Friday, April 29, 2016

Obama's Trade Threat With Britain May Hurt Trade

While touring Britain, Barack Obama publicly admonished the Brits for entertaining the idea of exiting the European Union in what is affectionately known as "Brexit" in that country.  He said that any trade negotiations between Britain and the United States would "go to the end of the queue".  In other words, we would deal with everyone else first before dealing with Britain.

A lot of Brits didn't appreciate that statement, nor his attempted meddling in Britain's affairs.  Like a lot of things Obama does It could easily have a negative effect by hurting our trade with Britain. Some may simply stop buying U.S. goods in retaliation; putting us at the back of the queue.  It already may have backfired since more Brits now seem to be supporting Brexit than before his remarks.  Nice going, Barry!


Barack Obama's trade threat to Britain has increased support for Brexit as a string of polls show voters are ignoring the US President's claims:

Thursday, April 28, 2016

We Don't Need a Trump Wall

In 2015, a Pew Research Center study found that more than one million Mexicans left the U.S. for a variety of reasons, including the recession and a lack of jobs.  The exodus included complete families and even children who were born in this country. While there was still an inflow of new illegals, it does prove that a lack of jobs can reverse illegal immigration.

To that point, we don't need a wall.  What we need to do is enforce the federal law that makes it a crime for employers to hire illegals, and for communities to declare themselves sanctuary cities.  That  law -- Section 1324 of Title 8 of the United State's Code -- makes it illegal to smuggle, transport, harbor, encourage or induce, or aid or abet an illegal alien or aliens.   The fines can be stiff:

  • First offenders can be fined $250-$2,000 per illegal employee.
  • For a second offense, the fine is $2,000-$5,000 per illegal employee.
  • Three or more offenses can cost an employer $3000-$10,000 per illegal employee. A pattern of knowingly employing illegal immigrants can mean extra fines and up to six months in jail for an employer.
  • - See more at:

  • First offenders can be fined $250-$2,000 per illegal employee.
  • For a second offense, the fine is $2,000-$5,000 per illegal employee.
  • Three or more offenses can cost an employer $3000-$10,000 per illegal employee. A pattern of knowingly employing illegal immigrants can mean extra fines and up to six months in jail for an employer.
  • - See more at:

  • First offenders can be fined $250-$2,000 per illegal employee.
  • For a second offense, the fine is $2,000-$5,000 per illegal employee.
  • Three or more offenses can cost an employer $3000-$10,000 per illegal employee. A pattern of knowingly employing illegal immigrants can mean extra fines and up to six months in jail for an employer.
  • - See more at:
    First offenders can be fined $250-$2,000 per illegal employee. - See more at:
    • First time offenders: $250 to $2,000 per illegal employee
    • Second time Offenders: $2,000 to $5,000 per illegal employee
    • More than the above:  the fines can range from $3000 to $10000 per illegal employee and can include jail time.
    I am sure that if Congress added a reward system for identifying violating employers, in general, would stop hiring illegals.

    Simply, the cutting off of the ability to find work and sanctuary could both slow and reverse our illegal immigration problem.


    More Mexicans leaving US than entering, study says:

    1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses:

    Penalties for Hiring an Illegal Immigrant:

    Wednesday, April 27, 2016

    A $15 Minimum Wage? Try $4.25 a Day in Mexico!

    I think a lot of people in this country take for granted how fortunate we are to live in this country.

    While entry level workers in this country are marching in the streets for a near doubling of the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour,  workers in Mexico just got a 4.2% raise in their minimum wage to 73.04 pesos a day as of January 1st.  On that day, that was the equivalent of just $4.25 a day in U.S. dollars.

    Mexico is a poor country with the World Bank estimating that 53.2% of the country living in poverty.  Worse yet, the World Bank estimated that, in 2012, 10.3% of that country's population lived on $3.10 a day or less.  Think about that when you're spending $5 at Starbucks for your daily venti frappucino.

    The point here being is twofold.

    First, these numbers explain why most of those coming across our southern border are Mexicans.   They aren't so much wanting to come here but, instead, more interested in escaping severe poverty in their own country.

    Secondly, I hate it when a company like Ford or Nabisco or Carrier is forced to move manufacturing to Mexico in order to be more competitive on costs with products made in other countries.  But, when they do, it is really a kind of humanitarian aid.  Today, nearly 1 million Mexicans are building U.S. and European cars in that country with the average hourly wage of 90 pesos.  About $5.64 an hour in U.S. dollars. And for those workers, the need to come to this country is abated.

    So, the bottom line is that we could do ourselves a favor by, somehow, instituting something akin to the post-World War II Marshall Plan to build that country's economy, reduce poverty, and help Mexicans earn a fair wage.  In doing so, we could slow illegal immigration into this country.


    Mexico Approves an Increase to the Daily Minimum Wage for 2016:

    Mexico Data:

    Poverty Headcount by Country:

    US, Mexican and Canadian autoworkers face common fight:

    Tuesday, April 26, 2016

    Suing Exxon Mobil? How About Al Gore and Other Alarmists?

    Apparently, in a meeting held in late March, 14 attorney's general have joined New York state's Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in investigating whether or not Exxon Mobil mislead the investment community on the minimal effects of climate change when their own internal research said otherwise.  If so, Schneiderman expects to extract a pound, or two, or more of flesh from the energy giant which will lead the way for hundreds of similar extortions throughout the energy industry.  Al Gore, who also attended that meeting, likened it to the cigarette industry's downplaying of the effects of cigarette smoking when its own research clearly proved it harmful and, in some cases, lethal.  Last I heard, we breathe in CO2; and even though there's more of it, we are actually living longer. Of course, the real intent by all of these Democrats such as Schneiderman and Gore is to shutdown freedom of speech; and to ultimately put an end to all climate change deniers.  In typical fashion, the Democrats are using the law and lawsuits to achieve that very end.

    But, aren't climate alarmists just as guilty of telling lies?

    Al Gore, especially.  In his movie, The Inconvenient Truth, he claimed that the seas would rise 20 feet unless we took steps to abate climate change.  But, the real inconvenient truth is that, based on an average rise of about one-tenth of an inch per year or 10 inches a century, we won't see a 20 foot rise for more than 2,000 years.  Then, there was his claim that the Arctic would be ice free by 2012.  It's now 2016 and the latest report from NASA is that polar ice is not receding due to climate change.  Then, there was the claim (not by Gore) that 4.5 billion people (half the world's population) would die by 2012 due to climate change....and the alarmist lies just keep flowing!

    The fact is, that climate change alarmists appear to be free to scare the bejesus out of the world with false claims and without impunity. But, it is literally alright to crucify Exxon Mobil for possibly doing the same thing. I emphasize "possibly" since some of their research may actually disprove climate change being caused by man-made CO2.

    Isn't it great to live in a supposedly fair and free society with free speech for some and not all?


    Exxon Mobil Climate Change Inquiry in New York Gains Allies:

    Al Gore Global Warming Movie Responses: 10 Facts 'An Inconvenient Truth' Got Wrong:

    Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat:

    7 Enviro Predictions From Earth Day 1970 That Were Just Dead Wrong:

    Global Warming Could Kill 4.5 Billion by 2012—Does That Have Your Attention?:

    Failed Climate Change Predictions:

    Monday, April 25, 2016

    Happy Earth Day! China Dumps Wind...Japan Builds Coal Plants!

    Once again, the environmental activists around the world got their Earth Day on April 22.  Speeches were given. Trees were planted. But, this year, something special happened.  175 nations signed the Paris Climate Agreement on that day.... So, ah yes, the earth will be saved.

    The only problem with the so called non-binding Paris Climate Agreement is that it is already being "unbound" by both China and Japan in massive ways.

    China -- the world's largest polluter with CO2 making up nearly a third of the world's carbon emissions and the world's leader in wind power -- has recently decided to pull the plug on wind power expansion.  The reason?  Too much of the power is wasted and wind variability is causing damage to the electrical grid because of surging.  So, we have to assume that China -- who already brings a new coal fired plant online every 7 to 10 days -- will have to step that rate up in order meet its rapidly growing demand for electricity.

    Japan, too, is bringing 43 new coal plants online because, following the Fukushima
    accident, it is shutting down its nuclear plants and replacing them with coal.  Apparently, wind and solar were not an option.  Probably for economic reasons.

    In my opinion, Japan and China are demonstrating how flawed the push towards renewable sources of energy is.  In the U.S., we have an Ivanpah solar power plant in California which -- at a cost of $2.2 billion -- is a failure.  Unable, to produce the promised amount of power, it may actually be shutdown if more tax breaks and tax money aren't poured into it.

    Simply, neither wind nor solar are sustainable, consistent, and reliable sources of energy.  And, the world's dependence on fossil fuels will never go away.  Earth Day or not.


    175 countries sign Paris Climate Agreement:

    World's Largest Polluters:

    China is a world leader in wind power generation:

    China Stops Building Wind Turbines Because Most Of The Energy Is Wasted:

    As U.S. Shutters Coal Plants, China and Japan are Building Them: 

    Could California’s massive Ivanpah solar power plant be forced to go dark?: 

    Friday, April 22, 2016

    Democrats Bury Their Racist Past With a $20 Bill

    Just recently, the Treasury Department announced that it was replacing Andrew Jackson's face on the twenty dollar bill with that of Harriet Tubman.  It is interesting that it is being done in this, an election year, by a Democrat-run Treasury Department and without any approvals from anyone but themselves and, I suppose, Barack Obama.  In one fell swoop, Democrats have achieved putting a black woman on the old "Jackson" bill.  How's that for currying favor (and votes) from both women and black voters.

    It is also interesting that this Democrat Treasury would chose to give Jackson, a former President, the boot rather than remove some other non-President like Hamilton or Ben Franklin.  Because, you see, it was the philosophy of the Jackson Democracy that ultimately evolved into the Democrat Party.  In fact, the symbol of the party, the donkey, was first used by Jackson.  During the 1828 elections, he was referred to by his opponents as a "Jackass",  and rather than reject that accusation, he decided, instead, to use it as a campaign symbol.

    However, I do think that the real reason for replacing Jackson with the black abolitionist Tubman is the fact that this Democrat Treasury could, then, erase a slave-owning Democrat President from constant public view.  You see, Jackson was quite the slaver.  He owned a 1,000 acre plantation known as the Hermitage Plantation that was exclusively maintained, cultivated, and harvested by black slaves made up of men, women, and children.  Not exactly the type of image that the modern Democrat Party needs in their historical background.

    So...out of sight, out of mind.  Mission accomplished by our first Black President!  And, it was a mission that had no real basis for needing to be done.  Especially when you consider that, for decades, the name "Jackson" has been the generally accepted slang to mean the $20 bill.  My guess is that slang term will last long after the Tubman image has been replaced on the "twenty and Jackson may never really be erased from people's minds.


    Hamilton to say on $10, Jackson getting replaced by Tubman:

    Jacksonian Democracy:

    Slavery | Andrew Jackson's Hermitage Plantation:

    Thursday, April 21, 2016

    Hillary Sure Loves Income Inequality When Fund Raising

    Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton slam income inequality; with the rich getting richer at a fast rate while the poor and middle class have languished.  But, when Bernie talks income inequality he walks the walk.  Almost all his donations are small and come from  common people who have donated millions to his campaign.   Hillary, on the other hand, utilizes the rich and famous for her donations.

    Last weekend, actor George Clooney hosted a $353,000 per couple dinner as a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton.  That's the price to be seated at the table with both Clooney, his wife, and Hillary.  However, if you find $353K a little too steep, you can always buy a cheap-seat next to the kitchen for a mere $33,000.

    Hillary once complained that there is something wrong when the average CEO makes 300 times what the average worker makes.  However, this false claim has been debunked because the average CEO pay is really about 4-1/5 times the average worker's pay.  The 300 times number, is again,  another of her distortions based on just 350 top-paid CEO's.

    But, one thing is sure, $353K for a dinner is more than 6 thousand times more than what you or I would pay at a fine-dining restaurant in America.  That's some real income inequality.  Even the cheap meal at $33K is more than 1100 times what the average, per-person cost would be for you and I.  In response, a supporter of Bernie and a neighbor of the Clooneys threw a $27 per seat meal on his behalf.

    I think this "little" gala meal for Hillary disqualifies her from ever flapping her jaw about income inequality and CEO pay.

    One more thing.  How is it that Hillary can receive a $353K donation from members of the  Hollywood elite or, even, a $33K donation, when you and I are restricted to a personal maximum of $2700 per election?


    Clinton asks for $353K to sit with the Clooneys:

    Clinton Misuses Stat on CEO Pay:

    Average eater check in restaurants in the United States in 2013, by restaurant type (in U.S. dollars):

    Clooney's neighbor throws Saturday fundraiser for Sanders [$27]:

    Federal Election Commission: Campaign Donation Limits: