Were Voter's Denied A Vote On The Minimum Wage In California?

Before it was announced that Governor Brown and the California State legislators had come to an agreement with labor unions to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2022, there was already a ballot initiative set for this Fall to raise the wage to $15 by 2021.  So this begs the question;  is delaying the $15 wage by one year a victory for businesses?  Not hardly.

In my opinion, the agreement between the labor unions and California's liberal Democrat Governor and its liberal state legislators, only makes sure that the ballot initiative is not defeated  by the voters. Thus insuring that the labor union's wish for the highest minimum wage in the nation, and in the world would be guaranteed.

But, why would the labor unions even care about the minimum wage since no union pay scale pays anything near it?  The simple fact is that most union contracts and their embedded pay scales in those contracts are linked to the minimum wage as either some percentage over it, or by hiking union wages equal to the amount of the increase.

So the bottom line is that the Democrats want to maintain their symbiotic relationship with the unions by insuring that they too, get a wage hike when the minimum wage is increased.  In return, Democrats get votes from the union membership; money for their campaigns; and get-out-the-vote activities that only benefit Democrats. It has nothing to do with what they call a living wage. As a result there will be lost jobs through automation; more unemployment; higher costs that affect those, like seniors and others not subject to minimum wage legislation, that won't see their incomes rise; and fewer new businesses due to higher startup costs.

References:

California "Fair Wage Act of 2016" $15 Minimum Wage Initiative (2016): https://ballotpedia.org/California_%22Fair_Wage_Act_of_2016%22_$15_Minimum_Wage_Initiative_%282016%29

California raises minimum wage to $15 an hour: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/03/28/california-raises-minimum-wage-15-hour/82348622/

Why Unions Want a Higher Minimum Wage - Wall Street Journal: https://www.google.com/search?q=Why+Unions+Want+a+Higher+Minimum+Wage+-+Wall+Street+...&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 

pb

The Climate Scientist Wanting Skeptics Jailed, May Have Racketeered Himself

By definition, racketeering is when one or more individuals engage in a dishonest and fraudulent business activity.

So, it's almost laughable that the lead climate scientist, Jagadish Shukla, among 20 scientists who sent Barack Obama and his Justice Department a letter recommending that climate deniers be jailed under federal racketeering laws, is now under investigation for possible fraudulent overcharging of the National Science Foundation for supposedly non-profit climate change work.

Since 2001, he and his wife charged that agency for work, and personally profited $5.6 million from grants to the organization that he founded and that he and his wife head. In addition, he was receiving other moneys from other climate change activities he is involved with. The inspector general for the National Science Foundation has declared that amount to be excessive.   Shukla is also a well-paid Distinguished Professor at George Mason University, earning at least $314,000 a year (assuming he hasn't had a raise in the last 2 years).  That, along with his $5.6 million bonus work certainly qualifies him for entry into the IRS' one percent-er club.

No wonder he wants climate deniers jailed.  He surely wouldn't want this cozy little gravy-train of his to be interfered with, now would he?

References:

Energy News Science Agency Eyes Climate Change Professor’s Use of Millions From Taxpayers: http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/23/science-agency-eyes-climate-change-professors-use-of-millions-from-taxpayers/

Jagadish Shukla: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdish_Shukla

George Mason University Salaries for 2014:  http://data.richmond.com/salaries/2014/state/george-mason-university

The top 1% and what they pay - Apr. 4, 2014 - CNN Money: http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/04/pf/taxes/top-1-taxes/

Hey Ted Cruz, The Lawyer! Carpet Bombing is a War Crime.

Ted Cruz, the former Texas Solicitor General, has repeatedly said that he would "carpet bomb" ISIS into oblivion.

The major problem with that insanity is that carpet bombing is imprecise and would kill thousands of civilians because the battles that ISIS is fighting in both Syria and Iraq are over the control of various cities and urban areas within those two countries.

This is why, in 1977, the United States, and others agreeing to the modification of the Geneva Conventions, defined carpet bombing as a war crime.

References:

Ted Cruz doubles down on vow to 'carpet-bomb' ISIS: http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-isis-carpet-bomb-strategy-2016-1

Carpet bombing of cities, towns, villages, or other areas containing a concentration of civilians is considered a war crime^[6] as of the 1977 Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_bombing

Belgium Terror Attack Exposes Major Weak Spot

Every time there is a successful terror attack, we learn about weak spots that may exist in this country as well as the rest of the world.  In the case of Belgium, we learned that a suicide bomber can take a cab to the airport; unload luggage filled with explosives; walk   up to the check-in counter; and detonate bombs killing and seriously injuring hundreds of innocent people.

The real weakness here is that no one would think twice about one, two, or three guys having heavy bags at a crowded check-in counter. Almost everyone has similar luggage,  and check in counters are positioned well before any security screening. A scenario that exists in every airport around the world.

Of course now, there are those who are advocating pre-check-in security screening.  But, what would that accomplish?  There will still be hundreds of people in lines waiting to be screened and subject to a massive bomb blast.

The only real solution to the world's terrorism problem is to be more aggressive towards the terrorists themselves.  Let's dump the political correctness.  If we have to step on some Muslim toes to sort out who's who, then so be it.  Because, if we don't, these events will become increasingly frequent, and free societies will become even more disrupted than they are now.

Is Merrick Garland a Political Pawn of Obama?

By all accounts, Barack Obama is the most liberal President of modern times. Proof of this, is in the fact that his record of defending his policies in the Supreme Court have placed him dead last among all Presidents since 1946.

So, when it came to replacing Justice Scalia on the nation's high court, it was expected that he would attempt to tilt it decidedly left with another very liberal Justice nomination.  But, no. Instead, he nominated a moderate: Merrick Garland.

So what gives?

Well, this is just another way for the President to embarrass the Republican-led Senate and the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.  In other words, it's politics.  By nominating an eminently qualified moderate, he can now sell the concept that McConnell and the rest of the GOP are being unreasonable if they fail to give Garland a hearing and a up and down vote.   Should they go through the motions of having a hearing, but reject Garland's appointment with a down vote, he can still continue to claim that the Republicans are being unreasonable.

In my opinion, I don't think Garland is the kind of jurist that Obama really wanted.   I'm sure that he wanted someone younger and one who would support more extreme liberal policies far into the future.  But Garland -- in an election year -- provides him with a unique political opportunity to attempt to return the control of the Senate to the Democrats.  If so, this would benefit the next President; should that President be a Democrat.  Similarly, if the next President is a Republican, a Democrat-led Senate would derail anything he might need done.  Obama sees this as a win-win for at least four more years after he leaves office.

References:

Obama has struggled at the Supreme Court: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/despite-this-weeks-victories-obama-has-struggled-at-the-supreme-court/

McConnell says Obama's Supreme Court nominee won't even have a vote after the election: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-mcconnell-supreme-court-20160320-story.html

Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland has a record of restraint, not activism: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-garland-legal-analysis-20160318-story.html

Merrick Garland Is A 'Qualified' Supreme Court Nominee: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/03/16/merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee-obama/#57b6b6a82d6a

Is Obama Leading From Behind?

Reference:

The Obama doctrine: Leading from behind - Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-obama-doctrine-leading-from-behind/2011/04/28/AFBCy18E_story.html

Source of Image: Obama criticized for doing tango 2 days after bombings in Brussels: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-tango-critics-brussels-terror-142641037.html

Enough with the Bernie/Hillary Jabs at Wall Street

Throughout their political campaigns, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have laid blame for the 2008 financial crisis on Wall Street; as if the six 'too-big-to-fail' banks that had to be bailed out were somehow representative of thousands of companies who have allowed their stocks to be publicly traded.

Hillary says she's not going to allow "Wall Street to bring down Main Street" ever again. Bernie wants to tax Wall Street; breakup the big banks; and reinstate Glass-Steagall which prevented banks from investment activities on Wall Street.

First of all, both these people act as if nothing was done following the financial crisis.  They seem to forget that, in 2010, both Houses of Congress -- both controlled by Democrats -- and Barack Obama passed the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act into law to, supposedly, stop the 2008 crisis from ever happening again.  So, why is this an issue all over, again?

Also understand, Wall Street IS Main Street. According to Gallup polling, 55% of those surveyed said they were invested in the stock market.  While down from 62% before the financial crisis, that 55% is climbing back from a low of 52% in 2013.  So, I suppose that 55% of this country's households aren't "Main Street" enough for Hillary Clinton.  Or, for Bernie, the lie that only millionaires and billionaires -- of which there are only a little over 10 million in a country of 320 million -- only benefit from Wall Street.

Lastly, the financial crisis that followed the housing bubble was primarily a result of two things.  

• The first was the expanded use and enforcement of the Jimmy Carter passed law known as the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) by Bill Clinton while he was President. Basically, that Democrat-written law forced banks to lower their lending requirements and increase the number of mortgages for otherwise non-eligible, low-income borrowers.  Thus, banks did get involved with forms of predatory lending in order to comply with the law. In hearings following the financial crisis, the CEO of Bank America said that, while CRA loans only made up 7% of that bank's mortgage portfolio, they resulted in 29% of their losses during the housing meltdown.  Another CEO of a mid-sized bank said that about 20% of all his CRA loans would be in arrears in the first year and 7% would fall into foreclosure.  Democrats have always tried to shift blame away from the CRA because they were responsible for it.  Thus, Wall Street and big banks have become their diversionary targets for those who are uniformed.
• In addition, Glass-Steagall, which Bernie Sanders wants to reinstate, was repealed by none other than Bill Clinton when he signed the Gramm, Leach, Bliley Act which allowed banks to participate in investment banking in the stock market.

The reality is that Bernie and Hillary, as Democrats, should be looking in the mirror when they talk about blaming someone for the financial crisis.   And, by the way.  The best analysis of the financial meltdown is given by two writers from the liberal New York Times titled "Reckless Endangerment".  See below for an excellent video summation of that book by Rush Limbaugh.

References:

Bernie Sanders on Financial Regulation: http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-financial-regulation/

Community Reinvestment Act: 

Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act

Little Change in Percentage of Americans Who Own Stocks: http://www.gallup.com/poll/182816/little-change-percentage-americans-invested-market.aspx

More millionaires than ever are living in the US: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/09/more-millionaires-than-ever-are-living-in-the-us.html

Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act

Video: Subprime Disaster - President Clinton Takes Credit for Community Reinvestment Act Loans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTZIB6Sika4

Video:  Rush Limbaugh on 'Reckless Endangerment': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG7U2g9MFKg