A Father and Daughter Discussion

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college.
Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very Liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more
government programs. The self professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends, because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.'

Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way, you will both have a 3.0 GPA, and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.'

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea; how would that be fair? I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently,
'Welcome to the Republican party.'
If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Republican and Democrat, I'm all ears. If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products
banned for everyone.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to
better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)
If conservatives reads this, they will forward it to their friends so they can have a good laugh.
A liberal will click to another website that won't tell them the truth.

Green Effort Failures Cost Taxpayers Millions

State Audit Shows Most "Green" Schools Cost More and Are Less Efficient Than Average School

Recently the Joint Legislative Audit & Review Committee (JLARC) released its report on the state's green buildings requirements. The title of the report indicates that the "Impact on Energy Use is Mixed." A casual look at the report shows that the word "mixed" is a generous assessment.

The evidence in the report shows the buildings add millions in costs but deliver little in the way of energy savings or environmental improvement. Here are a few of the conclusions.

•For 14 schools studied in the report, the state and districts paid an additional $10 million to comply with the rules, an average of 2.6 percent more than buildings built before the regulations were imposed.

•Energy savings projections for the buildings are wildly inaccurate. Green building advocates often point to projected energy use to argue the buildings will be more efficient. JLARC found that energy projections for the nine buildings it examined were 52 percent lower than the actual use once buildings opened.

•Of nine "green" schools examined, only one was the most efficient in its school district. Five of the nine schools were actually less efficient than the average school of any age in the district. Most of the new "green" schools are less efficient than buildings that are decades old.

•Most "green" schools improved their energy efficiency over time. The data demonstrate, however, this is primarily because the schools were so inefficient in their first year. For example, Grove Elementary in Marysville ranked in the 26th percentile in energy efficiency of all similar buildings according to the Energy Star rating. The subsequent 19 percent improvement in efficiency was primarily a result of it starting out from such a low point.

•Most "green" schools do not meet Energy Star standards. Eight of 13 "green" schools would not achieve Energy Star rating, awarded to those buildings in the top 25 percent of "similar buildings." This is especially noteworthy because many "similar buildings" are much older. Even those that do meet the standards are still poor when compared to other local schools. Sherwood Forest Elementary school in Bellevue is the 12th most efficient of 16 elementary schools in Bellevue. Rachel Carson Elementary in the Lake Washington School District is 8th of 27. This indicates both that the Energy Star rating is a questionable measure of performance for these buildings and that district officials were building efficient buildings long before the new regulations took effect.

•JLARC's study notes that of $455,826 spent by the Spokane School District to bring Lincoln Heights Elementary up to the "green" requirements, only $81,000, about 18%, was spent on the energy efficiency elements. The other 82 percent was spent to meet other elements of the standard that did not yield savings. Put simply, the mandates required the district to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars simply to meet the law's guidelines.

Most importantly, the report shows the "green" building standards do not pay for themselves in any reasonable time frame. Examining two "green" schools, JLARC notes the payback time ranged from 27 to 30 years. Even this is generous for two reasons.

First, these don't include a discount rate. They assume that paying a dollar today to save a dollar in thirty years makes sense, when clearly it does not. When adjusting for rising energy costs (which makes the payback time shorter) and the discounted value of money (which increases payback time), the time to recover the costs increases to 43 years. Since no school building goes 43 years without changes and improvements, the "green" requirements will never pay for themselves.

Second, the study looks at only two schools. One of them, Lincoln Heights elementary in Spokane, is the best performing "green" school in that district. If the study had examined Lidgerwood or Ridgeview, two "green" schools which perform worse than Lincoln Heights, the payback time might have been even longer. It is unclear, however, because the JLARC study does not report the additional construction costs for those schools.

When the green schools legislation was passed in 2005, the Washington Conservation Voters and other advocates promised the schools would cut energy use by about 30 percent and the buildings would quickly pay for themselves. JLARC has now confirmed that this is false, backing up the analysis we have been providing for the past six years.

Given this failure, what will the legislature do? If the goal is to improve energy efficiency and put funding where it will make the best impact on the environment, the legislature will remove these failed regulations. If, however, adopting "green" building legislation is primarily about cultivating a "green" political image, little will be done because changing the rules will risk the political benefits candidates received by supporting the legislation. Time will tell which is more important to legislators.

By Todd Myers
Director, Center for the Environment


Read More at Washington Policy Center

Thumbs up to Morgan Brittany

Please indulge in any vehicle actress Morgan Brttany (Suzanne Cupito)
appears in. She is not one of the Malibu Moron!
If you watched Sean Hannity last night, she posed a very logical question.
If Jared Laughner didn't use a gun, but instead barreled down the
street in an SUV at 70mph, mowing down dozens of innocent people,
will the backers for repealing the 2nd amendment lobby to ban SUVs?
It's the nut behind the gun sight and the jerk behind the wheel, not the
apparatus.

Owning a gun without a permit, driving a car without a license, being
in this country without proper documentation is illegal. The latter is
guilty of all three felonies, so how does my fellow friends from the left
intend to remedy the situation? Our laws allow for legal citizens to apply
for a drivers license and gun permit, but it isn't written anywhere that an
illegal intruder has the right to bare arms or drive a car. Yet many homicides
and vehicular deaths are caused by these illegal intruders. So how is repealing
the 2nd amendment going to stop anyone from obtaining a firearm outside
the law? If anybody has evil intent, guns are readily available, law or no law!

Written by George, a Real Patriot

Arizona Murderer and his Left Wing Heroes

We have Sheriff Dipstick or Sheriff Dupnik, whatever his name is trying to push his Liberal Ideology (LIES) on America after a Liberal massacres innocent people. Then in true DEMONcrat fashion, Sheriff Dipstick Dupnik BLAMES the Conservatives!

The Marxist regime has insurance that the Nazi MSM will protect them. The Left Wing and Nazi MSM have really done it this time. They sunk to new lows. They are crawling around scum buckets with Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers and other Barry soetoro disgusting friends.

By now Jared Lee Loughner, the alleged shooter in the horrific massacre in Tuscon, Arizona yesterday, is a household name. His picture has been plastered all over various news sites, and various facts have been widely reported concerning his behavior.

But who is he? What is his background? What are his interests, habits, allegiances, and lifestyle? What is his mental state?

It goes without saying that Loughner is a disturbed human being, a man who suffers from marked emotional instability. His notes on MySpace and YouTube are rambling and sometimes unintelligible, particularly when he launches into lengthy screeds on ‘English grammar,’ which can only be understood by mental health professionals who could possibly find a way to enter into Loughner’s inner world. Anyone else, however, would find the attempt to understand Loughner’s disjointed and often contradictory language to be a lesson in futility.

Schoolmates of the alleged shooter describe Loughner as a loner, an ultra-liberal with a penchant for hard rock music, flag burning, and pot smoking…

Even more curious are Loughner’s ‘heroes.’ He mentions by name Venezuelan Communist Hugo Chavez, Latin American Communist mass-murderer Che Guevara, American Socialist revolutionary Saul Alinsky, and even Barack Obama.

From his Facebook Page Loughner listed this group of radicals who inspire him:

People who inspire him include Barack Obama, Saul Alinsky, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Huo Chavez, Noam Chomsky, Mao Tse-tung, Joseph Stalin, and Yassir Arafat

It’s a bummer how that worked out, huh?
Loughner turned out to be just your typical leftist nut… Only more violent.
Eat crow leftist hacks.

Planned Parenthood Reveals Startling Discrepancy

Please read this important report below. Whether you support abortion or not, this affects you! Out Tax dollars are being thrown at these liberal based programs and helping to destroy America. The Marxist Enemy within, is bringing us down financing.

GAO Report on Planned Parenthood Reveals Startling Discrepancy

Contact: Katie Walker, American Life League, 540-659-4942

WASHINGTON, /Christian Newswire/ -- "American Life League's STOP Planned Parenthood project analyzed a new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office on federal tax money funneled into Planned Parenthood," announced American Life League President Judie Brown.

According to the GAO report, Planned Parenthood Federation of America audits show the organization spent only $657.1 million between 2002 and 2008 from federal government grants and programs when the abortion behemoth's annual reports show it took in $2 billion from government grants and programs during the same time period.

"That leaves $1.3 billion unaccounted for. That's not pocket change," said STOPP national director Rita Diller. "Why the discrepancy? These numbers don't add up and from an organization with a track record like Planned Parenthood's, the American people deserve an explanation."

The report was requested by 31 U.S. senators and representatives. It is the first of its kind since the 2001 figures released by the GAO in 2003. STOPP notes that Planned Parenthood has other sources of government funding - state and local - and that the GAO report for 2001 shows that PPFA expenditures of federal money accounted for 79 percent of its government income. The new report shows PPFA expenditures of federal money comprising an average of only 32 percent of its government income from 2002 through 2008.

"It is simply not believable such a large amount of its funding is from local and state sources," Diller said

Additionally, in just two weeks, Planned Parenthood will complete its 2009-2010 fiscal year. Yet it still has not released its annual report for its 2008-2009 fiscal year.

"So breaking down the situation," Diller said, "At a time when the majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life, Planned Parenthood rakes in over two billion of our tax dollars, inconsistently reports how they spent our tax money and then admits to killing 1,803,302 preborn babies between 2002 and 2008 alone."

"A growing number of Americans are fed up. It's time to defund Planned Parenthood."

American Life League was cofounded in 1979 by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death. For more information or press inquiries, please contact Katie Walker at 540.659.4942.