Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Minimum Wage Increases Causing Public Health Problems? : Seattle Is Shocked

Oh no! Say it aint so! The coming $15 minimum wage increases created unemployment in the food industry and elsewhere? Who Knew!!!!! That this was the debate from the beginning is now front and center even from progressive socialists, but only now the progressives are saying 'how did this happen?', is a eye opener? Who the hell are these people?

The progressives in Seattle, a progressive socialist liberal nightmare, are shocked! that their program to support their voter base with more money and less work is a systemic health problem. But so what, as customers are getting sick, the base voters are being forced into unemployment and therefore enslaved to permanent subservience to government subsides, the Seattle brain trust reels at the findings?

Not possible. To the progressive socialists democrats, the minimum wage increases are working as designed.

Higher Minimum Wage Laws Might Make You Sick
Jarrett Stepman / /

This news may not sit well with hipster foodies in the Pacific Northwest. In a classic case of good intentions paving the way to hell, it appears that minimum wage increases might be bad for your health.

A recently released study on the impact of minimum wage increases in Seattle showed a corresponding uptick in the number of health violations by restaurants in the area as the minimum wage went up. The paper found that just a $0.10 jump in the minimum wage “increased hygiene violation scores by 11.45 percent.”

One of the paper’s authors, Srikant Devaraj, said in an interview with NPR:
We find that a dollar increase in minimum wage resulted in a 6.4 percent increase in overall health violations and 15.3 percent increase in less severe violations as a result of the increases.
Seattle has been a battleground in the “Fight for $15” minimum wage movement since the city began implementing a $13 minimum wage in 2015 (which has since been increased to $15). However, this poster child for high minimum wage cities delivered a major blow to the movement earlier this year when the University of Washington released a study showing that the law decreased employment for low-income workers.
Seattle Hiked Its Minimum Wage. Here’s How It’s Impacting Low-Income Workers.

The study also found that those who were still employed after the wage hike often had their hours reduced. The findings of that study were so dramatic that even some on the left who had previously supported minimum wage laws had to concede that they might not be living up to their lofty promises.

This, in part, is what the authors of the new study on the minimum wage’s health effects point to as a potential cause of the sudden surge in health code violations. They theorized that to make up for the forced higher wages, restaurant owners have just a few choices to make up for the increased cost.

The first would be to pass the price on to customers. Since this could also hurt business in a competitive market, this may be an unattractive but necessary option.

The second strategy would be to cut labor costs by reducing staff, slashing hours, and duplicating roles for their current employees. By doing so, restaurants could be generating this higher number of health code violations because they are stretched too thin to handle precautions they would have taken in the past.

According to the authors, most of the violations tend to be of the lower-level “blue” variety. An example would be the presence of rodents around food products and other infractions of that sort.
But the study didn’t find an increase in higher-level “red” violations that would lead to the shutdown of an establishment.

So restaurant owners could be simply taking a chance by letting smaller infractions go while still keeping their business open, the authors of the study reasoned.

Regardless of whether or not the reduced cleanliness will kill you, it certainly isn’t appetizing to think that your favorite local restaurant may be cutting corners on cleanliness because of government policies.

This latest example of the negative effects of minimum wage again shows how policies to enforce social justice in the name of empathy can end up harming both intended beneficiaries and society as a whole. As conservative commentator Ben Shapiro says, facts don’t care about your feelings.

Barack's Agenda For Coal Industry Fix(Video) : Destroy And Replace Fantasy

How is it that the actual people who are suppose to help in the program can see it as a smoke screen produced by progressive liberal democrats to fool the people into believing they are being helped, but in reality have actually been just thrown under the bus for the advancement of the progressive ideology. 

Remember how the OgbjmaCare Exchanges were developed by rogue organizations that sucked down $billions of tax dollars but when they were launched, they all failed to deliver. But then the Exchanges were never thought would work, they were just being used to transfer, launder money from one hand to another to advance the cause of progressive socialism.

Never forget Johnathan Gruber, Barack's right hand man in OgbjmaCare!

This program to help the members of the displace coal industry was just another outrageous progressive socialist liberal effort to bring the entire coal  industry to it's knees and then destroy it to satisfy and advance the agenda of 'renewable energy sources' which never had a chance in the first place of being a viable or workable replacement for fossil energy.

The bottom line is to never, ever vote for another democrat!

Underreported: What Happened When Government Tried to Fix a Coal Town
Kelsey Harkness / /

PAINTSVILLE, Ky.—When Ben Larrabee heard about a new government-funded job training program for the digital age that promised to turn “coal country” into “code country,” he stopped looking for other jobs. “The thing that got 800-plus people to apply and go through the process was that it promised jobs that would run from $30,000 to $40,000 a year,” Larrabee told The Daily Signal.

The program, a product of President Barack Obama’s TechHire Initiative of 2015, was so popular it earned its own segment on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show.” But what “The Daily Show” failed to mention is that the program produced such underwhelming results, government officials ended their multimillion-dollar contract with Interapt, the software company hired to administer the TechHire Eastern Kentucky initiative, known as TEKY.

Despite this, Louisville, Kentucky-based Interapt is off in places as far as Buffalo, Wyoming, soliciting more taxpayer dollars to replicate the program. “Sometimes when you’re promised something, you may be being lied to,” Paintsville Mayor Bill Runyon warned.

For our latest episode of “Underreported,” The Daily Signal traveled to this small town in Eastern Kentucky to learn the truth about this government-funded job training program. Watch the video report above, and read more about the program here.

Watch the video ; https://youtu.be/FJZuX9_eid4

Monday, September 18, 2017

DACA and DAPA Dreamers : Millions Granted Citizenship?

I can't even begin to imagine the actual number of immigrants that would find a path of citizenship along with the supposed 800,000+ that are believed ''Dreamers''. When the Dreamers obtain amnesty, this would bring in all of their relatives and a flood of people across our boarders that would be a deluge of illegals looking or immediate citizenship as a direct result of DECA and DAPA.

This will be a million or more of new immediate citizens. Oh, and all the new citizens will vote democrat, of course.

How GOP Attorneys General Forced Trump to Act on DACA
Fred Lucas / /    

President Donald Trump seems to be hatching a plan with Democrats in Congress about codifying Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, through a bill to grant amnesty to those brought illegally to this country as children. But the policy imposed by his predecessor, Barack Obama, might have continued on an executive basis without debate had it not been for a group of state Republican attorneys general.

Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson said he had little choice but to join a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration to reverse an Obama administration executive action on illegal immigrants who arrived in the United States as children. “Regardless of the political party, if the rule of law means anything, it means we have to speak up for what is right, regardless of who is in the White House,” Peterson told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.

Peterson was among nine state attorneys general that gave the Trump administration a deadline of Sept. 5 to rescind the DACA program, which has given legal status to about 800,000 illegal immigrants.

After a lawsuit by 26 state attorneys general, federal courts already struck down an executive action that would have expanded it to parents, called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). Peterson didn’t want to speculate on whether the administration would have acted without pressure from the attorneys general, or to speculate on why fewer than half as many of those top state law enforcement officials were willing to sue over DACA compared with DAPA.

“I believe the deadline prompted the administration to act when it did,” Peterson said. “I can’t answer for others, but for me, DACA has the same legal principles as DAPA.”

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced last week that the administration was bringing DACA to an orderly shutdown, but giving Congress six months to act. “It was necessary to do this because I believe the public is aware this is clearly a matter for Congress,” Peterson said. “I keep hearing more and more that Congress can’t get anything passed. I understand that frustration, but just because we might sometimes be frustrated with Congress’ inability to act on something, that doesn’t mean executive orders can be a backup plan.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton led eight other Republican attorneys general who were set to challenge DACA. The other attorneys general were Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia, Derek Schmidt of Kansas, Jeff Landry of Louisiana, Leslie Rutledge of Arkansas, Alan Wilson of South Carolina, Steve Marshall of Alabama, and Lawrence Wasden of Idaho, along with Peterson.

Trump met Wednesday night at the White House with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. Both sides had somewhat differing accounts of the meeting, but largely seemed to say the border wall would come at a later time, while both sides would agree to a legislative fix on DACA in exchange for increased border security.

In an email message to conservatives, former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, now the president of the Senate Conservatives Fund, praised the state attorneys general for their nonpartisanship. “Whatever our different views of DACA and illegal immigration, these nine, and only these nine, stayed consistent in standing up for the consistent application of the law and for the re-establishment of the separation of powers,” Cuccinelli wrote. “The reason this is so unusual is that all nine attorneys general are Republicans, confronting a Republican president on an issue of principle and law.” He continued:
That NEVER happened—not once—during President [Barack] Obama’s entire eight years of rule. To be clear, there was NEVER one instance of Democratic Attorneys General organizing a challenge to even the most outrageous of President Obama’s executive overreaches. In one or two individual cases that I can remember, one or two Democratic AGs from coal states would allow their name to be used in support of an otherwise-GOP-led effort to rein in the outrageous overreaches of Obama’s EPA.
The hardest thing to do in politics is to challenge your own leadership when they are wrong. The backbone demonstrated by these nine Attorneys General should be lauded by all of us for the principled commitment to the rule of law, no matter the consequences to themselves and regardless of the fact that standing for the Constitution in this instance put them at odds with a President of their own party. There was no certainty (to say the least!) how President Trump would handle DACA, and on a purely political basis, there was tremendous downside political risk to these nine AGs, yet they did the right thing.
The Daily Signal contacted the offices of each of the nine attorneys general Wednesday, and most referred to previous statements released on the day Sessions made the DACA announcement.
The Arkansas attorney general’s office initially indicated it would provide a statement, but later said the initial statement after the Sessions speech was all Rutledge had to say at this point.

“I commend President Trump for rescinding the DACA program created by President Obama,” Rutledge said in last week’s statement. “While we are a compassionate country, the United States is a country of laws, and President Trump recognized that President Obama’s DACA program went far beyond the executive branch’s legal authority. Congress has always been the proper place for this debate, and I am pleased that the President is granting Congress an additional six months to legislatively address this issue.”

Can Christians Be Good Citizens? : Sen. Feinstein And Durbin Say No!

Why would any one question the motives of progressive socialist liberal democrats like Feinstein and Durbin? How can it be in their belief system that anyone could have a God of  personal faith while  the progressives believe their personal god is so much superior to the one held by Christians believing in a higher power then themselves?

Can it be assumed then that citizens with a Christian belief system be trusted to be part of the justice system in our country?

The progressive socialist liberals are simply dumb founded by someone who could possible be able to dismiss their god of government for a God of personal faith. It makes no sense to the liberal and therefore anyone that hold a personal religious belief must be incompetent.

Need more proof? As Al Franken what he believes is important to him.

Can a Christian Serve as a Judge Anymore?
Travis Weber / /    

Earlier this month, during a judicial confirmation hearing for 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Amy Barrett, who is a Catholic law professor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., questioned whether Barrett could be a Christian and a judge at the same time:
Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that—you know, dogma and law are two different things. And I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.
What caused Barrett to draw such a charge? Feinstein appeared to be questioning Barrett based on a scholarly article she wrote exploring what a Catholic judge should do when the law required something that went against their faith.

What did Barrett say in the article? Based on Feinstein’s question, one would think she brought down the theological cudgel and sided with faith over the law. Hardly so. Barrett actually wrote that the judge should recuse him or herself in such cases, as “[j]udges cannot—nor should they try to—align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge.”

Let us assume that Feinstein actually read the article. Instead of questioning her over such sentiments, Feinstein should be happy that Barrett would bind her public service by moral principles. Does she want judges who are not so bound?

Perhaps Feinstein should direct her own question toward herself. What is her own dogma? Her own beliefs obviously cause her “concern” that someone of serious Christian faith would hold a position of public service. The point is that everyone has private beliefs that guide the way they live their lives. The only question is what those beliefs are.

As the writer David Foster Wallace noted during a commencement speech to Kenyon College graduates many years ago, “In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship.”

So, what does Feinstein worship? What personal beliefs guide her? It sounds like she believes in a public square scrubbed clean of Christians. If so, what gives her the right to impose that “dogma” on Barrett and others? Feinstein should be happy that Barrett has a moral code by which she will act ethically. Why would anyone want a judge who lacks such a code?

The more people believe there is a higher power watching their actions and requiring them to do the right thing (such as telling the truth and refusing a bribe), the less likely they are to act unethically—a crucial quality for judges and other public servants.

Later in the same hearing, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.,—not to be outdone—jumped in with his own inquisition into her religious beliefs and asked Barrett: “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” This isn’t the first time we’ve seen this type of anti-religious grilling resurface in our modern political era.

When Russell Vought was nominated for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget earlier this year, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., thought it appropriate to quiz him about a blog post he wrote defending the Christian view of salvation in the context of a private theological debate.

As I wrote at the time, Sanders’ views­—refusing to approve of a nominee for nothing but his private religious beliefs—were the ones that were bigoted, not the other way around. Durbin should realize his intolerance is showing in this case.

Regardless, this whole episode exposes a flaw in thinking about the connection between one’s core beliefs and the law. Everyone has beliefs that guide their lives. The only question is what they are.

As a society, we should want people in positions of public trust who have principles guiding them to act ethically and serve the public well. No American should ever be forced to choose between their faith and public service. If Feinstein and Durbin realized that, they would vote to confirm Barrett immediately.

Shapiro Berkeley Speech Goes On : Police Take Charge

What I want to know is who are these people in black and who is controlling them? Who is funding them? What is the over all purpose of these coordinated attacks of violence on free speech and assembly? As if we didn't know all ready.

It would be an easy leap to conclude that the rise of so many organized breaches of the law in this country, especially on the nation's campuses and now in our streets, is the result of the last 8 years the agenda and ideology of the progressive socialist liberals that have promoted lawlessness as a means to accomplish the task for the promised ''change and transformation'' of our civil society.

In truth, the chaos and conflict on individual freedom and liberty that we are experiencing now IS a direct result of Barack's religious jihad that he promised he would bring if elected in 2008

Here’s What I Saw at Ben Shapiro’s Speech at UC Berkeley
Peter Trinko /    

In usual circumstances, going to see someone speak at a university is not expected to be very exciting, but these were not usual circumstances. I, and my friend Christopher Piquette, were going to cover the Ben Shapiro speech at University of California, Berkeley.

While Shapiro had spoken at Berkeley in 2016 with little fanfare, this time was quite different. In February, 150 masked individuals, likely some from the group Antifa, descended upon the Berkeley campus ahead of a scheduled Milo Yiannopoulos appearance, causing mayhem and destruction that left six people injured and damage in the six figures.

At a pro-Donald Trump march in March, seven people were injured and 10 arrested. One attendee told the Los Angeles Times, “he pursued a counter-demonstrator down a side street and found himself surrounded by a dozen protesters in black masks who he said attacked him with sticks and pepper spray,” the black masks suggesting Antifa may have been involved.

And just last month, about 100 ”black clad anarchists,” according to the Associated Press, circumvented police barricades and attacked at least five people from what was a peaceful protest.
With conservative speaker Shapiro coming to Berkeley, no one knew what to expect. Would Antifa attack people at the event? Would the police allow them to mingle and then assault the crowd? Would there be violence?

Berkeley appeared to be taking security more seriously this time. An emergency City Council decided to reverse a 20-year ban on police using pepper spray against rioters. Barricades were set up outside Zellerbach Hall on Bancroft Way. While some thought this went too far, the university also made the decision to not allow seating at the upper section of Zellerbach Hall for fear Antifa would throw objects, including the chairs, on the audience below. Despite the extensive security measures, many were concerned.

We arrived at the counterprotest before the Shapiro speech and were immediately awestruck by the strong police presence. There were heavily-armed officers along the streets and covering the alleys. Every direction you looked, there were groups of police keeping an eye on the crowds. The event security was intense, with a long list of banned items, metal detectors, and barricades preventing anyone who had any ideas about sneaking into the event without a ticket.

Upon going through security, we walked down a corridor with many police officers on both sides. Inside the auditorium there were additional officers. The speech itself was uneventful from a security perspective, with the audience either agreeing with Shapiro or supporting free speech by listening to a viewpoint they may not have agreed with.

During the event, the counterprotesters continued their speeches and chants, and despite there being many vulgar chants directed at the police, there was no obvious violence. Once Shapiro’s appearance concluded, the 700 or so people were escorted outside and made to walk nearly three-quarters of a mile out of the way so as to not run into the counterprotestors.

As we walked along the corridors through the deserted campus, we appeared to have at least 200 police officers on either side of us. Back at the intersection of Bancroft Way and Telegraph Avenue, hundreds of police officers stood ready should anything happen.

While most of the crowd dispersed, a few people from both sides started to form a group where there were chants of ‘Fascists, go home.’ The police occasionally walked through the group and stood between people with opposing views until the tensions subsided.

During this time, there were two scuffles that broke out, and both were immediately broken up by police. One scuffle led to an immediate arrest, while another resulted in someone laying hurt on the ground before being taken away on a campus vehicle for treatment. Despite the tension, and although there ended up being nine arrests throughout the course of the evening, I felt safe.

I felt safe because there was a strong presence of law enforcement officers who were enabled to do their job of protecting citizens and maintaining the peace.

It is sad and unfortunate that the violent actions of Antifa have forced a city and university to spend upward of $600,000 that could have been used for education or helping the poor, but what choice did they have? As Americans, we have a constitutional right to free speech.

If armed protesters try to infringe on that right, or any other right for that matter, we as citizens can and should expect that our government will defend us. And as shown in Berkeley last night, if the police are enabled, we can feel secure and be protected from violent agitators with intent on quelling free speech.

Many have and will continue to cite the high monetary cost of security as a reason to not have other conservatives speak, especially in left-leaning cities like Berkeley, but that cannot be a deterrent. Free speech is the core of our American rights, and if Antifa is willing to attack this freedom with violence, then we must be willing to defend it at all costs.
Christopher Piquette contributed to this article. 

Trump's Deal With Deomcrats : The DEVIL Is in The Details

Trump's 'Art of the deal'? But does he really know the democrats?
This is unsettling to say the least. But hopefully Trump is doing this to force the Republicans to take charge instead of sitting on their collective hands or even joining the democrats to stop his draining of the swamp.

Change is always difficult, but for our government that has done it's duty one way for the last 150 years, that change would seem to be nearly impossible.

As with most of us in the real world, changing ones set patterns of the way we do things on a daily basis is very difficult, it's about security in the known.

But for the government life time bureaucrat, change is like an act of war and will be fought to the bitter end.  

Sunday, September 17, 2017

Progressive Climate Change Enslavement : Insanity As Reality

It seems the unhinged and unscrupulous are everywhere. Insanity rules the day.
When sanity is gone and all that remains is insanity, where does one go to find relief?

Is there a ''safe place'' to hide from the unhinged among us who must live in the real world and that toil in the trenches to make a living to feed and support our families?

What is left for us was the only way out of the nightmare and find our 'safe place' was to vote our way out. Our safe place is what most of voted for and that is a change from this insanity, Donald Trump.

Even with all of his 'warts' and uneven and sometimes confusing tweets and statements, he is still the best option from what has gone before. Congress is corrupt. Useless.

We the people that pay the bills have decided it was time for a real change and voted to make it happen. For better or worse, only time will tell, but something had to be done for our own sanity.

The New York Times : Business As Usual

''Know the truth and it will set you free!'' The New York Times has always been a trumpet for the progressive socialist liberal left and always will be. Their bias is legion and their motto for the use of misinformation and deception, trotted out as news is ''by any means necessary'' to persuade the ignorant and unwary that what they say is in your best interest.

That of course is nonsense. The New York Times is dedicated to it's own self interest and at the same time a mouth piece for the progressive liberal democrat collective. Never ever believe what you might read or hear that the Times is actually a professional journalist newspaper, produced to bring the news of the day as it actually happened is to guarantee your own demise.

It's in the DNA - Deceit, delusion and denial.

Dreamers Remember Clinton? : Immigration At Gun Point

Doesn't this appear to be extreme to enforce immigration? Democrats!
If the past is any indication of how the future will turn out, we have to take another look at what the 'dreamers' have to have in the future if the progressive socialist liberal democrats are in charge.

Dreamer now will have to take a step back at this point in time and reevaluate their options if Trump loses in 2020. 

Hillary's Book Tour : ''What Difference Does it make"

Hillary's entire life explained by her own words.
This tells the story of Hillary's entire life, from her begging's of college life with Bill and her subsequent down hill trend over the last decades.

'What difference does it make at this point in time' to have Hillary so publicly shame her self by proving to everyone she is not capably of grasping realty.

She is demonstrating a further failing condition which can be understood to be a pathological psychosis, a mental weakness that shows a diminished capacity to understand her real self and a denial of her obvious less then sufficient talent to be president or any other job requiring rational thought.

Hillary was and is still focused only on getting and keeping the power, by any means necessary to control outcomes that will reward her with sufficient money to be seen as a central player that requires, demands others to seek her advice and consent.

Unfortunately for her, again, reality has overshadowed her life long drive for power leaving her delusional and in tortured denial of her quest to be recognized as someone other then who she really is. With her book tour, she is proving beyond a doubt she is the empty shell she is and always has been.