An Obama has joined the birther movement.
Malik Obama, Barack Obama’s half-brother, tweeted image of what appears to be Barack’s birth certificate.
Except it’s not from Hawaii, but rather Kenya.
Here’s what that bastion of liberal thought, Harvard University, has to say about it:
(from the Daily Wire)
Harvard Study: Minimum Wage Hikes Killing BusinessesErik Mcgregor/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images
A new Harvard Business School study found that minimum wage hikes lead to closures of small businesses. “We find suggestive evidence that an increase in the minimum wage leads to an overall increase in the rate of exit,” the researchers conclude.
The study, titled Survival of the Fittest: The Impact of the Minimum Wage on Firm Exit, looks at “the impact of the minimum wage on restaurant closures using data from the San Francisco Bay Area” from 2008-2016.
Researchers Dara Lee Luca and Michael Luca chose the Bay Area due to their frequent minimum wage hikes in recent years. “In the San Francisco Bay Area alone, there have been twenty-one local minimum wage changes over the past decade,” they write.
The Lucas found that lower-quality restaurants (indicated by Yelp scores) were disproportionately affected by wage hikes, increasing their likelihood of closure relative to higher-quality, established restaurants.
“The evidence suggests that higher minimum wages increase overall exit rates for restaurants. However, lower quality restaurants, which are already closer to the margin of exit, are disproportionately impacted by increases to the minimum wage,” says the study. “Our point estimates suggest that a one dollar increase in the minimum wage leads to a 14 percent increase in the likelihood of exit for a 3.5-star restaurant (which is the median rating), but has no discernible impact for a 5-star restaurant (on a 1 to 5 star scale).”
While “firm exit” was the focus of the study, the researchers also noted that there are often other consequences from wage hikes, such as worker layoffs, increased pricing and hour-cuts for existing workers:
While some studies find no detrimental effects on employment (Card and Krueger 1994, 1998; Dube, Lester & Reich, 2010), others show that higher minimum wage reduces employment, especially among low-skilled workers (see Neumark & Wascher, 2007 for a review). However, even studies that identify negative impacts find fairly modest effects overall, suggesting that firms adjust to higher labor costs in other ways. For example, several studies have documented price increases as a response to the minimum wage hikes (Aaronson, 2001; Aaronson, French, & MacDonald, 2008; Allegretto & Reich, 2016). Horton (2017) find that firms reduce employment at the intensive margin rather than on the extensive margin, choosing to cut employees hours rather than counts.
Such findings were backed up by Garret/Galland Research’s Stephen McBride, who highlighted in March the “minimum wage massacre.”
“Currently, rising labor costs are causing margins in the sector to plummet. Those with the ability to automate like McDonalds are doing so… and those who don’t are closing their doors. In September 2016, one-quarter of restaurant closures in the California Bay Area cited rising labor costs as one of the reasons for closing,” McBride wrote in Forbes.
“While wage increases put more money in the pocket of some, others are bearing the costs by having their hours reduced and being made part-time,” he added.
As noted by Red Alert Politics, the Bay Area is headed for a $15 minimum wage in July of 2018, though they’ve already seen over 60 restaurants close since September.
While it would behoove the Bernie Bros picketing for $15 an hour to take a look at this study, it’s entirely unlikely that such evidence would deter their entitled attitudes.
I posted regarding this phenomena before, but I obviously don’t have the gravitas of Harvard (nor, apparently the other sources I borrowed
It’s basic economics – businesses expect X dollar profit to be profitable – having the gov’t mandate paying their employees more money lessens profit. Something has to give.
We’re seeing many more kiosks on restaurant tables and counters these days.
They cost less.
When I was making minimum wage, I changed jobs when I saw I couldn’t make rent and eat on that income. This was in the 70s, when I began making $1.60 an hour, and moved up to $2.10…
(I’m generally a rule follower – unless, of course, they are silly, or put me in danger. I DO like order, and dislike those who endanger those close to me – whether or not it’s through self-centeredness or malice. – Guffaw)
We’re staying at an undisclosed location, while the powers-that-be are repairing the shower leak in the townhouse. Or at least beginning the process. (The ceiling beneath the leak has been excised, and is being dried. We await the plumbers and subsequent reconstruction. No contractors present today!)
All guests herein are required to sign a form that this is a non-smoking campus.
My roommate is extremely asthmatic, and is sensitive to tobacco smoke.
So, this is a positive development.
On Day One here, she smelled smoke in the hall directly outside our room. On Day Two, it happened again, more intensely. We notified the front desk.
The second day, it did negatively affect her breathing. It was definitely stronger.
And pissed us off. We contacted the front desk.
Subsequently, we heard a loud discussion outside our room. Upon opening the door, we observed the general manager in confrontation with the tenants directly across the hall.
They were ‘young people’ (under 40).
At length, the manager called us and advised they had been charged an additional $250. As both a penalty, and to clean the room.
And they were evicted from the hotel!
I understand the mechanism of addiction. And also understand one must make amends for one’s mistakes. This is a step in the right direction.
PS – I’m NOT against smoking. It’s a quasi-legal activity, using a legal substance. And, I don’t like smokers being treated as third-class citizens.
But, follow the rules to which you agreed, people!
(from Judicial Watch…)
Just when you think we’ve learned most of what there is to learn about Hillary Clinton’s emails a new mole pops up out of the hole.
This week Judicial Watch released State Department documents including a declaration from FBI Special Agent E.W. Priestap, the supervisor of the agency’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email activities, stating that the former secretary of state was the subject of a grand jury investigation related to her BlackBerry email accounts.
The declaration was produced in response to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit seeking to force Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to take steps to “recover emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton” and other U.S. Department of State employees (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Rex Tillerson (No. 1:15-cv-00785)). We originally filed the lawsuit against then-Secretary of State John Kerry. The Trump State Department filing includes details of the agency’s continuing and shameful refusal to refer the Clinton email issue to the Justice Department, as the law requires.
In the filing, Priestap declares under penalty of perjury that the FBI “obtained Grand Jury subpoenas related to the Blackberry e-mail accounts, which produced no responsive materials, as the requested data was outside the retention time utilized by those providers.”
On April 30, 2015, Judicial Watch sued Kerry after the State Department failed to take action on a letter sent to Kerry “notifying him of the unlawful removal of the Clinton emails and requesting that he initiate enforcement action pursuant to the [Federal Records Act],” including working through the Attorney General to recover the emails.
After initially being dismissed by the district court, Judicial Watch’s lawsuit was revived on appeal by a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on December 27, 2016.
While at the State Department, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton conducted official government business using an unsecured email server and email accounts. Her top aides and advisors also used non-“state.gov” email accounts to conduct official business. Clinton left office February 1, 2013.
The FBI convened a grand jury to investigate Hillary Clinton in 2016. Why is this information being released only now?
It is disturbing that the State Department, Justice Department, and FBI are still trying to protect Hillary Clinton. President Trump needs to clean house at all these agencies.
A massive anti-deportation infrastructure has emerged to try to protect illegal immigrants from President Trump’s crackdown, with advocacy groups coaching potential deportees on how to massage encounters with police, and lawyers and judges working to shield them from charges that would make them priorities for deportation.
A video released Monday by a coalition of advocates instructs illegal immigrants not to open the door to federal agents, what proof to demand if they are being arrested and what to say if accosted outside their homes.
Meanwhile, attorneys are working to lower charges from some illegal immigrant criminals, hoping to blunt their crimes so they don’t show up as high-priority deportation targets.
The latest instance was in California, where an immigrant from India was accused of abusing his wife. The Santa Clara prosecutor told The Daily Beast that he reduced a felony assault charge to a felony accessory after the fact charge in order to spare the man a sentence that would have made him a deportation risk.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions lashed out at the prosecutor last week, calling his action a perversion of the criminal justice system.
(A video released Monday by a coalition of advocates instructs illegal immigrants not to open the door to federal agents, what proof to demand if they are being arrested and what to say if accosted outside their homes.)
Wouldn’t it be nice if all persons here legally, alien and citizen alike, had such advice and protection?
What does this cost? Who is paying for it? Qui bono? (Who benefits?)
(March 15 for the Julius Caesar/Shakespeare impaired!)
I subscribe to a smattering of emails from allegedly like-minded individuals.
Sometimes I am in agreement with their themes.
Other times, not so much.
One guy, who operates a small libertarianesque, survivalist business has been promoting a book ‘not yet in bookstores’, purporting to describe the next financial collapse, and confiscation of bank accounts(!) by the government!!
Allegedly, this is to begin MARCH 15! (The Ides of March, for all you Julius Caesar fans.)
Coincidence? Astrology? A soothsayer’s truth?
I’ve no idea. I cannot afford the book, and probably wouldn’t buy it, anyway.
Most of my income is direct deposit disability. I suspect if BIGGOV wanted to take it, they would so do.
WHY? Because they can!
(So, you thought you’d withdraw your cash and hide it in your mattress? Not so fast there, Bucko!)
An Obama has joined the birther movement.
Malik Obama, Barack Obama’s half-brother, tweeted image of what appears to be Barack’s birth certificate.
Except it’s not from Hawaii, but rather Kenya.
From the Day Late Dollar Short, or the What Took You So Long Department!
Seriously – How many birth certificates ARE THERE? And how did he get a Connecticut Social Security number? And why are his school records sealed?
And, why would one’s half brother do such a thing? Now?
Inquiring minds want to know!
(Just because sometimes, I like adding fuel to the fire! – Guffaw)
So my roomie J and I travel together ‘across town’ yesterday from the suburbs to Central Phoenix, to the hospital where she is scheduled for rotator cuff surgery on March 21. This is her preop visit, blood work and X-rays. And, of course, paperwork.
And after an hour or so of that nonsense, we traveled farther West to (Jack Wheeler’s) Original Hamburger Works for a late lunch. (We add the prefix Jack Wheeler, proudly. He was the office manager of Tom Ezell’s Investigations and Polygraph. We did pre-employment polys for Hamburger Works (when it was legal to do so). And, if we said we were going out for lunch to Hamburger Works, he always emphatically corrected us, adding the ORIGINAL to the name, in that great, bass voice he was known for!
Sadly, Jack passed in 1985. Pre-employment polygraphs stopped in 1986, except for police, etc.
After a yummy lunner (a late lunch), we headed back home.
J had a prescription she wanted to drop off at her Walgreens, so I headed there before home. I was driving (as she had alcohol, I had not), and driving her Honda Element remains slightly foreign to me. (no pun intended) But all was well.
Until I made the turn into the Walgreens’ parking lot, circling the building to the drive-through pharmacy window (the building used to be a bank).
As I made the turn, some fool in a pickup truck backed out. As I was driving behind him! I sped up (as best I could in a small lot) and performed an evasive maneuver.
But, he clipped us!
I pulled forward out of the path of parking lot traffic, and he pulled back into his space. I exited to inspect the damage. Best I could tell was a couple of scratches on the plastic part just below the fuel opening. No serious damage, but noticeable.
I turned to greet the other driver and exchange information. HE had hit US on private property.
And he had backed out again and left!
(I’m reminded that over 10% of Arizona’s motorists are uninsured!)
I had not taken a cell phone picture or recorded his license plate number, because it appeared he was stopping.
And we have more pressing financial issues currently than the $500 deductible for scratches.
(FTC – Neither Original Hamburger Works, Honda or Walgreens gave us anything! Tom Ezell’s no longer exists, as far as I know – Tom passed a couple years ago.)
I received two emails yesterday from two (one would think) like-minded entities. One, the NRA (full disclosure, I am long time Life Member), the second, Gun Talk Media, an Internet blog and media source.
I have posted on this blog regarding the NRAs push to contact Congress regarding the last administration’s efforts to restrict gun rights to those who may have mental limitations (by their view mental illness). And I have supported their efforts to reverse this measure.
Now comes these emails. The NRAs requesting immediate action on a pending Senate vote to stop this travesty.
And this from Gun Talk Media:
FAKE NEWS ALERT
Social Security Administration Gets Into Gun Ban Business
As he left office, President Obama screwed American seniors who own or want to own guns by issuing an executive order directing the Social Security Administration to treat seniors in the same miserable way the Veterans Administration does our vets. That is, the SSA now reports to the FBI anyone who prefers to have someone else handle their finances, and the FBI puts that person on the list that is a LIFETIME BAN on owning firearms.
Naturally, the general media portrayed this as keeping guns out of the hands of those with serious mental defects, and when the House of Representatives voted 235 to 180 to repeal this gun confiscation move, the howls from the fourth estate nearly drowned out the facts. Nearly.
As a Gun Talk Truth Squad member, you have the opportunity to push back on these bogus reports, and to answer friends who offer that this ban “seems reasonable.” Here are the facts.
The media said that the SSA would be providing the information to the FBI so these people could
be included in a “background check database.” Well … doesn’t that sound reasonable? The fact is that this move actually puts these people on a list that bans firearms ownership for life.
Who would oppose putting those with “serious mental defects” into a “background check database?” The NRA, of course. But wait. Another vocal opponent is the ACLU. Yes, the American Civil Liberties Union. Groups supporting and providing aid to those who actually do suffer from mental handicaps also opposed the “I’m outta here” move by the departing “vertical pronoun” President to ban tens of thousand of Americans from owning guns, and all without due process.
Here’s an example of the media coverage of the House vote to repeal this rule. This is from Politico.
Democrats ripped the move as an effort by Republicans to undermine background checks for gun purchasers. After the House vote, Sen. Dianne Feinstein pleaded with supporters to rally against the move in the Senate. “Senate may vote today to weaken background checks on gun purchases. Call your Senator to oppose this change — ensure your voice is heard!” she wrote.
Tell your friends that there has been a law in effect for decades that prohibits the truly mentally incompetent from owning guns, and this law provides for due process. Under current law, if one has been adjudicated mentally incompetent, he or she can’t own a gun. “Adjudicated.” As in, a judge and a court room. Where you can defend yourself. Not a bureaucrat who checks a box and places your name on the banned-for-life list. ~ Tom
So, has the NRA been waving a false flag (creating FAKE NEWS) to feather it’s own nest? Or is it simply rubber stamping additional efforts to let the government know we are no longer allowing our civil rights to be curtailed without due process?
What do YOU think?
(in part from TFB)
There are some bold issues being addressed. One of which is point 5, the use of a stabilizing brace.5. Firearm Arm or Stabilizing Brace:Manufacturers have produced an arm brace or stabilizing brace which is designed to strap a handgun to a forearm to allow a disabled shooter to fire the firearm. ATF determined that the brace was not a stock, and therefore its attachment to a handgundid not constitute the making of a short-barreled rifle or “any other firearm” under theNational Firearms Act (NFA). (NFA classification subjects the product to a tax and registration requirement.) In the determination letter, however, ATF indicated that if the brace was held to the shoulder and used as a stock, such use would constitute a “redesign” that would result in classification of the brace/handgun combination asan NFA firearm (i.e., the “use” would be a “redesign” and making of a short – barreled rifle). ATF has not made an other NFA determination where a shooter’s use alone was deemed be a “redesign” of the product/firearm resulting in an NFA classification. This ruling has caused confusion and concern among firearm manufacturers, dealers, and consumers about the extent to which unintended use of a product may be a basis for NFA classification. To mitigate this confusion and concern, ATF could amend the determination letter to remove the language indicating that simple use of a product for a purpose other than intended by the manufacturer – without additional proof or redesign – may result in re-classification as an NFA weapon.While many at ATF are concerned about manufacturing processes continuing to pushthe boundaries between a Gun Control Act (GCA) and an NFA firearm, ATF has arelatively consistent history of what crosses the line between GCA and NFA firearmswith which to draw from, and still maintains the ability to exercise good judgement withfuture requests based upon the firearm’s individual characteristics.
This could change their determination that came out back in 2015 that using a brace could constitute a redesign. As Adam Kraut had explained, misusing a product is not the same as redesigning or manufacturing.
If that got you excited wait until you see what else they got cooking.
Next up is the point about Slencers.Silencers: Current Federal law requires ATF to regulate silencers under the NFA. Thisrequires a Federal tax payment of $200 for transfers, ATF approval, and entry of thesilencer into a national NFA database. In the past several years, opinions about silencershave changed across the United States. Their use to reduce noise at shooting rangesand applications within the sporting and hunting industry are now well recognized.At present, 42 states generally allow silencers to be used for sporting purposes. Thewide acceptance of silencers and corresponding changes in state laws have createdsubstantial demand across the country. This surge in demand has caused ATFto have a significant backlog on silencer applications. ATF’s processing time isnow approximately 8 months. ATF has devoted substantial resources in attempts to reduce processing times, spending over $1 million annually in overtime and temporary duty expenses, and dedicating over 33 additional full-time and contract positions since 2011 to support NFA processing. Despite these efforts, NFA processing times are widely viewed by applicants and the industry as far too long, resulting in numerous complaints to Congress. Since silencers account for the vast majority of NFA applications, the most direct way to reduce processing times is to reduce the number of silencer applications. In light of the expanding demand and acceptance of silencers, however, that volume is unlikely to diminish unless they are removed from the NFA. While DOJ and ATF have historically not supported removal of items from the NFA, the change in public acceptance of silencers arguably indicates that the reason for their inclusion in the NFA is archaic and historical reluctance to removing them from the NFA should be reevaluated. ATF’s experience with the criminal use of silencers also supports reassessing their inclusion in the NFA. On average in the past 10 years, ATF has only recommended 44 defendants a year for prosecution on silencer-related violations; of those, only approximately 6 of the defendants had prior felony convictions. Moreover, consistent with this low number of prosecution referrals, silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings. Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety necessitating NFA classification, and should be considered for reclassification under the GCA.If such a change were to be considered, a revision in the definition of a silencerwould be important. The current definition of a silencer extends to “any combination of[silencer] parts, ” as well as “any part intended only for use in” a silencer. Compared tothe definition of a firearm, which specifies the frame or receiver is the key regulatedpart, any individual silencer part is generally regulated just as if it were a completedsilencer. Revising the definition could eliminate many of the current issues encounteredby silencer manufacturers and their parts suppliers. Specifically, clarifying when a partor combination of parts meets a minimum threshold requiring serialization would beuseful.
These two points are huge. There are other great points addressed in the White Paper and I encourage you to read it all.
The conclusion of the White Paper addresses it nicely:There are many regulatory changes or modifications that can be made by or through ATF that would have an immediate, positive impact on commerce and industry without significantly hindering ATFs mission or adversely affecting public safety.There are also areas where adjustments to policy or processes could improve ATF operations. Alleviating some of these concerns would continue to supportATF’s relationships across the firearms and sporting industry, and allow ATF to further focus precious personnel and resources on the mission to combat gun violence.The future looks bright and I hope the ATF accepts these issues and solutions.
…or at least follow The Constitution!
Via comment by Unknown Reaper on The three numbers that will keep Democrats from bl…
Fortunately, Gorsuch appears to be one of the rare breed of judges that actually cares what the U.S. Constitution and our laws have to say. In that respect, he is very much like Scalia…
On Tuesday, President Trump announced that he would nominate Neil Gorsuch to fill the open seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Gorsuch currently serves on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, and he was confirmed unanimously by the Senate when he was appointed to that position by President George W. Bush in 2006. Gorsuch appears to have some strong similarities to Antonin Scalia, and many conservatives are hoping that when Gorsuch fills Scalia’s seat that it will represent a shift in the balance of power on the Supreme Court. Because for almost a year, the court has been operating with only eight justices. Four of them were nominated by Republican presidents and four of them were nominated by Democrats, and so many Republicans are anticipating that there will now be a Supreme Court majority for conservatives.
Unfortunately, things are not that simple, because a couple of the “conservative” justices are not actually very conservative at all.More @ Investment Watch