There is no doubt that when an election year comes around, especially a presidential election year, people begin to act weird. It's like all of a sudden many of them become undercover spies trying to figure out what the other side is going to do or say or what they think. Though do whatever they need to do in order to retain or gain the power that they have or want. Both sides but I'm not picking on either the left or right in particular here but isn't it strange sometimes they decide to pick on?
Maybe they feel like they have to use subterfuge in order to get an honest opinion, so they will pretend to be in agreement with the individual they are interrogating in order to put them at ease and get an 'honest opinion' from them. For some reason, they feel the need to do this with me and it has happened quite a few times over the last month or so. I don't think anyone should have any doubt what my opinions are when it comes to the national, state, or local elections. I put them out there whether it's on these pages, Facebook, or the radio show. Not only that, but if you ask me I will tell you what I think about whatever topic interests you even if I know that you are diametrically opposed to my beliefs.
It started about a month ago or so while I was at a local establishment enjoying an adult beverage. The gentleman sat down at the bar near the quickly introduced himself and asked what I thought of all the political shenanigans going on. I've been in a lot of public houses in my day and it's hard for someone to start up a conversation with such a combustible topic, unless they already know you and you had similar discussions in the past. You just don't do that with strangers you get to know them before you bring up hot button topics like that. You went right to a telling me first that he didn't like Hillary Clinton but wasn't sure he could vote for Trump. It became clear that he was probably a Bernie Sanders supporter and he quickly turned the conversation to local and state politics wondering where I stood. I left no doubt.
Since then I have received a number of phone calls by people claiming to be Rush Limbaugh fans or Sean Hannity fans and wondering what I felt about local candidates. But it was clear their questions were geared towards trying to catch me in some way shape or form. For example, one individual was asking me why I believe a group of our local candidates running as a ticket do not like the mining industry. I responded that all you had to do was look at their activism over the last decade, not just their words but their actions and in my opinion the only logical conclusion is that they wanted to shut the mining industry down completely. Of course the next few questions were along the lines of, don't you want say drinking water? Or don't you want your children to be safe from toxins stirred up in the mining process? All typical liberal talking points.
In fact I've had a couple people come into my office and engage me in similar conversations. The questions over the last week have definitely been skewed more towards our local candidates running for both state office and local office. Maybe it's because on last week's radio show I promise to discuss some of the beliefs of the local political candidates, things that you can't necessarily find on their websites or Facebook pages or in some of their public appearances. Seems they might be a little bit worried that I will put something out there that they don't want out there. Based on what I've seen so far, should be worried.
Quite simply, it's too bad they feel they need to engage in below the board tactics. Since you have enough backbone and confidence in your beliefs to be able to espouse those and defend them? Aren't we supposed to have an open and honest discussion of ideas in this country? Apparently not according to the liberals, but we already knew that.
The term redneck is unique to American lexicology, but the principle of an unsophisticated individual or group of individuals can be found in every country. Darwin waits patiently for all stupid people. In Gaza, a suicide bomber with ties to Isis was shot and killed before he could detonate his bomb. His body was recovered by his fellow members of Hamas. Despite not having accomplished his mission, they still held a funeral worthy of a martyr. Here's a little Pro tip for you would be terrorists; if your suicide bomber does not detonate you might want to remove the bomb vest from his body before you start parading through town with his corpse. You guessed it, the bomb vest exploded taking at least 15 terrorists to meet Allah. That is karma baby!
I thought the whole Black lives Matter movement and similar anti-discrimination and bigotry groups was geared towards eliminating racism. Apparently I am wrong and they want to further entrenched racism into our country. This is certainly not the only story like this you can find it is clearly indicative of how these radicals think. At the University of California Berkeley this past weekend students protested the lack of safe spaces for "people of color" on the campus. Of course these safe spaces are designed to keep these little snowflakes protected from words and images that might offend them. That might cause them emotional harm and trauma just because they saw a word or saw a white person. The protesters quickly formed a human chain blocking access to Sather Gate, which apparently is one of the main entrances to the campus if you are walking. Now this was caught on video, the students would not allow quite people to enter or exit through the gate. Rather they were forced to walk through the woods and cross Strawberry Creek in order to get to their classes. I wonder how the environmental groups on campus felt about that? Forcing the students and faculty to walk through the Creek probably disturbed the riparian area and cause pollution not to mention killing some plants. The students are asking for different treatment because of the color of one's skin which we will ask again, is that not racism pure and simple? Remember the Democrats in the South enacted separate but equal laws keeping Blacks and whites apart in, theoretically, equal public institutions. That is the same thing the students are asking for right now. So explain to me how this helps to end racism?
One of the things we have always talked about when it comes to voting for elected officials at any level is that you should vote for the person who most closely reflects your belief system. Their core principles and yours are most closely aligned, no one can be an exact match but you know what is important to you and you should vote for the person who shares a similar principle. We can ask questions about what a person would do what type of legislation they would support, or how they would deal with general issues. But one thing we can never anticipate is all of the things that elected official will be asked to deal with while in office. If you vote for someone who reflects your general belief system, then you should have a degree of comfort knowing that they will deal with issues in the same manner that you might. One of the problems of course is that too many of our candidates tell us one thing and do another, and they do not often reveal their true principles to us. I find it interesting that in our local race, one candidate will not completely identify her educational or work history. Maybe it's because in some of her writings, she has identified herself as a cultural Marxist. She believes her work has been greatly affected by her political views. And maybe because she identifies with a very alternative lifestyle; she believes in living communally with adults and children and prefers to live that way as well as maintaining some other sexually open relationships in addition to a primary one. She also identified some of her most influential readings being authored by researchers who promoted what some called deviant sexual relationships. I wonder why this isn't in her biography?
Hillary Clinton was being interviewed on fusion television and was asked why she voted for a wall along the Mexico/United States border in 2006. Her answer is typical political babble. She said she voted for border security in 2006 and part of the bill included offense which, she pointed out it was never called a wall, but was called a fence. Maybe she said in some places it was a wall but to her it was a fence and not a wall. Is that like saying it depends upon what the definition of "is" is? Apparently she learned well from her husband how to parse words.
I was listening to 690 am out of El Paso earlier this week. They were carrying an advertisement directed at women joining the military. The first part of the advertisement confirmed something that I have said for a long time: in fact two things I have said about this have come to fruition.
Weather is the military, police departments, or fire departments we have seen the effort to integrate women into those career fields for quite some time. Probably 15 years ago when the efforts really picked up in this show was in its infancy, I talked about women joining the combat units in the military. At the time there was a story about the Army lowering their physical requirements in order to get more women qualified and into combat units. The same thing had been happening with police and fire departments for years. One of the things I sent at the time was that if those physical standards, such as being able to carry a 75 pound pack or do 100 sit ups in two minutes or less, etc., were proven to be beneficial to a soldiers ability to do his job than the physical requirements should not be reduced.
At the time I said I do not care if you are male or female, if those physical requirements aren't necessary essential function of the job that will help keep you and your fellow soldiers alive than they should not be reduced for anyone. If you cannot meet the physical requirements to get through boot camp, then you should not be allowed into combat units. The same principle applied to police and fire departments. If you have to have an ability to carry a fire hose up and down stairs or carry a human being out of a burning building weather on stairs or on a ladder and you need to be able to do that or someone will die because you cannot.
We have seen departments and military forces lower their physical standards ever since, primarily for women. I sincerely believe that there are women who can do the job from a physical standpoint more than some men can do. But this advertisement really took it to an unbelievable place. The testimony from the female soldier was that very often it's very very hard; much harder than it is for a man because women are asked to perform the same physical requirements as men are. Carrying a pack that big is very difficult, inferring that it was unfair.
Now she went on to say that being in the military taught her discipline, toughness, and the ability to achieve things that she never thought she would be able to before. But the clear inference from the commercial was that the military is being unfair to women by having the same requirements for them as they do for men. From now not only have we lowered the standards for physical performance which puts lives in danger, we are inferring that the military is bigoted or discriminating towards women. Do you want your daughter, your sister, or your wife to go into battle knowing that she is not prepared to deal with the physical rigors of war? I don't want my daughter or my son or any other relative being put in harm's way if they cannot meet the performance standards necessary to keep them in their fellow soldiers alive.
But this is what political correctness has done. We are not an effective fighting force like we used to be; we have put more and more young people in harm's way unnecessarily all because we want to see certain numbers women in the military. That apparently is more important than keeping them alive.
last week we rediscovered Google's analytics. There are some strange people that have the ability to use a computer and search the Internet. In fact it's time to put me in charge of who gets to breathe or not because clearly some stupid people are living longer and in some cases have learned how to reproduce. It's time to bring back lawn darts, take off all the warning labels and let things sort themselves out.
Here are the most frequently searched "how to" questions on Google by state. we aren't going to talk about all states but just some of this ones that are a bit shall we say different.
Alabama-how to make love. Well, first put your arms around your sister and kiss her.
Colorado how to play backgammon. Is that the new Stoner game?
Connecticut-how to be pretty. Moved to the south and tell them you are somebody's sister.
Delaware-how to get away with murder. I knew that residents of Delaware don't like some of their neighbors but isn't that bad?
Florida-how to get out of Florida. No, you just stay right there we don't want you infesting the rest of the country.
Georgia-how to crack a safe. Not because they're looking to rob someone but they forgot the combination to their gun safe.
Indiana-how to be popular. Well if you are pretty moved to Connecticut, they apparently need some pretty girls there.
Iowa-how to make Jell-O shots. Really, are you kidding me? Did your parents not teach you?
Kansas-how to find Kansas. Walk outside?
Kentucky-how to make a baby. First take off your sister's clothes.
Massachusetts-how to make doughnuts. You don't have a Dunkin' Donuts or Krispy Kreme?
Michigan-how to get unemployment. I thought they were teaching life skills in public school?
Minnesota-how to quit a job. Um, don't show up? People in Minnesota are really just Canadians, they are too nice to quit the job they hate.
Mississippi-how to twerk. act like you just went number two and don't have any toilet paper and are trying to get that last Dangler off your butt.
Montana-how to hard boil eggs. Too many Californians have moved to Montana.
Nebraska-how to fly a plane. Is that where we are sending all the Syrian refugees?
New Hampshire-how to tip cows. It depends upon how good the service is, talk to the people in Nebraska.
New Mexico-how to put on a condom. Clearly a lot of you need to know that they teaching this in public school?
Oklahoma-how to sext. first dialed your sister's number.
Pennsylvania-how to get drunk. If you know someone in Iowa:.
South Carolina-how to be yourself. First quit entering beauty pageants and saying bless her heart.
Utah-how to train the Dragon. hey, what are those Mormons up to now?
Virginia how to propose. First kneel in front of your sister.
If I have offended anyone, rub some dirt on it and get over it.
As many of you know, I listen a lot to talk radio especially ESPN. Dan Lebatard often radials about social issues and once in a while talks about sports. For full disclosure, I am a diehard Minnesota Vikings fan. I watched our loss to the Philadelphia Eagles on Sunday and thought our offense of line played horribly. Yes I know I am saying "our" but I feel like my 49 years of being a fan have made me part of the franchise. It's illogical sports fan thought but that's beside the point.
After the game head coach Mike Zimmer said that the team did not play with the toughness that will they normally exhibit. He did not think the players accepted mental or physical toughness that he has come to expect and that they have come to demonstrate in the first five games of the season. There were too many turnovers, our offensive line got beaten up badly, some of our defensive players did not play up to their potential as they normally do.
Dan Lebatard took offense at coach Zimmer's comments. He does not believe that adults need to be motivated to do their best. He does not believe that any of the players should be criticized by their coach for not being tough. He believes that any adult is tough already and does their best every time they step on the field or into whatever job they might hold. That's kind of an odd opinion for a flaming liberal to hold, isn't it?
Liberals like Lebatard constantly talk about how people are discriminated against and held back by rich people and/or society in general. He laments the discrimination that minority groups such as Blacks or Hispanics or LGBT or women, have to suffer on a daily basis. He believes as do many liberals that our government does not do enough to help people who need it. There should be more welfare, there should be free healthcare, you know all of the arguments that the ultra left uses to show they care.
So these two opinions are diametrically opposed. The NFL is full of minorities many of whom came from poor backgrounds where they lived in public housing or received public assistance. And when we look around the abundance of governmental assistance has created a dependent class I cannot seem to get out of the malaise that is their life, being dependent upon someone else for what they receive. It's only when they are told that the government teat is going to be shut off that we see people rely upon their own abilities to earn a living. By not shutting off the government teat you are telling them in effect, as we have said here many times, that they are incapable of motivating themselves and pulling themselves up the economic ladder.
Additionally, how many days have any of us gone to work and not felt motivated to do our best? I would submit that there are very few people who do not have days where they are less than motivated to get out of bed and go to work. And when they get to work they don't often put forth their best effort and sometimes need to be reminded by their boss or someone else that they are slacking. Happened to you? Happen to me. Yes, even NFL professionals need to be reminded that they have not played up to their expectations. For Dan to say anything different shows you that he is not a principled individual like most liberals
As an aside, many of you might have noticed that there are some grammatical errors in our recent posts. For my birthday a few weeks ago I was given the software program, Dragon. I love it but it is taking some time for us to get the voice recognition part of the program accurate. So bear with us.
Hillary claims to be a champion of the downtrodden especially women. She claims to have worked tirelessly throughout her career to promote the rights of women and create opportunities for women. So isn't it ironic that the only reason Hillary Clinton is famous and has even been able to run for president not to mention get elected as a United States Senator, is because she is married to Bill Clinton.
Think about this, and she started her career in Washington DC as part of the Watergate investigatory team, she was dismissed by very liberal attorneys for whom she was working. They said that her legal arguments were at best inane and at worst an intelligent with no basis in legal fact. They said her knowledge base, especially about constitutional issues, was essentially that of an undergraduate prelaw student.
Let's not forget that while she was First Lady she failed miserably at reforming health care and everything else she tried to do, with the obvious exception of running the bimbo eruption squad. As a senator she had no significant accomplishments and as Secretary of State the United States lost standing in the world, Isis gained power, terror attacks increased significantly, and Americans died because of her actions.
When you ask her supporters to name one significant accomplishment she has had throughout her 30 to 40 years in public life, they are unable to do so. For the most part they will talk about how she cares and wants to help people. But they can't name a program, a law or any other achievement of hers that is actually accomplished any goal she set out to achieve.
If you are going to keep an open mind and be honest, you know the only reason she has run for president and was elected as Senator is because she was married to the former president. So it is kind of ironic that she claims to be such a champion of women's rights and says over and over that women do not need men to succeed but the only reason she has achieved anything is because of her marriage to a man.
Donald Trump is being castigated by pundits on both sides of the aisle who claimed that he was winning the last debate until he answered the question about accepting the results of the election if he lost. Of course he did not answer that with a yes or no. He said he would keep us in suspense which is what he should have said. If he suspected that there was widespread fraud or manipulation or that the system was rigged then he should not accept it. It is just too obvious to point out that that is what Al Gore and the Clintons did when George Bush kicked his sorry but allover the place. Not only did they manipulate a recall in Florida but they took it to the Supreme Court and even after the Supreme Court confirmed the election results, Hillary Clinton said he wasn't not her president. More liberal hypocrisy.
The very reason Donald Trump got into this race is the reason he gave, essentially, in his answer. There is fraud, there is manipulation, there is intimidation (remember the new Black Panther party standing outside multiple polling places intimidating people who were not supporting their candidate?). The Democrats are especially good at rigging elections. How many dead people have voted in Chicago or Boston? There are reasons for these stereotypes. How is it that Mitt Romney did not receive even one vote in dozens of counties in Ohio or Pennsylvania?
In fact, the United States Department of Justice at the request of Pres. Obama and the Clinton campaign have announced they will have election observers and poll observers at random polling places on election day. Why would they do that? Only if they thought it was going to be fraud or other unacceptable behaviors. Or maybe, just maybe, they want to protect the Democrat parties tactics for manipulating the outcome of elections. Why would Obama asked the United Nations to send election observers? He must think that there's going to be some fraud.
And Donald was so correct in pointing out that Hillary pivoted from the question to talking about the Russians. The first of all, let's assume that the Russians did provide the hacked emails to WikiLeaks. So what? Hillary's answer, along with that of Donna Brazile, was to point out that some foreign nation was trying to manipulate the outcome of our election. In fact both of them said to interviewers subsequent to the debate that people shouldn't rely upon the emails because they were stolen; not that they were incorrect or falsified, but stolen. Some of the documents used to bring Richard Nixon down because of Watergate stolen?
I would submit that Vladimir Putin would rather have Hillary Clinton in the White House than Donald Trump. Over the last eight years Putin has been able to return to the foreign policy philosophy practiced by the USSR. He has been more aggressive throughout the world, invading sovereign nations under the guise of liberating ethnic Russians. By the way, the same thing that Adolph Hitler said as he began his war of aggression. Putin has even created no fly zones in Syria warning United States pilots to stay away from those areas or risk being shot down by Russian military planes or antiaircraft batteries. Obama has done nothing and I believe Putin is of the opinion that Hillary will continue Glorious Leader's foreign-policy program allowing Russia to expand their influence even further. At the very least, to Russia, Donald Trump is an unknown and is more likely than not to push back against Russia's aggression.
So with Hillary and others in the media screaming about Donald Trump not respecting the Constitution, he is actually doing the opposite. He is respecting the law of the Constitution knowing that the election results will be manipulated, that there will be fraud, and that if it is widespread he will fight to uphold the law of this land. Once again, I will submit to those of you who are mad at Donald for your statement and that support Hillary, if you thought that Donald Trump was manipulating the election results in the same way as the Democrat party machine, you would be screaming to high heaven. But since it is your candidate that could very well benefit from illegal activities, you abandon any principles you might have about upholding the law because the results are more important to you than the rule of law versus the will of man. It's pathetic that this is what our nation has come to.
One of the problems with so-called renewable energies like solar or wind generated electricity, is that the supply of electricity is inconsistent. There are multiple other problems but we've seen this play out almost every time that renewable energy has been used to generate electricity on a large scale. Of course the push for renewable sources of electricity is driven by the belief that man is creating climate change, primarily through our generation of CO2. Despite the fact that we have taken great steps to limit the amount of CO2 that man puts into the atmosphere and that even if we were producing CO2 as best as we could, the amount we produced would be minuscule as compared to what is created naturally from things like volcanoes.
Scientists at Oak Ridge national laboratory have come up with a way to turn CO2 into ethanol. And not only is it efficient, but ethanol is already used as fuel. The report on their findings really addresses the benefits of the technology in terms of averting climate change. But there are some other more important benefits.
Right now producing ethanol from plant-based material like corn is inefficient. It takes more energy to create the ethanol then the ethanol creates when it is used as a fuel. Plus the production of ethanol is subsidized by the federal government which skews not only the production costs upward but the price upward as well: not to mention that it makes those plant-based materials like corn or expensive for people who want to use it as a food. So a new method that is low-cost and efficient that can produce a significant amount of ethanol would be a good thing. It would bring the price of ethanol down and also cause more of the plant-based material produced ethanol to be taken out of production and returned to the food market.
Of the technology used to turn CO2 into ethanol is fairly simple and uses copper and carbon combine into nanospikes, which are then put on a silicone surface and using small amounts of electricity turns the CO2 into ethanol. Very importantly, this process works at room temperature so does not need to be supercooled. The conversion process could also be used as temporary energy storage during a lull in renewable energy generation smoothing out fluctuations in renewable energy grid.
So now we have taken a step forward in the technology that could help us to create more renewable energy at lower prices. That's a good thing isn't it? The authors of the report did not mention what kind of money they spent in trying to find this solution but did say that they found it on the first try. It is expected that this would be a much more complicated process. I'm sure the money we gave them will be spent some other way rather than returning it to us but that's another story for another day. But simply as we push forward with research the technology will eventually catch up with our goals. We cannot artificially force people into using renewable energies that are inefficient and expensive. But as things like this happen we will get closer to the goal that almost everyone wants, clean pollution free, renewable sources of energy that are widely available.
Sometimes you just need a bit of a laugh, especially these days. What people search for on the internet can be very revealing and give us a bit of humor as well. So what is it that people are searching for when it comes to plastic surgery procedures and what does it say about your state?
Here in NM, along with Arizona and Nevada, the most commonly searched for procedure is lip injections. I'm really not sure what to say about that, which might be a first.
But the ones that are really telling; in 9 states, people are looking to increase the size of their wedding tackle; e.g. penis enlargement. Alaska, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, Indiana, Kentucky, and Michigan. I'm not sure if it's the men doing the research or the women. And for some reason throw in Massachusetts & New Hampshire.
Laser hair removal is the top search in 5 states, but probably not the ones you might think. Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Oregon, and Wisconsin. I'd have thought the southern states might dominate this category but then again, maybe the women don't think their back hair needs to be removed.
In the south, it's actually liposuction; Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, North & South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, New York, Delaware, Illinois, and a couple of other northeastern states that are too small to care about. Maybe if they laid off the deep fried Twinkies... just sayin'.
Eyelid surgery makes a couple of appearances in New Hampshire, Minnesota, and South Dakota.
The rest of the states want bigger boobs, searching for breast implants the most often. With one very notable exception; North Dakota folks want to have their hoo-hahs rebuilt. Vaginal rejuvenation is the most commonly searched for procedure. What are they doing in North Dakota that is tearing up lady parts? Given the ratio of farm animals to people, I don't think I want to know.
Can there be any doubt in anyone's mind, has kept in mind, that Hillary Clinton is the stereo typical politician and powerbroker? If you read the 100 pages dumped by the FBI on Friday night it is very clear that this whole investigation goes beyond the email server and into her conduct as Secretary of State.
In the FBI investigation materials and unidentified FBI agent was contacted by under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy; Kennedy requested that some of the emails marked classified be changed to unclassified by the FBI agent. The agent refused and Kennedy contacted a high-ranking official at the FBI with the same request. That agent also refused.
Then Kennedy called for an "all agencies" meeting to include the FBI, the State Department, CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, and others. In that meeting the question was posed with some of the emails sent and received by Hillary and some of her age were in fact classified. The meeting notes show that Kennedy said we will see. Clearly the intent is calling that meeting was to determine if those emails could be declassified retroactively so that Hillary's claim that she was unaware of sending any classified materials or her denial that she ever sent or received classified materials would be accurate.
Apparently Kennedy was unsuccessful in his efforts but did continue to contact high-ranking FBI officials asking them to retroactively declassify the materials sent and received by Secretary of State Clinton. Can there be any doubt that she was aware of, at the very least, and more likely was behind Patrick Kennedy's efforts? If you keep an open mind, I don't think there can be anything but one conclusion.