Transparency Rides Again

More of that famous Democrat Party “transparency” on display. 🙂

Reporters covering the House Democrats’ retreat in Philadelphia this week are having a much different experience than when they’re on their home turf on Capitol Hill. 

Reporters are being escorted to and from the restroom and lobby and are being barred from entering the hotel outside of scheduled events, even if they’ve been invited by a member of Congress. 

During Vice President Joe Biden’s remarks at the retreat Friday, reporters were required to have a staff member, usually a junior member of the press team, escort them when going to the bathroom or to the lobby. The filing center for reporters was at a separate hotel from where the retreat was taking place, so access was limited to members of Congress specifically made available to the press.

“It was a police state. It was absurd how heavy handed the capitol police and Democratic staff were in trying to control everywhere the press went,” New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters said in an interview.

Peters said at one point he was also barred from entering the hotel where the retreat was taking place, despite the fact he had an invitation to eat breakfast with a member of Congress.

“I was an invited guest into this hotel, into the restaurant of the hotel. The staff from the Democratic caucus refused to let me into the hotel, and the Capitol Police told me to leave, even after the congressman went to them and said ‘no, he is my invited guest,'” Peters said. 

Peters said he was told by a staffer they were being escorted to prevent them from talking to members of Congress.

OMG! NOT THAT ANYTHING BUT THAT! THAT WOULD LEAD TO THE END OF THE WORLD FOR SURE!!

At a press conference with Democratic leadership, Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) said they were not aware reporters were being followed.

“We were not aware they were following you. We had to have the security in the hotel that we were in because it was expected by Capitol Police that we would be secure. This hotel, where the press was located, we did not have those types of requirements. If you want to give me some names, I’m willing to talk to them. That was not at the direction of the caucus,” Becerra said.

The incident is reminiscent of the Clinton Global Initiative conference in September, where reporters were being escorted by staff right up to the bathroom stall. (Politico)

And what’s ultimately hilarious about this is that this is the Press that has been bending over backwards to kiss The Left’s ass and cover up all their dirty laundry for years.

The Lapdog is put on lease and sent to the doghouse.

Now, that’s funny. 🙂

Vice President Joe Biden told Democrats that, “To state the obvious, the past six years have been really, really hard for this country.”

“And they’ve been really tough for our party. Just ask [former DCCC chair] Steve [Israel]. They’ve been really tough for our party. And together we made some really, really tough decisions — decisions that weren’t at all popular, hard to explain,” said Biden.

So they didn’t bother to explain them, they just crammed them down your throat and had the Press call you “racist” or “extremist”  if you objected (and the Press obliged willingly).

Only in Amerika! 🙂  God Bless, Crazy Uncle Joe…

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

A Stale Cuban

Soon after President Obama announced plans to normalize relations with Cuba, Sen. Marco Rubio called him the worst negotiator since Jimmy Carter. Cuban officials are now proving Rubio right.

As soon as Obama made his announcement, it became clear he’d pretty much given up the store and gotten nothing in return.

Cuba didn’t have to make any concessions on freedom of speech, democratic elections, a market economy. It didn’t have to turn over U.S. fugitives, including a convicted cop killer, whom it’s been protecting for years.

Indeed, as we noted in this space after Obama’s announcement, Raul Castro was soon bragging about how he’d struck a deal with Obama “without a single sacrifice of our principles.”

Castro apparently feels no need to do so in the future, either. After the opening round of talks, Cuban diplomat Josefina Vidal told the AP that “changes in Cuba aren’t negotiable.”

Now, to add insult to injury, Castro has started issuing his own set of demands.

In a speech at the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States summit in Costa Rica on Wednesday, he said there’d be no normalization of relations unless the U.S. ends the trade embargo, closes the naval base at Guantanamo Bay and takes Cuba off the list of state sponsors of terror.

Oh, and he also wants the U.S. to stop allowing Cubans to stay in this country just because they manage to set foot on American soil. That’s been causing a brain drain from the island, you see.

Castro has even told Obama what to do, saying in his speech the president should “use with resolve his broad executive powers to substantially change the scope of the blockade, even without the Congress’ decision.”

Why shouldn’t Castro be so brazen? Obama has already shown his hand. So Castro knows he can keep upping the bid, assuming — most likely correctly — that Obama will do anything to keep the normalization process from folding.

If this were the only time Obama has miserably failed at the bargaining table, it would be bad enough. But it’s just the latest in an continuing and ominous pattern — from his dealings with Iran, his prisoner exchange with the Taliban, his phony “red line” in Syria, his “reset” with Russia, etc.

Come to think of it, saying Obama is the worst negotiator since Jimmy Carter is actually an insult to Carter.

Carter also at least pretended to not be anti-Semitic. 🙂

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

A Message to Global Warming Alarmists

I was laughing my ass of by the end of this one. 🙂

Got this message yesterday from a very concerned climate change alarmist:

Hi Matt, I read you sometimes but I generally find you to be an assh*le. Just being honest. I also think you have a reputation (or you’d like to think you have a reputation) as someone who isn’t afraid to “tell it like it is,” but I think you haven’t earned that. Actually you are very afraid to challenge any republican talking point so you stick to the script on everything. I guess it’s more important to be invited to the parties than to tell the truth.

I’m wondering if you have the guts to address something and actually force your right wing readers to think for themselves. I’m getting really tired of seeing these idiots on Facebook who every time it gets cold or snows start gloating about how it “proves” there is no climate change. You’ve never outed yourself as a climate denier, and I know you like to consider yourself a logical person, so I’m hoping this is one area where you differ from your cohorts. These morons need to be put in their place. Colder temperatures and blizzards ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE SCIENTIFIC MODEL FOR CLIMATE CHANGE. This is why I could never be a republican. I can’t be a part of a group of anti-science climate deniers who would kill this planet if they were given free reign. Prove you’re really “controversial,” Matt, and call your people to task here.

-JM

Hi JM,

I agree with you. Honestly, I never addressed it because I never knew it was such a pervasive problem. But now that you’ve called my attention to it, allow me to be the first to say that climate deniers are lunatics. I’ll take it a step further than you even did, JM, and submit that climate deniers should be banned from teaching, voted out of office, and probably fired from any other job they might hold. Seriously, I can’t hardly believe that anyone could be so foolish and so delusional as to be a climate denier.

I mean, to deny the existence of the climate? That’s madness. The word “climate” means “the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region.” The word “deny” means “to refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disown; disavow; repudiate.” Anyone who rejects or repudiates the existence of weather conditions ought to be scolded and shunned and possibly institutionalized. We all must stand up against these menaces!

Luckily, upon closer inspection, I see that no such view actually exists anywhere in our society. This is just a label you people fabricated because left wing environmentalists are reflexively disingenuous about everything. “Climate denier” may in fact be the most ludicrous assemblage of two words ever concocted by mankind. But it’s not much better than the slightly more specific “climate change denier,” (used in a sentence: “liberal college professors think climate change deniers should be put in prison“) because, despite these marvelous straw men left wingers take so much time building, nobody in the world denies the fact of climate change. If anyone is a climate change denier — that is, someone who denies that climates change — I’d agree that he is an imbecile and probably mentally unstable.

Yet that view doesn’t exist because we all know the climate changes. Of course the climate changes. It’s a climate. That’s what climates do. They change. It gets colder, it gets hotter, it rains, it snows, it does all kinds of things. I don’t deny that, and although I’m not a Republican and I take great exception to that accusation, I feel safe in speaking for them when I say that they neither deny the fact of the climate, nor the fact that the climate changes. Progressives use labels like “climate denier” or “climate skeptic” (for the people who are willing to believe that there might be a climate, but are still a little iffy on the whole thing) because they are not interested in an honest discussion. You either buy in to their environmental dogma one hundred percent, or you will be painted as an idiot, an infidel, and a maniac.

Now, why might a person be skeptical about the theory that humans are causing dramatic shifts to the climate, and that these shifts will eventually kill us all? Have you ever thought about why someone might have these reservations, JM? Have you really taken the time to consider the reasons for this skepticism? Yeah, they’re morons, right, I get it, but have you determined that they’re morons because the media and people on Twitter told you they’re morons, or because you gave their case a fair hearing and came away with the impression that they have absolutely nothing even slightly coherent to say? I’m guessing it’s more the former, which makes you not necessarily a moron yourself, but an intellectually lazy chump who can be easily herded and exploited.

But since you broached the subject, I’m hoping today will be perhaps the first day in your life when you listen to a point of view before deciding to disqualify it.

So, why do so many people have trouble falling in line with the Climate Change Doomsday Cult (CCDC)? Let’s start with history. Just going back through the past few decades, according to left wing environmentalists we should all be dead from an Ice Age, and after that it was a nuclear winter, and after that it was overpopulation. Sprinkle in the various fits of hysteria about how we’re going to run out of oil and end up back living in caves, or run out of rain forest and suffocate to death, or run out of food, or run out of water, or run out of ozone, and you see how people might grow wary of the CCDC’s constant hand wringing about some kind of apocalypse (side note: “Some Kind of Apocalypse” would be a great name for a band). We should have perished 12 times over at this point. There were at least three different global annihilations that should have arrived before the year 2000, and another several since then. We should be starving, sick with radiation poisoning, unable to breathe, freezing from the sub zero temperatures, melting from the scorching heat, and causing entire landmasses to literally tip over due to the excess population. But we’re still here.

Some of these theories, like overpopulation and the Ice Age, have been thoroughly debunked and disproved. Others have simply been abandoned for trendier causes. But in all of these cases, the prophets of doom reaped profits from the doom, while slimy politicians used the hysteria as a means to tax, regulate, and control. Excuse us, JM, but are you really saying that after so many failed and erroneous predictions, we shouldn’t even raise an eyebrow when the very same people come back with yet another one?

Left Wing Environmentalists: Watch out everyone, this is going to kill you!

Everyone: Oh no! What do we do?

LWE: Quick pay more taxes!

Everyone: OK, here you go!

LWE: Just kidding. That probably won’t kill you, but this will!

Everyone: AHHHH!

LWE: No, OK, not that. But this!

Everyone: Dear Lord, help us!

LWE: Alright, never mind, we dodged that bullet. But this new thing will definitely wipe us out!

Everyone: We’re so afraid!

LWE: Scratch that. It’s this. This will do it!

Everyone: Uh, OK, we’re starting to get a little skeptical –

LWE: WHY DO YOU HATE SCIENCE?

How many times do they have to be wrong before our skepticism might be considered reasonable? Because that’s what this is about. Skepticism. You’re saying, just as most progressives say, that it’s “anti-science” to even be skeptical of climate alarmism, which is to say that the prevailing climate theory of the day should be believed regardless of how believable it is. This is the very definition of an unscientific attitude. It’s religious zealotry. Nothing more, nothing less.

Our history lesson isn’t over. Not long ago, nobody talked about climate change — instead it was global warming. If you can recall the year 2007, way back in the distant past, you might remember when Al Gore received a Nobel Peace prize for narrating a science fiction documentary and mentioned in his acceptance speech that the North Polar ice cap would completely melt by the year 2013. But then the year 2013 rolled around, and the Arctic had actually increased in mass by about 60 percent. Man, that’s embarrassing.

Indeed, you wouldn’t expect global warming to melt the ice caps considering the globe hasn’t warmed since about 1997. In other words, by the time Gore jumped on the global warming gravy train, global warming hadn’t been a thing for about a decade. Today, we’re about 219 months and counting since the last time the aggregate temperatures on Earth rose by any statistically significant amount.

What happened next? Well, the same thing that always happens. Progressives repackaged, rebranded, renamed, and came up with a few new marketing tricks. Suddenly, global warming became climate change, and man made climate change is as undeniable as man made global warming, even though global warming didn’t exist.

It was a smart move, though. Progressives realized that global warming — like the Ice Age, or overpopulation, or a nuclear winter — is just too specific. They needed something that could never be truly debunked because, no matter what happens, whatever happens proves them right. Hence, climate change.

“The climate is changing because of people!”

How do you know?

“Because it’s changing!”

Yeah, but–

“Look! It just changed again!”

They came up with a theory that can be validated by any turn of events, which means it can’t be validated by any turn of events. They’ve formulated not that one plus one equals two, or even that one plus one equals four, but that one plus one equals infinity.

Want to see something funny? Here’s a National Geographic headline from September of 2014:

Human-Caused Climate Change Worsened Heat Waves in 2013

Now, here’s one from yesterday:

Blizzard of Nor’Easters No Surprise, Thanks to Climate Change

One theory, two opposite results, both proof of the theory. Does that make sense, JM? Can you, at a minimum, understand why some of us look at that and think “hmmmm”?

On a related note, the subheading under that blizzard article is pretty hysterical: “More extreme storms are expected to fall on the Northeast as climate changes.”

Oh, as the climate changes sometimes snow happens, you say? Yes, it’s called winter in the north east. It’s been this way for a while now, National Geographic. Why are you so surprised that it snowed in Buffalo in January? Aren’t you people supposed to be nature experts?

Want more from Matt Walsh?

It’s all so ridiculous, JM. And we haven’t even really gotten to dissecting the actual science here.

As far as that goes, I admit I’m not a scientist, though I suspect neither are you, and neither are most of the people who participate in this debate on either side. Still, even us lowly citizens can know a few things. For instance, we can know that the climate on this planet has changed wildly over the course of its existence. It’s had tropical periods and icy periods and everything in between, and the vast majority of all of that came before the Industrial Age. In fact, human beings have only been industrialized for a tiny fraction of human history, and we’ve been driving cars for an even tinier fraction. We can know, therefore, that temperatures and weather conditions have swung dramatically from one side of the spectrum to the other and back again, and, from a historical perspective, when comparing 200 years of industrialization to the 4 billion years the Earth’s been around, almost all of the warming and cooling happened before any factory was ever built.

We can also know that our CO2 emmissions are dwarfed by the immense amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by natural (and evil, likely Republican) sources like oceans and vegetation.

We can further know that the Sun — which is big enough to eat a million Earths, and hot enough to make you burst into flames from millions of miles away — really calls the shots in our solar system. If we’re searching for “global warming” culprits, we might want to look at that 27,000,000 degree ball of gas in the sky.

And we can even more confidently know that if human CO2 emissions are a primary driver of global temperatures, it wouldn’t make sense for temperatures to drop or stay stagnate while humanity only continues to increase its CO2 output. But that’s exactly what’s happened. I can know that, and I can know that something doesn’t make sense here. And I can know all of that without being a “scientist.”

Speaking of scientists, it’s probably not worth mentioning at this point that there isn’t any real 97 percent consensus on climate change in the scientific community. That oft-cited figure is based on faulty methodology, cherry picked findings, misleading questions, and misinterpreted results. What do scientists really think? Well, a good number of them are just as skeptical as me check  here, and here, and here for example. .

Even the people who believe in man made climate change don’t really believe it. That’s why so few of you folks are actively adjusting your lifestyle in any substantive way. I mean, if you think that the Earth itself is on the verge of a destruction brought upon by human beings and our technology, wouldn’t you clothe yourself in a loin cloth stitched from foliage and run off into the wilderness, living in a hollowed-out tree and subsisting on wild edibles? If you possess the conviction that the planet itself will die if humanity does not make dramatic changes, wouldn’t you begin by making those dramatic changes yourself? But you don’t. Maybe you buy a hybrid, maybe you put a “Save the Earth” bumper sticker on it, maybe you turn your heat down at night, but when it comes down to it, leftwing environmentalists continue on living the same way we all do. They drive around, buy things, watch TV, fly on airplanes, eat at restaurants. They sermonize about the end times but that’s all it is — a sermon. At least other religious cults put their money where their mouth is. You guys use a lot of dramatic language, but do nothing.

So where does that leave us? With, you might say, a few reasons to be have some doubt. But I realize this isn’t about “reasons” for you, it’s about faith. And far be it for me to attack your religion.

Thanks for writing.

-Matt

(Matt Walsh)

AMEN! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

CBO Projections

Health Reform: The Congressional Budget Office now says ObamaCare will push 10 million off employer-based coverage, a tenfold increase from its initial projection. The “keep your plan” lie just gets bigger and bigger.

The latest CBO report is supposed to be a big win for the Obama administration because the projected costs are 20% below what the CBO first projected in 2010.

But the CBO report also shows that ObamaCare will be far more disruptive to the employer-based insurance market, while being far less effective at cutting the ranks of the uninsured, than promised.

Thanks to ObamaCare, the CBO now expects that 10 million workers will lose their employer-based coverage by 2021.

This finding stands in sharp contrast to earlier CBO projections, which at one point suggested ObamaCare would increase the number of people getting coverage through work, at least in its early years.

The budget office has, in fact, increased the number it says will lose workplace coverage every year since 2011.

The latest CBO finding also thoroughly debunks the many promises ObamaCare backers made when selling the law — about how those with work-based coverage had nothing to worry about.

Well, since they lied about everything else, why would this be a surprise?

ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber, for example, said the law was specifically designed “to leave those who are happy with their employer-sponsored insurance alone.”

Then Washington Post reporter Ezra Klein reassured readers that “for most companies … there’s little reason to expect their behavior will change.”

The White House insisted that “respected independent analysts have concluded that the number of Americans who get their health insurance at work will not change in a significant way.”

Obama endlessly repeated his iron-clad guarantee that those who liked their plans could keep them.

And those who suggested at the time that employers might take advantage of ObamaCare to offload their health costs onto taxpayers by dumping workers into the government exchanges were told to read those now-discredited CBO reports.

At the same time CBO was upping ObamaCare’s impact on work-based insurance, it’s been downgrading the impact on the uninsured.

The CBO now says ObamaCare will leave 31 million uninsured after more than a decade, up from its 23 million forecast made in 2011.

Put another way, the CBO promised that ObamaCare would cover 60% of the uninsured.

Now it says the program will cover less than half, despite spending $2 trillion to subsidize premiums and expand Medicaid.

Does anyone really believe that if Obama announced a plan to spend $2 trillion on a program that would leave 31 million uninsured and force 10 million workers off their employer-based insurance, that even Democrats would have voted for it?

Yes, they would because the end justifies the means and the Agenda is The Agenda. Period.

They’d just lie about it. Oh right, that’s how they did it the last time… 🙂

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

$50,000 Boondoggle-Surprise!

It will cost the federal government – taxpayers, that is – $50,000 for every person who gets health insurance under the Obamacare law, the Congressional Budget Office revealed on Monday.

The number comes from figures buried in a 15-page section of the nonpartisan organization’s new ten-year budget outlook. 

The best-case scenario described by the CBO would result in ‘between 24 million and 27 million’ fewer Americans being uninsured in 2025, compared to the year before the Affordable Care Act took effect.

Pulling that off will cost Uncle Sam about $1.35 trillion – or $50,000 per head.

The numbers are daunting: It will take $1.993 trillion, a number that looks like $1,993,000,000,000, to provide insurance subsidies to poor and middle-class Americans, and to pay for a massive expansion of Medicaid and CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) costs.

Offsetting that massive outlay will be $643 billion in new taxes, penalties and fees related to the Obamacare law.

That revenue includes quickly escalating penalties – or ‘taxes,’ as the U.S. Supreme Court described them – on people who resist Washington’s command to buy medical insurance.

It also includes income from a controversial medical device tax, which some Republicans predict will be eliminated in the next two years.

If they’re right, Obamacare’s per-person cost would be even higher.

President Barack Obama pledged to members of Congress in 2009, as his signature insurance overhaul law was being hotly debated, that ‘the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years.’

He lied. Gee, what a shock that is!!

It would be a significant discount if the White House could return to that number today.

In that same speech, Obama claimed that there were ‘more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.’

$900 billion spent on those people would equate to no more than $30,000 each – less than two-thirds of what the CBO now says the program will cost when the dust settles. 

The CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation, a group of members from both houses of Congress, prepared Monday’s report on the overall direction of the federal budget.

They estimated that ‘the net costs of the coverage provisions of the ACA [Affordable Care Act] will rise sharply as the effects of the act phase in from 2015 through 2017.’

Those costs will ‘rise steadily through 2022′ before leveling off for three years, the groups’ economists determined. But even at that point, the Obamacare program will cost the governemnt ‘about $145 billion’ each year.

That number doesn’t include the insurance premiums and out-of-pocket health care costs paid by Americans – only the government’s role in implementing the law and paying for its guarantees.

And the law will still leave ‘between 29 million and 31 million’ nonelderly Americans without medical insurance, says the CBO.

See, the scam worked. They got socialized medicine and it do anyone any good but it made THEM feel good and they got to control your life! What could be better? 🙂

(Mission Impossible TV Theme): “Good morning Mr. Gruber.  Your mission, should you decide/choose to accept it is to lie your ass off about ObamaCare’s costs and to make sure the CBO gives us a favorable rating no matter what… As always, should you or any of your team be caught or have their lies revealed; the Ministry of Truth will disavow any knowledge of your actions. This tape will self destruct in 5/10 seconds. Good luck Jonathan.”

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

 Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel


A Twist in The Usual Tale

Now this is a little twist in the usual Gay Rights Mafia story…

DENVER (AP) — A dispute over a cake in Colorado raises a new question about gay rights and religious freedom: If bakers can be fined for refusing to serve married gay couples, can they also be punished for declining to make a cake with anti-gay statements?

A baker in suburban Denver who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding is fighting a legal order requiring him to serve gay couples even though he argued that would violate his religious beliefs.

But now a separate case puts a twist in the debate over discrimination in public businesses, and it underscores the tensions that can arise when religious freedom intersects with a growing acceptance of gay couples.

Marjorie Silva, owner of Denver’s Azucar Bakery, is facing a complaint from a customer alleging she discriminated against his religious beliefs.

According to Silva, the man who visited last year wanted a Bible-shaped cake, which she agreed to make. Just as they were getting ready to complete the order, Silva said the man showed her a piece of paper with hateful words about gays that he wanted written on the cake. He also wanted the cake to have two men holding hands and an X on top of them, Silva said.

She said she would make the cake, but declined to write his suggested messages on the cake, telling him she would give him icing and a pastry bag so he could write the words himself. Silva said the customer didn’t want that.

“It’s just horrible. It doesn’t matter if, you know, if you’re Catholic, or Jewish, or Christian, if I’m gay or not gay or whatever,” said Silva, 40, adding that she has made cakes regularly for all religious occasions. “We should all be loving each other. I mean there’s no reason to discriminate.”

Discrimination complaints to Colorado’s Civil Rights Division, which is reviewing the matter, are confidential. Silva said she would honor the division’s policy and would not share the correspondence she has received from state officials on the case. KUSA-TV reported the complainant is Bill Jack of Castle Rock, a bedroom community south of Denver.

In a statement to the television station, Jack said he believes he “was discriminated against by the bakery based on my creed.”

“As a result, I filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division. Out of respect for the process, I will wait for the director to release his findings before making further comments.”

Jack did not respond to emails from The Associated Press seeking comment. No one answered the door at the address listed for Jack in Castle Rock.

The case comes as Republicans in Colorado’s Legislature talk about changing the state law requiring that businesses serve gays in the wake of a series of incidents where religious business owners rejected orders to celebrate gay weddings. Republican Sen. Kevin Lundberg said the new case shows a “clash of values” and argued Colorado’s public accommodation law is not working.

“The state shouldn’t come in and say to the individual businessman, ‘You must violate your religious — and I’ll say religious-slash-moral convictions. This baker (Silva), thought that was a violation of their moral convictions. The other baker, which we all know very well because of all the stories, clearly that was a violation of their religious convictions,” Lundberg said.

But gay rights advocates say there is a significant difference in the cases. Silva refused to put specific words on a cake while Jack Phillips, the baker who turned away the gay couple, refused to make any wedding cake for them in principle.

“There’s no law that says that a cake-maker has to write obscenities in the cake just because the customer wants it,” said Mark Silverstein, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Colorado.

Phillips’ attorneys had argued in court that requiring him to prepare a gay marriage cake would be akin to forcing a black baker to prepare a cake with a white supremacist message. But administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer disagreed, writing that business owners can refuse a specific message, but not service.

“In both cases, it is the explicit, unmistakable, offensive message that the bakers are asked to put on the cake that gives rise to the bakers’ free speech right to refuse,” administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said.

Phillips’ attorney, Nicolle Martin, said she has sympathy for Silva, arguing she is in the same category as her client. “I absolutely support her right to decline,” Martin said. “I support her right as an American to pick and choose the messages she will express.”

Silva said she remains shaken up by the incident. “I really think I should be the one putting the complaint against him, because he has a very discriminating message,” she said.

So I’ll give the final word to a couple of Leftist commenters: You pathetic, fear-based conservatives are absurdly ignorant. You should all return to the caves of Neanderthals and live out your pathetic lives with each other, trembling in fear, alone, apart and away from those of us progressing in the light of truth and wisdom.

Christian people are the most negative and racist people I know!!!!!

And that folks is “enlightenment”. 🙂

 

 

Swiss Cheese

Far be it for us to criticize those who create great wealth, but we’re probably not alone in our disgust at the preening and pontificating by billionaires who think they should tell us how to live.

We’re talking, of course, about the annual confab at Davos, Switzerland, 5,120 feet up in the Swiss Alps, presumably high enough to give the 40 heads of state and 2,500 billionaires, businessmen, CEOs, rock stars, assorted royals and politicians at least a metaphorical view of the whole world.

Are you sure we shouldn’t add an “r” in that city name and just call it Davros (as in the creator of the Daleks in “Doctor Who”). 🙂

Davos was once a semi-serious event dedicated to business executives gathering to talk about common problems and how to solve them.

But it’s turned into a preachy, weeklong exercise in excess, during which the same people who flew 1,700 private jets to attend — yes, someone counted them — lecture the rest of us about the importance of cutting back on our carbon footprints and other things.

“Decision makers meeting in Davos must focus on ways to reduce climate risk while building more efficient, cleaner and lower-carbon economies,” Mexico’s former President Felipe Calderon told USA Today.

“The purpose,” said former vice president and climate-change entrepreneur Al Gore, standing with hip-hop star Pharrell Williams, “is to have a billion voices with one message, to demand climate action now.”

You mean billion dollar voices! 🙂 The little guy who’s going to be screwed by you doesn’t matter. AS billion here a billion there… 🙂

OK, so how about you flying commercial, for a start?

Well, they are too important for that. After all, they are not peasants.

This year’s ration of ridiculousness and hypocrisy is so prominent, even the media have noticed.

It’s pretty obvious that people who can pay $40,000 to attend Davos and fork over $43 for a hot dog, $47 for a burger or $55 for a Caesar salad — all actual prices at this year’s World Economic Forum — would seem to be in a poor position to lecture the rest of us.

Only $47 for a burger, gee, I would have thought with all the high end ingredients I’m sure they had that’s a bargain. 🙂

A London restaurant claims to have created the world’s most expensive burger, embellished with gold leaf, lobster and caviar. The wagyu beef and venison dish, priced at £1,100 (Google).

Now that’s a burger for an elitist!

Even so, Bloomberg highlights remarks by subprime mortgage billionaire Jeffrey Greene that “America’s lifestyle expectations are far too high and need to be adjusted so we have less things and a smaller, better existence. We need to reinvent our whole system of life.”

Greene, according to Bloomberg, “flew his wife, children and two nannies on a private jet plane to Davos for the week.” How’s that for “less things”? His remarks are more than a little ironic, given one of the main themes of Davos this year: “Income inequality,” or getting the rich to pay their “fair share.”

So these billionaires will share their wealth right? 🙂

Then there’s that pesky gender gap, another major topic — at a conference where women make up just 17% of all attendees.

Increasingly, it seems, some think their wealth entitles them to run our lives instead of their businesses.

Well, if their Liberals as well as billionaires…god help us all!

Here’s some modest advice for the CEOs at Davos: Have fun and, by all means, learn something. But, please, get off your moral soapboxes. You’ll do far more for the economy and benefit far more people by building strong, innovative businesses with growing profits than by attending a thousand Swiss soirees. (IBD)

But that doesn’t “feel” as good and we know that for Liberals it’s all about “feelings”.


Michael Ramirez Cartoon