GOD, global warming, and a HIGH tax to save the earth

I have always thought that God had a sense of humor, however I could not prove it. Sure, there were clues everywhere: Politicians who lecture us about the evils of Gay people, who later turn out to be VERY Gay themselves. Jumbo-shrimp, New Jersey, and of course- weather forecasting; all great examples of God’s wit.

Today, I have solid proof that God has a great sense of humor.

The 2010 climate change / global warming summit has come to an end in sunny, warm- Cancun, Mexico; and guess what..??

Cancun has not been this cold (54 degrees) in over one hundred years. God; you have a masterful sense of humor.



Maybe you think that this is only a “one-time event”, and this could not be proof of a “funny” God, or the act of denouncing man made climate change. Oh, no, no..

Two years ago, parts of the global warming summit had to be canceled because of a very heavy snow fall. It happens so often that people have coined the phrase: “The Gore Effect.” If Al Gore is scheduled to speak at a global warming conference, bring your winter coats because it will be cold. LINK And lets not forget about the climate scientists who hiked up to the Arctic to see for themselves the effects of Global Warming. Unfortunately, the scientists were not prepared for the changing Arctic weather, a storm rolled in and they were trapped. None of their equipment worked in the bitter cold and they had to be rescued. Maybe they didn’t know about “The Gore Effect?”



OK, maybe you do not believe in God, and therefore this stuff that I am talking about is all based (for you) on “random-chance.” There is no God-ly plan in any of this. Yes, I understand your position, but if something happens more than “once”, how can it be “random” or just by “chance?” If it keeps happening, doesn’t it deserve equal study? (Scientifically speaking, of course.)

I will get back to you “God-less” people in a moment, but first I wanted to return to the believers...

If you believe in God and prophecy, you might not find anything funny in what I am saying. (IE- My theory of God, and his sense of humor.) Is God trying to tell us something and what God has to say is no laughing matter? But what would God be saying...

“..STOP playing God, you assholes..”

OK, God might not talk that way, but you get my drift.

How could Global Warming people be playing God? Because they believe that they can regulate the world’s temperature. By wearing a sweater in the house and turning down the thermostat. Don’t forget to put a sweater on the kitty, and a few bandages on your clawed-up arms and face. (Kitty doesn’t like wearing sweaters.) Also, by plugging your Chevy Volt electric car into the wall outlet and sucking up all that Green power produced by the local coal burning power plant. Or, you can change the world’s temperature by sitting in a dark-dirty corner and breathing as little as possible. And don’t forget about adding a HUGE tax to change the world’s temperature.



These are all great ways of showing how freaking GREEN you are, but scientists are 5 steps ahead of you...

In Ohio, scientists have found a protein that slows the melting of ice. (Chemical reaction in ice raises the melting point.) These scientists can reproduce this in the lab, and they would love to try it out, on a large scale, in the Arctic. OK, I know that I say this a lot, but: “Isn’t this how EVERY scary movie starts out?” Scientists, trying to save the earth, spray their secret chemical on the Arctic ice, and guess what? It works. But it works TOO GOOD. Ice never melts, and we run out of fresh water, and the earth is plunged into an ice age. And, of course, we all die. (Except for the famous actors who are featured in this scary movie. They have sex and repopulate the earth.)



Maybe this is what the Supreme Being meant when he said: “Stop playing God.”

However, I digress back for the benefit of the non-believer. No government on EARTH would be stupid enough to allow an un-tested chemical to be used on a large scale without a comprehensive study. Your stupid “scary movie” scenario could never happen, AR Babonie.

Ooohhh, don’t be so quick to give government more credit than it is due. You have not lived long enough, my friend.

In 2005, President GW Bush decided that republicans should do “something” to act like we “care” about global warming. So, taking the advice of the left wing global warming people, Bush signed into law the mandate of ethanol additives. All gas stations will add up to 10% ethanol by Dec 31, 2010; and tax incentives would be given to companies which developed ethanol technologies. Using ethanol would help us get away from that dirty, smelly foreign oil.

Sounds GREAT, doesn’t it..??

Except, well...

No one REALLY thought about it, or tested it thoroughly. It seems that corn farmers are selling their corn to ethanol producers (because they get tax breaks) and they can make more money instead of selling the corn to food producers and cattle ranchers. (But we need corn for food, how can they do that..??) And, ethanol doesn’t burn very good in older, or smaller engines. Even Al Gore and President Obama NOW agree that corn-based ethanol wasn’t a very good idea. But, we made it THE LAW. So, screw you humans and you taxpayers. Just deal with it.

Is this what God, (or, for the non-believer) Mother Earth is trying to tell us..?? “Stop rushing these stupid global warming laws into effect without testing them. Someone could get hurt.”

Is this why Cancun has a century old record low temperature during the global warming summit?



OK, let me back up for a moment; maybe you think that I am crazy for not supporting “man made climate change” reversal efforts, however; think about this...

How will a “Cap and Trade” tax clean up the CO2 from the earth’s atmosphere? If a Cap and Trade tax will be added to any smokey factory that exceeds the CO2 emissions limit, yet the factory is not shut down; how will this stop global warming? Isn’t this just a way to raise taxes, and not really a way to stop greenhouse gas emissions?

OK, now follow me a minute here, because this is VERY important...

Didn’t you liberal- progressives just claim that the Bush tax cuts shouldn’t be kept for the rich people because we cannot afford them, and it will not affect anything because rich people will eat the new higher tax rate? Didn’t you claim that rich people will not change things like: close down factories, or lay off workers, because of a tax raise?

So why would you think that a Cap and Trade tax would cause rich companies to say: “Oh my God, they are adding a CO2 tax to our company. We MUST shut down this smokey factory and build a new multi-billion dollar GREEN facility.”



That is not going to happen, and you know that it is not going to happen. Companies will pay the tax, keep their smokey factories running, raise the costs of their products, and pass this tax on to you. So, why are you supporting a law that will not lower greenhouse emissions, will not “save the earth”, and will cause higher utility rates for the poorest Americans?



Really folks, this is why I search for humor in a topic like global warming. It is the only way that I can deal with the insanity of the situation and the proposed global warming solutions.

It really works, picture this...

God is slapping his knee and letting out a belly laugh while people are freezing during the Climate Summit, and Al Gore’s speech on global warming is canceled because it is too cold out.

Will higher taxes make the earth cooler..??

Sure it will..!!

The government will spend the new tax money to study the affects of cocaine on monkeys. (Just like they did last year, the government spent 2 millions bucks to study monkeys on cocaine.) While jacked up on coke; one monkey will confess to us on how “we all got here.” (Evolution, and all.) Knowing how we achieved human intelligence, from one cranked up monkey, and how fragile this random-chance existence is; we humans will begin to walk to work, stop taking a hot bath and showers, and wear ugly Christmas sweaters in the house.



We will save the earth. We will be an ugly group of smelly humans with big-bulky thighs, but we will keep those monkeys jacked up on cocaine for years.

Yes, high taxes will make the earth cooler, and we will be living in Utopia. Which, by the way, Utopia is an abandoned auto parts store.



Written by AR Babonie for The Angry Republic

Republicans are stupid because they HATE Gay vultures

I was reading some posts by fellow bloggers and I come across one post that claims Sarah Palin could not (or should not) be president because she is "stupid."

STUPID..??

Maybe if you were from an opposing viewpoint, you could say that Sarah Palin is wrong for the country because she has different points of view, or she is hypocritical, or not sincere; but "stupid"?



So, I read on to find out why these people believe that Palin is "stupid", and here is what I found...

Sarah Palin is stupid because she thought the United States had 57 states. (Oh, wait.. That was Barack Obama, sorry. Obama said that he visited all 57 states.)



OK, here it is, I have the right one now. Palin is "stupid" because she didn’t have all the facts when she claimed that police acted "stupidly" in arresting a Black college professor. Palin had to apologize for that comment later. (Oh, Wait, that too was Barack Obama. He said police acted stupidly.)

Here, I have the correct reason now, (sorry about the above confusion.)
Sarah Palin is "stupid" because she accidentally talked about supporting North Korea and its allies. (She meant to say SOUTH Korea.)

I agree with this liberal post. We CANNOT have a president who accidentally says the wrong things. Therefore, Sarah Palin cannot be president and Barack Obama MUST be impeached right now because he has accidentally said the wrong thing, many times. Both: Sarah Palin and Barack Obama MUST be "stupid" and cannot be president. They have both made mistakes.



Another reason that Sarah Palin is so "stupid", was given in the comment section of this liberal post: remember when CBS TV News Anchor Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin what "she reads", Palin froze and didn’t have an answer. This MUST mean that Palin doesn’t read anything, or that she froze up and couldn’t think, during an interview. We cannot have a person who freezes like that during an interview.

That story reminds me of a CBS News Anchor who froze up during an interview. Talk show host- Wendy Williams was asking this female News Anchor about a couple of photos which showed this News Anchor dancing.
THESE photos, to be exact.





After showing the photos, Ms. Williams made this comment to the female Anchor: "Oooo girl, you were dropping it like its hot.." The female News Anchor froze up. She looked confused, she paused, and replied: "I do not know what that means?"

Come on, who doesn’t know what the term: "Drop it like its hot" means? Who was this female News Anchor who froze up during an interview? Who was also doing some dirty dancing in front of small children? Who was trying to explain WHY she was dirty dancing in front of a small child?

It was Katie Couric. The same Katie Couric who asked Sarah Palin what she reads.

I, personally, like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Katie Couric thought that she was being insulted by Williams’ comment, and Katie Couric needed time to process the remark? Maybe that is why Couric froze up? Which, by the way, is what Sarah Palin has claimed happened during her interview with Couric. Palin thought Couric was asking: "Do you people read books up there in Alaska? What do you read?"
However, we DO NOT give people the benefit of the doubt, judging by this liberal post I read. Therefore Sarah Palin and Katie Couric are "stupid" for screwing up during an interview. And Barack Obama is "stupid" because he has made mistakes while speaking.

Using this parameter, MOST people are "stupid", (except for me, of course. And the people that I support.) "We" are not stupid, but those other people that I do not like, are "stupid."

Democrats seem to like to use this term "stupid" as a political weapon against all challengers, they have been doing it for years now. So, this caused me to find out where it’s beginning came from.

The 1950's is as far back as I am willing to go for this editorial, any further back would make this editorial a mile long.

No one would call "Ike" Eisenhower: "stupid". General Eisenhower helped win WW2 for America and it’s allies, and he was loved by republicans and democrats alike. In fact, both parties fought to get "Ike" on their side. Remember, Eisenhower, being a military man; didn’t reveal his political ideology beforehand.



When Ike decided to become a republican, the gloves came off. Democrats, careful not to call Ike "stupid", claimed that he didn’t have the political experience to lead America. (In essence, calling Ike "politically stupid.") But this backfired for the liberals. Americans began to believe that Ike’s challenger- Democrat Adlai Stevenson was an "egghead" who could not relate to the common man. Democrats ran Stevenson as the "thinking mans" candidate, but this didn’t work.



Eisenhower, who spoke directly to the common man, beat Stevenson by 55% of the popular vote. Eisenhower beat Stevenson again in his reelection bid by 58% of the popular vote, gaining his second term as president.

This could be the genesis of the modern tactic for democrats labeling their republican opponent "stupid."

Moving ahead to Kennedy / Nixon.

This one is a little different. No one called Nixon "stupid" in 1959. Instead, being that it was the FIRST televised presidential debates, they claimed that Nixon didn’t look "good" on TV. JFK had professional people style his hair and do his makeup. Nixon went on TV with no preparation, and he had a fever. Nixon was sweating, he looked nervous, he came across on TV as being pasty-white. Nixon could not be president (in 1960) because he didn’t "look" good. Kennedy "looked" better.

(Yes, I know that I am skipping a few elections, but we must move on) Gerald Ford tripped and fell down a few times, which landed him on his butt, so Ford was too clumsy to be reelected to president. Jimmy Carter never fell down, though Carter did believe in UFO’s, we need a president who doesn’t fall down.

Ronald Reagan was just a silly actor reading lines that someone gave him. Reagan was "stupid", and shouldn’t be president.

Bill Clinton was a "smart" man. (Not smart enough to keep his dick in his pants while some chubby intern was flirting with him). Not smart enough to care for his family. But he was a brilliant politician who passed the Gay Rights Bill- "Don’t ask, don’t tell." Yes, the very Bill that every Gay person HATES right now.

Al Gore was an intellectual who wrote a book about the environment. Bush was "stupid", and probably has never read any books in his life. John Kerry was much more smarter than Bush and should be president.



That last charge has always gotten to me. "Bush was stupid. Kerry and Gore were smart."

I know that this is all water under the duck’s ass now, but indulge me for a moment. It is possible to reach a few people who were told that Obama was a genius, and now they are finding out that Obama isn’t much smarter than the rest of us. These folks might be wondering what else is a lie?

Kerry, Bush, and Gore. A brief history.


Kerry went to Yale University. Bush, also went to Yale University, however Bush went on and attended Harvard Business School. Both Kerry and Bush would be considered "C" students, with Bush getting slightly higher grades than Kerry.



If we throw Al Gore into this mix, we find that Gore also attended Harvard. Gore’s grades during his first two years put him into the lower one- fifth of his class. Gore admits to watching too much TV, shooting pool, and smoking weed instead of studying. He avoided math and science during those early years because he couldn’t focus on them. To be fair and honest, Gore did study hard during his final years at Harvard and received A’s and B’s, which he then graduated with honors. Kerry and Bush, on the other hand, never buckled down like Gore did, and they both graduated as "average" students.



After college, Gore became a House member, then a Senator from Tennessee, and Vice President. Gore failed to become president.

John Kerry served in Vietnam, failed to be elected to the House, so he went to law school and became a District Attorney. Then Kerry became a Lt. Governor. From there, he became a Senator for Massachusetts. Kerry also failed to become president.



Bush failed an attempt to be a House Rep, so he went into business. Later he became Governor of Texas, and president of the United States.



So, when I look at these 3 men, I do not see how anyone could rationally say that one is "stupid", while the others are "smart." Their lives are academically and professionally very similar.

All three men ran for president. Only one of them won the office of president (not just once, but twice.)



Surely, even the most extreme liberal / progressive could see that this is the truth?

If they cannot see the truth, surely they can see that the tactic of calling republicans "stupid" doesn’t work. They basically called Ike "politically stupid", but he won the presidency (twice.) They called Reagan "stupid" and he won (twice.) They called Bush "stupid" and he won (twice.)

So, now they call Sarah Palin "stupid."

Wait a minute, what did I just prove here..??

The progressives called Ike, Reagan, and Bush "stupid", and all of these men won two-terms as president.

Now they are calling Sarah Palin "stupid".

Get my bookie on the phone, quick. I need to place a bet.



Thanks for reading The Angry Republic



You might be wondering what is up with the title of the above editorial...

Republicans are stupid because they HATE Gay vultures

There were no Gay Vultures in this story, so what is up with that..??

OK, I tried REALLY hard to fit the Gay Vultures into the above editorial, but I never found a place for them.

So I have placed the Gay Vultures here- LINK

Airport Security- Do you go for the Scope, or the Grope?

Some weekends, it is tough to find something to write about. This isn’t one of those weekends.

You could write about Charlie Rangel, or the fact that some folks on the left believe that there is a conspiracy going on at Dancing with the Stars because Bristol Palin is STILL THERE? Tensions are high and some angry person sent a letter to Bristol (care of Dancing with the Stars) filled with a white powder. It could have been anthrax, it could have been “the letter of DEATH.” But it was just talcum powder.

A person could write about Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who wants to shut down MSNBC and Fox News because he has a “bug inside of him.” Here at The Angry Republic, we used one of those new airport scanners to see what kind of “bug” is inside of Sen. Rockefeller. Here is what we found.

Hey, that looks like one of those STINK bugs that was taking over DC this fall. Boy, those little suckers really dug in..!!

(Ok, stupid- childish joke, I know. Let’s continue)

You could talk about the terrorist who was tried in civilian court and dam near got away free because key witnesses were tossed out by a judge. A person could write about the past election and what “it all means” for our political future.

However, all of the topics above seem to fall down the center of political ideologies. The conservative feels one way about the issue, and the liberal will take the opposite argument.

But one topic seems to draw everyone together, (for different reasons, naturally.)

New airport security- TSA’s scope or grope method

Check this out, it will display what I am saying. This comes from the liberal home of The Huffington Post. An editorial from William Astore- Professor and retired Lt. Colonel, Air Force. (Who, by the way, gave me the idea for my title.)

Colonel Astore said this in The Huffington Post:

“..Scoping grandma and groping granddad is not making us safer or more secure. It's worse than a crime: it's a mistake. They don't fit the profile of "terrorist" to begin with; nor should they be terrorized by government technology or its glove-clad workers.

Instead of all the gadgets and the groping, let's get real. Start by asking each ticket-holder the standard questions European airport officials ask; watch how people respond. Look for unusual behavior: nervousness, evasiveness, uncertainty. Forgo "random" inspections for targeted ones. And let's do it swiftly and with authority..”

OK, I like that. I really do. However, note what “wasn’t” said, for the benefit of the progressive / liberal Huffington Post readers. Astore didn’t point to how the Israeli’s preform airport security, instead he points to Europe. And Astore said: “..(Why frisk grandma and grandpa) They don't fit the profile of a "terrorist"..”

“Profile.”
(Aughh. There it is, for all to see.) The ugly word: Profile.

Though Astore is VERY careful not to mention the word “Racial” with the word “Profile”, anyone can surely denote the direction that Astore was taking.

In doing so; in carefully choosing his words, Colonel Astore has put one foot inside the door of a progressive paradise. (The Huffington Post) And the progressives are not going after him with pitchforks and torches. It seems that progressives do not care to be seen NAKED and groped, by airport security either.

I spent some time Friday and Saturday checking out the talking heads of radio. Progressives like Fedder, Shultz, and Alex Bennet; all seem to agree that these invasive security checks are wrong.

However, a quick check of Hannity, Rush, and Gibson shows that conservatives do not like these groin checks either.

This is my kind of topic because everyone seems to agree. (Which means that there is something REALLY really wrong here, because the left and right NEVER agree on anything.)

Conservatives blame President Obama for being scoped and groped during their Thanksgiving travel.

Liberals blame the TSA or Homeland Security, and never really bring it back to President Obama.

However, most agree that “this” isn’t the way to go in a free country.

I may surprise you, (maybe not) but I am in favor of the naked machines and the groin checks at airports; ONLY as a last resort. Colonel Astore is correct; there is no need to check everyone, or even do random checks. Only a select group of people need to be searched in this manner. Most people can simply be asked a series of questions. After all, this is how we caught the “millennium bomber.” He was asked questions and appeared to be very nervous. The border guard mentioned that he was “sweating in December”, so she flagged the car to be searched, and BINGO.

The Israeli’s begin security checks the minute people arrive at the airport. They pick people out of a crowd and begin to quiz them. They have been trained to spot nervous tension, and can pull these people aside for further inspection.

I’m not saying that the Israeli’s have the “cure-all” for our situation. After all, they only have to deal with a small percentage of people compared to the amount of people flying in America. However, if we combine the methods: questions for most, shoe checks and further questions for others, and naked machines and groping for some; this might solve the problem.

We just have to get the progressives past that word: “Profile.”

It really isn’t “racial” profiling because does this guy:

Look like this guy?:

Both people are terrorists.

So it has little to do with race and more to do with religion. Yes, it would be “religious profiling.”

Most of the terrorists have changed their names to fit the Muslim religion. Many are flying out of countries which harbor terrorists. We are not even checking the “no fly list” good enough because terrorists have slipped by, and the “Christmas Bomber’s” father called authorities to say his son was dangerous. We missed all of that, somehow?

So it seems like most people are on the same page with this issue, except...

What surprises me the most is how silent the 2006 liberals are on this topic of Obama’s “grope-a-thon” at US airports?

The “2006 liberals” is the name I have given to all the liberals who started at this blog site in 2006. At first, they were very pleasant, polite people who were pleading their political case. However, they began to get more aggressive as they became comfortable with this site.

“Bush lied” and “Bush is breaking the constitution with illegal wiretaps” was their mantra. Where are the 2006 liberals today? Why are they not complaining about Obama’s illegal searches at the airport? Since I have done nothing wrong, it would seem that having a TSA agent touch my “junk” might go against the constitution?

If one of the 2006 liberals were brave enough to answer my charge, they might say that President Obama is “trying to keep us safe with testicle checks at the airport, but Bush and Cheney were evil men who enjoyed listening to our phone calls.”

But, I assume that the 2006 liberals are smart enough to know that this street runs two ways: “Bush was trying to keep us safe by intercepting terrorist’s phone calls, but Obama gets his rocks off watching grandma’s groin being grabbed by a TSA agent.”

Speaking of groin checks, if you didn’t get to see the Saturday Night Live comedy bit on the TSA, you have got to see it. I have it at the top right hand corner of my “News Site”. Just click here for the video.

So, here we are. Both the conservative and the liberal hating the same thing. Savor this moment folks, because it is rare, indeed.

And if I know anything about Americans, it is this: We can take lemons and make lemonade. (And then place a bunch of booze in that lemonade, and party.)

Most airports have some kind of lounge or bar which serves booze. Usually, down the road from the airport is a strip club for traveling salesmen. And, of course, we have these new TSA airport naked scanner machines that can see through clothes.

Why combine all the above activities into one “fun filled” room of adult entertainment?

Picture this...
You are at the airport, waiting for your plane. A friendly TSA Agent asks you a bunch of questions, and you fail the test. YOU, for failing the test, become the entertainment at the airport lounge. Customers of the lounge, after paying a cover charge, get to watch as TSA Agents grope you and place you into the naked machine Your naked image is projected on a large flat-screen TV in the lounge.

Think about it, people would be seated in the lounge, viewing pictures of your naked body. Maybe we could make it 3D?



Guys would be treated to these kinds of pictures

And women, don’t feel left out, because you would get to see this

Ok, maybe this isn’t the best idea that I have come up with. I’m sorry. If I thought about it some more, I might have come up with something better. But the cat was chasing a bug on the floor, and I got distracted.
So, I hope that this editorial answered all of your questions about being naked, booze, and airport security.

Thanks for reading The Angry Republic

AR Babonie

Neil Young’s hybrid car burns down his warehouse, loses a million bucks worth of guitars and stuff.

It is amazing how things come full circle, it all started a few years ago…

Rock legion: Neil Young wrote an editorial for the Huffington Post which discussed his new “electric car”, a 1959 Lincoln Continental, which Neil spent thousands having professional people turn into a hybrid “of sorts.” It is electric, (with HUGE- expensive batteries), and a bio-fuel power plant for generating electricity.



Mr. Young was lecturing us (Huff Post readers) about how we need to get involved in “green” technology, and that hybrid cars do not have to be tiny little death traps. Actually, truth be told, Neil Young is a pioneer in this field of “larger hybrids.”

I, (AR Babonie), had to put my two cents in, and I commented on Neil’s editorial. The main point of my comment was that most people cannot afford the $5,000 bucks every 5 years for new batteries on these electric cars. (The current lifespan of electric car batteries.) Hybrids are VERY expensive and have technical problems, so isn’t it irresponsible to push people towards these vehicles; when these people are living from paycheck to paycheck?

I was attacked by the Huff Post liberals: “How dare you evil conservative condemn Neil Young. He is a good man, and he is trying to save the planet. What are you doing to save the planet?”

I informed the liberals at Huff Post that I ride a Harley Davidson motorcycle, which gets 65mpg (if I keep it under 70mph). I have a water / well system at the house; so I use water, and then return the water to the earth. We only air condition one room in the house, and only heat the rooms that we need. I keep my property “somewhat” natural with over 60 trees, which is filled with birds, deer, bunnies, woodchucks, and sometimes a bald eagle. I told the folks at Huff Post that I do not do this to “save the earth”, I do it because I am cheap. I like saving money.

Then, I reminded the Huff Post progressives what my original comment was: “isn’t it irresponsible to push people, who live from paycheck to paycheck, to buy cars, (electric or hybrid) when both types of cars have serious problems?



The Huffington Post liberals didn’t want to consider my points. I was an evil conservative who disrespected Neil Young. I was told that I hate the earth, I hate Black people, I hate bunnies, and I should just go away and die. Neil Young never commented back to me, however most celebrity “bloggers” do not comment.

Irony is a funny thing, my friends…

Fireman where called to a blaze at Neil Young’s house last week.

It seems that Mr. Young’s experimental electric Lincoln car caught fire.

The fire “may” have started in the charging system of the vehicle’s electronics. Not only was the car destroyed, but many of Neil’s private possessions were also destroyed: guitars, pictures, films, music equipment, etc. Stuff that Neil cannot easily replace because it was part of his history.



If you know anything about me, you know that I am not one to gloat when I am right. I feel bad for Neil Young; this is a terrible thing that happened. I promote pioneers on this web site because invention creates jobs. Guys like Neil Young, tinkering with a large size hybrid car, might just revolutionize the industry. So, I respect that. I think that Neil’s song: “Old man, look at my life” is one of the best modern songs written.

However, I do not agree with Young’s politics. It is wrong to push people into technology that isn’t perfected yet.

It is so easy for the progressive to say that I, the conservative, I must hate the environment, or I do not care what shape the earth is in; however, in doing so, you are not listening to what I am saying.

I wonder how many people listened to what Neil Young was saying, and disregarded my words (because I am just one of those dumb conservatives) and went out and bought an electric car; only to find that the range is about 40 miles on a charge. And that is a NEW battery. We all know that as rechargeable batteries get older, they lose their staying power.

I hope that I will have better luck today and people will listen to what I am about to say.

Today, the government allows up to 10% ethanol to be added into gas for your car. The government is considering raising that level to 15%.

No one is 100% sure of what 15% ethanol will do to your car’s engine, over time.

OK, I am going to print this line again, because some of you might be tempted to say that I hate Black people, or I hate animals, or that I flat out lie; and what I say cannot be true. So, I will print that line again with a nice little link.

No one is 100% sure of what 15% ethanol will do to your car’s engine, over time.

Here is what the government “believes”: if your car was made during 2007, or newer; you will “probably” be OK burning the ethanol mixture. However, if your car was made in 2006 or older, you “might” have problems with this ethanol blend.

People with boat motors, riding lawn mowers, push mowers, and some motorcycles are already seeing problems with the current ethanol blend. No one is really sure what a 15% ethanol blend will do to small engines? The EPA is warning people NOT to use this ethanol blend in small motors.



The problem…

Ethanol has a tendency to draw moisture. (Water) This water can build up in your gas tank and cause fuel line freezing in the winter. Also, it can cause “gaps” in the fuel line, which can cause an engine to run rough and stall. Ethanol burns hotter than gas, which can burn up engine components.
Especially in small “air-cooled” engines. (Motorcycles, push mowers, etc.)

It is important for me to tell you that I am all for alternative fuels. Bio-fuels, ethanol blends; I believe that we MUST work on these power methods, because we need to get away from foreign oil. BUT IT MUST BE BY CHOICE, not by force.



In the past, when I talked about the use of ethanol, I always assumed that in a free country, you would have a choice. At your friendly gas station, there would be several pumps. One would have kerosene, another would have diesel, others would have your different grades of regular gas; and another pump would have the ethanol mixture.

You would have a choice with this method. You could try ethanol and if your car started to run poorly, you could switch back to regular gas and save your engine from a costly repair job.



Folks, I am dead against this “forced GREEN lifestyle”, I always have been. It is not because I hate deer and bald eagles, it is because we haven’t perfected these technologies, and we need to do better planning.

Which takes us back to Neil Young and his hybrid Lincoln…

In trying to save the earth, by building an experimental hybrid, Neil Young lost many of things that he loved from his past, in a fire. He did NOT save the earth, in fact, he probably did more harm with the warehouse fire; then the pollution that he would have created if he was driving a regular car all along.

Sometimes we do not think. We are too quick to act, and react to situations.



Neil Young has the money to rebuild and replace the things that he lost.
We do not. We cannot afford to repair our motors from ethanol damage.

So I ask, what is wrong with giving people a choice?

Why can’t people be free to choose?

Written by AR Babonie for The Angry Republic News Site



Tips and hints.

I had problems with two engines this season. Though I cannot prove that it is a fact that the ethanol blend caused these problems, I believe that it was caused by ethanol because I have never had these problems before.

My boat motor was stalling this summer and starting very hard. I used a product called: “Start your engine” and it solved the stalling problem. However, one of the spark plug wires burn up. This might have been a loose connection, or the fact that ethanol burns hotter, I don’t know? “Start your engine” costs about $7 bucks and you can get it at most retailers.

My snow blower would not start this season. (First time for that happening) I put in fresh gas, and added “gas stabilizer” to it. It took about 50 pulls (tries) to start it, but then it took off and seems to be running good now.

My best advice is not to give up too quick. If your engine is “gummed up” from the ethanol, and not starting; I wouldn’t worry about doing MORE damage to it. If you get to the point where you have to bring it in for repair, someone will have to tear it apart to clean it up anyway, so it doesn’t really matter whether you tried to start it one time, or 100 times. Plus, you never know, you might just clear the ethanol out, and it will start up for you.

Thanks for reading The Angry Republic

Don’t forget to check out my News site. There, you can find out about “Free groin checks, today only.”



LINK: The Angry Republic News Site