The Conservative Wife: It Is No Longer A Question Of What America Is Beco...


Read this, it's pretty good

The Conservative Wife: It Is No Longer A Question Of What America Is Beco...: I know there are many of us out there that have watched with disbelief as our beloved Nation has fallen to new and un-imagined lows. We...

Golden Geese News Exactly One Year Old, Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight NOW!

The Golden Geese News hatched exactly one year ago, today.  Woo hoo.  Still not as popular as the Drudge Report.

Our Most Precious Resource

Here’s an intelligent, well written comment from this post, that I thought deserves it’s own post, and my reply.




Economic efficiency is often different from physical mechanical efficiency. However eventually the rules of science win. As long as hydrocarbons are cheaper than any other method they win the economic efficiency contest. Question is how long will the hydrocarbons be available at a reasonable price....or at any price. If science can truly create biofuels with algae efficiently, and it's certainly not an impossibility then it may be a LONG time before vehicles powered by long chain carbon molecules are replaced. If however that promise is an empty one we will eventually use up all the easily accessed oil, then the hard to access oil, then the almost impossible to access oil. Natural gas etc. will be used up eventually also.
While fossil fuel is a fairly "dense" form of easily transported, easily utilized energy it is nowhere near energetic enough and transportable enough to allow humanity to evolve to the next level......leaving earth in meaningful numbers. If we don't solve the problem of what the next fuel is before we run out of the present fuel we will be
doomed to regress. I suspect many a planet in our galaxy faced that same quandary and many species failed that hurdle. That may be why UFO's and aliens
are not near as common in reality as they are in Star Trek.


Here is my response.



Hey Dan, Let me compliment you here.  You appear to be a very intelligent guy. That kind of sucks for me, because usually the comments are either from conservatives, saying something like "Right on!, Way to go! I totally agree!", or they are from liberals, who I can so easily destroy because of their complete lack of facts and logic.


Now I have to be careful here, to avoid sounding like I'm just going off on another anti-liberal rant, but please hear me out.


WE WILL NEVER RUN OUT OF FOSSIL FUELS AND THEREFORE, THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE WILL NEVER BE REPLACED AS THE PRIMARY POWER SOURCE FOR AUTOMOBILES.  At least not within the next 1000 years.


How can I make such a bold statement?  Not because of the fact that we have been discovering oil reserves faster than we have been using oil for the past 30 years, but because there is another resource more precious, and more essential than oil.  We have been squandering it away for decades.  A resource that life as we know it, depends upon more than anything else.


I'm sure by now, you have already figured out the resource that I am referring to, is the freedom of the common man.  By now, it should be obvious to everyone that personal freedom and economic prosperity go hand in hand. One feeds off of the other, and they are the primary ingredients for almost all of our inventions, advancements, and technological improvements.


Our $17 trillion national debt is more the result of socialist policies, than anything else.  We spend more on entitlement programs than anything else.  Socialist policies are a disincentive to be creative and productive for both the people on the giving and receiving end of them.  That is why you so seldom hear of new inventions, or technological advancements coming from communist countries.


Socialism is much less efficient at producing wealth than free market capitalism.  That is why the Soviet Union could not even last a full century.  Wealth is the key ingredient for technological innovation, and a content and healthy population.


If we do not immediately start to recognize that freedom is our most precious resource of all, we will lose the ability to produce more fossil fuels, develop alternative fuels, improve the efficiency of traditional cars, or develop any cars with practical alternative power sources.


Full blown socialism would destroy our country, in a matter of decades, but an economic death spiral induced by socialist policies, threatens to destroy our freedom and wealth in just a matter of years.  If we destroy our economy, we will destroy the very thing that makes life as we know it possible.  Freedom itself will disappear, because as we have seen time and time again, the only way governments know how to deal with crisis is to curtail freedom.  If we fail, the world fails. Power will fall into the hands of the strong and the corrupt.  If that happens, we will not only lose the ability to extract and refine fossil fuels, the demand for them will all but disappear.  We'll all be living in a new dark age that will last 1000 years, and all that oil that we wasted so much time worrying about running out of, will just sit, miles below the ground.   

What we need are more Phil Robertson copycats.

In fact, you should be a Phil Robertson copycat.
I try my best to be a Phil Robertson copycat.
We need a shitload of Phil Robertson copycats.


Phil Robertson and A&E may have taught us all a more important lesson than anyone could have possibly imagined.  If enough people support a conservative for expressing his beliefs, he can emerge from a controversy unharmed.  Liberals have always known this, and that is why they get away with saying the things that they do.  Liberals will almost always support their guys, no matter what.  At the very least, they don’t come to the aid of those who may be attacking them.

Conservatives, all too often have tried to distance themselves, or even turn against one of their own found to be in the midst of controversy.  We’ve been playing right into the liberals’ hands for decades.  Maybe, that’s about to change.  This whole “Duck Dynasty” thing has proven that if we stand behind a conservative and his beliefs, he can weather the storm.

There’s another valuable lesson to be learned from all of this, and that is, not to be concerned if our beliefs might offend some thinskinned liberal weenies.  In fact, we should going out of our way to offend such people, for a number of reasons.  First of all, it’s just plain old fun.  Secondly, it increases their number of targets, and thereby reduces the number of hits they can score on any particular target.  Third, it will numb the public to such stories, rendering them no longer newsworthy, and finally, it flushes the idiots out into the open, so they can be identified.  If they’re celebrities, or politicians, we know who not to watch, listen to, or vote for, and the more time they spend running around complaining about being offended, the less time they will be able to devote to supporting the forces that are hell bent on destroying our country.

The World's Worst Nightmare

Bombers With Balls
source: USA Today


Suicide bombing in Russia highlights Olympics security

The deaths of at least 16 people in a suicide bombing in southern Russia on Sunday fit a pattern of recent terror attacks and increased the focus on already-heavy security for the Sochi Olympics in six weeks, U.S. scholars of Russia say.
No one immediately claimed responsibility for the bombing in Volgograd, but it came several months after Chechen rebel leader Doku Umarov called for attacks against civilian targets in Russia, including the Sochi Games. Umarov, the self-proclaimed emir of a terrorist group that calls itself the Caucasus Emirate, has called on Muslims to prevent the Olympics from occurring.
"An open question is how much authority he really has over these different groups," said Jeffrey Mankoff, deputy director and fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies' Russia and Eurasia Program. "A lot of the attacks seem to be inspired by Umarov but may not be directly controlled by him."




The time has come to clear up a couple of misconceptions that many people have with suicide bombers, specifically:


  1. Suicide bombers act alone.
  2. All the bombers and their accomplices are cowards.


Even though a suicide bomber may be acting alone the moment he hits the detonator switch, in the total scheme of things, he is merely a physical component of the operation, like a stick of dynamite, or a piece of wire.  A one-time use, consumable item, much like a welding rod is to a welder.


The brains of the operation, and it’s logistical support, are miles away the moment the bomber meets Allah.  It takes at least a dozen or more people, including some with direct connections to a major terrorist organization to pull such a thing off.  You can’t just buy explosives and detonators from a street vendor, and the people who do supply them, want to make sure that such items are used to accomplish their objectives.


We live in an age where words are thrown around so carelessly that they have lost their original meanings, and the words “hero” and “coward” are among the best examples.  A celebrity that goes to rehab, and overcomes a drug addiction is called a hero, and a suicide bomber that blows up a busload of innocent people is called a coward.  


Now a suicide bomber might be correctly described as a terrible, evil person.  He might be a mindless, brainwashed, pawn, he might be a radical religious zealot, or he may just be a stupid sucker, but he was willing to do something that I, (and everyone reading this), would be afraid to do.


Killing a busload of unsuspecting, innocent people could be correctly described as a cowardly act, but the people on the bus are not the people the bomber or the ones who enabled him, fear.  It’s even fair to describe the terrorists in the Middle East, as cowards.  Many governments there, do not have the resources to prevent such crimes, or apprehend and prosecute the perpetrators, and often, it is questionable, whose side the government is on.  


Terrorists in the United States can be rightly described as cowards, because they know the worst case scenario for the accomplices of a bomber is a civilian trial and maybe life imprisonment, in an American prison, where conditions are likely better than where they came from.


Russia - That is an entirely different situation altogether.  It is a land of centuries old traditions of unspeakable retribution for even perceived or suspected enemies of the state.  This is a country capable of making even the most hardened terrorist, cower in fear, scream in agony, beg for mercy, and divulge any information he may have, by any means the state has at its disposal.


The Chechen rebels know better than anyone, what the Russians are capable of.  If they are not fearless, they are able to overcome fear beyond what any of us can imagine, and act in spite of it.  How can you stop people that are immune from any type of deterrent known to man?  You can’t.  That’s why people like this are the greatest threat facing the world today, even greater than a rogue nation with a nuclear bomb, (that could strike only once, and then have practically the entire world unilaterally against it).   


The terrorists who know no fear, or act in spite of it, unlike a country, are not defined by an immovable piece of ground, and they have almost nothing to lose.  They’re mobile, ghost-like, can disperse and regroup at a moment’s notice, can strike anywhere, anytime, over and over again, and no one can stop them.






   

Stuff you knew was true from the beginning,

Liberals demanded that you forget,

and then, you find out is true, all over again.



source: I’m 41

Fun Fact – 40% Of Child Rapes Are Committed By Homosexuals Who Make Up 2% Of The Population

Posted on December 27, 2013 by BCAs I keep saying, homosexuality is nothing more than the final milepost on the road to total perversion. Next stop Sanduskyville…

How Much Child Molestation is Homosexual?

Do homosexuals disproportionately molest children? Gay activists vehemently deny it, yet the empirical evidence says otherwise. The key concept is proportionality. Probably a numerical majority of child molestations involve a male adult and a female child, but given the small fraction of homosexual practitioners, the number of homosexual molestations is disproportionate to the percentage of homosexuals. This briefing summarizes some of the key evidence.

Three Critical Facts

  • Homosexuals comprise < 2% of adults
  • 90+% of child molesters are male
  • The Gay Report — 23% of gays reported sex with boys aged <16; 7% with boys aged <13

From Facts to Disproportionate Reality

  • Human Rights Watch 2008 World Report — ~150 million girls, ~73 million boys “have experienced rape or other sexual violence”
  • U.S., Canadian reports — girl/boy ratio also about 2:1
  • 25-40% of molestations are thus same-sex, far in excess of the percentage of homosexuals

Homosexual Molestation in Positions of Authority

  • ~43% of sex between teachers & pupils
  • ~50% of sex between foster parents & foster children
  • 21 group home sex scandals — 71% were same-sex

Sex With One’s Own Children

  • Homosexual parents — 18%; Heterosexual parents — 0.6%

Every Story has a "Liberals are Stupid" Angle

You’re probably not going to see many conservatives weighing in on this issue because you’d be hard pressed to find anything more stupid and less worthy of your valuable time.


source: BizPac Review

Plus-size, double-chinned Barbie sparking controversial debate

A controversy is brewing over a request to remake Barbie in way contrary to the iconic image so many girls knew growing up.
Plus-Size-Modeling.com is suggesting Mattelcreate a plus-size Barbie. While some say more realistic curves would be a better role model for girls, others say an overly large Barbie would be an unhealthy example.
Plus Size Modeling conducted a poll on itsFacebook page on Dec. 18 asking, “Should toy companies start making Plus Sized Barbie dolls?” In just under two weeks, a picture of the poll has received over 40,000 likes, 5,000 comments and 2,700 shares.
“Sure, but Barbie doesn’t need a double chin,” one comment said. “You can be ‘plus size’ w/o the double chin. They could make a ‘thick’ Barbie.”
“Portraying Barbie as a realistic woman with real curves is a very good idea and would send the right message to young girls about self-esteem,” another comment said. “Making a morbidly obese Barbie is BAD!!”




A Barbie that looked
like this...



...would sell about as well as a Hot Wheels
car that looked like this.

















You can tell that the people on both sides in this story are liberals, because of the stupid things they say.  Making a fat Barbie would have absolutely no effect on either the physical health or self-esteem of young girls, assuming that one would ever be made.


If Fat Chicks.com would like to see a genetically modified Barbie, injected with hippopotamus DNA, then they should take some money out of their enormous food budget, and manufacture, and market their own.  Anyone want in on that business venture?

Liberals are stupid in so many aspects, and almost every day, I come to realize yet another way how they are.  Liberals are always the ones that try to use children to push their political agenda. but they also seem to have the least memory about what it was like to be a kid.

Barbie is a toy, of course she’s not realistic.  Neither are Hot Wheels, but is anyone concerned that a boy playing with them, is going to make him dissatisfied with his own car when he is older, or cause him to to drive 2000 horsepower twin engine car, with two superchargers that obscure driver’s entire field of vision?

Mattel is a toy company, and like any other company (except for a federally subsidized green energy company), they’re not going to invest the time or money to gear up for manufacturing a product that no one wants. Of course that’s business, which is something liberals are unable to understand.

A private company never wants to:

  1. Waste time and money developing an undesirable product.
  2. Have its name associated with an undesirable product.

Obama, and his partners in crime, have no problem with number one, and why should they?  It’s not their money.  They do however, fully understand number two, and that’s why they are now referring to Obamacare, as the Affordable Care Act.


It Won't Even Be That Many

Feds Say Just One Car Out of 100 Will Be Electric in 2040


Electric vehicles are gaining a small foothold in the U.S., but according to the feds, it will remain just that — small. Fossil fuels will power the vast majority of vehicles for the next two and a half decades, with electric cars accounting for a scant 1 percent of vehicles sold in the United States in 2040, according to Uncle Sam.



That prediction is way overly optimistic.
Why?  Because every day more people find out how impractical electric cars are.  A Nissan Leaf takes a full day to recharge on normal house current, and a range in the winter of about 30 miles.

Don’t be stupid to buy one of these useless pieces of shit in order to find out for yourself.  Just conduct this inexpensive experiment.  Buy two identical incandescent flashlights and install new, identical batteries.  (You could use LED flashlights, but it will take longer to conduct the experiment.)  Since it’s winter, it’s a good time to do this experiment.   This experiment is most easily done at night, leaving one flashlight outside your window.  You can just use your freezer, if you live in a warm climate.  Put one flashlight outside in when it’s zero degrees or colder, or simply put one in your freezer.  Leave the other flashlight inside where it’s warm.  Wait several hours, and then turn both flashlights on.  The flashlight in the cold environment will go out much more quickly than the one inside, where it’s warm.

The incredibly long recharge time, and the even more incredibly short range, are not the only problems with electric cars.  They’re just the two biggest, most obvious deal breakers for most potential buyers.  Once those government subsidies end, it will be all over for electric cars.  Does anyone think that they can keep on subsidizing electric cars until 2040?

Electric cars don’t have any of the advantages that the proponents of them claim they have.  A more accurate prediction is that there will be fewer than one electric car for every 1000 vehicles on the road in 2040, and that’s assuming that society does not collapse before then.  

Electric cars have already seen their heyday, and if their numbers have not yet peaked, they soon will, and sales will taper off from there.  Almost every electric car sold, converts believers into opponents.  Most people who buy one, will not buy one again.  Hybrids have way fewer disadvantages than electric only cars, and the percentage of repeat buyers of hybrids is amazingly small.  

Bicyclists: I'd Rather Run Them Over Than Tax Them

Is there any way that I can get a poster of this? I love it.



source: Associated Press


AS CITY CYCLING GROWS, SO DOES BIKE TAX TEMPTATION
CHICAGO (AP) -- Early blasts of snow, ice and below-zero temperatures haven't stopped a surprising number of Chicago cyclists from spinning through the slush this winter, thanks in part to a city so serious about accommodating them that it deploys mini-snow plows to clear bike lanes.
The snow-clearing operation is just the latest attention city leaders have lavished on cycling, from a growing web of bike lanes to the nation's second largest shared network of grab-and-go bicycles stationed all over town. But it also spotlights questions that have been raised here, a city wrestling with deep financial problems, and across the country.
Who is paying for all this bicycle upkeep? And shouldn't bicyclists be kicking in themselves?
A city councilwoman's recent proposal to institute a $25 annual cycling tax set off a lively debate that eventually sputtered out after the city responded with a collective "Say what?" A number of gruff voices spoke in favor, feeding off motorists' antagonism toward what they deride as stop sign-running freeloaders. Bike-friendly bloggers retorted that maybe pedestrians ought to be charged a shoe tax to use the sidewalks.




I’m having dilemma here.  I agree with all the people who say, and all of the reasons, that bicyclists should be taxed, licensed, or otherwise charged for being able to ride on our streets and roads, especially if the public provides any type of service, or accommodations for them.


On the other hand, I am against any type of new taxes, and unlike liberals, I feel some amount of obligation to be consistent with my beliefs.  I even considered suggesting that a new bike tax could be offset by lowering fees that governments place upon the ownership and use of automobiles, but I immediately rejected that.  That is a ploy that is often used by people attempting to sell the public on some new form of taxation.  Inevitably, the offsetting tax reduction either never occurs, or the offset tax quickly rises to it’s previous level or higher.  Illinois did that when “selling” their toll roads, and although this was not a tax, Wisconsin used this ploy to legalize gambling in that state.  Now we’re stuck with that mess, and our property taxes are just as high as if we kept gambling illegal.  As a side note, I am not opposed to people having the freedom to make the idiotic decision to gamble.  I am just against the government having a hand in it, and deciding which ethnic group gets to profit from it.


OK, I’m only three paragraphs into this, and I have already done one thing that liberals are unable to do.  I remained consistent, and stuck to my core beliefs, even though in this instance, part of me would love to see bicyclists get pinched by the government, like car owners do.


Now let me do something else liberals are unable to do.  I will acknowledge the positive aspects of a group of people and their activity that so often annoys me.  More bikes means less pollution, less traffic congestion, practically zero wear and tear on the city's roads and a healthier population.  Now we’ve all heard this before, but as long as I have been trying to be fair to bicyclists in this post so far (and isn’t fairness what liberals are all about?), I think that it’s only fair that I present the other side of that argument.  Let’s counter each of the pro-cyclists claims.


  • Bikes increase pollution - Why?  As much as pro-bicycle people would want you to believe otherwise, the vast majority of cyclists are not riding out of necessity.  They’re not commuting to or from work, they’re not on their way to the grocery store to get a weeks worth of food, and they’re not going to the Home Depot to pick up 20 sheets of drywall.  They’re not doing anything that is necessary, because they cannot haul passengers, or anything else, and they’re not going anywhere where it would be acceptable to be wearing Spandex and covered in sweat.  Why is the speed limit on most non-interstate highways 55 mph?  The reason is, because that is the speed at which most cars have the best fuel economy.  Whenever a car has to slow down to avoid a bicycle, it leaves it’s mpg sweet spot, and thereby increases fuel consumption, and pollution.  If one bicyclist goes down a country road for 10 miles and slows down 50 automobiles, more fuel is consumed than if the cyclist would have just driven his car that 10 miles.  Not only do all those cars have to slow down, they have to use extra fuel to get back up to speed.


  • Bicycles increase traffic congestion and wear on city streets - Why?  I’m sure that you have seen this in your town, or in a city near you.  They’ll take a four lane street, and reduce it to a two lane street to accommodate bike lanes, which wouldn’t be quite so bad, except for there’s nobody ever using the bike lanes.  When a street’s capacity is cut in half, the result cannot be anything other than increased traffic congestion.  Even when there are no bike lanes, bikes slow down traffic on city streets, just like they do on country roads, further increasing the problem of congestion. If you reduce a city street from four down to two lanes, obviously the traffic on the remaining two lanes is increased, so they wear out faster.  It cost just as much to snowplow, repave, or otherwise maintain, a four lane city street whether two or four lanes are actually used for cars and trucks.


  • Bicycles are a threat to the health of our population - This is a no brainer.  How could we, in this age of airbags and mandatory seatbelt use, even allow bicycles on our streets and highways?  You might hear some people refer to older cars as “death traps”, but I have to ask you, where would you feel safer on a busy highway?  On a bike, or in a ‘57 Chevy?  If you’re riding a bike, and you get struck by a car going 55 mph, that faggy little helmet is probably not going to save you.  It’s the same group of people pushing for mandatory safety requirements on automobiles that think it would be just great if more people were out in the open, cruising down the highway on a bicycle at 10 mph.  What sense does that make?  Farm equipment requires a fairly large, triangular slow moving vehicle (SMV) emblem to be affixed to it, if it is transported down a public road.  A modern tractor can cruise down the road at 20 mph consistently, regardless of hills, wind, or distance traveled. Tractors are easy to see, because they are so large and have flashing warning lights.  I think that all bicycles should be required to have same slow moving vehicle emblems if they’re being used on public roads.  There’s an added benefit for the cyclists to this.  The increased wind resistance from the SMV would make riding more of a workout, and isn’t that the reason that the cyclists are riding down the road in the first place?  Maybe SMV’s for bicycles should be about the size of the hood of a car.  That way, cyclists would get as much of a workout in one mile, as they would otherwise get in 20.  They’d be easier to see too.  Couldn’t bicyclists at least pull over onto the shoulder of a highway, into the gravel, when they hear a car coming up from behind?  My dad demanded that we do this when we were kids.  Once again. the increased workout from the greater rolling resistance of the gravel would be beneficial to the bicyclists.


Bicyclists - As much as I hate them, I just can’t support taxing them.