The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
 Why Is Wage Growth So Slow?
by Brian Mark Weber
 Hurricane Irma and the Dubious Climate Change Link 
by Jordan Candler:  This weekend, Floridians will be bracing for another tropical impact just weeks after Hurricane Harvey hit Texas as a Category 4 storm. This week, Hurricane Irma solidified itself as the strongest hurricane to develop in the Atlantic (important note: this excludes the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean). At one point, the storm exhibited 185 m.p.h. sustained winds — easily Category 5 strength — and provided stunning satellite imagery of a structure more reminiscent of a Pacific super typhoon (ironically, the typically busy Pacific is currently without a single named storm). As of this writing, south Florida appears to be the virtually certain landfall destination, but several states over the South will feel its effects.
          To be clear, this is a dangerous weather pattern right now, and it demands the appropriate media coverage and preparation. Which is to say: If you’re in the path, leave. Sadly, though, this also means more climate hyperbole and sensationalism. Those under the impression that this late summer’s hurricane frenzy is unimaginable should think again. One reason it may seem so is because the U.S. has become accustomed to a fairly remarkable lull in strong landfalling hurricanes. Moreover, it’s September — the peak of the hurricane season. If strong hurricanes are going to develop in rapid succession, this is naturally when you would most expect to see them.
          Let’s juxtapose the current time period with the mid 1900s. Patriot Post contributor and meteorologist Joe Bastardi — who, by the way, worries that Irma hasn’t yet achieved its maximum intensity — addressed the question in a May column, “Is This Really the Worst Time Ever?” In the 1930s, eight major hurricanes (major is defined as Category 3 or higher) hit the U.S. From the 1940s up until 1960, a whopping 19 additional major storms made landfall over the U.S. Tally it all up, and over the span of just 28 years, 27 major hurricanes struck the U.S. Some of those storms went on to make multiple landfalls as a major hurricane. For example, Donna, in 1960, hit the U.S. three times as a Category 3 or higher. Florida was the predominant target in the ‘40s. Consider how a repeat of the 1930s-1950s would be interpreted today.
          We already have a clue: Irma — because of its strength — is being blamed on climate change. For example, Bloomberg, under the headline “Hurricane Irma Made Worse by Climate Change, Scientists Say,” claims: “Climate change didn’t cause Hurricane Irma, the most powerful storm to form in the open Atlantic Ocean, but did make it much stronger, scientists in Germany and the U.K. said.” And climate blowhard Bill “The Science Lie” Nye added, “It’s the strength that is almost certainly associated with global warming.”
          Perhaps then he’d like to explain why the U.S. went 12 years between major hurricane strikes? Was that also the result of climate change, or is it more accurately described as a cyclical outcome? As the Cato Institute’s Ross McKitrick writes in the Washington Examiner, the climate-link rhetoric unscrupulously allows scientists to have their cake and eat it too. “The climate alarmists offer a vague prediction: Hurricanes may or may not happen in any particular year, but when they do, they will be more intense than they would have been if GHG [greenhouse gas] levels were lower,” McKitrick notes. “This is a convenient prediction to make because we can never test it. It requires observing the behaviour of imaginary storms in an unobservable world. Good luck collecting the data.”
          Importantly, McKitrick adds, “Science needs to be concerned not only with conspicuous things that happened, but with things that conspicuously didn’t happen. Like the famous dog in the Sherlock Holmes story, the bark that doesn’t happen can be the most important of all.” In the days ahead, there will be heart-wrenching stories as Irma traverses the lower East Coast. But keep in mind, “You’re also talking about 2 of the most flood-prone cities in the U.S. — Miami & Charleston,” observes meteorologist Eric Fisher. “Both flood during full moons let alone storms.” Hurricanes, like any other weather event, require context.
          Climate records show not just similarly major hurricanes but an onslaught of them. The world is also much different today: bigger buildings and populations, as well as better technology and communication. And for the most part that’s a good thing. As Danish statistician and author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” Bjorn Lomborg writes, “Because we’re much richer and better protected, death rates from hurricanes in the US have declined dramatically. Even the 1800+ terrible deaths from Katrina in 2005 constitute more of an average hurricane risk in the early part of last century.”
          Unfortunately, these tools also give climate extortionists the perfect storm to spread climate rhetoric that erroneously links man-made emissions to tropical systems. Even most scientific establishments that adhere to man-made global warmism are hesitant to make that leap. Keep this in mind as you pray for and aid our beleaguered fellow Americans over the coming days. ~The Patriot Post
What is Fake News
{} ~ What is fake news? Is Donald Trump correct when he says CNN, The New York Times, and other mainstream outlets report fake news? Commentator and bestselling author Andrew Klavan explains... You’ve probably heard a lot of people recently screaming and yelling about Fake News. Charges fly from all points on the political spectrum: this story is mistaken — it’s Fake News; that statement is incorrect — it’s Fake News...
PLEASE Watch This Irma Damage Video Before You Decide To Disregard Calls To Evacuate
Steve Bannon 0n 60 Minutes: Slams Neo-Nazis, KKK and Defends Trump Message on Monuments
liar-nObama Com. Director Psaki: Dems Still Aren’t Listening To The People
Judge Napolitano: Lawsuit Against Pres. DACA Policy Is ‘Frivolous’
Mark Cuban: Trump’s Deal With Democrats Was Really Smart
Israeli Embassy Sends Aid To Hurricane Harvey Victims
Defectors Tell Horrifying Tales About North Korea
Does Condemning Islamic State
Jihadis Constitute "Hate Speech"?

ISIS atrocities
by Denis MacEoin
{} ~ On September 6, Robbie's face appeared across the British media, from the conservative Times to the leftist Independent, to the populist tabloids, the Express, the Mirror, the Daily Mail, and the Sun... Travers had been accused of hate speech and was being investigated by the university, who could well sanction him. What sort of "hate speech" was that? Well, in a nutshell, he had referred to the jihadist fighters of Islamic State (ISIS) -- who variously burns or drowns people alive in cages, and sometimes in acid, or kills 250 children in dough-kneaders -- as "barbarians." You did not read that wrongly. It is now "racist" and "Islamophobic" to insult or ridicule the world's most unspeakable terror gang, who, among other atrocities, behead innocent men, women and children, rape innocent women, and sell harmless women as sex slaves to grunting murderers and pedophiles...
Steve Bannon: McConnell and Ryan
are trying to “nullify” the 2016 election
by Allahpundit
{} ~ Well, yes, although when you peel the flashy overstatement from what Bannon says, all he’s doing is acknowledging the familiar ideological split within the GOP... You have a populist base represented by a mostly conservative caucus in Congress and a president whose instincts trend strongly nationalist on some matters (e.g., trade) but not so strongly on others. That’s a recipe for a lot of unhappiness on all fronts. What Bannon’s getting at here with the “nullify” language is a party conundrum: Should Ryan and McConnell dutifully carry out Trump’s agenda or should they press their own and seek accommodation somehow with the White House?...
Judge advances 'Muslim Mafia's'
case against U.S. terror-watch list
by Art Moore
{} ~ The Council on American-Islamic Relations, founded in Washington, D.C., by the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas, said Friday it defeated a motion filed by the federal government to dismiss the organization’s lawsuit... on behalf of 25 American Muslims challenging their placement on a terror watch list. The Muslims, mostly from Michigan, claim they were put on the Terror Screening Database of “known or suspected terrorists” without due process. Among CAIR’s complaints in the lawsuit are “invasive additional screening and prolonged detentions,” “the inability to conduct wire transfers,” “being treated as armed and dangerous by local law enforcement during routine traffic stops” and “the inability to obtain employment positions at airports.”...
 Why Is Wage Growth So Slow? 
by Brian Mark Weber:  The stock market is booming, unemployment is low, and consumer confidence is on the rise. In fact, a Bloomberg poll conducted over the summer revealed that workers “claimed their careers and financial dreams were improving — a number that tied for the record high in the poll’s four-year history — while a majority believed the stock market would continue its meteoric rise for the rest of the year.” Seems like the perfect environment for workers to put a little more money in their wallets, right?
          Unfortunately, wages aren’t increasing, and most workers are wondering why they still can’t make ends meet when all the economic indicators are moving in the right direction and President Donald Trump keeps touting the economy’s strength.
          Pinpointing the culprit for low wages isn’t easy. “Explanations for the falloff abound,” Robert VerBruggen writes in National Review. “Some say it’s a statistical artifact of one kind or another. Maybe the numbers are failing to capture the benefits of major technological gains that don’t cost a thing to the user (and thus produce no measurable ‘output’), such as Internet search engines. Maybe the data are thrown off by the increasing tendency of companies to stash profits overseas, removing them from the measured output of American workers. Maybe people are spending more time goofing off in the workplace, and their productivity during the time they actually work has gone up.”
          That is perhaps more guesswork than economic theory. To be fair, there’s no single factor resulting in stagnant wages. Of course, there are politicians who claim to know the cure, but most of them favor bigger government programs, higher taxes on the rich, and a higher minimum wage. But none of these solutions is going to produce real wage increases over the long-term. Taking money from one group of Americans and giving to another sounds appealing to the masses, but it’s not a proven way to boost wages across the board.
          VerBruggen continues, “Some economists point to the automation of routine tasks (which is to say, the substitution of capital for labor). Others point out that in developed countries, globalization typically takes the form of offshoring the most labor-intensive tasks. Further possibilities include massive accumulation of capital by the wealthy (the view of lefty superstar economist Thomas Piketty); a fall in investment prices, making capital more attractive relative to labor; and the declining bargaining power of workers thanks to the demise of unions and the consolidation of major industries.”
          Hot Air’s Jazz Shaw has some interesting theories as well. Shaw suggests that when prospective employees “go in for the interview and the prospective employer offers you $16 dollars per hour instead of the $25 you were expecting, there’s a fairly good chance you’ll take it because it’s still a lot better than unemployment checks.” In fact, he argues, “If you try to push them too hard for more money there are others out there who will likely take it.” Possibly, but decades of relatively stagnant wages surely can’t be the result of interviewees being too shy to ask for big bucks.
          Another possible cause of wage sluggishness relates to the impact of social networks. Sure, making business connections is important, but today’s young workers are more likely to network than in previous generations, so it’s hard to believe that workers have suddenly abandoned the importance of making connections with prospective employers. And while having connections is a good way to land a job, it doesn’t guarantee a high salary.
         All these explanations are interesting and worth exploring, and they probably play some role, but there has to be more than social theory to explain what’s happening. What’s interesting is that few experts mention the tremendous growth in the size and scope of the federal government in the past 50 years. Certainly, the proliferation of policies, codes and mandates is costly to businesses both large and small. Maybe full- and part-time workers would enjoy higher wages if their employers didn’t have to hand over so much money to Uncle Sam before cutting their employees’ checks.
          Clearly, solving this problem will require the type of political will and unity that we haven’t seen from Congress. Fortunately, we’re enjoying a strong economy in the first year of the Trump administration, so maybe the businessman-turned-president’s policies can help boost wages for American workers. 
~The Patriot Post

Views: 15


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center


Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester


Romney Handed Shock
Defeat By Own State’s GOP

Mitt Romney is back in state politics, this time in Utah instead of Massachusetts. However, conservatives in The Beehive State aren’t exactly warming up to the 2012 Republican standard-bearer quite the way many people expected they would.

After finishing second in votes at the state GOP convention, Romney will now face a primary in his run for the Senate seat being vacated by Orrin Hatch, Fox News reported.

At the convention in West Valley City on Saturday, Romney polled just behind state lawmaker Mike Kennedy.

Kennedy captured 50.18 percent of the delegate vote compared to Romney’s 49.12 percent.

That means the two will face off in a primary on June 26 to determine who will represent the GOP this fall.

Romney, the first Mormon to head a major party ticket, is considered an extremely popular figure in Utah and was widely expected to have an easy path to the upper chamber.

In a hypothetical matchup with Democrat Jenny Wilson, at least one poll showed Romney up by 46 percent. That’s, uh, slightly more than the margin of error.

However, among party loyalists, Romney isn’t exactly viewed with unalloyed fondness.

The 2012 presidential nominee was always known for being decidedly moderate, particularly on issues of immigration and global trade. There was also the fact that he ran a campaign so bumbling that it almost made Michael Dukakis look good.

And then there was Romney’s war of words with Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, which likely led many to perceive he secretly wished Hillary Clinton would take the Oval Office.

Trump would later consider Romney as a secretary of state pick, although how serious the president-elect was about appointing him is something we’ll likely never know.

While your average Utah Republican is unlikely to let these slights affect their vote, hardcore party activists probably don’t want another RINO who isn’t exactly known for his rapport with the president in the upper chamber of Congress, no matter how famous he may be.

For his part, Romney tried to put a good spin on the humiliation.

“I’m delighted with the outcome. Did very, very well,” he told KSTU. “On to a good, important primary ahead. This is terrific for the people of Utah.”

Dude, you just lost to a guy nobody has ever heard of. However, Kennedy was happy with the results, and unlike Romney, he had good reason to be.

“I’m a candidate with a compelling life story and a unique set of life circumstances I’d like to use to serve the people of Utah,” Kennedy said.

I have no idea what that story or those circumstances are, but I think the key point here is that he’s not Mitt Romney. If he wants to win, that’s pretty much what he should be focusing on. I can see the billboards now. “Mike Kennedy: Not Mitt Romney.” “Mike Kennedy: He didn’t borrow Ward Cleaver’s haircut.” “Mike Kennedy: Because Utah deserves a senator whose favorite food isn’t buttered noodles.”

Utah’s electorate tends to be less conservative than convention-goers, so it’s unlikely that Romney won’t be the GOP nominee for Senate. However, that’s not a 100 percent certainty — and it wouldn’t be the first time he’s lost to a Kennedy.

What do you think?


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service