Promoting Alternative Energy for the Right Reasons

April 25, 2008 | Filed Under Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Global Warming, Nancy Morgan, News, Publius Contributor, Science, Society/Culture | No Comments

-By Nancy Salvato

Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich are featured together in a television commercial which focuses on how conservatives and liberals can come together to find solutions for problems caused by climate change. Mr. Gingrich’s explanation for joining this $300 million dollar advertising campaign is to force conservatives into debating liberals about the ways our country should best promote alternative energy sources. This in itself is a fine idea because I don’t know any person who wants our country to continue relying on oil for fuel. Most would agree that cleaner sources of energy are preferable.

While there should be robust debate about how best to pursue alternative energy, I believe this ad is misleading because it presents these two political adversaries as working together to find solutions to the problem of climate change in and of itself, as if there is a scientific consensus that climate change truly poses the problems outlined in Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Speaking of Al Gore, he is the person who is funding this effort and hired the advertising agency known for their caveman and talking lizard/Geico ads to produce these commercials.

Certainly, Gore has become a master of hyperbole in order to draw attention to his cause. While becoming a great promoter, he has done a great disservice to true science. The global warming argument is based on two assumptions. The first is that it’s caused by man and that we can stop it. While we may contribute to global warming, it is difficult to conclude that our activities can substantially affect the changes in temperature. The second assumption is that global warming is inherently bad. We cannot ignore dramatic climate shifts that have occurred in the past and declare that all climate changes are due to human activity and bad.
Read more

Who’s Your Daddy?

April 20, 2008 | Filed Under Congress, Constitution, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Government, Corruption, Media Bias, Nancy Morgan, News, Publius Contributor, Security/Safety, Society/Culture | No Comments

-By Nancy Morgan

Uncle Sam used to resemble my rich old uncle, the uncle that didn’t visit very much but would always be there for us in a crisis. Uncle Sam would take care of the things our family couldn’t take care of ourselves, like war, natural disasters and various other crises. But Uncle Sam is getting old and has decided he wants to move in with us.

Since a lot of us are living without fathers, this is good news. Finally, someone to take charge and guide us. Someone who will go to obscene lengths to make us safe and happy, full of self esteem and good little citizens. You know, kinda like Dad used to do before marriage became so, well, outdated.

It’s a very secure feeling knowing that Uncle Sam is looking out for our best interests. He got the lady down the hall to quit smoking, just in case they find out some day that 2nd hand smoke causes cancer. He got cars to use special gas additives and even mandated using biofuels so cars don’t pollute Mother Earth. It wasn’t his fault that the special gas turned out to cause cancer and biofuels are causing food prices to skyrocket. His intentions were the best, so you really can’t fault him.
Read more

Shame On Islam

April 17, 2008 | Filed Under Foreign Policy, Islam, Islamofascism, Media Bias, Nancy Morgan, News, Publius Contributor, Security/Safety, Society/Culture, War on Terror | No Comments

-By Nancy Morgan

Americans wonder why moderate Muslims don’t publicly condemn Islamofascism, terrorism, and the hijacking of their religion by fanatics who use women as suicide bombers and babies as human shields. A question seldom asked is why Americans aren’t publicly condemning these atrocities.

The barbarism exhibited by the fanatical faction of Islam is beyond the pale, by any civilized standards. And while America waits for Muslims to step up and condemn these barbarians, we go about our business as usual, condemning instead the unthinkable practice of putting panties on terrorists’ heads, and the cruel and unusual punishment of including pork on the menu provided to terrorists incarcerated in Guantanamo.

The irrational hatred of the West by many Muslims is seldom questioned. Instead, a large segment of the American public has taken a cue from them, adopting irrational hatred as a political philosophy. By not condemning irrational hatred, we implicitly endorse it. Just as we implicitly endorse terror tactics by not condemning them.

Throughout history, communities, civilizations and cultures have learned by example. Take the growing number of teen tarts performing non-sex on their boyfriends. Thank-you, Boy Clinton. Take the increasing number of school shootings mirrored on Columbine. The examples abound. So why are we surprised when Muslims in America don’t condemn the murder being practiced under their noses and in their names? Because no-one else is. America is too busy trying to appear non-judgmental and worrying about what everyone is saying about us. For shame.

Tell me again, what religion is it that uses women and babies as cannon fodder? Why, its Islam, the religion of peace. I’d call this shameful, if shame were still in vogue. Its not. America is a guilt society, whose primary motivation is to appear non-judgmental and politically correct. The multiculturalist crowd has convinced a large portion of Americans that all cultures are equal. We spend our time trying to understand the unimaginable instead of condemning it. Meanwhile, the terrorists are laughing at our naivety, as they plot to kill anyone who doesn’t ascribe to their faith.
Read more

Debating Liberals

April 4, 2008 | Filed Under Democrats/Leftists, Elections, Foreign Policy, Government, Corruption, Media Bias, Nancy Morgan, News, Publius Contributor, Race, Society/Culture, War on Terror | No Comments

-By Nancy Morgan

How does one debate with a liberal? Sorry, under current rules, debate is not allowed. Just as our new national conversation on race is limited exclusively to authentic blacks, so is any semblance of debate with those on the left limited to those who accept the rules of debate, as defined by liberals.

Just as Boy Clinton redefined the meaning of sex, so have liberals redefined the meaning of debate. If your view doesn’t accord with the progressive, politically correct elites, the debate is relabeled an ‘argument’, your opinion is redefined as a ‘judgment’ and both are promptly dismissed.

By controlling language, the left controls and defines the issues. Hillary didn’t lie about being under fire in Bosnia, she merely misspoke. The rules stipulate that only conservatives lie. If you’re on the left, you’re either factually incorrect, mistaken or just plain human. Liberals call this a win-win situation, which is one of the few times they are factually correct.

If the member of the vast right wing conspiracy (conservative) persists in trying to debate the original issue, liberals then revert to personal attacks. Attacking the messenger as mean-spirited usually does the trick. The indignant liberal then has carte blanche to personally vilify the messenger while touting his own moral vitas. Very effective.
Read more

Are You An Authentic White?

March 29, 2008 | Filed Under Democrats/Leftists, Media Bias, Nancy Morgan, News, Publius Contributor, Race, Religion, Security/Safety, Society/Culture | No Comments

-By Nancy Morgan

Are you an authentic white person? For the answer to that, we need to go to the current authentic black community. They are the ones who define who is and who is not an authentic member of their race. Be they black or white. (Since Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc., have not yet amassed political clout, they’re excluded from being categorised by their skin color.)

The reigning Black elite have decided that authentic ‘typical white people’ are inherently racist. As Obama so blithely stated, this prejudice is inbred and rears its ugly head every time a white encounters a black. For those whites who believe reparations to date, in the form of trillions of dollars, affirmative action, special dispensations and a color-coded justice system, have adequately addressed the shame of their ancestors’ sin of slavery, well, it hasn’t. We are informed that racial prejudice is still rampant in American society. If you don’t see it, its because it has taken the more insidious form of ‘institutional racism.’

Not to worry, Obama assures us we can change. Phew. Just elect him President, and by virtue of the moral authority inherent in his skin color, he will kindly inform and advise his fellow Americans, excuse me, his fellow white americans, on the proper obeisance and reparations due all black people. Oops, I meant, all ‘authentic’ black people. Uncle Toms like Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, and other successful black people who succeeded on their own merit are not ‘authentic,’ and most decidedly not representative of the oppressed black community.
Read more

White Racism

March 16, 2008 | Filed Under Democrats/Leftists, Elections, Media Bias, Nancy Morgan, News, Publius Contributor, Race, Society/Culture | 1 Comment

-By Nancy Morgan

Let’s see if I understand the rules. Blacks, African Americans, or whatever the politically correct nom du jour is, are free to rail against whites. But if a white dares to mention race, the consequences are dire.

Geraldine Ferraro is the latest casualty in the ongoing race war, which, oddly enough, has only white casualties. Geraldine was forced to step down from Hillary’s campaign because she dared exercise her first amendment right, suggesting Obama wouldn’t be succeeding in the Democratic nomination battle if he weren’t black.

Whether or not her comment is valid will never be debated. For daring to offer an opinion on the subject of race, she has been cast from polite society. Her sin? Opining on race while being white. According to unwritten rules, only blacks are allowed to discuss, well, being black in America.
Read more

My Husband, The Judge

March 14, 2008 | Filed Under Democrats/Leftists, Education, Elections, History, Media Bias, Nancy Morgan, News, President, Publius Contributor, Security/Safety, Society/Culture | 20 Comments

-By Nancy Morgan

Living In Liberal La-La Land

As a child of the sixties, I was brought up in a time when there was still respect for America’s institutions. Be they banks, government, doctors, businesses, charities or churches. I accepted without question their authority, and assigned to them the respect due to the pillars and foundations of American society. I assumed they were honorable and above question.

Then life happened. Enron, pedophile priests, corrupt politicians, and the general politicizing of government and affiliated organizations. By the time I reached the age of 39, the only institution I accepted blindly and without question was the judiciary. The rule of law was set in stone. Or so I thought.

Then, along came Steve*. As a judge, he had society’s imprint as ‘Honorable’. He also had a sense of humor and a very nice physique. Best of all, he wanted me. Finally, a man with the two attributes I considered essential for marriage, trust and respect. We got married in April of 1992.

Steve presided over civil settlements in the Superior Court of ——–. Lawyers would come to him before trial on civil suits, to see if a settlement could be reached. Steve settled most of the cases before him, saving the costs and anguish of a trial. He would come home from work and over dinner, we would talk about the cases he had ruled on that day.
Read more