Thursday, March 31, 2016

The Fallacy of the Minimum Wage

Editor Note:  Our own Rob Janicki wrote this primer on the minimum wage back in January 2012. We originally published it as a four part series at a blog we wrote for a long time ago in a far off galaxy.

With California becoming the first state to raise minimum wage to $15 an hour this article is even more pertinent today as it was when written.

And it's just as damn good as it was back then.

I'm probably Rob's biggest fan. He is arguably one of the best political commentators/op-ed writers on the web.

Please read this. Enjoy it. Learn from it. I did.
The Fallacy of the Minimum Wage - Part One
By Rob Janicki

The fallacy of the minimum wage and its claimed benefits continues on with eight states raising their minimum wage rates by an amount equal to the increase in the cost of living (inflation) as measured by the Consumer Price Index.

Minimum wage rates in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont and Washington will rise between 28 and 37 cents per hour on Jan. 1, thanks to state laws requiring that minimum wage keeps pace with inflation.

Rates in these states will range from $7.64 per hour (in Colorado), to $9.04 (in Washington) in 2012... 

The first consideration to understanding the fallacy of the minimum wage is to clearly understand that the minimum wage is an artificial creation made by politicians, for the benefit of politicians for purposes of re-election.  That should make it fundamentally suspect at the outset of any analysis.  Minimum wage laws try to overcome and supplant the laws of supply and demand in a free market capitalist economy.  This is akin to trying to deny the immutable law of gravity in physics because government mandates exceptions to that law of physics.

The joke that went around early in the Obama administration had Rahm Emanuel, Obama's Chief of Staff, when asked if the administration understood the law of supply and demand, stating that they would repeal any such law. 

Moving along back to reality.

A rise in minimum wage rates is simply and without argument, an increase in the cost of doing business.  This leaves a business with three possible actions or combination of actions to take in response to increased labor costs.

The first choice a business can make is to absorb the increased cost of labor by accepting a decrease in profits.

The second alternative a business can engage in is to increase the selling price of its goods or services to accommodate the increased labor costs incurred with the rise in the minimum wage rates.

The third option a business can exercise is to reduce the size of its labor force and thus offset the increased cost of labor input in the profit and loss computation.

Let's analyze each business choice.  

If a business absorbs increased labor costs, it reduces its profits.  This has two very negative results.  First, it discourages investors from investing in the business with its reduced profit margins and rates of return on investments.  Second, it reduces the entrepreneurial risk taking to innovate, because it makes the cost of making mistakes in exploring new technologies, more expensive based upon less money available to research and development programs.  Third,it reduces the capital worth of the business, making credit more expensive to acquire.  This increased cost of credit even further reduces the business profit margin.  This becomes a vicious cycle and difficult to break. 

The next choice or hurdle to overcome has to do with attempting to pass along increased costs to the ultimate consumer.  The problem is that for each increase in cost inputs, there is a quantifiable decrease in consumers willing to pay higher prices for those products or services.  In other words, increasing prices results in losing marginal consumers who might have previously made the business comfortably profitable and able to continue R&D development and save for rainy day economic downturns.

The third issue revolves around reducing the labor force by a factor equaling the increased cost input of the higher minimum wage rate.  Let me spell that out for the terminally brain damaged liberals.  Businesses will reduce the size and thus the cost of their labor force to meet the increased cost input of the higher minimum wage rate.  Businesses will simply lay off people to maintain the same cost input and then push existing labor to match the previous productivity levels of the larger labor force.

Unfortunately there is also a fourth business consideration.  Some businesses, especially sole proprietors or small partnerships will choose to go out of business and put their capital to work more efficiently through other means of passive investment.

Part II will analyze and comment on the effects of increasing the minimum wage as an economic stimulus to the macro economy.

The fallacy of the minimum wage: Part Two
Most of what I will outline below is common sense and I apologize in advance if it seems I am stating the obvious.  If it were so obvious, liberal Democrats would not continue to push for higher minimum wage rates and I wouldn't be here explaining the myth of the minimum wage.

In Part I I outlined the options a business has in order to deal with an increase in the minimum wage, whether it is set by the federal government or state governments.  A minimum wage increase is a quantifiable unit increase in the cost of labor.  It is an important component in determining whether a business is profitable, to what extent it is profitable or whether it's a  business operation that is actually losing money and headed for bankruptcy.  

I indicated a business could absorb the increased labor cost from its profits (assuming it is profitable at the time), increase its pricing to offset the increased labor cost, reduce the labor force to compensate for the increased labor cost or as a last resort, cease business operations which would become unprofitable as a result in the rise of the minimum wage amd invest resources in some passive form of investment other than manufacturing or providing services to consumers. 

Supply and demand of labor in the market place determines the relative worth of someone's labor and productivity, not some politician's idea of what someone should be earning in wages.  Why do some people command higher wages/salaries while others do not?  It's simply based upon the skill and the level of productivity they bring to the particular job.  

Ditch diggers command a low wage rate because their productivity is very low when compared to a mechanical backhoe and one single operator, not to mention it is a dirty and back breaking job.  A baseball All-star commands a higher salary, compared to other baseball players, because he brings a very high skill level to the game that most other players cannot perform to.  A CEO that is able to lead an organization to greater profitability will receive greater compensation than another CEO who has failed to meet revenue and profit expectations.  

Businesses pay people only what they have to in order to grow revenues resulting in increased profits.  It's that simple.  So, when a business pays a CEO what would appear to be a huge salary, it's based upon the belief that the CEO has the ability to lead the business to greater profits and that is always the bottom line. 

So, what other factors make someone more valuable in the labor market than others?  Education is one element,  The longer it takes to gain an education and the commensurate skills in a field of work, the smaller the number of people are able to enter into that field when compared to the need for that skill.  Think of professionals such as doctors, dentists, lawyers, engineers, etc..  Even then, when a field has more members in it than the market demands, one of two outcomes will result.  Compensation will fall as employer choices increase in the available labor market or members of the professional group will migrate to other forms of employment that return greater compensation for the work effort put forth.

Another factor which contributes to determining a market based wage rate has to do with the element of danger inherent with some jobs.  The greater the physical danger involved in a job, the fewer people are interested in pursuing that job.  Deep earth mining is an example of a dangerous job that limits the pool of available labor compared to demand and thus it drives up the wage rate of that labor market.  There are other similar jobs that limit the potential labor pool.  Some people do not want to work at jobs that entail getting dirty, working in distasteful situations and conditions, such as collecting garbage.  Any time a job has certain conditions associated with it, there is an inherent limiting effect on the available labor market.  When the limitations are greater than the demand for that labor, the cost of that labor for employers will rise to encourage people to work for the highest available wage being offered by an employer.

By now it should be obvious that labor is a commodity of sorts like any manufactured item.  Its a service provided by a laborer to an employer.  In return the employer benefits from the utility of the worker's labor and productivity and is able to sell the resulting production of the employee, pay the employee and hopefully make a profit after all other related overhead costs are covered.  The immutable law of supply and demand is at play in any labor market just as it is in any commodity market.

In Part III I will provide research data that supports the argument that artificially imposing minimum wage rates and any increases to that artificial floor on wages, actually decreases total employment and does very little to increase overall consumer spending as a result of nominal individual wage increases. 

The fallacy of the minimum wage: Part Three
Part I, in review, was about the increase to the minimum wage of eight states.  The discussion went on to illustrate the minimum wage as an artificial increase in the cost of labor for businesses and their four options in dealing with the increased labor input cost, the last of which was to cease business operations and invest in passive enterprises not requiring anything close to intensive labor input costs.

Part II, although somewhat pedantic, illustrated how labor has its own market like a commodity and is then subject to the economic law of supply and demand.  Part II went on to illustrate the variables that went into determining how one unit of labor might be different than another through education, training, skill level, experience, etc..

Part III, to be fair,will begin with the liberal argument that the minimum wage and any increases are necessary and beneficial to both the individual and the economy.  I hope to be able to clearly illustrate two points as I deconstruct the liberal fallacy of the minimum wage as an economic stimulus and as an individual benefit.

Let's start out with some very recent data from a liberal think tank and their conclusions on what effects increases in the eight state minimum wage rates will have on individuals and the economy. 

The small boosts for 2012 are estimated to tack an extra $582 to $770 a year onto the paychecks of full-time workers, according to the National Employment Law Project, a non-profit advocacy group.

The problem with the above analysis is the assumption that the work force numbers will remain the same after the implementation of the higher minimum wage.
Here's what history has taught us with the last increase in the minimum wage rate at the national level.  It is objective and has been quantified by the facts, unlike subjective and selective forward looking prognostications by the political class or their sycophants.  

From the Wall Street Journal of October 3, 2009:

Earlier this year (2009), economist David Neumark of the University of California, Irvine, wrote on these pages that the 70-cent-an-hour increase in the minimum wage would cost some 300,000 jobs. Sure enough, the mandated increase to $7.25 took effect in July, and right on cue the August and September jobless numbers confirm the rapid disappearance of jobs for teenagers...

The September teen unemployment rate hit 25.9%, the highest rate since World War II and up from 23.8% in July. Some 330,000 teen jobs have vanished in two months. Hardest hit of all: black male teens, whose unemployment rate shot up to a catastrophic 50.4%. It was merely a terrible 39.2% in July...

As the minimum wage has risen, the gap between the overall unemployment rate and the teen rate has widened...

Congress and the Obama Administration simply ignore the economic consensus that has long linked higher minimum wages with higher unemployment. Two years ago Mr. Neumark and William Wascher, a Federal Reserve economist, reviewed more than 100 academic studies on the impact of the minimum wage. They found "overwhelming" evidence that the least skilled and the young suffer a loss of employment when the minimum wage is increased... 

Part IV will bring the fallacy of the minimum wage full circle to a complete understanding that increases in the minimum wage actually cause a net increase in unemployment resulting in more people falling into poverty than are raised out of poverty by increased wages from raising the minimum wage rate.

The Fallacy of the Minimum Wage: Part Four
Liberals would argue that an increase in the minimum wage increases economic activity and thus stimulates the macro economy.  This is a subjective wish, as it has never been objectively documented to be the case.   Will individuals stimulate the economy with a small increase in consumer spending or will businesses be able to stimulate the economy with increased investment opportunities from any savings of maintaining the current minimum wage rate?  The facts speak to the latter.  A simple principle of economics is at play here.  When the price of labor increases, the demand for labor decreases.  Labor, after all, is a commodity, just like a bushel of corn.  When the price of a commodity rises, the demand for that commodity falls as fewer people are willing or able to pay the higher price for the commodity.

Another economic principle needs to be revisited for a better understanding of wages.  Wages are money or capital as economists are want to say.  Economic principle: capital flows to its highest utility.  Translation: money moves to where it can effect the greatest result.  If a person spends X dollars, those dollars may have some multiplier effect adding utility to the capital.  However, if a business invests X dollars in capital equipment to improve or increase a manufacturing process going forward, the multiplier effect is exponentially greater because it continues on indefinitely and its utility continues to increase going forward.

If raising the minimum wage really created more wealth and stimulated the macro economy, then doubling the minimum wage should more than double the individual's wealth and really stimulate the macro economy.  The problem is that in reality employment declines to some degree as a result of increased business costs that cannot be recovered by the means identified in Part I.  Businesses, when confronted with higher labor costs and no increase in productivity, simply reduce their labor force and push the remaining labor force to make up the difference in productivity previously attained with the larger labor force.  Or, businesses, when confronted with higher labor costs they cannot absorb, look to technology to replace human labor or at least augment the resulting reduced labor force.   So, how does raising the minimum wage help the person laid off as result of businesses keeping labor costs at the present level of productivity?  Remember, wage rates are inextricably connected to productivity rates.  As productivity increases, businesses can afford to pay employees more based upon the increased productivity, which usually translates to increased profits.

The minimum wage, when all is said, done and argued, applies to entry level positions.  Entry level positions are traditionally staffed with the young and inexperienced, looking to gain the experience necessary to move upward and onward in the world of work.  If someone is 40 years old, married or living with someone with additional dependents and is working at a minimum wage job to support those dependents, there are only three explanations.  The first reason is that the person is in transition and has yet to find employment that matches his/her accumulated skills and experience.  The second reason is that the person is cognitively challenged to the extent that they cannot accept more complicated training, raising their level of productivity.  The third reason is that the person has no developed work ethic and desire to achieve beyond an existence level.  Lack of a work ethic and a desire to achieve has often been muted by government entitlement programs created by the liberal left who feel themselves to be more compassionate, caring, virtuous and even noble in their efforts to raise the quality of life of the poor and down trodden.  Liberals cannot see the fact that they have become the enablers of personal mediocrity and subservience to a system of second class citizenship and servitude dependent upon government, in whole or in part, for their life long existence.  From a political perspective the minimum wage is a liberal egalitarian effort at "redistributive justice".  What liberals cannot achieve in the market place, through supply and demand for labor, they endeavor to change through government fiat.

#Constitution 101 - The American Founding: Revolutionary or Conservative

I never received a thorough education on the Constitution in high school or in college, like many Americans. For this reason alone, I was happy to see Hillsdale College offering a series of videos which explain the genius of the Founding Fathers and the document they created.

Take a crash course and learn the beauty of how America was founded.

Lecture #1:

What if Trump Really Gets Elected?

You Deserve a Break - #TrumpBlackout - April 1st

by Kim D.
Unless you are riding high on the Trump train, chances are fatigue has set in. The clown show is getting stale and the non-stop social media and news outlet domination of all that is Trump is exhausting.  April Fool's Day is the perfect time to shut it all off.
To participate, follow these simple steps:

Vomit Bag Alert: Chuck Schumer leads 'Hillary' chant in awkward monotone

Man Realizes He’s Being Rescued by Prince William During Helicopter Flight

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

We Now Conclude Our Broadcast Day: When I Grow too Old to Dream

C'est La Vie (Live)

Be Good Johnny (Live)

Silver Blue & Gold (Live)

It's Drink O'Clock: Jimmy McCulloch - Wino Junko/Medicine Jar

 [Guitarist Jimmy] McCulloch joined Wings in August 1974. His debut track with them was "Junior's Farm".

McCulloch composed the music score of the anti-drug song "Medicine Jar" on Wings' Venus and Mars album and the similar "Wino Junko" on the band's Wings at the Speed of Sound album. He also sang both. Colin Allen, former drummer for Stone the Crows, wrote the lyrics of both songs.
 On 27 September 1979, McCulloch was found dead by his brother in his flat in Maida Vale, London. An autopsy found that McCulloch died of heart failure due to morphine and alcohol poisoning.  He was 26 years old. He was not known for being a user of hard drugs.

RadioActivity: Dragnet - "Big Winchester"

Original Air Date: August 16, 1951

Bill's ex-mistress Spills the Beans on Hillary

Chelsea should thank her lucky stars, Hillary needed a child for political purposes. 

Little Dear Leader trots out old Sov-style propaganda…

ROTW Contributor: Angela Durden

…that is so funny, you will literally laugh out loud, and I don’t mean just a little bit.

Beware of snorting your morning coffee out your nose when you watch.
North Korea is happy enough to let folks in, but there is a reason they don’t want to let folks out. This is a prime example of disinformation in-country. What North Koreans might call a happy reason to let Little Dear Leader control their lives, those in the free world call High Comedy.

Jake Tapper Versus Trump Operative

Trump's Mask Slips...Again

By William McRight

Last night in the CNN GOP Townhall, the Republican front runner was asked a question by an audience member. To paraphrase, the question was, “What are the three most important functions of the federal government?”  A slam dunk for any true conservative! Right? Wrong!

Trump’s Newest Dumbest Debate Answer Ever:
This is the CNN Rush Transcript:

QUESTION:  In your opinion, what are the top three functions of the United States government?

TRUMP:  Well, the greatest function of all by far is security for our nation.  I would also say health care, I would also say education.  I mean, there are many, many things, but I would say the top three are security, security, security.

Aside from the crystalline stupidity of that statement, he also went along to add in housing. Housing. As in where people live. The government is responsible to give you a house. Wow. I hope you are re-reading that a bunch of times like I did. I heard it live and I could not believe someone who calls himself a “common sense” conservative would say those words in that order. The question obviously surprised Trump and like anything that regards substantive understanding of the Constitution and the role of government in our lives caused him to whiff on it badly.  Moreover, it exposes him for what he is: A Democrat.  In what world does a man expect to win the Republican nomination by saying the federal government should be responsible for healthcare, education and housing? Mind boggling is an understatement. Even more boggling was a guy in a barbershop quartet shirt who asked Trump to again tell us how rich he is and how starting off with a “small loan” of $1 million dollars from his Daddy meant really tough times. In case you’ve missed the point, Trump is a fraud and is clearly a Democrat Trojan Horse and those of you supporting him are being sold a bill of goods.

Cruz Is Still the Only Choice for Republicans and Conservatives:

Ted Cruz could take a handful of Xanax, debate Donald Trump and still win by sitting there fully asleep. The Senator’s depth, gravitas and situational awareness in this type of environment is refreshing and shows someone particularly worthy of higher office. He addresses policy questions forthrightly, albeit sometime circuitously. A man with his credentials and background might benefit altering his delivery in these situations in a more “bullet point” manner as to opposed to each answer following the full Socratic Method.  Aside from that, Senator Cruz still checks all boxes for Conservatives and Republicans easily. He is presidential. He states his position without equivocation, has done what he said and will continue to do so at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Cruz’s answer on what he regrets was masterful. He pointed out some of the more aggressive stances he has taken on issues might have been better addressed more diplomatically.  The choice for those of us on the right is clear and easy.

Lyindowski and Governor Walker

L’affair Lewandowski came to a head (conveniently) around the same time that Governor Walker announced his endorsement of Ted Cruz. I’ll submit that all of it from the Trump end was coordinated. As in every other single situation where a palpable momentum shift was occurring in the race, the news cycle was wrested away with an unbelievable series of Trump campaign prevarications, half truths and full outright lies.  The news cycle should have been filled with Walker’s announcement, Trump’s relative weakness in Wisconsin and Cruz successfully working the ground game in several states. Instead we are talking about a candidate who is defending his campaign manager, who according to live video, put his hands on a reporter. How about we make a rule that you are the manager of anything don’t put your hands on anyone and then lie about it. Repeatedly. It illustrates the timber of the candidate and his people. It is an ugly situation made uglier by even uglier people.

Kasich- Please Stop.

That loud click you heard around 10 PM was America turning off the Townhall when Kasich came on. I did too. He should beat it.

The Pledge
After the ugliness of the past week in regard to candidate’s wives, Trump’s unchallenged lies about Cruz committing a federal crime and knowingly working with a Super PAC and the endless noise of the emptiness inside Trump’s head, the bindings on the famous “pledge” to support the nominee are starting to fray.  I am OK with any and all candidates, past and present, saying this:

“In regard to The Pledge, I will not support a man who has told repeated proven lies, espouses main planks of the Democrat platform, acts like a petulant baby, insults other candidate’s family members, is woefully unqualified for the office of President and is an amazingly boorish jerk. So no, you can take your Pledge, shine it up real nice, turn it sideways and jam it. No thanks.”

If Trump can run for office, who else can?

The Media Hypocrisy About Trump

Trump Names Health Care and Education as Among Government's Top 'Functions'

Well done, Maury Povich

Maury Povich, he of the “Who’s the daddy?” brand of talk show, long ago lost credibility as a journalist. That said, he is from good stock. His father was sports editor at The Washington Post for four decades. Back in the day Maury excelled in the TV business as a reporter and anchorman, along the line marrying another star, Connie Chung.

Those facing the career decisions he faced likely would have done exactly the same things he did. But not everyone starts a weekly newspaper in an obscure county in Montana. From the Columbia Journalism Review:

From the celebrity owners on down, this weekly tabloid is anything but typical. It averages 64 pages per issue, prints 25,000 copies and draws about 100,000 unique visitors a month to its website. It has all the local news you’d expect plus stories like a Super Bowl week visit with Flathead County native Brock Osweiler, an NFL quarterback. (Brock didn’t get into the big game as some guy named Manning hogged the glory.)
Maury, at 77, gets the final word: 

Bless the Parodies #Election2016

by Kim D.
They say imitation is one of the highest forms of flattery, unless you are referring to Twitter parody accounts. Recently a new parody of Donald J. Trump joined Twitter, and he (if it is a he) is very good at fooling supporters and detractors of the GOP front runner. He's got the speech pattern down but check the Twitter handle before you respond. Is it Donald or Denald?

Some tweets are obvious parody:

Others . . . not so much . . . believe me:
Many are confusing the two accounts on Twitter falling for either the Donald's or Denald's hilarious tweets:
The race for the GOP nomination has been unlike anything we have seen in modern times. Just when you think the rhetoric couldn't be more ridiculous, the front runner opens his mouth and proves that theory wrong. Donald J. Trump began running a social media campaign, relying on bold and non-politically correct statements to capture the news cycle, and it has worked well. Now that the race has narrowed and people are waking up to the realization that a loud mouth bully may be the GOP nominee, who polls the worse head to head against Hillary Clinton (at this time the presumptive Dem nominee), previous support is beginning to dwindle.

Denald has inspired others to join in on the joke - a parody cast:

Bless the parodies and remember them - on the darkest days of this primary season for much-needed comic relief:
The fake Donald comes off like the little voice inside Trump's head, saying the things that perhaps the front runner isn't tweeting but you know he's most likely thinking.

On Chris Christie:

On Sarah Palin:
On the real Ben Carson:

On reporters in general:

On his family:

Not everyone appreciates Denald's wit, but some his tweets are strikingly honest in regard to the true nature of Donald Trump and his campaign for the White House:

Billionaire's Son Charged With Fraud, Stealing from Charity

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare


...If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures — they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn’t really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that “the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”...  READ MORE

State senator asks Clinton supporters to say I'm With Her 'with an enthusiasm'

North Carolina Mother Charged with Murder Ordered Photos with Dead Daughter


A soldier from Fort Bragg charged with murdering her 2-year-old daughter commissioned photos of herself at her daughter's gravesite with a superimposed angelic likeness of her daughter in the background.

The photos were commissioned a month after the killing, PEOPLE learns. Jeanie Ditty, 23, and her boyfriend Zachary Keefer were arrested last week for the murder of Macy Grace. Both are charged with first-degree murder and negligent child abuse inflicting serious bodily injury. Police say the child was taken to Cape Fear Valley Medical Center in North Carolina on Dec. 2, 2015 where medical staff discovered bruises all over her body. "It was life threatening injuries consistent with child abuse," Fayetteville Police Department officer Antoine Kincade tells PEOPLE. She was then transported to UNC Hospital in Chapel Hill where she died two days later. "An investigation was initiated and it was determined after the autopsy the child died of injuries sustained as a result of the mother Jeanie Ditty and her boyfriend," Kincade says... READ MORE

The $3.9m email: The scam that fooled Barbie-maker Mattel

The Age (Australia)

The email seemed unremarkable: a routine request by Mattel's chief executive for a new vendor payment to China.

It was well-timed, arriving on Thursday, April 30, 2015, during a tumultuous period for the Los-Angeles based maker of Barbie dolls. Barbie was bombing, particularly overseas, and the CEO, Christopher Sinclair, had officially taken over only that month. Mattel had fired his predecessor.

The finance executive who got the note was naturally eager to please her new boss. She double-checked protocol. Fund transfers required approval from two high-ranking managers. She qualified and so did the CEO, according to a person familiar with the investigation who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to speak about the matter. He declined to reveal the finance executive's name.

Satisfied, the executive wired over $US3 million ($3.9 million) to the Bank of Wenzhou, in China.

Hours later, she mentioned the payment to Sinclair.

But he hadn't made any such request.

Frantic, Mattel executives called their US bank, the police and the FBI.

The response? You're out of luck. The money's already in China.

Mattel's millions were swept up in a tide of dirty money that passes through China and that Western police are only beginning to understand. The scam the company fell victim to — known as the fake CEO or fake president scam — has cost companies, many of them American, more than $US1.8 billion, according to the FBI. Most of the stolen money passes through banks in China or Hong Kong, the FBI said...READ MORE

Jake Tapper rips Obama as a hypocrite for lecturing media, given his terrible record on transparency

Judge rips thug: ‘Black lives don’t matter to black people with guns’


 A Manhattan judge on Tuesday lashed into a Harlem man convicted of attempted murder — telling him that “black lives don’t matter to black people with guns” before tossing him in prison for 24 to 26 years. 

"Black lives matter,” Justice Edward McLaughlin told defendant Tareek Arnold, 24, as he sentenced him in Manhattan Supreme Court.

“I have heard it, I know it, but the sad fact is in this courtroom, so often what happens is manifestations of the fact that black lives don’t matter to black people with guns.”

Arnold, who is black, shot rival Jamal McCaskill, also black, four times at close range in the summer of 2015. He also has a prior gun possession conviction.

Prosecutor Meghan Hast asked for the maximum, arguing that “but for extreme luck, this would have been a homicide.”...   READ MORE

Terminix fined $10 million after family poisoned

 Terminix has agreed to pay $10 million for illegally using a pesticide containing a toxic chemical in the U.S. Virgin Islands, federal officials said.

William Shatner Sued for $170 Million in Paternity Case

The GOP primary process and why Cruz could become the GOP nominee.

By Rob Janicki

99.9% of people voting in the GOP primaries this year have absolutely no idea how the process is  set up by the GOP and it definitely is set up by each state GOP, with each making up its own rules. 

Let's make this clear at the outset.  Primaries are NOT direct democratic elections for the candidate of the voter's choice.  

The voters are electing delegate electors, who, by state GOP rules for each state, must vote for the winning candidate or some such proportional candidate for one or more votes on the convention floor.  This depends upon each state's party rules.  Candidates who have dropped out can NOT simply direct those delegates to vote for anyone else.  These candidates that have dropped out can lobby these same delegates for a candidate that they like, but that is the extent of it.  These delegates must vote for their designated candidate UNTIL their state party rules free them of such constraints.   

After each state GOP rule has been met, these electors are then free to vote their consciences for whoever they choose.  

These delegate electors are party players and activists, who have operated in their Republican Party apparatus at the local, county or state level.  They are what you would call "establishment" folks and most are likely to support the candidate that the GOP leadership promotes and suggests would be in the best interest of the entire Republican Party.  The delegate electors that each state sends to the convention are essentially party insiders.  Trump may believe he has changed how Republican Party politics are run at the national level, but he has tried to do that from the outside, when it's still the insiders who can and will determine the nominee for the Republican Party.

What this translates to is simple.  Should Donald Trump not win the magic 1237 delegates necessary to win the nomination before the convention, the convention will come down to these delegates voting their conscience, not the choice of voters across the country and not withstanding Trump's contention that he has a plurality and fairness should dictate that he be the nominee.  It doesn't work that way and it won't work for Trump.

These delegates will vote for the candidate they, and the RNC, feel is the most electable and NOT the candidate that has the plurality of votes among the candidates.  Sorry Donald.  It's not about fairness and it certainly isn't about having a simple plurality, which is essentially meaningless.  

What does this portend for Donald Trump?  Trump will lose on the second or third ballot, depending upon how many delegates are committed by their state rules, to voting for their designated candidate after each ballot.  As more delegates are freed to vote their consciences, or that of the RNC, Cruz will most likely increase in delegate votes with each succeeding floor vote, since the RNC seems to have reluctantly embraced Cruz among the three candidates.

It's then that all Hell will break loose.  Trump supporters will cry foul.  They will claim that they have been robbed by the RNC, but the results will be due to the rather arcane party rules that everyone knew about, or should have known about going into the campaign.  That may be the difference between Ted Cruz, an elected politician with electoral experience and Donald Trump, an amateur playing at being a politician.

Will Trump try to hastily form a third party effort?  Not likely, since time and state rules weigh heavily against this, plus the cost would be exorbitant and there wouldn't be enough time to raise money for the effort and Trump simply won't self fund what he knows would be a losing result.

So, that leaves the question of what Trump's cult followers will do.  Will they stay home and refuse to vote for the GOP candidate, spitefully vote for the Democrat candidate or write in a candidate?  The winning GOP candidate shouldn't depend upon the Trump cult vote.  It simply won't be there.  These cultists will rather burn down the GOP than vote for the GOP candidate as evidenced by their mob like behaviors during the primaries to date.

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Don Lemon Destroys Trump Spokeswoman

Gov Scott Walker Endorses Ted Cruz for President

Webb Hubbell's Pound Puppy messes up specifics of her mother's plan on college affordability

Far Left Progressive Loon Susan Sarandon suggests Trump could be better choice for president than Clinton

Of course the ancient Sarandon hag would believe Trump to be a viable candidate.
He's a Democrat.
He has been one his entire adult life.

Death-row reprieve denied for son of a bitch who fatally shot his daughters

From the Associated Press:

HUNTSVILLE  — The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles has turned down a clemency petition from a Dallas man set to die this week for fatally shooting his two young daughters nearly 15 years ago.

Board spokesman Raymond Estrada says the board voted 7-0 Monday, refusing to recommend that John David Battaglia’s death sentence be commuted to life in prison and denying his request for a reprieve from his scheduled Wednesday evening execution in Huntsville.

Battaglia, 60, was convicted and condemned for the May 2001 slayings of his daughters, 9-year-old Faith and 6-year-old Liberty, at his Dallas apartment. The girls’ mother, Battaglia’s ex-wife, was on the phone with him and heard the gunshots and cry of the older daughter.

Battaglia still has appeals in the federal courts seeking to block his punishment.

A special snowflake's torment on campus

By Mouser the King Cat

A professor at the University of North Dakota, Heidi Czerwiec, recently suffered through a harrowing experience. Seeing two young men wearing camo and carrying guns on the university quad, she dived under her desk and called 911.

You guys are too quick; you know the punchline. The college guys were not representatives of ISIS, nor from any law enforcement agency, nor stray hunters of grouse or pheasant who made a wrong turn. They were from the campus ROTC unit.

Ms. Czerwiec’s bosses were not pleased with the overreaction and likely even were less so when she fired off a letter to the editor of the Grand Forks Herald. Told that scheduled ROTC drills would continue over the objection of special snowflake poets who teach English, she huffed: 

I guess I’ll be calling 911 for the next couple weeks – and I will. Every time. It’s not my job to decide whether people carrying guns at school are an actual threat. It’s my job to teach and to get home to my family. 
It’s already highly inappropriate to conduct unnecessary military maneuvers in the middle of the quad. But with school shootings on the increase and tensions at UND running high, it’s especially irresponsible. We’re already under financial and emotional attack. We don’t need to feel under physical attack, too. 
Geez, and I thought the biggest problems up there were the price of shale oil and the possibility of freezing to death. Now I’ve got to add college professors who double down on stupid. Ms. Czerwiec will be heartened to know that North Dakota does not allow concealed carry on campuses. But there is an exception -- if the weapon is in a locked vehicle. Hope one doesn’t leap out and scare her to death.