Green Doh!

D’oh! Bernie Sanders’ Climate Change Agenda Would Actually Increase Carbon Emissions ‘Dramatically’

Sen. Bernie Sanders is a green warrior. That much is clear, but his environmental agenda would be an absolute disaster…for those in the climate change camp. For starters, he wants to tackle natural gas and nuclear power. Nuclear power is responsible for 20 percent of America’s energy. Remove that from the equation with no equitable alternative that could meet the former’s energy needs, and you have to resort to resources that already have an extensive infrastructure. That would be coal—the boogeyman of the environmental left. Foreign Policy delved into Sanders’ paradoxical energy policy and how it has been applied elsewhere in the world, which experienced the same results: higher carbon emissions.

Wouldn’t those proposals drive the country back to coal and oil, and actually undermine your fight against global warming?” Errol Louis, one of the debate moderators, asked Sanders during Thursday’s [April 14] debate in Brooklyn, New York.“No, they wouldn’t,” Sanders shot back. He called for a massive increase in the use of renewable energy, especially solar power, and said that if the United States took the climate threat as seriously as it did the Nazis in World War II, the country could in a few years radically transform its entire energy system.


Third Way crunched the numbers and found that getting rid of nuclear power means U.S. carbon emissions would “go up dramatically,” and in the worst-case scenario, could “wipe out a decade’s worth of progress” and return U.S. carbon emissions to levels last seen in 2005. That’s because retired nuclear plants would almost always be replaced by natural gas or coal. Freed said that when the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant was shuttered in 2014, the electricity shortfall was largely made up by burning more coal.

It’s a question that bedevils countries around the world. Germany is phasing out nuclear power as part of its ambitious energy transition, and is betting it can power one of the world’s biggest economies largely with renewable energy. But Germany’s greenhouse-gas emissions rose in the years after the phaseout was reaffirmed in 2011.

Japan shut down all of its nuclear plants after the 2011 meltdown at Fukushima. What made up the electricity shortfall? Crude oil, natural gas, and coal, which together make it a lot harder for Japan to reach its emissions targets.

So, in some odd way, if you’re a coal worker, you might want to Sanders to beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination and go on to win in the general because coal is the only alternative if President Bernie decides to axe natural gas and nuclear power. At the same time, the fact that coal and crude oil would be the only secondary protocols to make up for the energy shortfalls due to Sanders’ uber-left green agenda shows how inefficient alternative energy truly is–and why the country should focus on the energy resources, where the United States is (in some sectors) unrivaled in terms of supply. That would be coal, oil, and natural gas. This country is built on those three energy resources, and coal is burning cleaner than ever before. Maybe that’s why it’s looked to, as the future for our energy needs since the world is packed with it (via Wired):

Nowhere is the preeminence of coal more apparent than in the planet’s fastest-growing, most populous region: Asia, especially China. In the past few decades, China has lifted several hundred million people out of destitution—arguably history’s biggest, fastest rise in human well-being. That advance couldn’t have happened without industrialization, and that industrialization couldn’t have happened without coal. More than three-quarters of China’s electricity comes from coal, including the power for the giant electronic plants where iPhones are assembled. More coal goes to heating millions of homes, to smelting steel (China produces nearly half the world’s steel), and to baking limestone to make cement (China provides almost half the world’s cement). In its frantic quest to develop, China burns almost as much coal as the rest of the world put together—a fact that makes climatologists shudder.[…]

GreenGen is one of the world’s most advanced attempts to develop a technology known as carbon capture and storage. Conceptually speaking, CCS is simple: Industries burn just as much coal as before but remove all the pollutants. In addition to scrubbing out ash and soot, now standard practice at many big plants, they separate out the carbon dioxide and pump it underground, where it can be stored for thousands of years.

Many energy and climate researchers believe that CCS is vital to avoiding a climate catastrophe. Because it could allow the globe to keep burning its most abundant fuel source while drastically reducing carbon dioxide and soot, it may be more important—though much less publicized—than any renewable-energy technology for decades to come. No less than Steven Chu, the Nobel-winning physicist who was US secretary of energy until last year, has declared CCS essential. “I don’t see how we go forward without it,” he says.

Long live coal, Bernie.

Told You So

Richard Berman,

As I recently noted, the “expert economists” who support a $15 minimum wage aren’t really experts. Some aren’t even economists.

It makes California’s decision to adopt a $15 minimum wage floor all the more scary. The wage hike not only threatens the jobs of the state’s entry-level employees, but also does so on faulty logic—if any at all.

Don’t just take my word for it. Ask the liberal economists whose concerns about a $15 minimum wage were recently documented in Vox of all places.

Alan Krueger, who co-authored Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage (the formative text on wage-hiking), balked at such a drastic jump:

“A $15-an-hour national minimum wage would put us in uncharted waters, and risk undesirable and unintended consequences,” wrote Alan Krueger, who has served as an economic adviser in the Obama administration, last October. Krueger supports raising the national minimum to $12 per hour, and he acknowledged that some cities and states might be able to absorb a $15-per-hour minimum wage. But he argued that a $15 minimum is “beyond international experience, and could well be counterproductive.”

And the kicker quote came from Arindrajit Dube, who has rejected the economic principle that higher labor costs result in fewer jobs (i.e. Economics 101):

“If you’re risk-averse, this would not be the scale at which to try things.”

So we should definitely stop at $15, right? Well, not so fast. Wage activists in Oakland have now introduced the “$20 in 2020” campaign, exploiting California’s Fight for $15 to keep moving the goalposts. In their words, “It’s time for $15/hr to become the floor demand of those who seek a livable wage, not a future ceiling. It’s time to push the boundaries of what is thinkable—and hence doable—further.”

So you get the next step. As I have said, once the “fight for $15” was over they would be moving on to the step and within 10 years would be calling $15 and hour a slave wage. Well…

$20 is the new $15! $20 in 2020!

These are not just good catchphrases; they’ve become a local ballot initiative.

The doubters thought powerful business interests would derail the highest minimum wage in the country from passing by voter initiative in Oakland, CA in 2014. They were wrong. A $12.25(1) measure passed overwhelmingly with more than 80% in favor.

The doubters thought $15/hr was a pipe dream. They were wrong. Cities like Seattle, WA, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Emeryville, CA made it a future reality. And this coming November the entire of State of California will vote for $15/hr by 2021 – right now it seems very likely to pass.

But in cities with housing crises, where median rent for a one bedroom apartment would consume every bit of a $12.25/hr wage, and 80% of a $15/hr wage, a promise of $15/hr some years down the road is not enough.

Average Rents by State

Darker colors indicate higher average rents. This map is based on prices gathered within the last 30 days. ( The Darker the color the higher the rest.

NOTICE THAT THE TWO of The 3 HIGHEST STATES, California & New York are run into the ground by Liberals and it’s here were this all starts. With the People’s Republic of Taxsachusetts in 3rd. Not in Montana…The Liberals have, yet again, done it to themselves and want you to pay for it.

Map of rents in the United States

To put it another way, in the immortal words of MeatLoaf

I never knew so many bad times
Could follow me so mercilessly
It’s almost surreal
All the pain that I feel
The future ain’t what it used to be

Thanks largely to Liberals, by the way… 🙂

The Fight for $15 is alliterative, alluring and awesome. But it has had the effect of creating the perception that a $15/hr min wage is a ceiling: thus far and no more.

It’s time to do away with that perception. And what better place to begin changing a meme than the city which passed this country’s highest minimum wage in a grassroots campaign with no support from its elected officials? (

But facts be darned, wage activists will keep asking for more. The question isn’t, “When will they stop?” It’s “How do we stop them?”


Climate Hustle

climate hustle

Without presenting it to the US Senate, as required by the Constitution, President Obama has signed the Paris climate treaty.

He is the King after all, his word is Law. 🙂

He is already using it to further obligate the United States to slash its fossil fuel use, carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth … control our lives, livelihoods, living standards and liberties … and redistribute our wealth. Poor, minority and working class families will suffer most.

But they will be made to “feel” good about their gruel and the Holy Warriors of The Church of Human Climate Control will be sanctified as you cook your roast beast over a pile of broken dreams and hopes.

China, India and other developing economies are under no such obligation, unless and until it is in their interest to do so. For them, compliance is voluntary – and they cannot afford to eliminate the fossil fuels that supply 85% of all global energy, generate some 90% of developing nations’ electricity, and will lift billions of people out of abject poverty. That’s why these countries have built over 1,000 coal-fired power plants and are planning to build 2,300 more – while unaccountable EPA bureaucrats are shutting down US coal-fired generators, and getting ready to block natural gas production and use.

What if the entire foundation for this energy and economic insanity were erroneous, groundless, fabricated … a climate con job – a Climate Hustle?

That is exactly what CFACT’s new movie demonstrates is actually going on.

Climate Hustle is the perfect antidote to the destructive, demoralizing climate alarmism that dominates political decisions and obsesses the Obama White House and EPA. You owe it to yourself to see it.

It’s coming to a theater near you on Monday, May 2, for a special one-night engagement.

I saw Climate Hustle April 14, at its U.S. premiere on Capitol Hill in Washington. The film is informative and entertaining, pointed and humorous. As meteorologist Anthony Watts says, it is wickedly effective in its using slapstick humor and the words and deeds of climate alarmists to make you laugh at them.

It examines the science on both sides of the issue … presents often hilarious planetary Armageddon prophecies of Al Gore, Leonard Nimoy and other doomsayers … and lets 30 scientists and other experts expose the climate scares and scams, explain Real World climate science, and delve deeply into the politics and media hype that have surrounded this issue since it was first concocted several decades ago

Sizzling temperatures. Melting ice caps. Destructive hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts. Disappearing polar bears. The end of civilization as we know it! The end of Planet Earth!

Emissions from our power plants, cars, factories and farms are causing catastrophic climate change!

Or are they? Is there really a “97% scientific consensus” on this? Or is “dangerous manmade climate change” merely the greatest overheated environmentalist con-job and shell game ever devised to advance the Big Green anti-energy agenda?

See this amazing film on May 2, and find out for yourself. To learn where it’s showing near you, and to buy tickets, visit

You’ll be glad you did.

Climate Hustle is hosted by award-winning investigative journalist Marc Morano. A former communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Morano is publisher of CFACT’s The film is a production of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and CDR Communications. See the movie. Bring your friends. Make it a party.

Break Point

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”–Josef Goebels.

It’s annoying to be lied to, even if you get paid to be lied to, but being lied to is merely an insult. The liar thinks you’re stupid enough to fall for it. That’s annoying, but you can get over being insulted, particularly if you make a suggestion like “Save your lies for your idiot pals back at the coffee shop,” or note that “Maybe you hang out with a lot of morons at Gumbo State University’s School of Oppression Studies, but you need to stop talking to me before I slug you in the goatee.” And then you are done.

But if they can make you lie, then they are on the way to breaking you.

And that’s what today’s liberals seek to do to us, the decent, the employable, the normal. In a move that stunned America, Vox recently ran a long piece that made sense. It was titled The Smug Style in American Liberalism and it took the left to task for its utterly baseless conviction that it is morally and intellectually superior to the people who actually built, supported and defended this country. Though the author can’t bring himself to actually contradict any liberal scripture, its point is that liberals, for reasons which defy all evidence and experience, are convinced that they are smart and we are dumb. But the article also fails to fully explore progressives’ psychotic need to force us normals to bend to their will.

They want to break us, to make us love Big Brother. As the socialists knew (the real socialists, not the Fairness Gnomes and Equality Elves of the collective imagination of the Bernie Boobs), one of the most powerful means of control and domination is to humiliate and demoralize your opponents by forcing them to deny the truth. Hence the left’s fixation on enforcing political correctness and its use as a tool to force us to bend to the libs’ collectivist collective will by making us repeat obvious untruths.

It’s not unlike the comrades in the old USSR who sang songs about the glories of socialism, hailing the stunning success of the latest five year plan but then returning to their cold, cramped quarters to wash down their stale bread ration with retina-risking black market vodka that Ivan from Medium Industrial Equipment Factory No. 27 distilled in the radiator of his VAZ-2101. By making you lie about the wonders of Bernie’s honeymoon destination in contrast to the squalid objective reality before your eyes, you became complicit in the Soviets’ regime of lies.

And leftist lies are all around us here today. Today, truth-telling is a revolutionary act of insurgency. So let’s fight the power.

No, all men are not rapists. And no, there is no such thing as rape culture. One in five college students isn’t raped at college, and no, regretting six months and one gender studies seminar later that you eagerly suggested double-teaming a couple of TKEs after swilling a pint of Jack Daniels isn’t rape either. Just ask Haven Monaghan. Now try to go say that on some campus.

What they call “climate change” this week is a lie. The Earth is not getting significantly warmer because of human activity, nor are the ice caps melting and the polar bears and cuddly little penguins dying.

“Renewable” energy is technologically and economically unviable. Tesla’s don’t run on electricity; they run on fossil fuels that gets burned to create electricity. The climate scam is just the latest way for leftists to pry more of our money and sovereignty from us, like the ice age scam, the acid rain scam and the ozone hole scam.

But you better not say so. John Oliver might demolish you in an epic takedown on that show no one watches that comes on after Veep.

Of course, sometimes liberals’ sanctions are more like rewards. All we have to do to keep Michael Moore at bay, to ward off wizened hacks like Springsteen and to avoid Pearl Jams’ tiresome wailings is state the obvious truth that if you were born with a penis, you’re a man? Count me in.

Look, we feel terrible about your very real feelings that you aren’t the sex you are, and we don’t want to add to your pain, but the truth is the truth and we are not cruel or terrible or inaccurate when we refuse to pretend a delusion is reality. You can dope yourself with chemicals and submit to surgical mutilation, but there are things called chromosomes and they make the call. Chromosomes fall into the category of something called “science” – you know, that thing you libs say we conservatives hate when we refuse to believe Bill Nye when he frets that a three day heat wave in Phoenix foretells a fiery global apocalypse? Regardless, our wives and daughters are not going to endure creepy pervs – we’re really mostly worried about skeevy straight men pretending to be trans so they can get their jollies lurking in women’s toilets – so that we can somehow prove ourselves compliant with a God-free liberal moral code that encourages us to shout ever more eagerly that the Emperor’s new clothes are fabulous.

Crime is caused by criminals, and despite what we learned on Law and Order, the perp is rarely if ever the born again Christian businessman.

No, you shouldn’t be proud to be an unemployed high school dropout with four kids by five different fathers.

Yes, far too many illegals come here not to work but to commit crimes. You could ask Kate Steinle about that, but she’s dead.

There. Those are objective truths, but objective truth is irrelevant to the left. They need you to lie because when you lie you hand them power. And if you refuse to lie, if you try and rely on the fact that the facts support a different conclusion, then you will be hounded and persecuted. But if they can make you lie, then they have broken you.

Oh well. So we have a fight ahead of us, a fight pitting lies against truth, and comfort against our self-respect. So let’s fight. (Kurt Schlichter)

Grammatically Correct

Correcting grammatical errors is typically a function of a racial “power imbalance” used to silence minorities who a “struggling” to have their voices heard, according to a journalist at communist bastion The Guardian.

“Grammar snobs are patronizing, pretentious, and just plain wrong,” claims Mona Chalabi, before touching on how rules and standards for the use of language tend to evolve over time.

Chalabi then advances the neo-Marxist narrative of power discrepancies between groups, casting “older, wealthier, whiter” persons as neo-Kulaks. Those with poorer grammar, it is implied, belong to a neo-proletariat in need of benevolent protection from enlightened bourgeois socialites such as journalists employed by The Guardian.

“It doesn’t take much to see the power imbalance when it comes to grammar snobbery. The people pointing out he mistakes are more likely to be older, wealthier, whiter, or just plain academic than the people they’re treating with condescension. All too often, it’s a way to silence people, and that’s particularly offensive when it’s someone who might already be struggling to speak up,” concludes Chalabi.

Judging by her recent work, it appears that Chalabi fancies herself well-informed on American politics. She operates as a go-to source for news and analysis about the 2016 presidential election for The Guardian’s readership.

Currently working on a documentary entitled “Is Britain Racist?”, Chalabi is investigating today’s most pressing issues facing the U.K.

Everyday Feminism:

And the last place that we need grammar snobbery is in social justice movements.

And not just because getting hung up on the correct use of homonyms or subject-predicate agreement is distracting to the job at hand, but also because purporting one form of English as elite is inherently oppressive.…it’s important to note that any time we create a hierarchy by positioning one thing as “better” than another, we’re being oppressive.

As educated (and – okay – snarky) activists, we’re quick to respond to “According to the dictionary” arguments with “Who wrote the dictionary, though?”

We understand that a reference guide created by a white supremacist, heteropatriarchal system does nothing but uphold that status quo.

Similarly, we have to use that line of thinking when talking about the English language: Who created the rules? And who benefits from them?

If you were lucky enough to have parents around who read to you, to go to a Head Start program, to finish school, to go to college, to have enough time and passion to read books for pleasure, that’s fantastic.

But in the words of the late, great Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.: “All [semi-colons] do is show you’ve been to college.”

It was a privilege. And you can’t lose sight of that….that the use of “standard” English is considered a very white attribute.

To people who aren’t white, there’s such a thing as “sounding white.”

But that’s not racist (saying it ‘Sounds White’ as opposed to ‘Sounds Black/Hispanic which is racist) 🙂

But hears something to agree to (sort of): The truth of the matter is that some people experience an affected ability to receive and process information, which creates unique challenges to the learning process that cannot be waved away with a snobby “atrocious grammar” comment.

Naw, that the mental disorder known as LIBERALISM. It’s infectious. It’s Destructive.It will rot your mind into goo. It can get you killed.

Now that’s a problem worth expounding on. 🙂



MIT atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen cuts through all noise from politicians, media hacks and leftist activists to present the true facts of climate change in Prager University’s latest video.

Lindzen explains that there are three categories for people in the climate change debate: scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, scientists who are climate skeptics, and those who are politicians, journalists and environmentalist activists.

In the first group, scientists believe that the emission of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels will result in the planet heating toward dangerously high levels. The second group features scientists such as Lindzen, who understand that there are numerous factors involved with the planet’s climate–including the sun, clouds and Earth’s gravitational orbit–and there is no evidence to substantiate the first group’s claim that carbon dioxide is the key factor that influences the climate. However, Lindzen points out that the two groups agree on more than meets the eye:

  • The climate constantly changes.
  • Some degree of warming will occur with the emission of carbon dioxide, but without it there would be no life on Earth.
  • Carbon dioxide levels have risen since the 19th century.
  • The average global temperature has risen by one degree celsius between 1800 and 2000, but man’s carbon emissions have played a role since the 1960’s.
  • A “confident prediction” about the average global temperature cannot be made.
  • Fossil fuel use will not result in armaggeddon.

The problem is that the third group of politicians, media hacks and environmentalist activists have incited an atmosphere of doom and panic among the public over climate change.

“Global warming alarmism provides them, more than any other issue, with the things they most want,” Lindzen said. “For politicians, it’s money and power. For environmentalists, it’s money for their organizations and confirmation of their near-religious devotion to the idea that man is a destructive force acting upon nature. And for the media, it’s ideology, money and headlines. Doomsday scenarios sell.”

The climate change hysteria has opened the floodgates for scientists outside of the realm climate physics to write papers blaming climate change for just about anything, including acne, and lobbyists have taken advantage of the hysteria by clamoring for green-energy subsidies from the federal government.

“Unfortunately, group three is winning the argument because they have drowned out the serious debate that should be going on,” Lindzen said. “But while politicians, environmentalists and media types can waste a lot of money and scare a lot of people, they won’t be able to bury the truth. The climate will have the final word on that.”


More Equal Than Others

Todd Starnes:

The left has always had great admiration for the conscientious objector. I know something about that because I was a kid in the late 60s and early 70s when the Vietnam War was being fought. Some people refused to serve in the war because of their deeply held religious beliefs. To those on the right they were cowards. To those on the left they were heroes. As the son of a military officer I got one side of the story. As a student in the public schools I got the other.

I got neither. But the war was long over by the time I got that age. No, I had high school  in age of Carter instead.

My teachers did their best to convince me there was legitimacy in refusing military service due to deeply held religious beliefs. They had their work cut out for them given that I grew up hearing war stories as child. One grandfather was in World War I. Another was in World War II. As a child I could not imagine why someone would refuse to serve in a war due to reasons of religion. I simply could not imagine a basis for incompatibility between patriotism and religious belief.

To top it off, there was always the prospect of fraud. For those who were simply afraid to serve there was a powerful motivation to lie about one’s religious and moral convictions. How could the state adequately distinguish between those claims that had legitimacy and those that were fraudulent?

Just a few years ago, I had a chance to exercise my rights as a conscientious objector in a very different context. A friend was getting married to a woman with whom he had an extramarital affair. Put simply, he stole a man’s wife. Then he followed the misdeed with years of unrepentant sex with her outside of marriage. Eventually, he decided to marry her. And he invited me to attend the wedding.

Just prior to the wedding, my friend joked about how his bride would be so drunk at the wedding that she would likely trip and fall on the way down the aisle. My friend thought it was funny. I didn’t think it was funny. So I declined the invitation to attend his wedding. It was an easy decision although it cost me his friendship.

As a believer, how could I have done anything differently? I sincerely believed that the wedding like the relationship itself was an utter mockery of a godly institution. Surely, no true liberal would argue that I should be forced to attend. A true liberal would respect my claim as a conscientious objector.

Thankfully, the friend who invited me to his wedding did not also ask me to play my guitar during the wedding. I played at scores of weddings when I was earning my living as a professional guitarist in the 1990s. But, make no mistake: Had he invited me to perform I would have had to refuse to provide my services based on my deeply held moral and religious view that the ceremony was not God honoring.

But would a true liberal still respect my claim as a conscientious objector under the scenario where I had refused to provide services rather than merely declined an invitation to attend? Of course he would.


The refusal to provide a paid service would not render my conscientious objector claim less credible or less principled. In fact, the opposite would be true. Moreover, I would have a vastly superior moral claim than one who refuses military service as a conscientious objector. And here is the crucial moral difference:

The one who refuses to serve in the military often does so because he wants to preserve his life. The one who refuses to provide a paid service does so despite the fact that it adversely affects his livelihood.

So tell me again which of these two acts is more principled than the other? And please explain how the left could arrive at the conclusion that refusing to serve in war is an act of valor while refusing to serve at a wedding is an act of evil.

Surely even the most hardened leftist recognizes that I simply could not have been forced to perform at my friend’s traditional wedding. And if he supports equality he would be forced to arrive at the same conclusion had I refused to perform at a same-sex wedding on the basis of moral objections.


Of course, there is no need to alter the moral reasoning for those who serve weddings by baking cakes, arranging flowers, or taking pictures – as opposed to strumming a guitar. The same principles I’ve articulated apply equally to all. At least they should.

Unfortunately, the point that I am driving home reveals something sinister about this whole national conversation over LGBT rights. It is simply undeniable that this debate no longer has anything to do with coherent principles of fairness and equality. The new sexual revolutionaries have discarded those concepts altogether.

Furthermore, it is patently obvious that the left does not really support the idea of freedom of conscience. Their apparent support is never based upon principle. It is always contingent on whether they agree with the objections being expressed. This is the current reality of political warfare:

All objectors are equal. But some objectors are more equal than others.

So if your objection is to THEIR Agenda, then you’re either a) a Bigot or b) a Racist and alternatively, you can also be a “sexist” if you’re a man and they are a Liberal woman, like Queen Hillary.

Either way, you are the lowest form of human cretin and far beneath their contempt for disagreeing with them. To them you can’t be a conscientious objector because you obviously have no conscience.

When, in fact, it is they who have no conscience.

You just have to do whatever the Rainbow Shirts say, when they say it, and because they said it.

End of Discussion.


The Exclusivity of Inclusiveness has struck again. You are a bigot if you don’t stand up and cheer for Penis’s in Women’s Restrooms!

Target's rainbow bullseye logo

Everyone deserves to feel like they belong. And you’ll always be accepted, respected and welcomed at Target. (Target Press Release)

Especially, Men who want to be woman and whip out the penis in from of your little cherubs. Makes me want to purchase a wig and a dress and walking to the Women’s Bathroom. 🙂

The Leftists at Think Progress are happy so you should be happy (or else!): This is the latest from a company that just six years ago was weathering a boycott from LGBT activists over its political donations. Target endured a severe backlash after donating $150,000 in 2010 to MN Forward, a fund that was supporting the gubernatorial campaign of Tom Emmer, an outspoken opponent of LGBT rights. Then-CEO Gregg Steinhafel apologized for the donation, promising to “take a leadership role” in promoting corporate diversity and inclusion. In 2013, however, Target was still supporting anti-LGBT candidates, donating $50,000 to the Republican Governors Association, which was heavily supporting the campaigns of Ken Cuccinelli (R) in Virginia and Chris Christie (R) in New Jersey, among other anti-LGBT candidates.

Target has nevertheless made strides toward embracing the LGBT community. A month after the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act in 2012, Target ran national ads welcoming same-sex couples to choose the store for their wedding registries. They have also regularly embraced Pride Month celebrations, selling various rainbow-themed items and apparel every year. The company also recently stopped separating its toys and bedding into “boys” and “girls” categories.

By joining companies like PayPal and others resisting laws that target the LGBT community and transgender people in particular, Target is taking a leadership role that’s a far cry from apologizing for its anti-LGBT giving.

They are paying penance for their sins against The Rainbow Shirts.

The world is a better place now that can I put on a dress and a wig and walk freely into Target’s bathroom without fear of reprisal.

You will comply or else!

Life is good.

Life is good.racist bigot

personal beliefs




The Sanctimony Tour Continues

2016’s hottest Concert Ticket, “The Sanctimony Tour” where you sell tickets to a concert then cancel it because of “deeply held” Personal beliefs that everyone in North Carolina is a bigot and you get your Sanctimony on!

personal beliefs

Pearl Jam has cancelled their upcoming show in Raleigh, North Carolina to protest the newly-passed “bathroom bill.” The band was scheduled to play on Wednesday.

A statement released to the band’s website said they were “frustrated” by the situation and they hope to return to North Carolina one day.

It is with deep consideration and much regret that we must cancel the Raleigh show in North Carolina on April 20th.

This will be upsetting to those who have tickets and you can be assured that we are equally frustrated by the situation.

The HB2 law that was recently passed is a despicable piece of legislation that encourages discrimination against an entire group of American citizens. The practical implications are expansive and its negative impact upon basic human rights is profound. We want America to be a place where no one can be turned away from a business because of who they love or fired from their job for who they are.

It is for this reason that we must take a stand against prejudice, along with other artists and businesses, and join those in North Carolina who are working to oppose HB2 and repair what is currently unacceptable.

We have communicated with local groups and will be providing them with funds to help facilitate progress on this issue.

In the meantime we will be watching with hope and waiting in line for a time when we can return.

Perhaps even celebrate.

With immense gratitude for your understanding,

Pearl Jam

Bruce Springsteen, Bryan Adams, and Cirque Du Soleil have also canceled performances in protest to laws concerning LGBT rights. In contrast, British band Mumford and Sons decided to perform in North Carolina and donate the profits to an LGBT charity. So did Cindy Lauper.

When will the cheap, taudry, politically correct Sanctimony end?

When they control everyone and everything at all times. Then  you won’t even be allowed to think anything else.


The Spiral Deepens

It was all too predictable. So predictable in fact that it was either complete ignorance or completely ideological. With Liberals it could be both.

Adverse Selection said it was inevitable.

Health insurance companies are amplifying their warnings about the financial sustainability of the ObamaCare marketplaces as they seek approval for premium increases next year. Insurers say they are losing money on their ObamaCare plans at a rapid rate, and some have begun to talk about dropping out of the marketplaces altogether. “Something has to give,” said Larry Levitt, an expert on the health law at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “Either insurers will drop out or insurers will raise premiums.” While analysts expect the market to stabilize once premiums rise and more young, healthy people sign up, some observers have not ruled out the possibility of a collapse of the market, known in insurance parlance as a “death spiral.” In the short term, there is a growing likelihood that insurers will push for substantial premium increases, creating a political problem for Democrats in an election year. Insurers have been pounding the drum about problems with ObamaCare pricing.

a new study by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association provides some answers.The study, released on March 30, found that people who enrolled in BCBS after the Affordable Care Act became law had higher rates of disease than those who’d been enrolled before ObamaCare took effect, suggesting insurers indeed are taking on higher-risk and higher-cost patients. Their costs are rising, along with premiums in general.

The study claims to represent “a comprehensive, in-depth study of actual medical claims among those enrolled.” Blue Cross Blue Shield represents more patients in the health insurance exchanges than any other insurer.

The study found:

  • New enrollees in individual health plans in 2014 and 2015 had higher rates of hypertension, diabetes, depression, coronary artery disease, HIV and Hepatitis C than those enrolled before ObamaCare.
  • New enrollees received significantly more medical care, on average, than those with individual or employer-based plans.
  • New enrollees had more inpatient admissions, outpatient visits, prescriptions filled and emergency room visits.
  • Medical costs for new members were, on average, 19 percent higher than for employer-based members in 2014, and 22 percent higher last year. Average monthly medical spending for those newly enrolled members also rose at a higher rate in that period.

“The findings underscore the need for all of us in the health care system, and newly insured consumers, to work together to make sure that people get the right health care service in the right care setting and at the right time,” said Alissa Fox, senior vice president for BCBSA, in a press release.

A report from Freedom Partners earlier this year showed premiums on the individual market are rising by double digits in most states. (FOX)

The “death spiral” begins churning downward when young, healthy people decline to sign up for expensive plans, leaving older, sicker consumers as a disproportionate percentage of health market risk pools. When insurers incur additional losses as a result, they try to compensate by raising rates further (or withdraw from the marketplaces altogether), driving even more of the “desired” consumers away. The problem compounds itself until the risk pools collapse. Given Obamacare’s the worse-than-expected enrollment figures and much-discussed warnings from major insurers, a slow death spiral is by no means out of the question. The article says that analysts expect the market “to stabilize” when rates increase and more young people sign up. But the former is likely to serve as a major deterrent to the latter.  More:

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association released a widely publicized report last month that said new enrollees under ObamaCare had 22 percent higher medical costs than people who received coverage from employers. And a report from McKinsey & Company found that in the individual market, which includes the ObamaCare marketplaces, insurers lost money in 41 states in 2014, and were only profitable in 9 states. “We continue to have serious concerns about the sustainability of the public exchanges,” Mark Bertolini, the CEO of Aetna, said in February. The Aetna CEO noted concerns about the “risk pool,” which refers to the balance of healthy and sick enrollees in a plan. The makeup of the ObamaCare risk pools has been sicker and costlier than insurers hoped. The clearest remedy for the losses is for insurers to raise premiums, perhaps by large amounts — something Republicans have long warned would happen under the healthcare law, known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA). “The industry is clearly setting the stage for bigger premium increases in 2017,” said Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Unstable risk pools and soaring rates (and out of pocket costs). Who could have seen this coming? Aside, that is, from virtually every single Obamacare critic in America — who have been consistently vindicated by events.  The “Affordable” Care Act at work, America.  Send your thank you notes to President Obama…and Hillary Clinton.  Philip Klein was right: Obamacare is off to a very rough start in 2016, and it appears to be getting worse. (Guy Benson)

But I have said since the beginning of this blog in 2009 that it was DESIGNED to fail so that the Government could step in and “save everyone” from the evils of capitalism. Mind you they gave it more than shove- more like a galactic DUI and then a 2X4 to the head the size of Texas. All by design.

You have to kill the patient, before you can save it. 🙂



Pied Piper

It seems impossible, but there may be some common ground between the people who support Donald Trump, the people who support Ted Cruz, and the person who supports John Kasich. And it’s all thanks to socialism’s cryptkeeper Bernie Sanders and his band of whiny deadbeats. Their obnoxious demands that we give them the money we’ve worked for in order to subsidize their sanctimonious indolence demands our short, clear, united response – which begins with the letter “F.”

Like a Pied Piper leading idiots instead of rats – rats are more useful than college students and often cleaner – the Sanders movement is dedicated to the principle that “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine because I want it.”

Also, do as I say, not as I have done or do. Just shut up and bow to your Sanctimonious Superiors, you “racist”, “bigot”.

It’s not enough that we paid for our own college. Now we have to pay for theirs too. Why? Because it would be super convenient for them to not have to actually work for what they want.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. And the NEED you do everything they want, when they  want, because they want. No questions asked. It’s so much easier if you just do as you are told.

It’s so much easier just to take from others instead of making tough choices like, “Do I go $100K in debt majoring in Venezuelan Transgender Literature of the 17th Century and try to pay it off fetching lattes, or do I apprentice with a plumber and pull down $100K a year?” But, of course, plumbing requires actual work – hard work – and in their circles it’s just not cool to work with your hands instead of merely spouting off through your craft beer-hole.

Pontification is the Left’s prime directive. And you are required to not only listen, but follow their righteous commands.

However, while the world can go on without analyses of novels by Latin American she-males, even hipsters are always going to need help flushing away that used kale.

And Hillary, with her unerring ability to choose poorly in politics, is trying to follow along. Someday maybe someone can make a movie about this festival of progressive fascism called Commie and Commier.

I thought it was already done. Called “1984”. 🙂

If you want a preview of America after these tools take charge, take a look at a university. Roll this around in your head for a minute: Someone wrote the name of the leading candidate in one of the two major parties on a sidewalk in chalk, and the administration acceded to the students’ demand to send the police after the culprits. 

Dissenting voices are not allowed, you micro-aggressive cisgendered “racist”/”bigot”.

Bruce Springsteen is acting from deeply held personal beliefs. But if you have one that opposes them, well, you’re just a “bigot”.

Now that’s Amerika, for ya. 🙂

Now, this would be something you would expect in the Soviet Union, where that shambling hunk of human waste Sanders spent his honeymoon – yeah, these people drool over a guy who kissed the collective rear of a regime that murdered tens of millions of victims. But this is – or was, until Obama got into power – America. Not only do they support the idea of prosecuting people for expressing unapproved opinions about political candidates – the Citizen’s United case rejected the notion you could jail people for criticizing Hillary Clinton – but in the one area of society where they have total control they are literally doing it.

And The Left considers that decision evil only because it made “corporations people” and they can influence elections again (unlike the Unions who have been doing it for generations). But now that corporations are kow-towing to them or run by Them, their ok with THOSE companies being people. Everyone else is still evil.

So it’s not enough that we have to give up what we worked for to give them food, medicine and a fake education (In Transgender Cultural Studies). We also have to give up our right to speak freely.

Well, we’re all bigots and racists so why would anyone want to listen to that? 🙂

In the Animal Farm world they dream of, they are crashed out in the farmer’s house taking bong hits and we’re Boxer the horse toiling ceaselessly for their benefit. We’ve all heard Sanders’ limp legions talking about how they are morally entitled take our money – and it is our money they’re talking about since everyone knows there aren’t enough rich people to steal from to satisfy their greed – but has anyone ever heard any of them say anything like, “And I will do my part by working harder and making better life choices”?

Yeah, right. Sanders is not telling the workers of the world to unite and lose their chains. No, he wants us actual workers in chains, doing the work society needs done but that his supporters won’t stoop to do. He’s promising a bunch of upper middle class college students the chance to be a perpetually subsidized new nomenklatura, not to eliminate the ruling class but to replace it with themselves. 

Homo Superior Liberalis.

Those of us fighting it out in the GOP primary may feel like we can’t agree on anything, but when you step back a minute and look at where we really stand, it’s pretty clear that we feel the same way about a lot of important things. We all actually love America – the Bernie Bros don’t. They can’t even utter the word without affixing to it a bunch of adjectives like “racist,” “sexist” and “homophobic.” They’ll tell you like the “idea of an America that could be” which, of course, looks nothing like the America that the Constitution describes. Their America is one where we work and they sit back and feed off our labor while bossing us around. It’s one where they talk and we listen because our speech will be regulated and curtailed. It’s one where every weirdo, loser and mutation from around the globe jumps to the head of the line in front of us, the very people who built and fought for this country.

And it’s one that is never going to be, largely because we have all the guns and they have all the White Stripes albums on vinyl. (Kurt Schlichter)

Unless the GOP commits suicide or kills itself by circular firing squad.

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Radical Solution

It’s been more than six months since Rowan County clerk Kim Davis was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to both gay and straight couples, but she scored a major victory in the fight this week.

Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin on Wednesday signed a bill that removes the names of county clerks from the state marriage license forms. Thus, for Christians like Davis, issuing a license to a gay couple will no longer carry the same sort of approbation it once did.

At the time, Davis said “to issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience.”

An apostolic Christian, Davis began denying couples the documents after the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same sex ‘marriage.’

Senate Bill 216, signed by Republican Governor Matt Bevin, also creates a single form that either heterosexual or same-sex couples can use. Applicants can choose between being called bride, groom or spouse.

“We now have a single form that accommodates all concerns. Everyone benefits from this common sense legislation,” Bevin told Reuters in an emailed statement. “There is no additional cost or work required by our county clerks. They are now able to fully follow the law without being forced to compromise their religious liberty.”

The marriage license dilemma now has “statutory finality” Bevin said on Wednesday.

I’m sure the Left will not be happy, no matter what.

LA Times: Kentucky’s governor has made a series of executive orders in an effort to reshape state government along conservative ideological lines, including one that removes county clerks’ names from marriage licenses, granting the request of Kim Davis, who drew national attention for refusing to grant licenses to same-sex couples.

But caving in to the Bullies on the Left is “right” and “fair” and “compassionate”. 🙂

“I don’t see how the governor, on his own, can eliminate the clerks’ names from these forms,” Fayette County Clerk Don Blevins said. “I would imagine a lawsuit will be filed.”

How Dare you use our own Executive Order tactic to get around us!! That’s unacceptable!!



Bully Pulpit

The Bruce Springsteen “Born in the USSR” tour continued in Michigan.

After he canceled a Sunday concert in North Carolina to “fight against prejudice and bigotry,” rocker Bruce Springsteen condemned Michigan lawmakers planning to pass a law similar to North Carolina’s Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act.

During a concert in Michigan on Thursday night, the E Street Band frontman said: “We hope the bill doesn’t pass, ’cause we love playing in Michigan.”

He’ll always have The Middle East to play. You know where they execute people for what he’s bullying people for here.

Typical Liberal. Don’t do as I do, Do as I say.

Springsteen was referring to a bill backed by Republicans in the Michigan legislature that would prohibit schools from allowing children to share a bathroom or locker room with their classmates of the opposite sex.

“Under the bill proposal, students who do not identify with their birth gender would be accommodated if the student has written consent from a parent or guardian,” Michigan State senator Tom Casperson wrote. “The proposed legislation would not permit these students to use restrooms or locker rooms of the opposite sex if those facilities are in use or could be in use. Instead, the student would be able to use a single-occupancy restroom, staff facility or some other reasonable accommodation.”

The bill’s backers are responding to the Michigan state Department of Education’s, “Safe and Supportive Learning Environments for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning (LGBTQ) Students,” guidelines which Casperson says would create “numerous problems, from the elimination of parental authority and notification to threatening student safety and beyond.”

Similar so-called transgender bathroom bans have been introduced in state legislatures in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, among others, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

And the list of progressive entertainers boycotting states that have enacted such laws, is growing longer with each passing week.

They have there Sanctimony Hats on tight and they are going to ride this puppy to end of your freedom to do anything but what THEY want.


Hypocrisy is a power. The power to command and control. Ethics and morality are not in the same universe anymore.

Breitbart News has been reporting on these boycotters from day one, and below is the list:

1. Stephen Schwartz

On March 31, Broadway musical writer Stephen Schwartz called on North Carolina theaters to cease all performances of the more than a dozen musicals he’s penned, including Wicked, Children of Eden, and Pippin. Schwartz went so far as to compare North Carolina’s law to apartheid in South Africa.

“In the 1970s, I, along with many other writers and artists, participated in a similar action against apartheid in South Africa, and, as you know, this eventually proved to be very effective, Schwartz wrote in a statement posted in “If you are in agreement, you may want to join me in refusing to license our properties to, or permit productions of our work by, theaters and organizations in North Carolina until this heinous legislation is repealed.”

2. Bruce Springsteen

Musician Bruce Springsteen said his decision to drop out of North Carolina was in support of the “fight against prejudice and bigotry.”

“Just as important, the law also attacks the rights of LGBT citizens to sue when their human rights are violated in the workplace. No other group of North Carolinians faces such a burden,” Springsteen wrote in a lengthy statement. “To my mind, it’s an attempt by people who cannot stand the progress our country has made in recognizing the human rights of all of our citizens to overturn that progress.”

But you can always rock Riyadh!

The Stench of Sanctimony is choking…

Reports are emerging from Saudi Arabia that government prosecutors are pushing for adherence to the death penalty for gays, particularly as it relates to online activity.

Okaz, a Saudi newspaper first published reports over the weekend, the Washington Blade notes:

Okaz, a Saudi newspaper, reported on Saturday that prosecutors in the city of Jiddah have proposed the penalty in response to dozens of cases they have prosecuted over the last six months. These include 35 people who received prison sentences for sodomy….

…A gay Saudi man who lives outside the kingdom told the Washington Blade on Monday during a telephone interview the enhanced penalties that Jiddah prosecutors have proposed would apply to the entire country. The man, who operates a Twitter account that publishes LGBT-specific news and other information from Saudi Arabia, said the proposal has caused fear among LGBT people in the country.

Chanan Weissman, a spokesperson for the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, told the Blade on Tuesday that the U.S. is “aware of these reports, but cannot verify their accuracy.”

“We continue to gather more information,” he said.

Under Saudi law, homosexuality is illegal and punishable by imprisonment, fines, corporal punishment, flogging and death.

3. Jimmy Buffet

Buffett wrote on April 9 that he will perform the two upcoming shows in North Carolina that were “booked and sold out long before the governor signed that stupid law.” Buffet warns, however, that future shows will depend on the future of the law.

“We will be playing in Raleigh and Charlotte next week. That said, as for the future of shows in North Carolina, it would definitely depend on whether that stupid law is repealed,” Buffet wrote. “That is up to the good people of North Carolina and there are many, and I am confident that they will see that the right thing will be done. As Forrest said, ‘Stupid is as stupid does.’”

4. Ringo Starr

This week, Former Beatles drummer Ringo Starr cancelled an upcoming performance in North Carolina. Star apologized to his fans in a statement, saying, “I’m sorry to disappoint my fans in the area, but we need to take a stand against this hatred. Spread peace and love.”

5. Cyndi Lauper

Although she’s not technically boycotting, Longtime LBGT rights activists Cyndi Lauper said she plans to turn her upcoming June 4 show into a “day to build public support to repeal HB2.”

Lauper plans to funnel the proceeds from her North Carolina show to gay rights advocacy group, Equality North Carolina, in an effort to repeal the HB2.

“The pressure to repeal HB2 is building, and it is beautiful. In the dark haze of such oppression, people and companies are stepping up to fight back against this unjust law and ensure that all North Carolinians are treated with dignity and respect, especially the transgender community,” the singer wrote.

6. Laura Jane Grace

Punk rock band Against Me founder Laura Jane Grace is also planning to play her May 15 concert in Durham, North Carolina, and donate the proceeds toward efforts to repeal HB2.

“I think the real danger with HB2 is that it creates a target on transgender people specifically,” Grace told BuzzFeed. “When you feel targeted as a trans person, the natural inclination is to go into hiding. But visibility is more important than ever; to go there and have the platform of a stage to stand on and speak your mind and represent yourself.”

7. Brandi Carlile

Carlile also plans to donate all of the proceeds from her upcoming North Carolina shows to “the ACLU Foundation of North Carolina, as well as inviting several grass roots organizations to be a part of the evening.”

“Freedom to practice one’s religion shouldn’t grant them the right to exclude and humiliate a person morally or legally. From what I understand of the faith I know — service is never in conflict with the gospel,” Carlile said of North Carolina’s bathroom bill.

8. Michael Moore

Filmmaker Michael Moore jumped on the boycott bandwagon this week over what he called North Carolina’s “bigoted law against LGBTQ” and announced that he has asked the distributor of his latest film, Where to Invade Next, to halt all showings of the film in North Carolina theaters.

Honorable mentions: Canada’s Bryan Adams canceled a planned concert in Mississippi this week. “I find it incomprehensible that LGBT citizens are being discriminated against in the state of Mississippi,” Adams wrote in a statement.

Sharon Stone backed out of production for a short film in Mississippi because of the state’s religious liberty bill.

“I will not work in any state that holds or is actively creating laws to legally support discrimination against American citizens whether due to their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation, nor where those laws are passed or approved by the government of said state,” Stone said in a statement.

The smell of Sanctimony in the morning….Now there’s air pollution for you…

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Bathroom Wars

Liberals Seem To Be Freaking Out About Nothing Over North Carolina’s Bathroom Bill

Matt Vespa: Bruce Springsteen has refused to perform a concert (and now Ringo Starr) in North Carolina after the state legislature passed a bill that some consider to be anti-LGBT, which mostly relates to who can use a bathroom. No seriously, liberals feel this strongly about who can relieve themselves in a restroom–and apparently this is the new hill to take a stand in the progressive fight. Does it take away existing protection to North Carolina residents? No. Can businesses and private entities offer transgender people bathroom facilities? Yes. So, what’s the controversy? There is none.

GREENSBORO—A bathroom bill, a rock star, and competing claims of privacy have catapulted North Carolina into the center of a national debate over transgender rights. And Rep. Mark Walker, R-N.C., says he knows why.

The freshman legislator argues that Democrats are manufacturing outrage over the law for political gain in the Tar Heel state.

“Why is North Carolina in the crosshairs?” Walker asked more than 60 local pastors gathered in a church gymnasium for a prayer breakfast Monday. “The reason why is that North Carolina is supposed to be a purple state.”

Walker interprets the Democrat outrage over the issue as part of a calculated strategy to retake control of the Senate, turn the state blue, and establish a base of support for the presidential election. “North Carolina is the battleground state in the South,” he said.

The Baptist minister turned lawmaker criticized Springsteen for canceling on short notice, doing harm to the local economy, and then continuing his tour in other states that “have no more stringent anti-discriminatory laws than we do.”

And Walker believes that Democrats have “intentionally” ginned up opposition for a calculated and political end. “I think that’s ultimately some of the reasoning behind it.”

It’s not historically unusual for the Tar Heel State to waver between red and blue during both Senate and presidential races. In the 2008 general election, Democrats carried that state four years before Republicans did in 2012.

Another Republican member of the North Carolina congressional delegation, Rep. Mark Meadows, agrees that the issue has been blown out of proportion. He said it doesn’t deserve national headlines and shouldn’t be trending on social media.

“Men need to use the men’s restroom. Women need to use the women’s restroom,” Meadows told The Daily Signal. “For over 200 years, we haven’t had a problem defining that.”

North Carolina isn’t the only state grappling with bathroom bills. In South Dakota, Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard vetoed legislation that would ban students from using restrooms opposite from their biological sex. Tennessee is considering similar legislation that would require public school students use restrooms that match sex at birth.


Local news station Fox8 delved into the weeds of the new law, dubbed the bathroom bill, listing 18 myths and facts about the unnecessary hysteria, and how many Democrats were actually going to vote for the bill:

1. Does the new bill limit or prohibit private sector companies from adopting their own nondiscrimination policies or practices?Answer: No. Businesses are not limited by this bill. Private individuals, companies and universities can adopt new or keep existing nondiscrimination policies.

2. Does this bill take away existing protections for individuals in North Carolina?

Answer: No. In fact, for the first time in state history, this law establishes a statewide anti-discrimination policy in North Carolina which is tougher than the federal government’s. This also means that the law in North Carolina is not different when you go city to city.

3. Can businesses and private facilities still offer reasonable accommodations for transgender people, like single occupancy bathrooms for instance?

Answer: Yes. This bill allows and does nothing to prevent businesses, and public or private facilities from providing single use bathrooms.


5. Does this law prohibit towns, cities or counties in North Carolina from setting their own nondiscrimination policies in employment that go beyond state law?

Answer: No. Town, cities and counties in North Carolina are still allowed to set stricter non-discrimination policies for their own employees if they choose.

6. Does this bill mean transgender people will always have to use the restroom of the sex of their birth, even if they have undergone a sex change?

Answer: No. This law simply says people must use the bathroom of the sex listed on their birth certificate. Anyone who has undergone a sex change can change their sex on their birth certificate.


9. Why did North Carolina pass this law in the first place?

Answer: The bill was passed after the Charlotte City Council voted to impose a regulation requiring businesses to allow a man into a women’s restroom, shower, or locker room if they choose. This ordinance would have eliminated the basic expectations of privacy people have when using the rest room by allowing people to use the restroom of their choice. This new local regulation brought up serious privacy concerns by parents, businesses and others across the state, as well as safety concerns that this new local rule could be used by people who would take advantage of this to do harm to others.

In fact, the Charlotte City Council tried to pass this ordinance before but failed, and passed the same ordinance in February of 2016 despite serious concerns from state officials, business leaders and other concerned citizens.


15. Do any other regulations in North Carolina cities, towns or counties come close to what Charlotte was recommending?

Answer: No. Not that we are aware of. Therefore, nothing changes in North Carolina cities, towns and counties, including in Charlotte, regarding discrimination practices and protections now that this law has passed.

16. Did only Republicans vote for this bill?

Answer: No. 11 Democrats voted for this bill in the N.C. House of Representatives and no Democratic Senators voted against it. In fact, Democratic Senators walked out to avoid voting on the issue at all because many were going to vote for it and they did not want show their division.

So, this is why “The Boss” decided to tell his North Carolina fan base to screw off? Looks like weak sauce to me.

But it’s great fodder for the Power Leftist to get his Sanctimony High Horse Hyperbole On Full Blast.

After all, this is comparable to racial segregation, lynchings, and the KKK, after all. 🙂


Pork Futures

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) released their annual pig book this morning, and it’s quite depressing. The non-profit added that the average dollar amount for earmarks for fiscal year 2016 was a whopping $36.6 million compared to the FY2010 average of $1.1 million. In all, there were 123 earmarks for FY 2016, a 17.1 percent increase from FY 2015, which saw 105 instances of porker spending. Total porker spending topped $5.1 billion this year, a 21.4 percent increase from last year’s total of $4.2 billon. CAGW lists seven ways government spending can make their porker book; all items featured this year satisfy at least one of the criteria, though they noted that most meet two. A lot of the top items rest in the Department of Defense:

$10,000,000 for high energy cost grants within the Rural Utilities Service (RUS). The RUS grew out of the remnants of the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Electrification Administration (REA) of the 1930s. The primary goal of the REA was to promote rural electrification to farmers and residents in out-of-the-way communities where the cost of providing electricity was considered to be too expensive for local utilities. By 1981, 98.7 percent electrification and 95 percent telephone service coverage was achieved. Rather than declaring victory and shutting down the REA, the agency was transformed into the RUS, and expanded into other areas.[…]

$60,000,000 for construction of research facilities at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). According to the legislation, the funding is to initiate “the design and renovation of its outdated and unsafe radiation physics infrastructure in fiscal year 2016.” Though the legislation does not designate a location for the funding, NIST’s Radiation Physics Division operates facilities in Boulder, Colorado, and Gaithersburg, Maryland.

Since FY 2002, members of Congress have directed 19 earmarks costing taxpayers $186 million for research facility construction at NIST in Alabama, Mississippi, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New York, South Carolina, Virginia, and Puerto Rico.


$1,150,800,000 for 28 earmarks for health and disease research under the Defense Health Program, which is a 7.8 percent increase in cost over the 27 earmarks worth $1,067,115,000 in FY 2015. Former Sen. Tom Coburn’s (R-Okla.) November 2012 report, The Department of Everything, pointed out that the DOD disease earmarks added by Congress mean that “fewer resources are available for DOD to address those specific health challenges facing members of the armed forces for which no other agencies are focused.” According to the report, in 2010 the Pentagon withheld more than $45 million for overhead related to earmarks, which means those funds were unavailable for national security needs or medical research specifically affecting those serving in the military.


$1,000,000,000 for one additional DDG 51 ship, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. The DDG 51 has a long history of receiving earmarks from members of Congress, including $720 million requested by then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) in FY 1998. Like many legislators, Sen. Lott was unrepentant in his pork-barreling, stating “I’ll do anything for that [Ingalls] shipyard,” the DDG 51 construction site. Since FY 1991, members of Congress have added 21 earmarks for the DDG 51 program, costing taxpayers $2.7 billion.

$255,000,000 for two additional F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft for the Navy. The acquisition misadventures of the JSF program have been well-documented. In development for nearly 15 years and four years behind schedule, the program is approximately $170 billion over budget and has encountered an abundance of persistent issues.


$549,594,000 for 15 earmarks for the Army Corps of Engineers, a 51 percent increase in cost from the $363.9 million in FY 2015. President Obama’s FY 2017 version of Cuts, Consolidations, and Savings recommended reducing the operations and maintenance budget for the Corps of Engineers by $432 million.

Legislators have long treated the Army Corps of Engineers as a prime repository of pork, and it is among the most heavily earmarked areas of the federal budget. Since FY 1996, members of Congress have added 6,902 earmarks for the Corps, costing taxpayers $12.2 billion.

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Kumar Unemployed

Despite the massive amount of proof — and plain common sense — available out there thanks to the Internet, wacky liberals still refuse to believe that raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour will have a negative impact on businesses.

I believe the word “delusional” best describes this view.

Anyway, how the White Castle restaurant chain plans on dealing with the huge hike will simply bring tears to your eyes.

‘This is something that’s become a bumper sticker,” Jamie Richardson tells me. “But it hasn’t really been thought through. There is a better way to get people out of poverty than hiking the minimum wage.” Richardson is a vice president at White Castle, the chain of famously white-painted and turreted burger joints specializing in slider-style hamburgers in the Midwest and Mid Atlantic. (Let me pause for a moment: If you’ve somehow made it through life without visiting this family-owned American treasure, stop reading this article, make like Harold and Kumar, and get yourself to the Castle . . . I’ll wait.)
White Castle, established in 1921 in Wichita, Kan., now operates more than 400 locations, with many in the New York City metropolitan area, which makes the news of New York governor Andrew Cuomo’s signing a bill that steeply hikes the minimum wage deeply personal. The wage will go from $9 to $15 an hour by 2018 in New York City, with the rest of the state seeing a more gradual phase-in schedule. “We’ve been in New York for a long time,” Richardson says. “Castle No. 2 over on Fordham Road opened in 1930.” Unfortunately, despite the Castle’s Empire State history, the road ahead may be difficult: “We’re disappointed. What this means for White Castle is we really have to evaluate how we manage our business,” Richardson tells me. “About 30 percent of every sales dollar covers the pay of our hourly workers, and that doesn’t include management.”
A successful restaurant should have about 25-30% food Cost, about 30% Labor Cost. You notice that is 60% cost without taking into consideration maintenance,rent, insurance, etc.
“It’s our biggest investment, our biggest cost. And it’s one that if we see increase dramatically through fiat, and we don’t do anything — it’s unsustainable,” Richardson says. “We are in uncharted waters.” Of course, Cuomo, California governor Jerry Brown, Hillary Clinton, and minimum-wage activists across the country think that dramatically raising the minimum wage will be a boon to workers and that business can handle the cost increases without too much trouble. “By moving to a $15 statewide minimum wage and enacting the strongest paid-family-leave policy in the nation, New York is showing the way forward on economic justice,” Governor Cuomo said after signing the minimum-wage legislation on April 4. “These policies will not only lift up the current generation of low-wage workers and their families, but ensure fairness for future generations and enable them to climb the ladder of opportunity.” 
But Cuomo’s idea of “economic justice” is a long way from the dollars-and-cents reality of running a burger business. If labor costs rise dramatically, White Castle will have to balance its books by raising prices or changing its business model so that it needs less labor. “Is there any room to raise prices to cover costs?” Richardson muses. “We think we’d need to increase menu prices by something like 50 percent. It’s not something we’ve done before. It’d be catastrophic.” White Castle is proud of providing what for many of its workers is the first rung on the ladder of employment. In fact, Richardson says that White Castle has historically seen its customers react noticeably to even slight increases in menu prices. “Some people think that we can just raise menu prices to cover the increased labor costs,” he says. “But it’s a ripple effect. We’re not the only place to eat, we compete with other restaurants. And people always have ‘L cubed’: Making Leftovers Last Longer.” Richardson says — and common sense dictates — that if menu prices at fast-food chains shoot up by anywhere near 50 percent, many people will stop eating out as much, replacing trips to White Castle with trips to the grocery store.
Customers can always vote with their feet and their dollars.
Amd the Left would just blame that on business “greed” not on their unsound economic ‘justice.’
But thinking through the implications of raising prices to cover increased costs, which could reduce sales, isn’t what irks Richardson the most: To him and to White Castle, New York’s minimum-wage hike is a threat to a culture of opportunity in the neighborhoods that they have always called home. “Candidly, this could create a whole generation of kids who won’t get their first job,” Richardson laments. “We’re in tough neighborhoods — and White Castle hasn’t abandoned those neighborhoods. On the surface, higher pay seems noble, but it’s not — because it denies the reality of the free-enterprise framework that has allowed small businesses like ours to thrive.”
But it makes the Social Justice Warriors happy and feeds their egos and their ‘troops’ of victims. So all is good, right?
 White Castle is very proud of providing what for many of its workers is the first rung on the ladder of employment. And it loves to promote from within. Richardson tells me that of White Castle’s 450 top employees in restaurant operations, “444 of them started out behind the counter in an hourly job.” Susan Milazzo, the regional director in charge of the 35 Castles in the greater New York City area, is a prime example of a worker who started out on the bottom rung and worked her way up. But some of White Castle’s successes are even more exceptional: Richardson tells me the story of Jahangir Kabir, a Bangladeshi immigrant who came to America without knowing a word of English. He got a job as a cook at a White Castle and learned the vernacular by interacting with customers. In four years, he was a general manager. On the way to being promoted to district supervisor in charge of eight Castles, Kabir went to school, earning an MBA from St. Joseph’s College in Brooklyn in 2005. Recently he completed a Ph.D. in business administration — and it all started at White Castle, cooking fries. 
“That’s Jahangir,” Richardson beams. “That’s what we’re all about. It’s a virtuous circle if kids can get that first job. We really believe that. Maybe Jahangir’s story is exceptional, but Suzy’s isn’t — hers is actually pretty common.” White Castle knows that not all of its hourly team members will, like Kabir and Milazzo, make careers out of White Castle — and it’s just fine with that. “We know that Millennials aren’t thinking they’ll stay at White Castle for 30 years,” Richardson says. “We view it as the start of the path. That’s true if you stay at White Castle or move on to something else. The skills you gain, you can take to the next role: learning how to apply for and get a job, learning how to show up, learning a work ethic, making a paycheck, and having fun.”
If restaurants and other business can’t stay in the black, they won’t be offering many jobs to anyone. All of this might be in jeopardy if White Castle and other similar business couldn’t afford to hire many entry-level employees. In the hyper-competitive restaurant industry, margins are slim — Richardson says that, in a typical year, White Castle hopes to achieve a net profit of between 1 and 2 percent — and if labor costs go up, many restaurants will turn toward labor-cost-cutting automation or business models that don’t require many employees. That means a lot of kids won’t get that first job. After decades of baggage check-in kiosks at airports, ATMs, and self-check-out lines at the supermarket, is it really so hard to imagine automation replacing the kid behind the counter at burger joints?
See Eatsa, in San Francisco. Totally automated.
But this is about more than wages — White Castle has offered benefits and retirement programs for decades. It’s about the opportunity to work, to take the first step up the ladder of life, to get started. “Out-of-work kids who don’t have an opportunity to work get in trouble. We want to offer kids jobs, offer kids work,” Richardson says. “There’s dignity in that.” 
But not political advantage and “victimhood”.
But if restaurants and other business can’t stay in the black, they won’t be offering many jobs to anyone — short-circuiting the process of building the skills that young workers need to take the next steps in life. New York’s minimum-wage laws purport to offer equality — but at the cost of offering workers opportunity. And minimum-wage hikes mandated by state and local governments aren’t happening in a vacuum: The federal government is unilaterally changing overtime-work rules, also driving up costs. The common theme is that governments at the local, state, and federal levels are presuming to know more about how businesses run than do their operators. “As a family-owned business, White Castle has been around a long time — but now we have to assess things and ask: Where do we need to be at, by when, to make sure our business remains viable?” Richardson says. “New York says, ‘We’re open for business,’ but sometimes it seems like the only door that’s going to be open is the exit door.” (National Review)

Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens when liberal “do-gooders” with no basic understanding of how economics actually works, start going on crusades for what they perceive as “fairness.”

What they don’t realize is their solution to the problem actually creates more of the problem. Instead of making things even so people can afford their bills, it eventually causes a higher cost of living.

Liberals never seem to learn this, and it’s always those in poverty — the ones they claim to be helping — who pay the price.


But the sanctimonious Liberals will proclaim it’s is Businesses fault in the end, because, it can never ever be THERE fault. They are the Holy Warriors. They are Sanctified. They are Homo Superior Liberalis, They are better than you in every way so it must be YOUR fault that they fail so ruinously decade after decade after decade.
And besides by no later than 2025 $15/hr will be a “slave” wage. Stay Tuned.

ObamaCare Update

Let’s take a quick spin through some recent Obamacare-related headlines, shall we?
All VERY predictable if you live in REALITY, not Liberal Fantasy Agenda-Land.

(1) One of America’s top insurers, hamstrung by losses, pulls out of state exchanges — as predicted:

The biggest insurer in the nation has exited the Obamacare exchanges in Arkansas and Georgia, as insurers struggle financially in the exchanges. UnitedHealth will leave the two states and not sell plans in Arkansas and Georgia. The move comes as UnitedHealth has detailed more than $400 million in losses in the Obamacare exchanges and threatened to leave the exchanges altogether…UnitedHealth did not immediately return a request for comment. The insurer has previously said that it may have to leave the entire Obamacare business due to mounting losses.

Expect this to be an ongoing trend, in light of Obamacare’s unsustainable and expensive risk pools.

(2) In addition to multiple enrollment projection downgrades in recent months, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office now anticipates a risein the uninsured population over the next ten years:

“About 13 million people selected plans through the marketplaces in 2016 by the close of the open-enrollment period; however CBO and [the Joint committee on Taxation] estimate that, in any given month, an average of about 12 million people will be covered by insurance purchased through the marketplaces,” states the report. The office also projects that from 2017 to 2026 the number of uninsured individuals is expected to rise from 26 million to 28 million. More employers are expected to cease providing insurance for their employees as a result of the Affordable Care Act. While the office estimates that 155 million people will have coverage through their employer in 2016, that number is expected to decline to 152 million in 2019.

The New York Times recently published a story exploring how the law hasn’t significantly uprooted employer-based coverage, as many critics had predicted. The piece includes this major disclaimer: “Employers may feel differently if the economy turns down and the labor market is less robust or if there is a sudden spike in health care costs. Because workers can no longer be denied an insurance policy because of poor health, companies may be willing to drop coverage under the right circumstances, knowing that insurance is more available to everyone.” It also elides a major factor coming down the pike:

Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber has admitted that the so-called ‘Cadillac tax’ was specifically designed to eventually hit virtually all employer-sponsored plans, despite Democrats’ public assurances. Internal White House figures projected that eventually, 93 million Americans will lose their existing healthcare arrangements under Obamacare — the exact opposite of “if you like your plan, you can keep it.”

(3) The law’s failing co-ops will continue to fail:

Eight of the 11 remaining Obamacare health insurance co-ops appear likely to fail this year, according to an analysis of financial documents obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation. Twelve of the original 23 federally-financed co-ops have already collapsed. The co-op program was funded with $2.5 billion in 2010. “In general, there’s not a turnaround in sight. The same problems that plagued them before are continuing,” Thomas P. Miller, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who previously served as the senior health economist for the congressional Joint Economic Committee…”

In case you’d forgotten, one of Hillary Clinton’s big plans for fixing the law that was modeled off of her proposal — and which her daughter admits is “crushing” many consumers with costs — is to establish…(ta-da!) Obamacare co-ops. No wonder she thinks the law is working; she’s badly out of touch.

By a double-digit margin, more Americans say they’ve been personally harmed by the law than helped.  The least supportive group?  The uninsured, who cannot afford the “Affordable” Care Act.
Unless, you’re the rant laden liberal in Florida who was mad she didn’t have the access to be mad about not being able to afford it. 🙂

National Public Radio collaborated with Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to survey Americans’ recent experience with health care. As to the Affordable Care Act, the survey’s findings are damning. They suggest that Obamacare has been worse than a complete waste of money.

This is the survey’s only question directly on Obamacare. Most respondents say that Obamacare hasn’t affected them; where it has affected them, most say the law’s impact has been harmful:

Screen Shot 2016-03-09 at 6.21.03 PM

The promises that President Obama made about the ACA–cheaper premiums! lower co-pays and deductibles! better coverage!–have completely failed to materialize. This isn’t a surprise, of course, but it is nice to see it so copiously documented:

Screen Shot 2016-03-09 at 6.24.29 PM

Remember how we were all supposed to save $2,500 a year in health insurance premiums? Only 4% say they have saved anything, and those respondents are probably wrong. For the vast majority, Obamacare has either done nothing, or has increased the cost of health care, counting premiums, deductibles and co-pays. Good going, Barry!

The federal government has had its share of failures over the years, but it is hard to think of a federal program that has proved such a comprehensive disaster, in such a short period of time, as the Affordable Care Act. Which, by the way, still hasn’t been fully implemented, as the Democrats have postponed some of its more baleful effects until 2017. So the number of people who are hurt by Obamacare, e.g. by losing the employer-based coverage with which they were content, is destined to rise.


The former head of Britain’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Trevor Phillips, has admitted he “got almost everything wrong” on Muslim immigration in a damning new report on integration, segregation, and how the followers of Islam are creating “nations within nations” in the West.

Phillips, a former elected member of the Labour Party who served as the Chairman of the EHRC from 2003-2012 will present “What British Muslims Really Think” on Channel 4 on Wednesday. An ICM poll released to the Times ahead of the broadcast reveals: 

  • One in five Muslims in Britain never enter a non-Muslim house;
  • 39 per cent of Muslims, male and female, say a woman should always obey her husband;
  • 31 per cent of British Muslims support the right of a man to have more than one wife;
  • 52 per cent of Muslims did not believe that homosexuality should be legal;
  • 23 per cent of Muslims support the introduction of Sharia law rather than the laws laid down by parliament.

Writing in the Times on the issue, Phillips admits: “Liberal opinion in Britain has, for more than two decades, maintained that most Muslims are just like everyone else… Britain desperately wants to think of its Muslims as versions of the Great British Bake Off winner Nadiya Hussain, or the cheeky-chappie athlete Mo Farah. But thanks to the most detailed and comprehensive survey of British Muslim opinion yet conducted, we now know that just isn’t how it is.”

Phillips commissioned “the Runnymede report” into Britain and Islamophobia in 1997 which, according to both Phillips himself and academics across the country, popularised the phrase which has now become synonymous with any criticism – legitimate or not – of Islam or Muslims.

Durham University’s Anthropology Journal noted in 2007: “It has been a decade since the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia was established, a Commission that through its 1997 report, “Islamophobia: a challenge for us all” (“the Runnymede report”) not only raised an awareness of the growing reality of anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic hostility in Britain, but also marked the onset of what might be described as ‘the first decade of Islamophobia’. In doing so, the Runnymede report propelled the word ‘Islamophobia’ into the everyday common parlance and discourses of both the public and political spaces.”

Phillips says his new data shows “a chasm” opening between Muslims and non-Muslims on fundamental issues such as marriage, relations between men and women, schooling, freedom of expression and even the validity of violence in defence of religion. He notes – echoing an article on Breitbart London just two weeks ago which reveals a growing disparity between older and younger Muslims in Britain – that “the gaps between Muslim and non-Muslim youngsters are nearly as large as those between their elders”.

And while he is cautious to note that many Muslims in Britain are grateful to be here, and do identify with role models such as Hussain and Farah, there is a widening gap in society with many Muslims segregating themselves.

“It’s not as though we couldn’t have seen this coming. But we’ve repeatedly failed to spot the warning signs,” he admits.

“Twenty years ago… I published the report titled Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, we thought that the real risk of the arrival of new communities was discrimination against Muslims. Our 1996 survey of recent incidents showed that there was plenty of it around. But we got almost everything else wrong.”

His comments will come as a blow to those who continue to attack elements in British society who are concerned about Muslim immigration and integration, and in fact may even go some way to shoring up comments made by U.S. Presidential candidates Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) seeking to slow down or pause the rate of Muslim immigration into the West.

“We estimated that the Muslim population of the UK would be approaching 2 [million] by 2020. We underestimated by nearly a million. We predicted that the most lethal threat to Muslims would come from racial attacks and social exclusion. We completely failed to foresee the urban conflicts of 2001 that ravaged our northern cities. And of course we didn’t dream of 9/11 and the atrocities in Madrid, Paris, Istanbul, Brussels and London.”

“For a long time, I too thought that Europe’s Muslims would become like previous waves of migrants, gradually abandoning their ancestral ways, wearing their religious and cultural baggage lightly, and gradually blending into Britain’s diverse identity landscape. I should have known better.”

And Mr. Phillips even acknowledges that the mass sexual grooming and rape scandals that are plaguing heavily Muslim populated towns across Britain are because of Muslim – not ‘Asian’ – men. He writes: “The contempt for white girls among some Muslim men has been highlighted by the recent scandals in Rotherham, Oxford, Rochdale and other towns. But this merely reflects a deeply ingrained sexism that runs through Britain’s Muslim communities” – in a nod to those who have long protested this to be the case in the face of political, media, and even police cover ups.

Even left wing columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown told him: “[W]e [liberal Muslims] are a dying breed — in 10 years there will be very few of us left unless something really important is done.”

Phillips comments: “Some of my journalist friends imagine that, with time, the Muslims will grow out of it. They won’t.”

And indeed he lays the blame at the feet of the liberal, metropolitan elite, media classes: “Oddly, the biggest obstacles we now face in addressing the growth of this nation-within-a-nation are not created by British Muslims themselves. Many of our (distinctly un-diverse) elite political and media classes simply refuse to acknowledge the truth. Any undesirable behaviours are attributed to poverty and alienation. Backing for violent extremism must be the fault of the Americans. Oppression of women is a cultural trait that will fade with time, nothing to do with the true face of Islam.”

“Even when confronted with the growing pile of evidence to the contrary, and the angst of the liberal minority of British Muslims, clever, important people still cling to the patronising certainty that British Muslims will, over time, come to see that “our” ways are better.”

In terms of solutions, Mr. Phillips opines on “halting the growth of sharia courts and placing them under regulation” ensuring that school governance never falls into the hands of a single-minority group, “ensuring mosques that receive a steady flow of funds from foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia, however disguised, are forced to reduce their dependency on Wahhabi patronage” and an end to the “silence-for-votes understanding between local politicians and Muslim leaders — the sort of Pontius Pilate deal that had such catastrophic outcomes in Rotherham and Rochdale”.

Mr. Phillips’s comments echo those of the Czech president, and research from across Europe that revealed attitudes amongst Muslims on the continent have hardened. The younger the Muslim, the more likely they are to hold hard-line views, one recent study found.

%d bloggers like this: