This from the July 4, 2011 Chicago Tribune’s webpage: It reports that Socialist DSK may now run for president of France since the assault case against him seems to be falling apart.That’s fine, in general terms, but this last, almost throwaway line from the article.
“Socialist Party leader Martine Aubry says a July 13 deadline for candidates to register in the party primary could be pushed back if Strauss-Kahn wants a chance to run against conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy.”
So, Socialists are willing to change rules to their own advantage at will?What’s the point of having election law?Do we need any more that Socialists don’t play fair?
About a month before the February 22, 2011 Chicago election I received an e-mail from the Chicago GOP regarding training, from the Board of Election Commissioners for the City of Chicago (BEC), to work as an election judge.I’d always wondered what an election judge did; I knew they weren’t actually “judging” anything and that made me even more curious.
Being a college teacher I’m lucky enough to not work Tuesdays and Thursdays this semester so submitted my application.To my surprise, not long after I received a notice from the BEC notifying me of acceptance and the upcoming training dates.Election judges receive an additional $50 compensation if they attend the training session.I was surprised that training was not mandatory; if you can’t make it to a session you are directed to “read the manual.”I’m not kidding – then I became doubtful about the entire process.
I wondered if I’d witness shenanigans of which, by reputation, Chicago has plenty – especially when you consider the storied past of some elections.To my surprise, the training could not have been more thorough and professional.The instructors delivered a lecture on setting up the polling place, took questions and engaged the audience.They then directed us to a room where in groups we set up mock polling stations.We returned for a lecture on casting ballots.Again they asked the election judges to be questions to keep them interested and took many questions.We returned to that same lab where each of us cast a mock ballot.Each one had something wrong with it at which point we were asked, “OK, you’re the election judge, what do you do now?”We finished with a lecture on tearing down the station which was followed by – you guessed it – tearing down the mock polling place we’d set up.
A letter from the BEC notified me that I would be one of two Republican election judges working with three Democrat counterparts.I learned from the training that precincts are given either three Republicans and two Democrats or two Republicans and three Democrats based on the odd or even rule.
The day went off without any major issues.The most valuable lesson I learned was that election judges are just citizens working that day for the BEC; the pay is nominal and they just want to do their part.I admit I’d never thought about it before or just assumed they were city or county employees.I could tell by the intonation of some voters, when things didn’t run perfectly, that they assumed we were full-time employees of some government organization.
To my dismay, the other Republican did not show up.Which means, of course, had I not there would have been no GOP representative in my precinct.As such, I encourage any conservative reading this blog to volunteer during the next election.You could even be a roving poll watcher for a particular candidate if you’d rather do that.
Of the three Democratic election judges, two didn’t look old enough to vote – I believe they were part of some high school initiative to encourage young people to get involved.The other Democratic election judge, however, could not have been more professional, thorough and downright fun to be with.In fact, we’ve spoken on the phone since then and, I think, will even be good friends hanging out every now and then.The Polling Place Administrator, basically the “tech guy” for the equipment, did a fine job as well.
I must say, from 5:00 AM to 8:30 PM when my new good friend and I delivered the ballots I never witnessed anything that could be construed as dishonest or an attempt to sway the election.I’ve come to the conclusion that doing so would be extremely difficult – you would have to have every election judge “in on the fix” which just isn’t feasible.
It was a long day for which I’ll receive very little monetary compensation.But, the rewards far exceeded the time I invested.In the next election, please, consider working as an election judge for the GOP.I think you’ll find the experience as rewarding as I did.
In a stunning turn of events the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced yesterday that the corpse of Neville Chamberlain, British Prime Minister from 1937 - 1940 will be exhumed and be in attendance when President Obama receives his Nobel Peace Prize. Neville Chamberlain remains best known for signing the Munich Agreement of 1938. This treaty among European powers allowed Nazi Germany to annex the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. "They have so much in common, we thought it only right that the Prime Minister's remains stand side-by-side with President Obama," said Oloff Marx, chairman of the Nobel committee.
Praised by peace lovers worldwide for not facing the Nazis head on and allowing them to take over foreign soil without a fight, Chamberlain's name became synonymous with the phrase "peace in our time." A radical British politician, and member of the conservative party, named Winston Churchill described the Munich Treaty as an act of appeasement. Churchill then defined appeasement as, ". . . feeding the alligators in hopes they will eat you last." Fortunately, the world never heard again from this war monger.
As we all know, the Nazis did indeed want peace. Prime Minister Chamberlain, through his personality and charm, diplomacy and the constant smoking of Hopium managed to avoid World War II from ever occurring.
Thank goodness we, in modern America, have our own Neville Chamberlain in Barrack Obama. I'm sure his policies will work as well as Chamberlain's did.
This time, Obama's lies have turned out to be good for the nation. The Associated Press reported last week that President Obama plans to support extending three key provisions of the Patriot Act set to expire December 30 this year.
Though he strongly criticized President Bush for using "unconstitutional methods" to protect the public, now that he's in office The Anointed One has changed his tune. Maybe he knows that, heaven forbid, another attack on US soil would doom his re-election bid in 2012.
Specifically, he's supporting the right of the Justice Department to conduct the so called "roving wiretaps," arbitrarily monitor library records and have more broad access to financial transactions without probable cause. These three elements have been described as the best methods to deal with "lone wolf" terrorist groups and individuals. Previously, the President called Bush's methods unconstitutional; how will he explain his support now that he's in office? He won't, of course and the previously incensed elite media will ignore the story.
On a similar note, last week his Administration announced they cannot meet the January, 2010 closing of Gitmo.
On a similar note, again, the President will meet next week in Geneva to discuss the Iran situation, sans Iranian officials. I remember a junior Senator from IL back in 2007 calling President Bush's decision to not negotiate with Iran "disgraceful." Maybe he's finally learned that he can't just smile, read the teleprompter, and have everyone follow his lead.
Kudos to Dennis Miller's radio show, last week a fan called in suggesting a season of "Survivor" where Republican and Democrat camps take on each other. I've embossed it a bit but think this makes a great metaphor for society and the direction our country is going. Check him out at: http://560wind.townhall.com/pages/dennismiller
Imagine this for a season of "Survivor" - liberals in one camp, conservatives in the other. Both are left to fend for themselves in some remote area of the world where the bare essentials are difficult to find.
Can you picture the outcome?
The Conservative camp uses the forest to build log cabins. The Liberals camp is afraid of disturbing Mother Nature so they sleep in the rain.
The Conservative camp digs a well for fresh water. The Liberal camp tries to collect rain water but soon realizes they need to take large leaves from plants to do that and there may be some endangered insects living on the plants so they go thirsty.
The Conservative camp fashions spears and bows and arrows to hunt wild game. The Liberal camp eats nuts and berries. Before dying of lack of protein, ACORN airlifts in tofu, then bills the US government.
The Conservative camp manufactures soap from animal fat (from the hunt). The Liberal camp neglects all hygiene to better become one with the land.
Right before the end of the show, Barack Obama parachutes in, takes 50% of what the Conservative camp accomplished and gives it to the Liberal Camp in the name of social justice and declares them the winner!
The title liberal is not well meant.Let’s get that straight from the beginning.By liberal I mean someone lacking personal convictions, willing to flap with whatever breeze best suits their needs at any given moment.Let’s also be clear that I wish him no harm – I wish him, as improbable as it may be, a complete recovery; this isn’t personal.
In May 2008 Senator Kennedy announced that he suffered from a malignant brain tumor.Since then his medical care has included surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy.I can’t help but wonder whether, as a 77 year old man, presumably near death, he would receive such treatments under ObamaCare or if he’d be given a pain pill instead because of his limited, remaining Quality of Life Years.
For those of you who may not know, ObamaCare, in its current form, includes QOLYs (pronounced qua-lees) as a determining factor for who gets healthcare and who doesn’t.Basically, an elderly person would be less likely to receive life improvement or even life saving care because of the expense relative to the amount of time left in their life to enjoy the benefits of said care.A panel of government employees would make the decision about funding treatment, for a specific patient – this is one item in ObamaCare that has lead to the term Death Panels.I digress.
Since last year Senator Kennedy has spent most of his time resting at his Hyannis Port estate.Last week the Senator wrote letters to Massachusetts state leaders urging them to pass a law allowing for the governor, Deval Patrick (D), to appoint a replacement should he be unable to serve.Current Massachusetts law requires a special election which may take five months to carry out.
The Senator claims this would allow for a speedy replacement so Massachusetts citizens wouldn’t have to wait for representation.Illinois’ Senator replacement issues aside, most states employ the model Ted Kennedy requests.
All of that is fine and dandy until you realize that Massachusetts did use that method until 2004.Five years ago the Senator urged state officials to change the law to allow for a special election, changing the mode of replacement to that from direct gubernatorial appointment.“Why?” you ask. If Senator John Kerry had won the 2004 Presidential election, then Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R) would have selected the replacement.He almost certainly would have appointed a Republican.
To his credit (major credit, if you ask me), Governor Romney signed the bill into law under the belief that a special election would be more fair.However, now that there’s a Democrat in the governor’s office, general anti-Democratic party feelings are seen all over and polls show Dems lagging behind Republicans everywhere, Senator Kennedy wants it switched back.
What a sleaze-ball – I mean, honestly.Here we see another example of a liberal using whatever rationale best suits them to get what they want.First it was “fairness” now it’s “speedy replacement for representation” all based on what suits the Democratic party, politically, at that moment in time.
On a final note, how many of you think Senator Kennedy will soon head to Canada, France, Great Britain or Cuba for his health care since our system is so bad?Yeah, I don’t think so either.
Congressman Raymond Eugene Green, better known as Gene Green, represents the 29th district of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives. He's done so since the district was created after the 1990 census. He lives in one of the rare liberal enclaves of the Lone Star State. It's so liberal that our party didn't even present a candidate to oppose him in 1998, 2002 or 2004.
To his great credit, Representative Green voted in favor of the Iraq War and has steadfastly voted against any measures to provide insurgents with a timetable for our withdrawal. In other words, he opposes telling our enemies when we plan to pack up and leave. That's a good thing.
To his shame, however, Representative Green voted against requiring voters to present a valid ID before voting. Clearly, ACORN members must love him. Even in Chicago, with one of the most corrupt political systems in history, I must show my drivers license before voting. One must ask what sense it makes to not require that you prove you're on the registered voter list before you vote. That is not, however, the point of this blog.
We've all heard about the tactics suggested by the White House to Dems for running healthcare town hall meetings: select smaller venues, restrict access to one doorway, have a larger than normal police presence, employ a "raffle" to decide who asks questions, limit it to a certain number of questions, etc. While probably not in the playbook, I give kudos to Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, another Dem from Texas for handling the situation in a unique way - take calls on your cell phone! That's right, during a time-limited healthcare town hall meeting Representative Lee twice stepped aside to take a phone call on her cell. She did NOT extend the duration of the town hall meeting to make up for the lost time.
I digress. Representative Green has found another, unique method for dealing with town hall meetings. His office announced that all those attending must present a valid photo ID or they will not be allowed in. On the surface, this seems fine - if you're in his district you should have access over those who don't. However, how does this jive with the notion that those showing up to vote for him don't have to prove they live in his district before voting? His office has yet to explain this discrepancy. I wouldn't hold my breath for an answer.
It's just one more example of getting away with being unfair because you have a D after your name.
This past month the President showed us another talent of his, something he's really quite good at - distraction. Magicians refer to distraction as, "misdirecting the audience's attention to perform your secret moves without notice." While sitting down with Sgt. Crowley, Professor Gates and VP Biden, BO tried his best to focus our attention off the major issues of the day. Whether it be ObamaCare, a 2nd Stimulus Bill, canceling missile defense development while North Korea launches missiles, offering for the umpteenth time negotiate with Al-Qaeda or anything else on his far-left agenda, he's done his best to have us look this way while he's doing something else that way.
Fortunately, some news outlets are calling him out on the above issues - primarily Fox News and, in fairness, to some extent, CNN and the Washington Post. While all of the above noted issues are important, I haven't seen much coverage, anywhere, of another issue that seems to have fallen off the radar - the closing of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. On January 22, 2009 BO signed an Executive Order to close Guantanamo within one year.
On May 22, 2009, the US Senate effectively halted the President's plan by voting to keep the facility open, indefinitely, and refusing to fund the transfer of any prisoners to the US mainland until the Administration produced a "coherent plan for closing the prison." Be honest - do you remember hearing about this on any major news outlet? This was a MAJOR defeat for the President. Of course, at the time of the vote, the Senate expected the so called Terror Policy Report within a month.
Last week the Administration quietly announced it had not yet completed the plan even though a six-month self-imposed deadline had come and passed. Administration officials have stated the President granted a six-month extension. This means the report on how to detain, interrogate and transfer to American or foreign soil suspected terrorists isn't even due, let alone to be implemented, AFTER the deadline BO set Guantanamo's closure.
This should be major news, but it's not "sexy" compared to the outrage over ObamaCare or the ridiculousness of the staged beer event. A cornerstone of The Apologizer's campaign was the closing of Guantanamo Bay, now, even as President with a Democratic majority in Congress, he can't accomplish it. We should all be grateful, Obama has stumbled yet again and we may be a lot safer for it.
Every now and then I refer to urbandictionary.com to define some word or phrase that has entered our lexicon because, as a 42 year old, I have no idea what it means. Similar to Wikipedia, this site allows users to add and edit content. It is, more or less, self regulating. It allows visitors to vote on a definition with thumbs up or down to indicate whether or not the masses agree with the noted meaning. Last week I used this resource again and found their word-of-the-day to be Pullin a Palin.
Per this site, it means, "Try to get as much media coverage as you can as a Public Official...Then critisize those who factually check out your conduct, deeds and lack of intellectual capacity and hypocricy." By the way, the misspellings of ‘criticize' and ‘hypocrisy' are not he fault of this blog's author.
This was followed by the word Palin which may mean, "An applicant lacking even basic job skills" or "adjective used to describe a person underqualified for a given task. Also used to denote an idiot, or small-town redneck."
Liberals, ever afraid of a true conservative at the ballot box, continue to attack at every corner.
I decided to check out if there were any negative posts about Obama and someone had posted Pullin an Obama. It contained the following as a definition,
"Using your charisma to deceive others. AKA Player. Pullin an Obama - Telling people on one coast one thing and another coast something else. Telling people that you wont raise taxes on incomes, but then raising taxes on everything else so you still have to pay more. Telling everyone you are going to run things from the middle, but still putting in the most liberal and socialistic agenda ever. Saying you have no relations to people, but actually they are the ones that got you started. Making 4 million and only donating $4,000.00 to charity. Complaining about the previous president's spending and multiplying his debt by 4 in the first 100days of office. Forgetting that you are half white and focusing on the black side, because that is what will get you the power you hunger for. Saying you are a loyal and faithful American, but going overseas and telling them how sorry you are and awful America is."
I say, truer words never spoken! Only a few people have voted on this definition, if everyone reading this blog visited www.urbandictionary.com and searched for Pullin an Obama and voted thumbs up, what a statement that would be! Remember, thumbs up means you agree with the definition. If the spirit moves you, look up Palin or Pullin a Palin and feel free to vote thumbs down.
That's a featured story headline from the July 8, 2009 edition of USA Today. While only about $17 billion of Porkzilla, I mean, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, better known simply as, the Stimulus Bill, has actually been delivered to local governments, the vast majority has gone to areas that supported the President last November. Keep in mind that the Stimulus Bill contained $787 billion in spending which means that five months after being signed into law just over 2% has actually been delivered. Can someone explain to me, coherently, why we had to rush this through Congress? I digress.
USA Today performed an analysis of the money delivered thus far. Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration's stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival. The reports show 872 counties that supported Obama received about $69 per person, on average. The 2,234 that supported McCain received about $34.
However, we have no need to worry - "There's no politics at work when it comes to spending for the recovery," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says. This boggles the mind and begs the question, "Just how dumb does Obama think we are?"
Perhaps we're not dumb, but, he knows that the state run media (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, etc.) will overlook this story. Kudos to USA Today for digging to learn the truth about stimulus spending and for having the onions to print a story that casts aspersions on the President.
However, it didn't begin and won't end with the Stimulus Bill. USA Today also looked into existing federal allocations and changes Obama made. They found that, according to spending reports from the U.S. Census Burea, the counties that voted for Obama collected about 50% more government aid than those that supported McCain.
What's really at work here? For anyone who grew up in Illinois, especially around Chicago, it's simple - payoffs. Obama is rewarding those counties that supported him in hopes of getting their vote again and punishing into submission those that didn't. Whenever the discussion among friends leads to the dirty style of Chicago politics I counter with, "Thank goodness no one from Chicago ever rose to national political prominence! Oh, wait . . ." I think I'll bring this article along for the next dialogue.
Pardon me for what appears below as it's not so much a blog as a list of postings from the Chicago Tribune's blog. For almost two days our hometown paper carried the story of Sarah Palin's departure as its website lead. As related sub-stories they noted their blog where people may post comments on this news story. For the entire time the Trib kept the following post as the headline: Comments: "She looks like a quitter."
I refreshed a number of times, checked back later that day and even the next. It was still there. I thought they may rotate what appeared, but, they didn't - so much for presenting unbiased coverage. On an unrelated note, the following headline appeared near the negative Palin comment, "Another jobless recovery possible." I digress, but, I mean, honestly . . .
I checked the comments and while there was a fair share of nasty ones I thought you'd like to see the below, positive ones. These are the ones the Trib wouldn't dare put on its website's cover.
By the way, did anyone else see the symbolism associated with Sarah's announcing this over the Independence Day weekend? Hmmmmmm.
Enjoy . . .
I seem to recall a Junior Senator just 2 years into his term that decided to run for President and I'm sure it had nothing to do with money or power, he just got bored representing the People of the State of Illinois. Now he is President and the country is experiencing the highest unemployment in 26 years, we're have unsustainable debt and we all own car companies.
Hope & Change!
Who else didn't finish there first term. One guess he's, the president.
Obama-Please take note. Maybe this is something you might consider doing.
Why are there no good looking liberals outside of Hollywood? Even those libs are stupid and crazy.
She couldnt do any worse than hapless Obama and blubbering Biden !!
I think that she has a plan for how she can better make a positive change in the country. I think she should have finished her term, but she and her family have been relentlessly and brutally attacked. She has had ethics complaints filed against her for such meaningless actions as wearing a jacket. The sexism has been appalling. Just look at the comments on this page. The women in the media and NOW hardly stood up for her because she is not democrat, even when she was being called the most crude names.
Well, if she is going to run for President (not really her best idea, but whatever), at least she is going to do so without trying to continue the charade of being governor of Alaska. Living here in Illinois, we, after all, had a make-believe senator for three years who used the title as a way of burnishing his "experience" credentials to run for president. Accuse Palin of naked ambition, sure. But give her points for at least not playing the dishonest "Aw, shucks, if you really want me to run, I will" canard.
At least she proved she was born in America and no Socialist for sure.
She shouldn't have any problem defeating the current incumbent in2012, Bozo the Clown could accomplish that
I hope she makes millions on the talk show and speaking tours. Maybe she will come back an kick some left wing ass politically. She scares the hell out of them.
Your humble blogger's post: While there are many Pro-Sarah comments here, I'm saddened by the vicious tone of the negative ones. You people are sooooooo worried about the chances of a true conservative winning, it couldn't be more obvious. I can't wait for January 20, 2013 - the real Independence Day.
A turning point in how I viewed the mainstream (now state run, effectively) media came during the very early 1990s. I was home sick from work and happened upon C-SPAN, for some reason I watched. A few days before, the media pulverized V.P. Dan Quayle for not knowing southwestern U.S. geography. It seemed like he'd just been hammered for spelling potato with an "e" at the end. Remember that incident?
I'd heard, and been razzed by friends and acquaintances, that our V.P. thought Phoenix was in California. I soon saw a clip, on the news, where he said (paraphrasing), "I love being in southern California, I just love California. I grew up in Phoenix." Fast forward a few days to being home sick. The Office of the V.P. held a press conference, broadcast on C-SPAN, to explain this incident. I wondered how they'd worm their way out of this one. They simply declared they wanted to set the record straight and then ran the video clip of the now infamous statement. I watched the same clip as he said (again, paraphrasing), ""I love being in southern California, I just love California. I grew up in Phoenix, though, most people don't know that."
My jaw dropped and for a moment I forgot about my sore throat, stuffy nose, chills and pounding headache. Had the media been that deceptive to take a clip and fail to show the last few words just to make him look stupid? The answer had to be "Yes!".
Fast forward almost two decades to this year's Gridiron Club dinner in D.C. V.P. Biden filled in for the President and, per Eleanor Clift of Newsweek, declared that a secret bunker under his residence would keep him safe in the event of an attack. He boasted that's where Cheney went the morning of 9/11. Ms. Clift reports this on her Newsweek blog.
To be fair, I'll note that the V.P.'s office issued this statement, "What the Vice President described in his comments was not -- as some press reports have suggested -- an underground facility, but rather, an upstairs workspace in the residence." So, does that mean our V.P. is so stupid he doesn't know the difference between a second floor office and an underground bunker?
How many of you heard this story reported on the news? I saw it only on Fox News and, obviously, in Newsweek. Don't get me wrong, revealing the secret, secure location of where the V.P. of the United States would be kept safe during an attack might be considered treason. However, if the V.P. publicly declares it, I say it is fair game. Where are the media declarations of how stupid Joe Biden is for doing this or for not knowing the difference? Dan Quayle misspells a word and then the media deliberately alters, by omission, something he said to make him look foolish but they say almost nothing about revealing the V.P.'s bunker. Sad, shameful but, sadly, not surprising.
By now you've probably heard about "Newsweek" editor-in-chief, Evan Thomas, literally calling Barrack Obama "God" on MSNBC's show "Hardball" with Chris Matthews. You'll find the video embedded below - see it for yourself. He made the comment in reaction to the President's speech in Normandy commemorating the 64th anniversary of D-Day. As shocking and outrageous, however, note the thirty-three second point where Chris Mathews agrees using the intonation of a freshman girl with a crush on the senior basketball team star. If you recall, Mathews was the journalist who reported a "thrill going up his leg" when listening to Obama speak.
Dim lights
Clearly objective, professional journalism in the print and broadcast media is almost dead. To assist American journalists who wish to be closer to God but still say their nightly prayers, I offer the following. My apologies to St. Matthew . . .
Alright, let's begin with the disclaimers lest anyone think this blog will defend Hitler's regime in anyway, shape or form. It doesn't. This post does, however, expose a clever deception to cast aspersions on those with conservative views.
I'll illustrate by example. A few years ago while visiting New York State with my then girlfriend, of the Democratic persuasion, we struck up a conversation with a bar tender. My girlfriend loved to point out my right leaning tendencies (in jest, I think) and this encounter was no exception. The bar tender immediately replied that she hated the Christian Reich (as opposed to Christian Right). I witnessed conservative values being equated to the Nazi party as I had many times before.
Long before I converted to the right (I grew up in a Democratic household), I heard and read about Nazis being "right wing". The comparisons, even at college, were brutal. If you voted Republican, a professor declared in the classroom, you should remember that the Nazis were right wing too - clearly seething at Reagan's reelection. Common sense told me something was wrong with that analysis but I couldn't put my finger on it.
One day, I made the connection. The same professor explained the pre-eminence of communism and socialism to capitalism. Hmmmm, I wonder if Obama was in my class. Anyway, he enlightened us about the advanced political structures in Europe, how it would take the U.S. decades to catch up to our superior neighbors across the Atlantic, etc. Well, he was correct in that, considering our current direction, it took about two decades. It's odd to think of it now that Communism has failed absolutely and Europe and even China are converting from Socialism to Capitalism. I guess we're still behind our "superiors".
He noted how the leftist policies of socialism and communism would work much better than the radically-right capitalism. Then, like a lightning bolt, it hit me. I'd read William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich years before. The word itself, Nazi, is just the English phonetic sound of the abbreviation of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the official German name of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. In fact, Nazis of the WW II era didn't call themselves Nazis but rather Nationalsozialisten, i.e. National Socialists.
Wait a minute - National SOCIALISTS. Aren't socialists "left"? If so, why do so many refer to the Nazis as being to the right of the political spectrum? Well, in fairness, wouldn't you want to distance yourself from the Nationalsozialisten? Regardless, is equating Nazis with the "right" this something that has just entered our jargon, something that has been accepted without inspection?
So, in case you hadn't thought about it before, remember that the Nazi party was/is a leftist organization - not right leaning. In the future, don't be afraid to correct anyone who makes that mistake.
Scroll down from this piece to a May 21, 2009 post entitled Liberal Mentality. You'll find what appears to be a classified ad shaming hunters who kill prey for food. It admonishes them for not purchasing meat at a grocery store as meat is, ". . . made there, where no animals are harmed." While clearly an extreme example, this naiveté permeates the liberal mindset. They proffer simple answers for complex problems which, when analyzed, offer little or no real solution.
The mean-hunter ad noted above reminded me of a 2006 documentary from the United Kingdom named Who Killed the Electric Car? Narrated by Martin Sheen, this ninety minute movie explains the evils of fossil fuels and how big oil companies and U.S. Republicans instrumented the demise of the electric car. The film often seems eerily reminiscent of JFK in its conspiratorial tone. I checked and, as near as I could tell, Oliver Stone had no affiliation with this production but you cannot miss the influence.
When not reminding us that George W. Bush is a "big oil guy" the inventors and celebrities interviewed repeatedly declare that if only America would switch to the electric car we would all but eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels. They innocently stated that by plugging our cars into electric sockets at home we are not using fossil fuels. I remember the next day telling a friend how I became so frustrated I wanted to throw my slippers at the television.
Just how do these people think we generate electricity? While power flowing from a wall would seem magical to a caveman surely the likes of Martin Sheen, David Letterman, Tom Hanks, Ralph Nader, Bill Clinton and others should know better. Or, are they that indifferent towards the truth due to their political ideology? Like the naïve classified ad poster it seemed to make them feel good bashing oil companies and George W. Bush while (thinking they were) telling us how to save the environment in the process.
The problem, of course, is that electric cars do consume fossil fuels, just not directly. The electricity for your toaster, alarm clock, lights, air conditioning and countless other items comes from the burning of fossil fuels. When you plug anything into an electrical socket you cause the burning of fossil fuels. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, sources cited below, of all electricity generated in the United States during 2008 71% came from fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum and natural gas. 20% was generated by nuclear power and 9% by hydroelectric and other renewable sources.
The electric car saves gasoline, no doubt about it. However, by plugging it into a socket at home you're probably still burning fossil fuels to get that electricity; there's just no way around it. This may not make liberals feel good, but, facts often have that effect on them.
The title liberal is not well meant.
Congressman Raymond Eugene Green, better known as Gene Green, represents the 29th district of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives. He's done so since the district was created after the 1990 census. He lives in one of the rare liberal enclaves of the Lone Star State. It's so liberal that our party didn't even present a candidate to oppose him in 1998, 2002 or 2004. 
Pardon me for what appears below as it's not so much a blog as a list of postings from the Chicago Tribune's blog. For almost two days our hometown paper carried the story of Sarah Palin's departure as its website lead. As related sub-stories they noted their blog where people may post comments on this news story. For the entire time the Trib kept the following post as the headline: Comments: "She looks like a quitter."
A turning point in how I viewed the mainstream (now state run, effectively) media came during the very early 1990s. I was home sick from work and happened upon C-SPAN, for some reason I watched. A few days before, the media pulverized V.P. Dan Quayle for not knowing southwestern U.S. geography. It seemed like he'd just been hammered for spelling potato with an "e" at the end. Remember that incident?
