More manufacturing jobs will be lost

This is what Democrats do: They impose destructive economic policies that force industries to move out of the country, and then they attack and demonize companies that do what they have to do in response to policies Democrats have forced on them.  It’s getting harder to think these are unintended consequences. You’d have to believe that Democrats are stupid, but we know they aren’t. The only conclusion remaining is that they are vile. If Republicans were doing this we could go with stupid.

Minimum Wage Hike Would Hit Manufacturing Hardest

There is no shortage of reasons to be skeptical of the intensifying push, now formally endorsed by the Democratic Party, to raise the national minimum wage to $15 per hour. This magnitude of such a hike is unprecedented; city-level $15 minimums have not exactlybeen roaring successes; restaurants could respond to a wage hike by automating more jobs; and the minimum wage movement, as currently constituted, is facilitating outrageous union malfeasance. And, of course, trying to set one national minimum wage is foolish policy when cost of living varies from place to place.

But if one more were needed, Adam Ozimek offers yet another compelling reason for concern in a piece at Moody’s: a $15 dollar minimum wage would be especially damaging to U.S. manufacturing, an industry that has recently started to make a small and fragile comeback.

Minimum wage debates typically focus on the service, hospitality, or retail industries, and it’s easy to see why: The majority of workers making under $8 per hour work in one of these sectors. An increase to, say, $9 dollars per hour probably would have the biggest impact on service and retail. But Ozimek argues that an increase of the magnitude currently being considered would also have a strong impact on the manufacturing sector. He crunches the numbers and finds that 35 percent of manufacturing workers—5.3 million people—are currently earning less than $15 per hour. “Lifting the minimum wage to $15 an hour”, he notes, “would not just be quantitatively larger than previous U.S. experience, but qualitatively different in that it would affect a different set of workers and industries.”

Moreover, mandated wage increases in the manufacturing industry could imperil more American jobs than wage increases in the fast food industry because manufacturing is more mobile, and more subject to the forces of global economic competition. Ozimek writes:

The potential for lost jobs is particularly acute given that many manufacturers face global competition. If wages become too high in one place, it’s easier for a manufacturer than for, say, a restaurant, to relocate operations. After all, the huge decline in manufacturing employment in previous decades is in part a warning about the unsustainability of above-market wages in a globally competitive environment.

No fair-minded person can blame manufacturing companies for leaving the country, but Democrats will anyway. Republicans have the power to stop this, Obama cannot do it by himself. But will they? Given their pattern of nonperformance over the last 7 years it’s a good bet they’ll posture, make wild claims to stop Obama, but when the time actually comes for them to act they will cave in to Obama and go along with whatever he wants.  This will provide further grist for the Trump mill, about which the Republican establishment will complain bitterly. They see their own conservative base and the Tea Party movement but not Obama and his destructive policies as their enemy. That’s why we can go with stupid when we wonder why the Republican establishment ignores its campaign promises.

The Republican establishment sought and got a loyalty oath to the Republican party from Donald Trump. Someone should demand the Republican establishment make a loyalty oath to its own voters. But, they’d probably make the pledge and then forget all about it.

All the proof needed about gun control jerks…

To show that the gun control movement is a bunch of twits who have no concern for the safety of others:

Gun control groups accused of ‘swatting’ open-carry permit holders, putting lives at risk.

As more states relax rules about open-carrying of guns, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has taken to social media to urge the public to assume gun-toters are trouble, and to call the cops on anyone they feel may be a threat.

“If you see someone carrying a firearm in public—openly or concealed—and have ANY doubts about their intent, call 911 immediately and ask police to come to the scene,” the group wrote on its widely followed Facebook page. “Never put your safety, or the safety of your loved ones, at the mercy of weak gun laws that arm individuals in public with little or no criminal and/or mental health screening.”

That approach, according to a blog post by Ohio-based Buckeye Firearms Association, [or anyone with a lick of common sense, Ed. TeeJaw] could give rise to needless, tense confrontations between police and gun owners. The association and other similar groups liken the tactic to “swatting,” or the act of tricking an emergency service into dispatching responders based on a false report. Many online harassment campaigns have been known to participate in the practice.

“This practice is exactly what they [Coalition to Stop Gun Violence] are doing,” said Erich Pratt, spokesman for Virginia-based Gun Owners of America. “It’s one thing if someone is using a gun in an illegal or unlawful manner. No one is questioning that. But this clearly sounds like swatting.”

They are mimicking the practices of wily and cunning criminals to harass the law-abiding. In some cases these jackasses will be the ones arrested for making a false report to police and obstructing justice. They don’t have the sense to understand that Robert Heinlein got it right when he wrote, “A well-armed society is a polite society,” and Thomas Sowell was exactly right when he observed that the only thing stopping bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. Instead of harassing law-abiding citizens they should be thanking them for making their communities safer from criminals.

Former marine has message for BLM

Dennis Prager:

    In the past week, two television reporters in Roanoke, Va. — Alison Parker and Adam Ward — were murdered by a black man who hated whites, and a white police officer in Houston — Darren Goforth — was murdered by a black man. [Shannon Miles, Deputy Goforth’s killer, has a record of violence toward police and in 2012 he avoided prison after being arrested for felony assault on a homeless man. Ed.TeeJaw] Neither crime has been labeled a hate crime. And no mainstream media reporting of the murders attributes either to race-based hate.

    For the mainstream media, the Roanoke murders were committed by “a disgruntled former employee,” and regarding the Houston policeman, the media report that, in the words of The New York Times, “a motive for the shooting remained unclear.”

    The disregard of anti-white hatred as the motive for blacks who murder whites even when the murder is obviously racially motivated comes from the same people who denied that the Islamist Nidal Hasan’s murder of 13 fellow soldiers at Fort Hood was religiously motivated. These people — all on the left — have an agenda: to deny black racism and Islamist-based violence whenever possible. Only white police and other white violence against non-whites is clearly racist — even when not.

    So, too, the mainstream media depicted the black murderer of eight white people at a Connecticut beer warehouse in 2010 as a man who had been angered by white racism, not as the white-hater he was. Under the headline “Troubles Preceded Connecticut Workplace Killing,” a New York Times article reported: “He might also have had cause to be angry: He had complained to his girlfriend of being racially harassed at work, the woman’s mother said, and lamented that his grievances had gone unaddressed.”

    And a Washington Post headline read: “Beer warehouse shooter long complained of racism.”

    The fact was that the man was fired for stealing beer from his workplace, and there was a video of him doing so.

    The left denies black racism in another way. When a white racist murdered nine blacks in a Charleston, S.C., church this past June, the left and the media correctly stressed the murderer’s racism. Indeed, whenever blacks are killed by whites — which, it is worth noting, is many times less likely than a white being murdered by a black — and especially by white police officers, the left attributes the killings to racism. But when blacks kill whites, the left attributes the killings to guns. This is all reinforced by the left’s position that only whites can be racist, because only the powerful can be racist, and whites have all the power.

    Parker’s grieving and enraged parents provide an example of this thinking. They have entirely ignored the racism of their daughter’s murderer and concentrated exclusively on the issue of gun control.

    How tragic that the Parkers would not channel their grief and rage into a different campaign, one that actually addresses the reason for their daughter’s murder and might prevent future murders: a campaign against the fomenting of anti-white hatred among black Americans.

    The left has been supplying both victimhood and lies to black America. The lies are that America is a racist society — as the president of the United States himself has said, racism is “still part of (America’s) DNA” — that the greatest problem facing young blacks is racism, and that white (and even black) police routinely kill blacks for no reason other than racism. One of the best examples of this lie is the left’s use of the word “Ferguson” as an example of white police killing innocent young black men. The extensive investigation into what actually happened in Ferguson (by both local authorities and the U.S. Department of Justice led by then-Attorney General Eric Holder) revealed no such thing. Yet even Obama continues to use the term “Ferguson” as an exemplar of police racism.

    Those lies in turn produce the anger-inducing victimhood that pervades too much of black life. Just this past weekend at the Minneapolis State Fair, a “Black Lives Matter” group chanted, “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.”

    Some blacks — as in Houston this past weekend and in Louisiana two weeks earlier when a black man murdered another white policeman — are taking this message literally and randomly murdering police officers. And some other blacks just want to kill whites, whether or not they are police. Such is the power of victimhood and lies.

    There is a lot of blood on the left’s hands. And there will be more.

Blood on their hands is not an exaggeration. It’s not hyperbole. It’s the simple truth.

Strong woman has advice for weak Republicans

“You know, if you just set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything, wouldn’t you, at any time? And you would achieve nothing!” —Margaret Thatcher

George W. Bush was a decent man who went to the White House with good intentions to “change the tone of politics in Washington.” He wanted to make it more civil. He thought he could do that by compromising with Democrats. He wanted the Beltway press core and the Democrat leadership to see that he could be bipartisan and fair.

Above all, he wanted everybody to see what a nice guy he was. He wanted them to like him. So much so, that in his first term he didn’t veto a single bill that came to his desk. We know how that worked out. Democrats and Beltway journalists didn’t want any part of what he was trying to sell. They hated him. They hated him the same way school children hate the victim of the bully. They were the bullies, and bullies never respect those who do not stand up to them.

You can never make a bully like you. You can never make him leave you alone by being nice to him. There is only one way to gain respect from a bully. You have to punch back twice as hard.

Police are trained for this. The call it “escalation of force principles.” It recognizes that you have to play by the rules of the aggressor. In every conflict, whether in politics, civil altercations or all out war, the aggressor makes the rules. The responder either accepts that or gets his butt kicked.

A perfect example of this principle can be seen in Obama’s negotiations with Iran. They cleaned his clock and he doesn’t even know what happened. Mitt Romney never went on the attack against Obama in 2012 even though there were a multitude of opportunities. Mitt Romney is a nice guy. We know what happens to nice guys, they lose ignominiously.

None of this means a nice guy has to become a jerk. He only has to respond appropriately and forcefully to the vicious tactics of his political opponents. In the “prisoners dilemma” game only the tit for tat responders win or hold position.

Carly Fiorina showed Republicans how to stand up to media bullies when she refused to allow Jake Tapper to put words in her mouth. He was surprised because he isn’t used to Republicans who won’t put up with his nonsense.

A little woman from the mother country understood all this perfectly. Carly Fiorina may have this savvy as well. Big strong men who don’t get it are doomed to defeat and disgrace.

When did freedom become a hard sell?

Each new generation is something like an invasion of barbarians. Each new generation has to be socialized. It has to learn to tolerate not just the different skin color of other people, but other people’s ideas, preferences and points of view. For some reason the current generation of college age men and women didn’t get socialized properly, and so they are hell bent on imposing their totalitarian proclivities on everyone else. Disagree with them and they’ll try to stuff a gag in your mouth and send you to sensitivity training to get your mind straight. Debate? Not allowed, just shut up. Have a discussion? You’re trying to hurt my feelings, you are a brute, I’m calling the speech police. The generation claiming to be so tolerant is the most malignantly intolerant. Liberalism is always and everywhere the exact opposite of everything it claims to be.

We’re being threatened my a new form of Lord of the Flies, a sissy-ninny kind. It’s just as dangerous. This generation of speech killers are too much like the bloodthirsty savage boys in William Golding’s novel. Dark forces lurk in their coddled minds. Parents and college administrators could be the naval officer that finally tames the feral adolescents, but they aren’t up to it. Instead, they’re egging the kids on.

Another view on Trump

Many attribute Donald Trump’s recent political ascendancy as a reaction to the elite establishment of the Republican party showing a distaste for conservatism and its own conservative voters. While it’s true that disaffected Republican voters are strong Trump supporters, as Peggy Noonan seems to have just now realized to her shock and amazement, Angelo Codevilla [Standing up to the ruling class and The Ruling Class: How they corrupted American and what we can do about it] has a different view based not on conservatism but recent turns in liberalism. In a statement attributed to him by Steven Hayward [I can’t find the actual Codevilla piece] Codevilla says:

I have a different explanation for ascendant Trumpism. It isn’t the result of conservatism but of liberalism. Thanks to unrelenting demands by the left for increasingly preposterous levels of political correctness over the past decade, people are simply fed up. Trump survives — nay, thrives! — because he is seen as the antidote, bravely and unimpeachably standing athwart political correctness. [emphasis added]

The new era of liberal political correctness — in which colleges designate “free speech zones,” words like “American” and “mother” are considered discriminatory, and children are suspended from school for firing make-believe weapons — has reached critical mass. If not for the loony sensitivities foisted upon us by the left, someone like Trump would be immediately dismissed as unprofessional and unserious, an incoherent blurter. Instead, he’s the equally extreme response to extreme correctness — if everything is offensive in Liberalville, then nothing will be offensive in Trumpland.

I like the idea of Trump as “standing athwart political correctness.” It’s reminiscent of William Buckley describing the mission statement of National Review November 19, 1955, “It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.

Republicans told voters they would stop Obama if voters gave them the Senate. In 2014 the voters gave Republicans the Senate because they want Obama stopped. But Republicans now, having gotten what they wanted from voters, have headed off in a different direction, forgetting all about the promises they made. The voters feel double crossed. They still want Obama stopped. Trump speaks to that.

Elite establishment Republicans are a curious lot. They wanted, they understood they needed, lots of people to vote for them in order to get what the wanted, which was to keep the House and retake the Senate. The voters delivered for them, gave them what they ask for. If the voters had not done that these elite bastards would not be running the Senate, and might not even still have the House.  A lot of the voters who did what Republicans ask are conservatives, and a lot of others were not conservatives. Not just a few were disaffected Democrats who had never before voted Republican. They all want the same thing; they want Obama stopped.

The number of conservative voters were enough to have denied victory to the Republicans if they had not voted last November. Yet these foggy-brained elite jackasses now want to rid conservatives from their party.  Jeb Bush infamously declaimed that he intends to win the Republican nomination without the Republican base voters, the conservatives that is.  He’ll do it, he thinks, by lapping up all the money rich Republican donors have to give.

Right now some of those donors are having second thoughts about supporting Jeb while he seems to remain near the bottom of recent polls.

Couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy, I’d say.

The Wisdom of Positive Non-Intervention

Another leader who created a world of plenty by governing like Calvin Coolidge was Sir John James Cowperwaite (1915-2006). Cowperwaite was financial secretary of Hong Kong from 1961-1971. He is known for his policy of “Positive Non-Intervention.” Nancy DeWolf Smith calls it “The Wisdom That Built Hong Kong’s Prosperity.”

For more of how doing nothing can be superior to doing something, see The Forgotten Depression 1921: The Crash That Cured Itself.

The Iran Deal — Déjà Vu all over again

Munich 1938 redux…

Barack Obama is not Neville Chamberlain…Chamberlain actually wanted peace, he just didn’t know how to get it.

The old, tired, exhausted party