effectively.”

I’m going to interrupt here before Andrew tells us how many times to chew each bite of the “food system” before swallowing. Instead, let’s look at what USDA scientific “experts” and their research brought us in the past.

In a mere 40 years USDA “expert” researchers helped the USA waddle away with the prize for the fattest nation on earth. Then we ate the trophy. USDA research quacks and food fanatics are single–handedly responsible for the obesity crisis that has made type 2 diabetes the trademark affliction of the U.S. welfare state.

Their fraudulent “food pyramid” upended the food industry, bloated millions, cost billions and it was all based on “settled science” that was dangerously wrong.

Reduce saturated fat intake to 10 percent? Wrong. Cut back on salt until corned beef is only a memory? Wrong. Increase carbohydrate intake until you look like a stuffed shell? Wrong.

According to the Daily Mail: “A new review says evidence from [medical research] trials did not support the advice. It says it is ‘incomprehensible’ that such advice was introduced for …220 million Americans . . . ‘given the contrary results from a small number of unhealthy men.’”

Two generations now have no idea what a decent steak tastes like due to our current “food system.” A vile cabal of granola–heads and the USDA ruined beef. Instead of corn–fed beef that produced tender, marbled steaks — USDA anti–fat crusaders gulled beef producers into going back to “natural” grass–fed beef.

Now we can enjoy the same type of tough, stringy beef Augustus McRae and Captain Call ate in Lonesome Dove. The agency’s motto should be: The USDA – Making It Easy to Go Vegan!

Andrew also has the strange belief that taxpayers are penalized when duplication and empire–building are eliminated. “The team that studies patent law and innovation is gone. Experts on trade and international development, farm finance and taxes all left. The publishing staff all left, delaying dozens of reports on subjects from veterans’ diets to organic foods.”

Where to begin? Patent law and innovation belong in the lethargic hands of the USTPO. Trade and international development belong to Commerce and the State Dept. Publishing is handled by the Government Printing Office. The only entry in that laundry list of waste and duplication that really belongs to the USDA is “farm finance and taxes” and I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt there.

As for the reports on “veteran’s diets and organic foods [sic]”, if the research is of the same quality that produced the food pyramid, I guarantee vets are better off without it.

The truth is his USDA research department was a nerd’s playpen, “We loved ERS because it offered a rare degree of intellectual freedom, combined with the chance to make a real impact. We got to spend a great deal of our time pursuing research questions that we defined.”

And all at taxpayer expense!

Andrew and his merry band of Resistors were another group of self–aggrandizing Truth Tellers to Power! “The Agriculture Department wanted to restrict access to food stamps, for example. According to our models …food assistance programs were often a positive multiplier for local economies.” As if any agency report in the history of bureaucracies ever found that a program comprising a large part of the agency budget was ineffective and counter–productive.

An estimated 141 of the 180 bureaucrats ordered on the march refused to budge. That’s not a tragedy. That’s a good start.

The USDA is a self–licking ice-cream cone that essentially pays one group of dependents to grow food and pays another group to eat it, all at incredible taxpayer expense. If an order to move west produced an 80 percent attrition rate in the rest of the agency it wouldn’t occur a moment too soon.

Why the UK Repeatedly Stumbles Heading for the Brexit

MAGA–hat owners would feel right at home on the streets of London. Moseying along wary of a sneak attack by leftist thugs, they’d be secure in the knowledge that in the UK, just as in the US, government institutions are run by individuals adamantly opposed to them and any public policy they support.

Daryl Cagle

Specifically, those individuals are leftists who are currently very disenchanted with democracy. In both instances, the disenchantment dates back to 2016.

As Christopher Caldwell — author of ‘Reflections on the Revolution in Europe’ — explained at a recent Claremont Institute discussion, the 2016 UK referendum on whether or not to leave the European Union (Brexit for short) was a throw–away gesture on the part of then Prime Minister David Cameron.

The referendum was proposed with the same sincerity that Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell employs when he promises to balance the federal budget or repeal Obamacare. Cameron called for the vote to silence anti–EU critics in his own party. After the vote failed, he could go on about the business of transforming the UK into a wholly–owned subsidiary of the trans–national elite.

That was a predictable mistake. Caldwell explains, “The Tory party is 75 percent pro–Brexit at the base, but not at the leadership level. Cameron never thought Brexit would pass.”

On June 23rd Brexit did pass by a 52 to 48 percent majority in an election with the largest turnout in UK history.

Four months later democracy failed again when Donald Trump was elected president.

As 2017 began conservatives in both countries learned the Resistance in the US and Remain in the UK had more than a consonant in common.

Brexit supporters quickly discovered, in Caldwell’s words, “At the heart of Brexit all the decisions are being made by the institutions that were repudiated by Brexit.” That’s why three years after the vote to leave, the UK is still in the EU. The Remainers are acting against the will of the electorate.

Just as only one presidential candidate was legitimate in the eyes of the left here, in the UK only “one outcome [was] legitimate in terms of the Brexit referendum.”

Besides delay, the Remainder counterattack to Brexit reveals what low and dishonest creatures they truly are. Led by their pet newspaper, The Independent, Remainers are now proposing another election, as if referendums, like marriages, are something you keep doing until you get it right.

Brexit on the rebound is termed either the “Final Say” or “People’s Vote,” meaning if the right people vote this time we’ll win,

And they aren’t content with just another bite of the same apple. This vote is clearly designed to defeat Brexit. Three choices are proposed: 1. Remain. 2. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Brexit Deal. 3. No Deal.

The two Brexit alternatives are designed to split the Brexit vote while concentrating the Remain vote. It’s election as sham. Remain would win with a plurality, which is close enough for government work.

Here the response wasn’t a new election. It was to nullify the votes of 63 million people. As White House Senior Advisor Stephen Miller told the Washington Examiner, “[Anti–Trump] career federal employees believe they are under no obligation to honor, respect, or abide by the results of a democratic election. Their view is, ‘If I agree with what voters choose, then I’ll do what they choose. If I disagree with what voters choose, then I won’t, and I’ll continue doing my own thing. So basically, it’s heads I win, tails you lose.”

That’s why Trump can’t build a wall, can’t deport illegals, can’t limit legal immigration and can’t penalize employers who hire illegals. His short attention span doesn’t help, but even if Trump had the focus of LeBron James chasing a Chinese endorsement contract, he would still be fighting for every inch of progress.

The stakes are cosmic for conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic. In Caldwell’s view, “Brexit is crucial in that it is the moment that does or does not roll back trans–national organizations.” The fight will decide whether or not the UK can set its own course for the future.

Here Trump against the Resistance may well be the last chance to control our borders and decide who is and who isn’t a citizen of the USA.

The left’s distaste for the results of the 2016 election remind me of East German communist playwright Bertolt Brecht’s joke, “Some party hack decreed that the people had lost the government’s confidence and could only regain it with redoubled effort. If that is the case, would it not be be simpler, If the government simply dissolved the people and elected another?”

Sounds like a plan say Resistance and Remain.

Cleavage Wars or How Deep Is the Valley?

Here we have another age–old conflict with no end in sight. Combatants are dug in and take no prisoners. The justifications behind the conflict have been heard repeatedly. The grievances and provocations are ancient. The danger of collateral damage is very real. And there’s already evidence of crossing a red–line border.

Dave Grandlund

And I’m not even talking about Syria — unless your local high school is named Bashar al-Assad High. This grinding, Ypres–like conflict is over what girls wear to school and it’s chewed up generations with no end in sight.

It’s such a fact of life, one wonders why the WoePost even bothers?

Yet there it was on the front page of the murder section: “Is a crop top empowering for girls? How parents navigate what’s ‘appropriate’ for high school.”

Notice how Little Miss StuffIt isn’t even in the picture. It’s the parent’s job to “navigate” what the school will tolerate. What the parents will tolerate isn’t part of the equation.

That wasn’t how it worked at the Shannon household. Clothes that didn’t make our daughter look like a slut were fine with us and we never had any complaints from school.

That’s not the situation at the Bloomer’s. “‘I’m not letting you leave the house looking like that,’ said her mother, Tara Bloomer, telling her daughter that she looked like an ‘easy girl.’ A ‘prostitute.’ Seeing his daughter walk down the driveway, Sky’s father, Bryan Bloomer, tried asking her to change. But the teenager didn’t budge. She got into her friend’s car and left for school.”

Parents who raise their children, instead of living in an uneasy truce, will notice a number of problems immediately. Clothing choice isn’t the main one, it’s only the most recent one.

The first was naming your daughter ‘Sky.’ The second was creating a discipline structure at home that persuades your daughter she can leave the house wearing something you forbid and not suffer consequences. And finally, who’s buying the Cleavage Collection?

Our daughter, went through a brief cardio workout before leaving for school. She raised her hands over her head and then reached down to touch her toes. If no belly buttons or bloomers were visible, she was good to go. The rules were followed because following the rules was enforced from a very early age.

I get the feeling at the Bloomer household parents tried to encourage Sky to “make good choices.”

The really sad part of the daughter’s defiance is she thinks she’s being empowered. Dad tries to reason with her, “Truly powerful and intelligent women don’t have to show off everything they have.” “Okay, misogynist,” she replies. Then Sky proceeds to dress to please every mouth–breathing misogynist waiting at school for that day’s performance.

The equally dizzy Post reporter claims, “Teenage girls today are using the language of female empowerment to defend their outfit choices to the adults around them, claiming autonomy over their bodies and calling out clothing restrictions they see as sexist.” Only teens have been “calling out restrictions” since the ‘60s and it has not proved persuasive with anyone besides reporters and professors.

High school boys don’t look at a girl dressed like a hoochie–mama and think, “Wow, does that girl look empowered!”

Instead they look at her and hope she drops her pencil.

Another airhead decided to really punish the leering guys by not leaving anything to the imagination. “A 17-year-old senior at Blair High School, started wearing more revealing clothes last school year after a breakup with a boyfriend who was ‘very controlling and very manipulative,’ she said. ‘I wanted to rebel against him. That was one way I did it.’

She stopped wearing bras and started wearing ‘a lot of semi-see-through tops, a lot of camisoles,’ ‘My midriff is almost always showing to some extent.’”

It’s no surprise she misses the point that her “rebellion” is defined by someone else’s standards.

She also knows her outfits are tacky. “Even if we’re dressed completely respectably, we still face the same stuff we would face if we’re dressed half-naked. We still get assaulted, we still get belittled, and we have our intelligence knocked.”

Maybe, but respectability lowers the odds.

I have a question for weakling parents and their daughters: How many successful business women — outside of Stormy Daniels — dress like that in the workplace?

All the teenage exhibitionists fall back on that old chestnut “creativity” and “self–expression” to justify dressing like they’re going to a trafficking audition. But why does “creativity” always involve subtracting clothes and never adding?

Parents who allow their daughters to leave the house wearing an ‘Ask Me About My Boobs’ top aren’t doing their child any favors. In these situations when the chicken finally comes home to roost it’s often accompanied by a little chick.

Subsidized Diners Demand We Pay Mandatory Tips

Nate Beeler, The Columbus Dispatch

I may have discovered the real reason people living in blue states don’t contribute as much to charity as those living in red states. It’s not that they are hypocrites whose ‘compassion’ doesn’t extend to their own wallets.

It’s because all their discretionary giving is going to restaurant tips.

Getting woke is getting expensive. A recent headline in the WoePost issues an order with all the grace of the director of a Chinese organ–harvesting plant telling you to lie down and do your duty.

“Poor service? You still have to tip 20 percent, no matter what.”

Before we explore the astonishing ‘reasoning’ behind that edict from our social superiors, let’s digress into tipping history.

Up until the early ‘70s the standard tip for good service was 10 percent. Generations finished their career satisfied with 10 percent, content in the knowledge they were getting exactly the same percentage as God Almighty.

Then inflation hit the country. In 1973 inflation jumped to 8.7 percent and peaked at 13.3 percent in 1979. I remember groceries being so expensive I ate hamburger with my eggs because I couldn’t afford bacon.

Mathematically illiterate reporters decided inflation was harming wait staff. They decreed the 10 percent tip was no longer enough in inflationary times and it must be boosted to 15 percent.

Management was behind the idea because it was no skin off their nose and food service employees weren’t letting this bandwagon get away.

Unfortunately, like so many bright ideas brought to you by the media, the theory was both wrong and had no basis in fact.

Let’s say a restaurant check in 1972 totaled $10.00. By 1979 inflation boosted the check for the same dinner (maybe it included bacon) to $20.00. That’s an increase of 100 percent! By comparison, the tip in 1972, at the standard 10 percent, was $1.00. In 1979 the tip had increased to $2.00.

By Jove that’s an increase of 100 percent, too, a fact that escaped reporters and etiquette ‘experts’ because they can’t grasp that the size of the tip increases in lockstep with the size of the check.

Today we enjoy a stretch of historically low inflation rates, but that doesn’t matter to the Hospitality–Journalism Misinformation Complex. Now they’ve decided 20 percent is the minimum and they’ve tripled the responsibilities of the diner.

If this keeps up, it won’t be just Long John Silver that wants us to bus the tables.

This new edict comes from the food critic for the WoePost, an individual who not only eats on the company dime, he tips on the company dime, too. That benevolence by proxy insulates him from the cost of his bright idea and transfers the expense to readers.

That’s bad enough, but he can’t even grasp the theory behind tipping in the first place. From atop Mt. Olympus he explains, “I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about tipping in America. Diners have been led to believe that tipping should be based on the quality of the service. But this is not the reason we tip. We tip because restaurateurs in America have shifted the burden of paying for some of their labor costs to diners. So when you don’t tip, it affects the wages of servers.”

Affecting “the wages of servers” is precisely what the tip is supposed to do! A gratuity is not a participation trophy for being part of my dining experience. It is an acknowledgement of the quality of the service.

My wife works part-time as a server so she has an excuse to get out of the house and away from me. She averages $30.00 an hour in tips alone. No “burden–shifting” restaurateur is going to pay her that kind of wage and stay in business. Even lobbyists couldn’t afford to eat out at those rates.

Subsidizing career choices doesn’t end the diner’s responsibility. Besides payroll, customers are also drafted into Human Resources. With tips being prix fixe the options for responding to poor service are limited to personally explaining job duties to your server or contacting the manager and asking for a new server.

Somehow publicly asking your waiter be fired is an improvement over simply reducing the tip.

Meanwhile your dinner is getting cold.

When I go out to eat it’s not because I always wanted to manage a one–table restaurant. The idea is to take time off from responsibilities, not assume new ones.

The article concludes with this stern admonition: “Like it or not, tipping isn’t about me — or you. It’s simply a responsibility placed on all diners in this country. And you need to factor that in as the full cost of dining out.”

To which the only conceivable reply is: Can I get a side of fries with my Social Justice?