Our Media, Democrats and our Troops in Iraq
A combination of videos and photos showing the Democrat and the Media position on the war in Iraq as our troops become the victim of politics.
.
Thie is a before and after video that Sean Hannity made about Democrats and Iraq.
Listen to the Democrats mislead, distort, and otherwise lie about the Iraq War. The party of appeasement and defeat eschews democracy in favor of hypocrisy.
Wild Thing’s comment………
The left, Democrats and the media are the scum of the earth. The things they have said and done should fall under treason to our country. Their aid to the enemy simply by the comments they have made has put our troops lives in additional danger then they already are and I pray there is some kind of karma that will get back at these people doing these things.
Yes one way is to vote them out of office, but that takes time. I wish for something faster then that. Damn the left!!!!
The Real Command Influence
Russ Vaughn
In dismissing the very dubious war crimes charges against Marine LTC Jeffrey Chessani, his trial judge, COL Steven Folsom, said this:
“Unlawful command influence is the mortal enemy of military justice,”
COL Folsom was referring to influence within the Marine Corps command structure, specifically involving two officers of general rank. We should all applaud the colonel’s decision as it would make no sense whatsoever for the Marines to try an officer for failing to investigate crimes that to this point several military courts have failed to establish ever occurred. With one exception, all of the Haditha Marines now have been exonerated. The exception is SSGT Frank Wuterich and if the Marines insist on pursuing his prosecution, they will find themselves in the position of trying to prove homicidal behavior on the part of a non-commissioned officer whose troops apparently killed no one in an unlawful manner according to Marine courts. The only conclusion is that he acted alone, in the midst of battle, while commanding his troops, he somehow single-handedly slaughtered more than twenty innocent Iraqi civilians.
Sounds preposterous, right? Well, that’s apparently what the Navy would have us believe. And make no mistake about it, it is the Navy that controls military prosecutions in the Marine Corps, and the Navy appears willing to pursue this prosecution even though SSGT Wuterich’s subordinates and his two superiors who were charged have all been cleared by military courts. That leads us to speculate that either SSGT Wuterich killed those Iraqi civilians all by himself or Navy JAG is desperately in need of at least one face-saving conviction in this Haditha mess.
Or is there another reason? Perhaps command influence from a higher level? Most civilians are unaware of the tremendous pressure members of Congress are able to bring to bear on military commanders. If a particular senator or congressman doesn’t happen to be on a committee or subcommittee with direct oversight over military budgets or affairs, you can bet one of his cronies does. This is particularly true with flag rank Navy officers and generals in the other services because their promotions into these lofty ranks require congressional approval.
By now you must have guessed where this is going. Consider…who is the most powerful person in this situation who stands to not only look like the grandstanding, blowhard fool that he is but could perhaps be threatened with defamation lawsuits by the young Marines whose lives he turned into hell by publicly proclaiming them “cold blooded killers.” Ah yes, that would be the reigning Prince of Pork, John Murtha. Think about it, with a single conviction of any one of the Marines charged, Murtha can claim vindication and use that conviction as an effective defense against any defamation suits from any of the other defendants.
So the question begging to be asked is whether or not this congressman, who was videotaped by the FBI as indicating he is bribable, is pulling strings behind the Navy/Marine Corps command structure to pursue this phony war crimes prosecution to the bitter end. Murtha claims to be an ex-Marine to which I say, you may have worn the uniform, John, but you are sure as hell no Marine. As I have said before, the Marine Corps motto is Semper Fi, always faithful; John Murtha’s motto is Semper I, always him.
Russ Vaughn
Vietnam 65-66
….Thank you Russ for writing this and sending it to me.
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” – Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948
Obama Gets The Communists
Seattle Examiner
It’s one thing when Obama, the Democrats’ standard bearer to be, is identified as the most liberal senator. It is something else, something quite extreme, when Obama is recognized as the darling of the Communist Party USA.
That’s right, Joelle Fishman — chair of the Communist Party USA Political Action Commission and the Connecticut Communist Party — backs Obama.
Perhaps it is no surprise. After all, except for public financing of campaigns, Obama’s positions are very similar to those of the Communist Party USA:
Among the points in the party’s “Immediate Program” are a $12/hour minimum wage; for all workers, universal health care, and opposition to privatization of Social Security; economic measures such as increased taxes on “the rich and corporations,” strong regulation of the financial industry, “regulation and public ownership of utilities,” and increased federal aid to cities and states; opposition to the Iraq War and other military interventions; opposition to free trade treaties such as NAFTA; nuclear disarmament and a reduced military budget; various civil rights provisions; campaign finance reform including public financing of campaigns; and election law reform, including Instant Runoff Voting.
Wild Thing’s comment……..
No surprise actually, since most of the Democrat politicans are member of this. Howard Dean, Pelosi, the list is long . He is already endorsed by so many anti-American, and terrorists groups, this just adds another one to the list.
What a mess all this is and regarding Obama very scary for sure.
Many years ago I bought 3 rugs from a company called Claire Murray.
It is an awesome company and the Hand Hooked Rugs are first class. They are a little expensive so I didn’t go crazy but the money is well spent since they last forever. I just saved up for them many years ago when we got them. We have had the 3 rugs now for 23 years. They look like new.
We never have carpeting, and prefer hardwood floors so these rugs work out perfectly for throw rugs throughout the house. And they grip the floor so they don’t move easily at all when walking over them.
I had not heard from the company which was fine, and then in the last few years they started to send me emails.
Just advertising kind but the last few months it started to get to be more then one a day. haha Like something had gone wrong with their email program . I kept asking them not to send me anymore emails. I am not a big shopper since show biz was always a career one had to be careful in spending money when you don’t know when the next job will be. Being careful was important.
The emails from the company had a link to click to reply and say don’t send any emails. I did as I was told and clicked on the return link and sent emails asking to be off their email list. LOL But they kept sending more and more emails. hahahahaha
So just for fun I thought I would try something and maybe it would make them see I was serious. heh heh
I sent them a 5th email requesting once again to be taken off their list. Only this time a new strategy, I sent the email with a picture of Obama and wrote as you will see below. And with a wee bit of an attitude with it. giggle
From: Chrissie
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:54 PM
Subject: please once again I am asking
I have responded to your spam emails now 5 times. Apparently you do not speak English. I have requested, pleaded and begged to be taken off your email list.
So since you will not do as I have requested I will reply with political graphics of the DemocRATS vile and horrible B. Hussein Obama.
Thank you for your time,
Chrissie xxxxxxxxxx
.
And this was the reply I got back. I put the girls name with x’s in case she could get fired for her reply. hahha
From: xxxxx xxxxxxx
To: Chrissie
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 9:51 AM
Subject: RE: please once again I am asking
Your unsubscribe is in process. I only received your first request on 6/20
It sometimes takes a few days. I have just manually deleted it, sorry for the inconvenience.
However, please keep up the good work sending the democRATs emails, maybe some people will get it.
Once again, thank you for shopping with Claire Murray.
Warm Regards,
xxxxx xxxxxxx
Webmaster
email : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Toll Free 866-868-7001
Now this girl is someone I could be friends with. hahaha And I can’t write her back because I wanted off her email list. hahahahaha But the important thing is she is a Republican and how cool is that! I laughed so hard when I got her email back and showed it to Nicholas and he had a good laugh too. I thought I would share this with you for your enjoyment. haha
Dem pledges: I’ll ‘rip apart’ child-rape victims on stand
‘I’m going to make sure rest of their life is ruined’
wnd …for complete article
Massachusetts politician and defense attorney Rep. James Fagan is under intense public scrutiny after he promised to “rip apart” child victims of rape who testify if the state imposes strict sentences for sex offenders.
Fagan, a Democrat, made his controversial remarks on the state House floor, Fox News reported.
“I’m gonna rip them apart,” Fagan said of child victims. “I’m going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined, that when they’re 8 years old, they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody.”
As a defense attorney, Fagan said he would prevent accused child sex offenders from experiencing a “mandatory sentence of those draconian proportions.”
According to the report, his statements angered both colleagues and activists.
“I thought his comments were over the top and unnecessary,” said Bradley Jones, Massachusetts House minority leader. “I appreciate that he’s a defense attorney, and felt he had a point to make, but I think it was unnecessary. It was excessive.”
Mark Lunsford, a Florida father who lost his 9-year-old daughter after she was kidnapped, wrapped in a trash bag and buried alive by a sex offender in 2005, said he was shocked by Fagan’s remarks. He told the Boston Herald that Fagan should have more respect for the rights of sexually abused children.
“Why doesn’t he figure out a way to defend that child and put these kind of people away instead of trying to figure ways for defense attorneys to get around Jessica’s Law?” Lunsford asked. “These are very serious crimes that nobody wants to take serious. What about the rights of these children?”
The bill Fagan was so strongly opposed to designates mandatory minimum sentences of 10 to 15 years for crimes against children. It has passed in the House and made its way to the Senate.
According to Fox News, law professor Phyllis Goldfarb said Fagan comments were somewhat truthful in that they describe a defense attorney’s obligation to find holes in the prosecutor’s case when a person accused of sexually abusing a child faces mandatory sentencing.
Wild Thing’s comment…….
Some people in our society practice evil simply for its own sake. Such is the case with this miserable attorney. Sounds to me like he enjoys his work. This a**hole thinks 20 years for the rape of a child is “draconian”. This bastard is as sick as the rapists he defends.
Just where the hell are we going in this country, that an elected official could even say such a thing an it not be an outrage? Or that anyone would say such things.
….Thank you Mark for the link to this article. And Sierrahome thank you for the link to the video.
Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm
Our Founding Fathers Intent!
Affirmed 5-4.
The decision goes further than the Bush administration was asking for!! WOO HOO!!!
Thank you God.
And thank you President Bush for allowing the American people to protect themselves from criminals, stalkers and other lunatics and tyrannical governments.
Praise and Blessings to the Almighty and all SCOTUS Justices who voted to protect those rights.
I think all of us would buy Heller a steak right now, along with 5 of the Justices. A steak, a cigar and a whiskey.
The court’s 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Source:SCOTUS blog
Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession. Although times have changed since 1791, Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority, “it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”
Justice Scalia’s opinion stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on carrying a concealed gun or on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, on laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, and laws putting conditions on gun sales.
In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed. It said that issuing a license to a handgun owner, so the weapon can be used at home, would be a sufficient remedy for the Second Amendment violation of denying any access to a handgun.
Justice Scalia’s recitation from the bench of the majority’s reasoning continued for 16 minutes. Justice John Paul Stevens followed, for seven minutes, summarizing the reasons for two dissenting opinions — his and one written by Justice Stephen G. Breyer.
The decision was the final one of the Term and, after issuing it, the Court recessed for the summer, to return on Monday, Oct. 6. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., said that concluding orders on pending cases will be released by the Court Clerk at 10 a.m. Friday.
The opinion can be downloaded here. This is a pdf file.
.
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing
rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a
dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ.,
joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS,
SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.
.
Quotes from the opinion:
“Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.”
“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”
“the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”
“The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.”
“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”
“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”
“The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.”
“It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.”
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”
“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179.”
“Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”
“In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”
On the question of the Second Amendment’s application to the States: “23 With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.”
.
LOOK at this……APPALLING LEFT WING ARROGANT IGNORANCE!!!
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, “In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.”
Supreme Court Gun Ban Ruling Expected
The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, did not release its long-awaited ruling on whether the District’s handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. That means the potentially landmark decision will almost certainly come today when the court is planning to issue the last of its rulings for the term.
The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which was argued nearly four months ago, could settle the decades-old debate over whether the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own firearms.
Mayor Adrain M. Fenty is planning to hold a news conference at the John A. Wilson Building after the decision is announced.
Wild Thing’s comment……….
Citizens are armed; subjects are not. We shall remain armed.
The founding fathers based the bill of rights on thier beleif that we have a right to “…life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness…”
Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are all great, but pretty meaningless if one cannot defend his life. This is what we have come to today.
Rapist Patrick Kennedy that should have been put to DEATH!
Child rapists can’t be executed, Supreme Court rules CNN
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Wednesday that child rapists cannot be executed, concluding that capital punishment for crimes against individuals can be applied only to murderers.
The ruling stemmed from the case of Patrick Kennedy, who appealed the 2003 death sentence he received in Louisiana after being convicted of raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that execution in this case would violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, citing “evolving standards of decency” in the United States.
Such standards, the justice wrote, forbid capital punishment for any crime against an individual other than murder.
“We conclude that, in determining whether the death penalty is excessive, there is a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and nonhomicide crimes against individual persons, even including child rape, on the other,” wrote Kennedy, who is not related to the convicted rapist.
Patrick Kennedy, 43, would have been the first convicted rapist in the United States since 1964 to be executed in a case in which the victim was not killed.
Kennedy was convicted of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter in her bed. The attack caused severe emotional trauma, internal injuries and bleeding to the child, requiring extensive surgery, Louisiana prosecutors said.
In the majority opinion, Anthony Kennedy acknowledged “the victim’s fright, the sense of betrayal, and the nature of her injuries caused more prolonged physical and mental suffering than, say, a sudden killing by an unseen assassin.”
But the justice — supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer — wrote that when determining what punishment the Eighth Amendment prohibits, “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” must be taken into account.
Wild Thing’s comment……..
These justices who think raping a child should not be a capital offense are so horrible I cannot even fathom how their mind works. This is truly an abomination! “The ruling stemmed from the case of Patrick Kennedy, who was sentenced to death in 2003 for raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter.”
He WAS sentenced to death and now they protect the rapist. Disgusting!
Hundreds of free bikes will be available for anyone looking for an alternative to automobiles during the Democratic convention in Denver — and also in Minneapolis-St. Paul when the Republicans convene.
From left, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, Director of Bikes Belong Tim Blumenthal, convention organizer Parry Burnap and Dan Oftedahl of Humana, which will provide the free bikes, announced the initiative in early May.
Democrats hope to power media pavilions in part with solar energy. Wind energy will be used to power the convention halls
The Greenest Show on Earth: Democrats Gear Up for Denver The Wall Street Journal
From Organic Fanny Packs to ‘Pure’ Trash, Party Planners Face Logistical Nightmare
As the Mile High City gears up to host a Democratic bash for 50,000, organizers are discovering the perils of trying to stage a political spectacle that’s also politically correct. Fanny Packs
The host committee for the Democratic National Convention wanted 15,000 fanny packs for volunteers. But they had to be made of organic cotton. By unionized labor. In the USA.
Official merchandiser Bob DeMasse scoured the country. His weary conclusion: “That just doesn’t exist.”
Ditto for the baseball caps. “We have a union cap or an organic cap,” Mr. DeMasse says. “But we don’t have a union-organic offering.”
Much of the hand-wringing can be blamed on Denver’s Democratic mayor, John Hickenlooper, who challenged his party and his city to “make this the greenest convention in the history of the planet.”
Convention organizers hired the first-ever Director of Greening, longtime environmental activist Andrea Robinson. Her response to the mayor’s challenge: “That terrifies me!”
After all, the last time Democrats met in Denver — to nominate William Jennings Bryan in 1908 — they dispatched horse-drawn wagons to bring snow from the Rocky Mountains to cool the meeting hall. Ms. Robinson suspected modern-day delegates would prefer air conditioning. So she quickly modified the mayor’s goal: She’d supervise “the most sustainable political convention in modern American history.”
Now, she must pull it off.
To test whether celebratory balloons advertised as biodegradable actually will decompose, Ms. Robinson buried samples in a steaming compost heap. She hired an Official Carbon Adviser, who will measure the greenhouse-gas emissions of every placard, every plane trip, every appetizer prepared and every coffee cup tossed. The Democrats hope to pay penance for those emissions by investing in renewable energy projects.
Perhaps Ms. Robinson’s most audacious goal is to reuse, recycle or compost at least 85% of all waste generated during the convention. The Trash Brigade
To police the four-day event Aug. 25-28, she’s assembling (via paperless online signup) a trash brigade. Decked out in green shirts, 900 volunteers will hover at waste-disposal stations to make sure delegates put each scrap of trash in the proper bin. Lest a fork slip into the wrong container unnoticed, volunteers will paw through every bag before it is hauled away.
To police the four-day event Aug. 25-28, she’s assembling (via paperless online signup) a trash brigade. Decked out in green shirts, 900 volunteers will hover at waste-disposal stations to make sure delegates put each scrap of trash in the proper bin. Lest a fork slip into the wrong container unnoticed, volunteers will paw through every bag before it is hauled away.
“That’s the only way to make sure it’s pure,” Ms. Robinson says. Food
No fried food. And, on the theory that nutritious food is more vibrant, each meal should include “at least three of the following colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple, and white.” (Garnishes don’t count.) At least 70% of ingredients should be organic or grown locally, to minimize emissions from fuel burned during transportation. “One would think,” says Mr. Burns, “that the Democrats in Denver have bigger fish to bake — they have ruled out frying already — than mandating color-coordinated pretzel platters.”
The city has staged “greening workshops” attended by hundreds of caterers, restaurant owners and hotel managers. “It’s the new patriotism,” Mayor Hickenlooper says. Coors Conflict
But it’s almost inevitable that principles, politics and profit will conflict. To wit: Coors Brewing Co., in Golden, Colo., will donate biofuel made from beer waste to power the convention’s fleet of flex-fuel vehicles. A green star for the convention — but it has rankled die-hard liberals, who boycotted Coors in the 1960s and ’70s to protest hiring practices that they said discriminated against blacks, Latinos, women and gays. Heirs to the Coors fortune have long been active in conservative causes and Republican politics.
Convention officials say Coors is a good corporate citizen. And a Coors spokeswoman says the donation was a gesture of civic pride, not politics.
No matter, grumbles Anna Flynn, a longtime union member from Denver who objected to the donation. “Any way you put it, it’s still Coors,” she says.
So will the fanny packs — made in the USA of undyed, organic fabric. Mr. DeMasse vows to get a union shop to print the logo, but he says the ink will be petroleum based. Unless, that is, he decides to get the logo embroidered — with biodegradable thread.
Wild Thing’s comment…….
LOL This is going to be so much fun to watch….too bad Hillary won’t be a major player to stir things up. “Decked out in green shirts, 900 volunteers will hover at waste-disposal stations to make sure delegates put each scrap of trash in the proper bin. Lest a fork slip into the wrong container unnoticed, volunteers will paw through every bag before it is hauled away.”
LMAO this is rich! hahaha They could call them the Green Nazi Patrol. And if they were really serious they should ban all private jets to the convention.
You just know if Gore is going to be there he will be arriving on his private jet.
….Thank you Russ for writing this and sending it to me.
Recent Comments