Le’Veon Bell’s Fight Against Time and Economics

Before the NFL season began Steeler running back Le’Veon Bell told ESPN, “I want to play. …But I’ve got to take this stand. Knowing my worth and knowing I can tear a ligament or get surgery at any time, I knew I couldn’t play 16 games with 400 or more touches.”

Bell’s “stand” meant refusing to play for the Steelers unless they improved on their offer of $14.5 million for one season. That would’ve made Bell the highest–paid RB in the league and works out to $36,250.00 each time he touches the football, fumbles included.

Neither Bell nor the Steelers would budge, so the only football he played this season was Madden 2018.

Kevin B. Blackistone, racial grievance columnist for the Washington Post who appears on the sports page, believes future players will grateful for Bell’s obstinacy, “Bell opted to challenge the league to let a club pay him his worth rather than as an expendable, flesh-and-blood cog under the franchise tag again …Bell decided to …claim ownership of his destiny rather than allow the NFL or the franchise for which he plays to dictate it for him.”

What’s overlooked in the discussion of the tension between what the players want and what the owners say they can afford is the damage past financial decisions have done to the bond between football and the fans.

In the beginning the team that drafted a player had his rights forever and they paid him just enough to keep him from quitting the game and getting a real job. As recently as the 70’s NFL players had off–season jobs to support their families. It took a series of strikes for the players to gain collective bargaining rights and a share of league revenues.

The players portion share of revenue formed the salary cap that limits what each team can pay its roster. This is crucial to league balance and prevents richer teams from stockpiling all the best players at the expense of teams in smaller markets with smaller fan bases.

The downside is veteran players become expendable after only five years. As SB Nation points out, “…the main effect of a hard salary cap was the release of higher paid veteran players in favor of younger players still playing out their cheaper rookie contracts.”

That’s a fine personnel philosophy if you’re running a bank or a car lot. No customer in his right mind forms an emotional attachment to bankers or car dealers. It’s different with sports teams. A soul–less, numbers–first philosophy make keep the accountants happy, but it’s a slap in the face to fans who have an attachment to players they may have met or with whom they’ve vicariously shared great moments in football.

It produces a two–tiered NFL. Well–paid veteran nomads roaming from team to team for higher contracts before Father Time finally tackles them and newbies marking time until they can leave to chase a bigger contract.

That’s why only an optimist buys a team jersey with a current player’s name on it. The expensive jersey will have years of useful life remaining when the player is long gone. Smart fans only buy a jersey with a Hall of Fame player’s name on the back, because those guys aren’t going anywhere.

No father enjoys explaining to his son why the Packer he idolizes is no longer a Packer, but is now playing for a rival. Why fight traffic, pay exorbitant ticket “convenience fees” and be frisked entering the stadium to watch players who are just passin’ through?

Blackistone is angry the league treats players like “expendable, flesh–and–blood cogs.” He’s correct. This Rule of the Accountant undermines the connection between fans and players who are the team. (Only vendors cheer for owners and management.)

A better policy would be to have a player’s impact on the salary cap be significantly reduced the longer he stays with a team. Currently, the only players who have ten–year careers with one team are quarterbacks and kickers. The other 20 roster spots are revolving doors.

Player careers are brief. Owner careers are perpetual. Players deserve to maximize earnings during their moment in the sun and owners need profit to pay the players, the light bill and lobby politicians for more taxpayer stadium subsidies.

The people taken for granted in this dynamic are the fans and it is damaging intangible bonds.

Yahoo finance reported the NFL lost thousands of fans last season who were fed up over politics, had no interest in the teams or some other reason. A wise league would try to rebuild the bond between teams and fans. A good way to start would be making it easier for players to finish their career with one team and one set of fans.

Advertisements

CNN’s Jim Accoster Elbows Trump Out of the Way

Evidently in the Trump administration, Kryptonite is spelled ‘injunction.’

President Trump, our Hitler–in–Waiting, proposes to exercise his superhuman powers by beginning a new program. Before the sweat–shops can begin producing the first black uniform the entire enterprise is brought to a screeching halt by some no–name district judge brandishing a piece of paper called an injuction.

This judge, specializing in improv law, guarantees himself a lucrative spot on the law school speaking tour circuit by ordering the president to stop whatever constitutionally authorized action he has taken that angers the left.

President Trump complains about this constantly. Their nuisance–rulings are designed solely to delay implementation of policies the voters ratified in the last presidential election. The lawyers and the judges doing know the legal reasoning is fantastical, but it doesn’t matter. Fantastic or not, Trump is tied up in lawsuits.

That’s why it’s so frustrating when Trump is given the perfect case to strike back at these pettifogging leftist jurists. He could prove to the public how out–of–control the judiciary is. Instead his administration craters.

The headline in the Daily Mail summed up his ignominious defeat: “White House backs down in CNN fight.”

I’m sure you know the story. CNN propagandist and egomaniac Jim Acosta had his press pass to the White House pulled after his latest egregious display of contempt and disrespect for the President of the United States.

Removing his press pass didn’t mean Acosta could no longer report on Trump, it just meant he couldn’t do it from inside the White House.

CNN (the Creating the News Network) went to court claiming that barring Accoster infringed on his 1st and 5th Amendment rights. District Court Judge Timothy J. Kelly, a Trump appointee, issued a temporary injunction ordering the return of Accoster’s pass.

This proves Trump isn’t batting 1,000 on his judicial appointees. Kelly’s ruling is a case of hysterical, ludicrous overreach. He contends once the administration opened the White House to reporters a here–to–fore unknown geography clause was invoked and Acosta has property rights.

The judge then said the revocation was a violation of the 5th Amendment because no one could tell the judge “who made the decision.”

Instead of fighting, the White House gave up.

This bogus lawsuit is the perfect separation–of–powers test case. The judicial branch is ordering the executive branch to conduct its affairs according to the preferences of judiciary, a power it does not possess under the Constitution.

This petty judicial bureaucrat doesn’t have the authority to determine who’s admitted to the White House, just as he doesn’t have the authority to determine seating arrangements at state dinners or the guest list for the White House Christmas party. Admittance is a strictly internal affair at the sole discretion of the president. Banning Accoster for being a jerk does not limit his ability to continue slandering the president, it only limits his proximity.

If this property–right–by–admission exists in the White House, Judge Kelly should check the courthouse. I’ve been in courtrooms where the audience isn’t allowed to read, much less disrupt the proceedings. A reporter demonstrating disrespect for a judge would be escorted forcibly from the courtroom by a bailiff and possibly jailed for contempt of court.

If no press pass violates the 1st Amendment, then banning courtroom TV cameras is equally a violation.

As for the “due process” violation of the 5th Amendment, it’s not the judge’s business how the White House arrives at internal decisions. The Executive Branch is co–equal branch to the Judicial. It doesn’t answer to their internal procedural demands. The Trump administration agreeing to do so sets a dangerous precedent.

The correct response to this pathetic injunction would be a news conference where Trump played a video of Accoster’s greatest hits. Afterward the president would explain entrance to the White House is a privilege and that behavior is intolerable. Next, Trump would explain the Constitution’s separation of powers and how the Executive Branch is not at the beck and call of every ego in black robes.

The President has sole discretion as to who enters the White House and how the decision is arrived at is an internal matter not subject to judicial review. That’s why the press pass won’t be reissued.

The fact the Trump administration did not exploit this obvious example of judicial overreach indicates to me that the president listens to too many lawyers whose thinking is hidebound by bureaucracy and process.

It also indicates the Chinese aren’t as smart as we thought. Instead of fighting a trade war with Trump, they could have stopped his trade policy in its tracks had they only gone to court.

Four Weeks from Oblivion, GOP Congress Slumbers On

The session of Congress that occurs after the just–completed election and the swearing in of the new Congress in January is called a lame duck session. It will last four weeks.

RJ Matson CQ Roll Call

These are the last weeks Republicans will be in control of both houses of Congress and the White House. This was supposed to be a golden age of conservative accomplishment. In reality, it was two more years of the Can’t–Do Caucus telling voters what they promised on the campaign trail at home, can’t be done in DC.

Next year the charade will be over, because the left will control the House.

This brief session will constitute another Gohmert Moment, which I’ve named after Louie Gohmert, the genuine Texas conservative congressman.

When Gohmert first entered Congress he and other freshmen were excited about the prospect of passing truly conservative legislation. That was before he met the timid, country club conservatives who comprise House leadership.

Gohmert explained at his first GOP House conference the leadership’s caretaker conservatives were worried. They acknowledged the campaign has promised big things. But in Washington there was “a small chance” Republicans might lose the majority in two years. To play it safe, leadership wanted to do small things, win the election and keep the majority.

Then, leadership promised it would be time to do big things.

Gohmert disagreed, “If there’s any chance we might lose, then this is the time to do the big stuff.” Gohmert was ignored. He’s been ignored ever since.

Rachel Bovard, of the Conservative Partnership Institute, reminds us of what could be done if our placeholder GOP believed in the issues on which it campaigned.

Bovard suggests this last GOP Congress, “take a cue from the Democrats’ playbook in 2010. Like present-day Republicans, House Democrats were then about to lose their majority. Republicans, like now, were expanding their majority in the Senate. But in the face of waning power, Democrats did not fold. They fought.”

The left focused on Cultural Marxism and one foreign policy initiative. The Cultural Marxist hot buttons appealed solely to left’s base — a concept as foreign to GOP leadership as quantum physics is to a cat. The goal was repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” so homosexuals in the military could go ahead and flaunt it, and pass the DREAM Act, an amnesty for younger illegal aliens. The foreign policy initiative was the NEW START nuclear arms treaty. Sure to rev up any surviving ‘Ban the Bomb’ marchers from the 60’s.

Bovard explains, “Democrats intentionally chose to aggressively move forward on controversial legislation on which they had previously punted — likely driven by the fact that they were not sure when they’d again control both houses of Congress and the White House.”

The left was successful on two out of three. Only the DREAM Act failed.

If our conservatives–in–name–only Republicans followed that successful template, top legislative priorities during this lame duck session would be terminating the funding of the organ harvesters at Planned Parenthood; pulling the plug on PBS, NPR, NEA and NEH; fully funding President Trump’s border wall, and reforming immigration law by ending the anchor baby and asylum scams.

Then conservatives would miss them when they were gone.

William Galston, a former advisor to Bill Clinton, said Democrats were successful because, “They were prepared to pull out all the stops.”

Unfortunately, today’s conservative “stop” is Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell, who follows an extra–Constitutional policy of requiring 60 votes to pass legislation in the Senate, while a simple majority works fine in the House.

And what are the curator’s priorities for the lame duck session? The Hill reports Mitch wants to pass a criminal justice “reform” bill, a pork–laden Agriculture bill, a foreign aid measure and ratify judicial nominations — a routine task in any other Congress but an activity for which this pack of seat–warmers expects fulsome praise.

Do you see any correlation between what the conservative base wants passed and what the housebroken conservatives intend to pass? It’s no wonder many conservatives were guided to the polls by muscle memory rather than enthusiasm.

Evidently lame duck is a dish that can only be prepared by leftist chefs.

As these dissemblers stagger toward the finish line of this Congress, I feel much like Oliver Cromwell did in 1653 when he dismissed the equally wretched Long Parliament:

“It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, …[you are] enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

“In the name of God, go!”

Mitch McConnell: How to Win Without Doing Anything

The best summary of the 2018 midterm elections came from National Review, that hotbed of Never Trumpism. David French wrote, “Republicans solidified their theoretical advantages in the [Senate].”

“Theoretical” being the operative word. With Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell in charge, any conservative changes in the status quo were always only “theoretical.” That’s why the big winner of this election was McConnell.

Rick McKee, The Augusta Chronicle, GA

As this is written the left has picked up 29 House seats and lost 3 seats in the Senate. That’s not a “blue wave”. It’s more like the splash on your shoes after a lobbyist’s SUV drives by during a DC rainstorm, while you wait for a bus.

In Clinton’s first midterm he lost 54 House seats and 8 Senate seats and that was before he went all Harvey Weinstein on the help.

Nobel Prize–winning Obama, beloved by all, lost 63 House seats and 6 Senate seats in 2010. As Ed Rogers pointed out, the left’s victory didn’t even exploit the alleged national loathing for Trump. “Democrats have underperformed in comparison with the historical markers and general expectations of a midterm cycle. The president’s party loses 37 seats in the House on average in midterm elections when his approval is below 50 percent — but Democrats aren’t projected to pick up nearly that many seats.”

Some of these numbers could change by the time you read this because Democrats have dispatched vote–finding teams for the undecided races. These grave robbers and dumpster divers somehow manage to unearth previously hidden leftist votes in much the same way the French find truffles.

Mitch McConnell, Architect of Inertia, wins because even the most rabid members of the base won’t expect him to pass conservative legislation when the House is held by Antifa.

Had Republicans held the House, the additional three new GOP senators would have been an unmitigated disaster for McConnell. The pressure to finally pass legislation conservatives have been promised during the campaign, but somehow gets lost on the trip back to DC, would have been overwhelming.

A relieved McConnell will spend the next two years cheerfully functioning as the Human Resources office for the White House judicial nomination team. After each confirmation, Mitch will claim the approved judge is a victory for Senate conservatives.

The truth is every judge is a victory for the man McConnell secretly despises: Donald Trump. His victory in 2016 upset all the curator’s careful plans. With Hillary in the White House, Mitch could be his natural, passive–aggressive self. Trump ended the ‘if we only controlled the White House’ excuse Senate country club conservatives used to justify their legislative coma.

Even after Trump made the McConnell family a two–income household again — his wife is Sec. of Transportation — Mitch showed his gratitude by refusing to support Trump’s budget, Trump’s wall and Trump’s effort to shrink the federal government. McConnell is responsible for 90 percent of the failure to pass Trump’s legislative agenda.

Now McConnell is mumbling about working with Democrats. This means he’s ready to reopen the Pork Palace under the guise of “bipartisanship”, because the only activity the two tribes in Incumbentstan can agree upon is spending money.

McConnell will enjoy the extra three–vote pad on judicial confirmation votes even though he did nothing to produce the unprecedented Senate victories.

He avoided the immigration issue. He didn’t force Democrats to cast votes that would not play well at home. McConnell did almost nothing aside from his HR duties.

The president, on the other hand, was a campaigning machine. As Laura Hollis pointed out, “[Trump] was instrumental in the GOP victories in Florida, Indiana, Texas, Ohio, Tennessee, Missouri and North Dakota.”

Trump won running his issues and not those of the housebroken conservatives hiding in the Swamp. Frank Cannon and Paul Dupont summed it up nicely, “The GOP [McConnell and the ‘leadership’] cannot afford to settle for a “truce” strategy on social issues, surrendering to Democrats the power to define the cultural narrative. This repeatedly has proven to be electoral suicide. If Republicans are to capitalize on the Democrats’ growing weakness, they must campaign unapologetically as conservatives, as President Trump did in 2016, or else resign themselves to eventual defeat.”

Ed Rogers has sage advice for the curator, “Voters had a chance to repudiate Trump and they did not. Much of the commentariat has said this year’s elections are about who we are as a country and what America is all about. Well, a lot of America seems to be about supporting Trump.”

If McConnell — who has a lower approval rating in Kentucky than Trump — can’t grasp that fact he needs to get out of the way.

Trump Says “Adios” to Birthright Citizenship

Ending birthright citizenship, better known as dropping the anchor baby, is the most significant illegal immigration reform the President Trump has announced. With a single executive order, he unplugs a beacon that attracts scammers from the world over. He also attacks a visible manifestation of the Foreigners First mindset that has infected the State Department, and the rest of the federal bureaucracy, since the 60s.

Gary McCoy, Shiloh, IL

For those late to the discussion, birthright citizenship is the GPS theory of national allegiance. If your pregnant wife was sitting in the stands at Lambeau Field and she got so excited she gave birth, the resulting baby would not be entitled to season tickets for the rest of his life. But if your wife, Consuela, was an illegal alien in a sanctuary city, who gave birth in a sanctuary maternity ward, your new child would be a Yankee Doodle Dandy. An instant US citizen with all the welfare rights that come with the birth certificate.

Trump will end that.

As is customary in these situations the left and its propaganda arm the Opposition Media instantly sprang to the defense of this devaluing of US citizenship. Even worse, the OpMedia had no trouble recruiting reflexive anti–Trumpers like Paul Ryan (R–INO). Ryan evidently liberated by his banishment to private life, stabbed Trump in the back using his favorite tactic of preemptive surrender. He claims anchor babies aweigh will require an amendment to the Constitution.

The left’s defense of birthright citizenship relies much on sentiment and sad stories and is light on facts. The talking points read like Shotgun Joe Biden wrote the memo. Here are the main defenses of this nonsensical geography theory of national obligation:

  1. The plain language of the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship.
  2. Birthright citizenship has been a part of the US since the beginning.
  3. The Supreme Court has ruled illegals are entitled to birthright citizenship.
  4. Throwing anchor babies overboard required amending the Constitution.

Each point is factually incorrect. Here is the plain language of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The key phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The author of the citizenship amendment, Sen. Jacob Howard, who ought to know what he meant, explained, “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.”

This was tested in the case of Elk v. Wilkins where an Indian sued, contending he had birthright citizenship. Elk lost. The court ruled, “No one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.” It took passage of a law in 1924 to grant birthright citizenship to American Indians.

The Supreme Court has never addressed the question of birthright citizenship for illegals. The case defenders cite, Wong Kim Ark, concerned two Chinese diplomats who were in the country legally and had a child. In their wisdom, the judges used subjectship under English common law, which the Founders had specifically rejected in the Declaration of Independence, to arrive at a decision that would be overturned today. The case said nothing about aliens in the country illegally.

Mark Levin said, “Not until the 1960’s [was] the Constitution …interpreted to convey birthright citizenship on the children of illegal aliens. And not due to any congressional statute or court ruling, but decisions by various departments and agencies of the federal bureaucracy.”

The federal bureaucracy is controlled by Trump, intermittently at least, so he can tell the executive branch to close the border maternity ward. An amendment isn’t necessary.

Trump should make the order retroactive to the first day of the administration. Certainly, the left will file a lawsuit and fall into a trap of their own making. This is the defining case that can overturn Wong and restore the original intent to the 14th Amendment and not the Hallmark Card legal philosophy that the government has followed for over 50 years. That’s a victory that will last long after the Trump administration.

Finally, Paul Ryan’s back–stabbing response when asked about Trump’s most important policy reinforces my advice to conservatives. Go on strike when you vote in congressional races. Conservatives should vote for every Republican candidate except Representatives. On that line write “On Strike.” Without the conservative base, always taken for granted, Republicans can’t win. In 2020, after the country club conservatives who survive have learned their lesson, resume voting as normal.

Conservatives will never see change in Congress until they change who’s in Congress. Going on strike is the place to start.

The Real Conspiracy Against the Working Man

I’ve been resisting the temptation to write about the latest ‘Walk for the Cash’ — the slow–motion invasion that’s gradually approaching our border from Latin America. Illegals have already taken over large swaths of our country, instituted Central America’s wage scale in construction, eliminated high school kids as a viable lawn–mowing alternative, flooded our schools, made hit–and–run a popular pastime and annexed California.

So I was darned if I would allow them to dominate my column, too.

Adam Zyglis: The Buffalo News, NY

But maintaining my willpower is a constant struggle. Particularly when it looks like there are blue–state attorney’s general ready to defend the illegals’ right to take jobs from citizens — regardless of whether the job is with Chipotle or MS–13.

It’s a shame both Democrats and Republicans aren’t as eager to defend citizens who have jobs.

Jay Shambaugh and Ryan Nunn, writing in The Hill, explain that although the economy is booming and unemployment is down, “real wage growth has drifted toward zero. …it has been just 0.4 percent in 2017–18.”

Two of the reasons for the lack of wage growth are systemic and a product of the vast imbalance in power between the job seeker and employer. Regular readers know I’m a conservative and resist government interference in the market. That doesn’t mean I believe individual workers should be at the mercy of soulless Human Resources drones hiding behind the hiring dictates of the executive floor. Currently employers have a de facto union that protects them from employees.

Government at the state level can play an important role in returning competition to the hiring process, which will increase wages as employers are forced to bid for workers. Unfortunately, to date all blue states have done is force nonsensical “ban the box” measures on employers, while red states sleep in the bosom of their corporate donors.

Leftists pushing “Ban the box” want to prohibit employers from asking applicants if they have ever been convicted of a crime. This is a sideshow affecting a small portion of the population.

The question Republicans and Democrats should be banning is the one asking the salary of the applicant’s previous job. This invasion of privacy question gives the employer an insurmountable advantage during salary negotiations. The question immediately sets a ceiling on the salary offer and leaves the applicant has no recourse.

If he refuses to answer the salary question he may as well have put “murder” as his answer in the banned box, because neither he, nor a real murderer, will be offered a job.

This collusion has a major impact on worker’s economic lives and helps to reduce wages. And that’s only one of the ways employers conspire together at the expense of job seekers and job holders.

Another way employers limit competition and keep wages artificially low are industry–wide, no poaching agreements where employers informally agree to avoid hiring workers from competitors in the same industry. No poaching edicts bar an employee from seeking a job with another employer in the same industry where he already has all the relevant experience and expertise and is the most valuable.

It’s as if the industry is running its own NFL, where employees are pledged to a single company, only without cheerleaders and kneeling during company functions.

A great employee, working for a lousy widget manufacturer, is stuck without any hope of moving to better working conditions, because none of the competing widget makers will hire someone from within the industry. Changing jobs forces them to look outside the industry where their experience is discounted. The situation has all the disadvantages for the employee, of an H1–B visa without the airplane trip.

The best part is instead of torturing the law to help gangs cross the border, leftist AGs can use existing statues to prevent employers from ganging up on employees and Republicans can demonstrate their “bi–partisanship” by joining the movement.

The best avenue for leveling the employment playing field is the legal concept of ‘tortious interference.’ Wikipedia defines this as “when one person intentionally damages someone else’s contractual or business relationships with a third party causing economic harm.” That’s a perfect description of a no poaching agreement that prevents an employee (the third party) from changing jobs within an industry and improving his salary and job conditions.

Eliminating the salary question is harder. At the state level, government could expand the definition of privacy to include salary. That would solve one problem, but I fear mission creep in the future.

Results for employees would begin to be felt after the first subpoenas arrived in Human Resources. How about it attorneys general? Why not stop chasing headlines and start chasing employee equality?

Sanctuary Maternity Wards a Leftist Success Story

Some readers may have thought my recent column on anchor babies was more alarmist than the situation warranted. After all, many pregnant women complain when they have to get up from the TV to go to the bathroom. So how many illegals are realistically going to waddle across the border to give birth on the Sammy side of the street?

Daryl Cagle, CagleCartoons.com

The Center for Immigration Studies provides timely context regarding the issue. According to Breitbart’s analysis of the report, “There are an estimated 28,000 births to illegal aliens every year in the Los Angeles metro area, exceeding the total number of U.S. births in 14 states and the District of Columbia.”

Illegals don’t have to be in labor when they sneak across the border, they can begin the anchor baby manufacturing process when they are already in the States. Since Los Angeles is a sanctuary city there’s little danger of being deported if the illegal confines herself to identity theft and an EBT card or two.

Once the baby’s due, the senorita calls the sanctuary ambulance for a ride to the sanctuary maternity ward where a crack sanctuary medical staff delivers a brand new anchor baby. This bebé ancla is not only the key that unlocks city, state and federal welfare programs for our new madre, the nino is also future deportation prevention, since sending mom back would mean “breaking up the family.”

(Isn’t it strange no one ever asks what kind of mother would abandon her baby rather than take it home with her?)

California’s total for anchor babies is 65,000 a year, followed by Texas’ 51,000 and Florida’s 16,000. Birthright citizenship in the US is a government–endorsed scam that allows Latin American mothers to sign their children up for the best welfare programs, much like wealthy New Yorkers put their infants on the waiting list for the best schools.

The entire grift could be ended tomorrow if either President Trump issued an executive order ending citizenship for illegals born on our side of the border or if our so–called Republican Congress passed a law mandating the same. The fact nothing has been done gives you an idea of how important discouraging illegals is to Congress.

Today’s other follow–up involves food. If food bureaucrats had any honor they would acknowledge the war on hunger has been won, put current programs on auto–pilot and then go make the millions in the private sector we’re assured they could make, if the ‘pubic servants’ weren’t so dedicated.

You can judge the size of the victory over hunger by going to the nearest shopping mall and counting the people who aren’t fat. Bonus points if you can find someone who’s not chewing.

Instead of celebrating their victory the calorie–pushers instead went looking for more enemies. Instead of hunger, they now fight “food anxiety.” This is a slippery term that covers essentially everyone that has ever wondered if the drive through at McDonalds will still be open when he gets there. The term can’t be quantified so there is no danger of the bureaucrats winning this war and seeing a consequent reduction in jobs and funding.

The second enemy was the “food desert” and it’s also part of the mission creep cavalcade. Food deserts don’t describe an actual desert where there’s no food. Instead it’s a geographic area devoid of grocery stores where government elites would feel comfortable shopping. It’s a snob’s wasteland where the man–on–the–street can’t pronounce “quinoa.”

The Washington Post was on this crisis like green on cilantro. Beverley Wheeler, director of DC Hunger Solutions, warned readers, “Grocery-store access is a racial equity issue that must be dealt with, and it’s a health issue. We can no longer pretend we don’t see what we see.”

What that means is that food deserts caused obesity. This never made sense to me. It would stand to reason inhabitants be thinner since the hungry had to walk farther to find food, just as one doesn’t find fat camels in the Sahara. Government jumped on this scam, too.

Crony capitalists used it to subsidize grocery store companies to build in favored areas. The non–profit parasite crowd started advocacy groups that would cause food deserts to bloom after being given only a few million tax dollars.

And then guess what happened? As Tamar Haspel, WaPost food columnist, recently wrote, “No, food deserts don’t cause obesity.” Tamara Dubowitz, admitted “because access was a social justice issue. [The belief] wasn’t based on evidence because there wasn’t any evidence.”

The War on Food Deserts began because it would produce more government spending and the term generated sympathy. That’s all that was needed to commence hostilities, because for the left emotion always trumps evidence.

If you don’t believe me, ask Justice Kananaugh.

Nov. 6th Is the Day Conservatives Go On Strike

Republican incumbents are getting nervous as election day approaches. And for good reason. The political party of the left, Democrats, has energized its base while the country club conservatives in the GOP have euthanized theirs.

Sean Delonas, CagleCartoons.com

Evidently the strategy is to rely on muscle memory to get conservatives to the polls, because the so–called accomplishments certainly won’t.

Confirming Supreme Court justices who are rumored to be conservatives isn’t a Senate accomplishment, it’s Trump’s accomplishment. Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell had nothing to do with Trump’s victory. McConnell was one of those incumbent nose–holders who viewed Trump as something of an embarrassment when compared to DC’s refined caretaker conservatives.

Which is also McConnell’s attitude toward the conservative base.

Without Trump there are no justices for McConnell — head of Senate human resources — to rubber stamp. The other ‘accomplishment’ is the tax cut. Tax cuts are not why Trump was elected. All the GOP candidates claimed to back a tax cut.

Trump won because he pledged to stop illegal immigration and reform what passes for legal immigration.

Here’s the Republican Congress’ record on issues that matter to conservatives:

No funding for the wall.

No expedited deportation of illegals

No requirement for E–verify

No English as official language.

No end to funding Planned Parenthood

No repeal of Obamacare

No cuts in federal spending

Here’s what Sen. Chuck Schumer (D–Antifa) says about the GOP Congress, “If you would’ve told me this year that we’d be standing here celebrating the passage of an omnibus bill, with no poison pill riders, at higher [spending] levels …than even the president requested, I wouldn’t have believed it. Almost anything the Republican leadership in the Senate achieved this year, they achieved on Democratic terms. … Democrats had an amazingly good year.”

The housebroken conservatives’ record these past two years is so abysmal that even the very polite Christians at First Things magazine have noticed. Phillip Jeffery quotes from a series of interviews, “We’re tired of being treated like our issues are of secondary concern.” If an issue ‘can’t be solved with a new tax rate,’ the establishment seems not to care.” “By her account, the electoral power of the pro-life movement does not match the level of attention it attracts from conservative leaders.”

That’s putting it mildly. And now comes a last gasp attempt to save their jobs that proves just how stupid the cocktail conservatives in Congress think we are. Paul RINO plans to introduce a bill that fully funds construction of the wall, contains Kate’s Law and targets sanctuary cities.

The best part is they plan to vote on it AFTER the mid–term elections. Leadership says this makes the election a “referendum on immigration policy.” I call it a cynical ploy to save their candy behinds. These clowns have been in office almost two years. Only the specter of looming defeat motivates them to act on Trump’s number one agenda item.

If they were serious about illegals, the House would pass a hardline bill today and send it to the Senate.

McConnell would stop dusting the furniture long enough to bring the bill up for a vote. Then he brandishes his dust mop and forces Schumer to conduct a traditional filibuster if Chuckie wants to block passage. Voters would see the left is prepared to stop government to protect illegal alien criminals at the expense of taxpayers.

That would make the mid–terms a genuine referendum on immigration. Under the gutless, craven ‘leadership’ we now have in Congress this will never happen.

It’s high time the conservative base did something that will attract “attention …from conservative leaders.” That means going on strike on election day. Conservatives are at least 30 percent of the GOP base. They can’t win without us.

When you go to the polls, or vote absentee, vote for whatever wretch is on the Republican line for Senate. For the House — unless your representative is a member of the Freedom Caucus — cast a write–in ballot for “On Strike.”

Yes, this means some acceptable GOP incumbents will be defeated, but their loss will send an unmistakable message to the RINOs in the Senate: Conservatives expect action now!

Nothing will change in Washington until we change the composition of the Republicans in Congress and put the fear of God into the barnacles that manage to hold on to their seats. Losing the House in the short run will be a victory in the long run.

In 2020 conservative voters can return and vote for new conservatives and chastened conservatives of convenience. We can take back the House and continue to control the Senate. But only in 2020. In 2018 Republicans don’t deserve your vote. They deserve your contempt.

Illegal Aliens Regularly Granted Lawless Benefits

Michael Anton is amazed by housebroken conservatives that support an immigration position that will eventually remove any chance for conservative government. Anton is the author of ‘The Flight 93 Election’ that outlined the stakes facing conservatives in stark terms, making him one of the first respectable conservative intellectuals to come out in support of Donald Trump.

Gary McCoy, Shiloh, IL

Lately he’s been involved in an internecine fight with country club conservatives at The National Review over birthright citizenship. For those unfamiliar with the term, birthright citizenship treats becoming a citizen of the United States with the same gravity and respect afforded a participation trophy from your 8–year–old daughter’s ballerina ball league.

Birthright citizenship is more of a cartographic theory than a governing philosophy. Supporters contend that any illegal alien who manages to cross the US border and give birth at taxpayer expense is not only producing a new niño, they have also just welcomed a US citizen into the world.

Our border is a finish line in another area of pre–natal care, too. If the illegal can worm her way across, she can demand an abortion so taxpayers are on the hook coming and going.

This anchor baby, instantly dropped into a foreign household, is also a lottery ticket that’s a guaranteed winner. ‘Experts’ never tire of assuring us that illegals cannot collect welfare, because it’s against the law. What the experts never add is Citizen Baby can collect on every welfare program known to US taxpayers and the administrator of all this largess is the illegal parent.

Conservatives supporting birthright citizenship are the equivalent of Gen. Sam Houston sending a messenger to Col. William Travis informing him that after some consideration it appears the Texas Declaration of Independence gives Santa Anna property rights. Therefore, open the gates and let the Mexicans inside the Alamo.

Restoring sanity and accuracy to the discussion of birthright citizenship was the topic of a panel at the Heritage Foundation where Anton was joined by Dr. Edward J. Erler, senior fellow of the Claremont Institute and John Fonte, director of the Center for American Common Culture.

Erler points out the Supreme Court decision that began sprint for finish–line citizenship is just as incorrect as the Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson decision. In Wong Kim Ark two Chinese diplomats who were legally inside our borders and who, by treaty, could not become US citizens had a baby.

The child turned out to be a ‘blessed event’ for leftists and cheap labor importers, too.

The court ruled that since the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were based on English common law, and common law specified children born within England were pledged to the Crown, then presto! Mrs. Wong now has her own Yankee Doodle Dandy.

To arrive at a decision that backwards, one would think the judge was a product of modern government schools.

Common law doesn’t mention citizenship. It discusses permanent, perpetual subjectship and allegiance to the king, based on the feudal system of master and serf. “There are no citizens under English common law,” Erler said.

The Declaration of Independence rejected English common law, saying our nation was built on a social compact between consenting citizens. A Supreme Court decision that completely misreads the Declaration and rules that rejection is really acceptance, is a decision ripe for being overturned.

What’s even worse is the unelected, administrative state has taken a decision by the Supremes that only addressed non–citizens legally in the US and applied it willy–nilly to illegals in the US unlawfully. The Supreme Court never said children born to illegals in the US are citizens. But bureaucrats did.

The US and Canada — which can afford a handful of anchor babies, because it shares a southern border with the US and a northern border with planet’s freezer compartment — are the only two developed nations in the world that grant birthright citizenship. The United Kingdom ended the practice, as did India, New Zealand and Australia. When given a chance to vote on the issue, Ireland did, too.

What is absolutely infuriating is that birthright citizenship for illegals could end tomorrow. All President Trump has to do is issue an executive order. Or Congress could end it permanently by passing a law. The fact this has not been done is due to an unholy alliance between country club conservatives in thrall to cheap–labor businesses, the open–borders left and the administrative state.

Certainly the left would sue, but that’s a trap of their own making. If the case made it to the Supreme Court, there is a good chance Wong would be overturned and birthright citizenship ended. Trump needs to refill his executive order pen and start writing. It’s time to toss concept of anchor babies overboard, right after the mid–term election.

¡Ay, Caramba! US Illegal Count Just Doubled

I should have known something was up when soccer team owners felt confident enough to put the squeeze on cities to help foot the bill for new stadiums.

Ballerina ball holds the record for the longest period of being The Next Big Thing, without ever becoming the next big thing. Starting back in the 60’s the sport was supposed to sweep across America. Sure little kids played, but most of them left Scooby Doo and soccer behind when they grew up.

Rick McKee, The Augusta Chronicle, GA

That’s why for the past 50 years mayors would sooner subsidize the WNBA than a ‘footie’ team.

Now the Atlantic complains Cincinnati, Detroit, Nashville and Sacramento are all willing to pony up between $25 million and $75 million tax dollars to subsidize their local fútbol stadium.

Colin Kaepernick — founder of Millionaires Against Jim Crow — may have driven football fans out of NFL stadiums, but I don’t think the alienated were so desperate for a dose of patriotism that they would attend a game just to watch illegals wave Mexico’s flag.

This new popularity didn’t originate domestically. Just as the vast majority of soccer balls are made overseas and imported into the US, soccer fans are bred overseas and imported, assuming ICE is looking the other way. Quartz discovered the last time soccer was this popular was during the 1920’s when waves of immigrants came to take factory jobs citizens didn’t want to perform for Bologna wages.

The foreign–born population was nearly 14 percent, a hard number because none of those immigrants were ‘hiding in the shadows.’ Today’s number is also supposed to be 14 percent, but the number is soft like my daughter’s elementary–school soccer ball. The real foreign–born number is so much larger it inspires rich capitalists to demand tax dollars to subsidize their hobby.

Two Yale professors recently completed a study that undermines all the numbers the nice men at the Chamber of Commerce have used to lull the citizen population to sleep. Edward Kaplan and Jonathan Feinstein were skeptical of population estimates for the number of illegals in the US. They believed the 11 million number, was too large and only excited MAGA deplorables.

These academics were convinced a more rigorous analysis would give a greatly reduced total.

Yale Insights reports the team, along with Mohammad Fazel–Zarandi, began with “parameters intentionally aimed at producing an extremely conservative estimate.” Kaplan was astonished by the result, “Instead of a number which was smaller, we got a number that was 50 percent higher.”

“After running 1,000,000 simulations of the model, the researchers’ 95% probability range is 16 million to 29 million, with 22.1 million as the mean (or average).” This total is twice as large as the generally–accepted figure and was arrived at through a conservative approach.

This means the US has imported the equivalent population of Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua, if you accept the average, and if you’re a pessimist you can add Paraguay to the total.

It’s a testimony to the intellectual integrity of the Yale team that the research was published, instead of being given a decent, Christian burial. The only reason the team isn’t currently asking Sen. Ted Cruz for suggestions on safe places to eat is because the dishonest Opposition Media has taken it upon themselves to inter the findings.

Little India may have covered the heck out of the groundbreaking report, along with Fox News and the Washington Times, but there was zero mention in the Washington Post, the failing New York Times, the Wall Street Journal or any of the TV networks.

And no wonder, when you consider the implications. The number doesn’t mean just the population of illegal aliens in the US today is wrong by at least a factor of two, it means all the other numbers and estimates derived from the original faulty number are also wrong by a factor of two or more.

Here are only a handful of the costs and burdens illegals impose on citizen taxpayers that should be revised sharply upward.

The estimated $11.9 billion in yearly healthcare cost that taxpayers must cover might be $24 billion.

The $135 billion in federal, state and local taxpayer dollars that’s spent on illegals each year might be $270 billion.

The 4.2 million illegal alien children crowding our schools might be 8.4 million.

And the 1.8 million DACA illegals demanding citizenship in return for their crime might be 3.6 million.

Compared to those numbers, $75 million to subside a sport that snuck into the country on the backs of illegals looks like a bargain. The future of North America may indeed be found inside a subsidized soccer stadium, but if conservatives don’t wake up, it won’t be the future of the United States.