DIRTY SECRETS

NFL Great, Mike Ditka, Gets AXED By ESPN After Saying THIS About Obama

This is what happens when you say ANYTHING bad about our President in Obamaland. Do you think Mike Ditka should be able to voice his opinion without fear of backlash?

Mike Ditka will be replaced as a panelist on ESPN’s Sunday NFL Countdown, it has been revealed.

The announcement came less than a week after Ditka, both a former player and coach for the Chicago Bears, revealed he believed Barack Obama was the worst president ‘we’ve ever had’.

Ditka, who has been a main panelist for the ESPN show since 2006, said Obama was a ‘fine man’ but not a leader when he went on WABC’S The Bernie & Sid Show last Thursday.

‘He would be great to play golf with,’ Ditka continued.

‘He’s not a leader. This country needs leadership. It needs direction. It needs somebody that steps up front.’

‘We need somebody like Ronald Reagan. Everyone once in a while you’re gonna get punched in the chops but you keep going forward. There’s all there is to it.’ 

Ditka, who once described himself as ‘ultra-ultra-ultra conservative’, also revealed his vote in the 2016 election will likely go to GOP front-runner Donald Trump, according to the Washington Post.

‘They people that hate him, hate him, but people like him because he says things that resonate with what they think,’ he said.

‘If I were to vote tomorrow, I’d probably vote for Trump.’

This is hardly the first time Da Coach has spoken out against Da President.

In 2013 Ditka called not running against Obama in the Illinois 2004 Senate race the ‘biggest mistake’ he had ever made.

=============================================================

LAR OF GALEN MAKES A GREAT POINT: JUST in case I haven’t said this before:  When we entered Baghdad back in 2003, we found huge warehouses full of 55-gallon drums of chemicals that, when combined, produce nerve agent. But because they were marked as being for agricultural use, and because they weren’t toxic until combined, this was ignored by the media and the government.  Sodamn Insane used chemical agents against Iran in 1980, and against the Kurds after Desert Storm.  All this was forgotten and/or ignored because we didn’t find facilities to produce nuclear weapons. Yet, British intelligence kept telling us Iraq was working on nukes, and our satellites “saw” convoys taking equipment to Syria ahead of our invasion.  The “Bush Lied” narrative drowned out all the facts, and for some reason he didn’t take to the American people. I suspect W was silent because he had to make some deal to get funding for The War On Terror from the Democrat-controlled Congress.

============================================================================

March 5, 2016

The Dirty Little Secret about All-Electric Vehicles

By Dexter Wright

As Elon Musk doubles down with the debut of new and more affordable models of his Tesla all-electric vehicles at the Geneva Auto Show, there is a dirty little secret that once exposed, will burst the mythology of the all-electric car. There is a myth that the all-electric vehicle is more efficient than conventional vehicles and that big oil hates the all-electric niche carved out by Musk and others. The reality is that the all-electric vehicle is less efficient, and has a larger carbon footprint than a Ford F-150.  

It is not because the Tesla vehicles are not well engineered; they are superbly engineered. The inefficiency is a function of where the energy for the all-electric vehicle is generated. Let us start at the beginning. There are only two reliable zero emissions methods for generating power. The first is hydroelectric power which generates only 16% of the world’s electricity; the second is nuclear power, which makes up only 11% of the world’s electrical grid capacity. That means that 73% of worldwide electrical generation is from fossil fuels.

Looking at how the majority of electrical power is produced will give us the insight that could be embarrassing to the fans of all-electric vehicles. A fossil fuel fired power plant heats water into steam to turn a steam turbine which then turns a generator to produce power; that process is 37% efficient. That is to say 63% of the energy in a unit of fossil fuel is lost due to friction and other thermodynamic laws that have yet to be broken (or nullified by President Obama with an Executive Order).

But the power loss does not stop there. Between the power station and your local neighborhood charging station (which is harder to find than Hillary’s classified e-mails) there is a stepdown station where the 440 voltage in the transmission lines is converted to 220 volts. Then the 220-volt electricity travels along power lines to a transformer which converts the power to 110 volts before going to your meter and finally going from your meter to your home charging station. Each step along the way there is significant power loss. The total loss from the original 37% efficient steam turbine and generator is 66%. That is to say that two-thirds of the power generated is lost from electrical resistance and attenuation along the miles and miles of transmission and power lines. Subtracting two thirds from the original 37% leaves only 13.7%. Yes, my friends, the all-electric vehicle is only 13.7% efficient. The pollution and carbon emissions are simply moved from the tailpipe to the smokestack.

How does that compare with a regular run-of-the-mill internal combustion automobile?  According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the efficiency of a typical car is 14% under city driving condition and close to 26% for ideal highway conditions. This means that those of us in a tax bracket that precludes buying an all-electric vehicle are polluting less than our neighbors with “Bernie” signs in their yards.

There is an additional little fact that Mr. Musk et al hope is not discovered; that is that most of the nuclear power stations in the U.S. will be shut down in the coming decades. The Department of Energy has no plans in the works to replace these zero emissions power plants. This, in combination with Obama’s war on coal, is shrinking the power grid which is at this time is already nearing 85% capacity. Not much room for market growth of a new electrical appliance called a car.

On paper the all-electric vehicle is a good idea, but in practice, not so much. Given these facts, Big Oil should be behind the all-electric vehicle; if Big Oil cares at all. The better idea is to continue along the lines of hybrid vehicles which can exploit the “sweet spot” of an engine and achieve significantly higher fuel efficiency and lower emissions than either the conventional internal combustion vehicle or the all-electric vehicle. Whether a series or a parallel hybrid vehicle, the fuel efficiency of a hybrid is superior to the all-electric vehicle. The electric car will just have to wait until major advancements in the area of power generation are achieved, but until then, the numbers just don’t add up, so I will smugly drive my Ford F-150 knowing that I am more fuel efficient than that all-electric vehicle with a Bernie bumper sticker on it.
========================================================================

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America .
ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It’s 5.6%.
COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
ABBOTT: No, that’s 23%. 
COSTELLO: You just said 5.6%.
ABBOTT: 5.6% Unemployed.
COSTELLO: Right 5.6% out of work. 
ABBOTT: No, that’s 23%.
COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 23% unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, that’s 5.6%. 
COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 5.6% or 23%?
ABBOTT: 5.6% are unemployed. 23% are out of work.
COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed. 
ABBOTT: No, Obama said you can’t count the “Out of Work”
as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.
COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!! 
ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.
COSTELLO: What point?
ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work
can’t be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.
COSTELLO: To whom?
ABBOTT: The unemployed. 
COSTELLO: But ALL of them are out of work.
ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those
who are out of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in
the ranks of the unemployed.
COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment roles that would
count as less unemployment?
ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!
COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t
look for work?
ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how it gets to
5.6%. Otherwise it would be 23%.
COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to
bring down the unemployment number? 
ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.
COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
ABBOTT: Correct.
COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking
for a job?
ABBOTT: Bingo. 
COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and
the easier of the two is to have people stop looking for work.
ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like a Democrat. 
COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the hell I just said! 
ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like Hillary