↓ Archives ↓

Archive → April 30th, 2017

Whats up with Lithium

Elon Musk’s Dirty Secret
Jason Williams Photo By Jason Williams
Written Friday, April 21, 2017
Tomorrow is Earth Day — a day where we reflect on our impact on the planet… a day where we try to step up our efforts to make it a cleaner place for us and future generations… a day when we look at how far we’ve come, but also how far we still have to go.

And in honor of Earth Day 2017, I want to take a little time to talk about the consequences of a “green” decision many are making: buying an electric vehicle, or EV.

You see, they’re becoming more and more popular every day, being touted as a way to reduce carbon emissions and save the planet. But there’s a lot of misunderstanding surrounding those claims.

Sure, when you buy an EV, you can charge your car and it runs on battery power. Those moments when you’re driving, you’re not belching out exhaust or adding to climate change. But what about everything that goes into your electric vehicle up to that point?

If you factor in everything it takes to get you out cruising the highways and byways, that green investment you made starts to look a little more red (opposite green on the color wheel), or brown (as in the color of dead plants).

So, let’s start at the beginning and look at all of the inputs that make your Tesla’s ecological footprint much larger than you realize.
There’s a lot that goes into your EV. You have to look at the whole process to really get a clear picture of the environmental impacts. If you’re thinking of buying one to save the planet, you should really pay attention.From the Cradle to the Grave

There’s a show on TruTV called Adam Ruins Everything. The host debunks common misconceptions on each episode. It’s become very popular, but the show and host got a lot of flak after an episode they did about electric and hybrid vehicles. Apparently, a lot of the viewers didn’t like the conclusions they came to. While they may have made some sweeping generalizations and ignored a few things, most of the points they made were true.

Where Do They Get That Lithium?

So, you probably know the thing that makes EVs hum is the super-powerful battery that powers the electric motor. You probably also know the main component of the battery is the lithium-ion core that stores the energy. But do you know where lithium comes from? Have you ever thought about how we get it?

You see, lithium is an element. But it’s so highly reactive that it’s not really found in elemental form, and it’s most abundant in granite formations. That means it’s got to be mined out of the Earth’s crust and then separated from the rock around it. The process isn’t all that pretty. It results in gigantic craters being ripped into the landscape.

There’s a huge mine in Southwestern Australia called Greenbushes right next to a state forest. So, thanks to our need for lithium to power our green cars, this:

Greenbushes Forest

Now looks like this:

Greenbushes Mine

And as bad as that looks, it’s not the worst part of it by far.

That’s because in order to separate the lithium from the rock, it has to be dissolved in acid. Yeah, acid. In some places, where the regulations aren’t that tight, lithium producers just dump the wastewater right back into pools that leach back into the groundwater.

That looks a little something like this:

lithium mining pollution

While the U.S. has some pretty strict regulations as to how the waste is handled, we don’t produce that much lithium here. It could be as much as 3,500 tons per year. But there’s only one mine, and the actual number isn’t reported.

The rest of the lithium we need comes from places like China, Argentina, and Chile. In many of those areas, restrictions on dumping haven’t quite caught up to our standards.

lithium production global

Starting to see some of the environmental impacts of electric vehicles yet? No? Well, there’s more.
Once the lithium is mined and separated, it goes to a factory where it gets processed and turned into a battery. And it’s not being shipped in electric trucks — it goes across oceans in diesel ships. Then it gets loaded onto trains and trucks that are powered by — you guessed it — diesel.Making a Vehicle

The same goes for everything else that’s used to build an electric vehicle. In fact, in an aerial photo of one of Tesla’s factories, you can see the big trucks and shipping containers pretty clearly. Just outside the frame, you’d see train tracks:

tesla factory shipping

Oh yeah, and those EVs rolling off the line are being loaded onto big diesel-powered rigs to get shipped off to showrooms and driveways across the country.

Besides all the carbon emissions that go into building and shipping the cars, there are the factories in general. They’re huge! They’re surrounded by asphalt and concrete that keeps rainwater from being absorbed and filtered before it hits the rivers and oceans. And they’re not building these with electric machines.

Looking at Tesla’s Gigafactory in Nevada, you can see that it looks exactly like any construction site. Lots of trucks and machinery that run on, yet again, diesel.

tesla gigafactory construction

It Doesn’t Stop at the Factory

So, now the lithium has been mined and the parts and finished product have been shipped. It’s got to get better, right? Wrong.

This is where the show I referenced earlier made a little divergence from the facts. They said once you get the EV, you’re charging it by burning coal. That’s not entirely true. There are several different energy sources used throughout the U.S. Coal is just one of them.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), there’s actually only about a 30% chance you’re charging your car by burning coal. There’s a 33% chance it’s by burning natural gas. That’s a cleaner alternative to coal, but still not green, and definitely not renewable. In fact, there’s less than a 15% chance your EV is being powered by renewable energy. It’s actually more likely to be charging on nuclear power than real green electricity.

energy generation fuels 2016

So, when you’re charging that EV, there’s only around a 35% chance you’re not creating extra carbon emissions. There’s a 65% chance you are. It all depends on where you live (some states use more coal than others, and some use more natural gas). Depending on what fuel is being burned, you could be pumping out a good deal of carbon. In fact, if it’s coal, you may as well be driving a diesel- or gas-powered car.

carbon by fuel type

If you’ve never seen a coal-fired power plant, it’s a pretty nasty sight:

coal powerplant

Natural gas is better, but still sends carbon billowing out into the environment:

nat gas powerplant

It’s looking a lot less green by now, huh? Well, what about after you’re done driving your EV and ready to get a new one?


Recyclable, Yes — Recycled, Not So Much

Most of the components that go into the EVs we’re seeing debuted around the world are extremely light and pretty cheap. So, there’s not that much reason to recycle them. It’s more cost-effective to just make new parts. That goes for the batteries, too.

The first rounds of lithium batteries used much more expensive materials, and there were recycling programs for them. But those programs are complex and expensive, so it only makes sense to operate them if the materials salvaged can be sold for more than the cost to get them.

As battery makers strive to make their products more affordable, they switch to cheaper parts. The lithium is still pretty expensive, but so is the process of retrieving it. And since the other parts of the battery aren’t that valuable, the overall cost of recycling trumps the potential revenues from selling the recovered materials. So, as of now, there really isn’t much inspiring companies to set up recycling programs for the new generation of lithium batteries.

A handful of people have said that the fiberglass and aluminum parts from the old vehicles could be used in the construction of new ones, but really? People will pay new-car prices for what’s technically a refurbished vehicle? I’m not convinced.

So, until there are more EVs on the road than ICEs (internal combustion engines), there’s a pretty good possibility that these cars will be headed for the trash heap and not a junkyard or recycling plant to be salvaged and reused.

The Real Problem

Bottom Line: The biggest problem we’re facing with the environment isn’t the cars we drive. It’s our affinity for new things. We buy a new car when the one we’re driving is perfectly fine. We buy a five-bedroom house when there are only two of us. We throw things out and replace them when they break instead of fixing them. And we live in huge cities that by design aren’t environmentally friendly.

So, if you really want to help the planet, think twice before you buy a new EV. Think twice before you buy anything new. Drive that car you’ve got until the wheels fall off. Use your possessions until they’re irreparable. Because every time you buy something new, you’re adding to the problem.

I’m not telling you to sell your house and get a tiny home. I mean, the one you’ve got is already built. That new tiny home means more damage to the planet when you construct it. But when you’re ready to simplify, think about it. Find someone who needs all of those bedrooms. And find a tiny home that’s been well loved by someone else. Fix it up and make it your own.

And when your car finally kicks the bucket, look into EVs. Depending on where you live, they are friendlier to the planet than a traditional vehicle. And who knows? By the time you’re really in need of a new car, maybe we’ll have more renewable options for our electricity.

Oh, and here’s a link to that show I mentioned earlier, in case you wanted to check it out. It’s about more than just EVs, and it’s honestly pretty interesting and funny. If you just want to check out the EV part, it starts at about 5:40.

To investing with integrity (and having all the facts),

Jason Williams
Wealth Daily

Source: Will County News

Liberals Buying Guns and Ammo?

Liberals Buying Guns and Ammo?
Alex Koyfman Photo By Alex Koyfman
Written Thursday, April 20, 2017
These days, if you want to get an idea of what people are thinking and how they’re feeling on a deep, base, emotional level, you must be willing to descend to the lowest depths — the very septic system — of human social interaction to get the clearest view.

I’m talking about social media, of course, where average citizens, with varying levels of mastery of English, post their comments in response to breaking news.

Depending on where you go, the nature of what you see swings wildly in terms political leaning, but so long as the parent article is politically themed, one thing is consistent no matter which news site you’re visiting: everyone seems pretty darn convinced they’re right.

Never before has the level of hostility been higher. But this week especially, with two scenarios playing out simultaneously between the U.S. and North Korea and the U.S. and Russia, the magnitude of the fear, paranoia, and hatred splashing across pages of Facebook and Twitter has leaped to a whole new level.

Welcome to Humanity’s Intellectual Underbelly

Here is one endearing snippet I copied from an article published yesterday when the second of two flights of Russian strategic bombers probed the edges of U.S. airspace before being escorted away by F-22s:

I hope you’re happy Redneck America. In his first 100 days you’re [sic] president, not mine, has brought the whole world to the edge of world war 3. I am afraid for my children. I am afraid to go outside. He’s turned a country of stability and peace into a pit of despair and misery and now he’s work…

And another from that same article:

Just more evidence that Trump voters should all be rounded up IMMEDIATELY, and removed forever from the demcratic process. We’re closer to Armageddon now than we’ve been at any time since the days of STALIN, and yet the toupee-in-chief keeps telling us that everything is great and the country is bac…

If that weren’t enough, last week, the other apparent thorn in Trump’s side, North Korea, went to one of its favorite saber-rattling techniques by testing an ICBM — a test that ended in failure but got global attention nonetheless.

Trump’s response was to claim that he was sending an “Armada” towards the Korean peninsula as a show of force.

It didn’t take long for the press to get wind of the fact that the carrier Trump was referring to, the Carl Vinson, along with its substantial strike group, wasn’t heading for Korea at all, but towards Australia.

A storm of outrage ensued.

Here’s one from a CNN article:

Just more chaotic and irresponsible behavior, from this trash-talking White House. The lies, propaganda, dissembling, extreme corruption, aggression and muddled, crazy policy emanating from this administration is horrifying. This is the chaos and slight-of-hand of a fascist regime-in-the-making. Unl…

And another:

Lies or just plain stupidity… where oh where can the Carl Vinson be… who cares… it only takes one submarine off the coast (in international waters of course) to hose up everything (see the world on fire and then thrust into a nuclear winter)..

But aside from the usual current of anger and frustration, I noticed another pattern start to emerge — something I definitely wasn’t expecting from this particular segment of the population.

Prior to Cheetoman’s election, I spent many months “campaigning” against him amongst my Trumpster friends, family and acquaintances. Now, rather than saying “I told you so”, I’m starting to prepare for what’s coming. Stock up on food and water, folks, because this is just the beginning.

And:

The time of complaining and whining is over now. We’re not going to sit around and wait for this lunatic to throw the world into nuclear war. I hate everyone who voted for that intolerant sexist bigot but some of them might have a point. We’re filling our basement with supplies and are now looking i…

Reading Between the Lines

Are you seeing what I’m seeing? Liberals, prepping?

It blew my mind because if there was one segment of the population that had consistently mocked the practice, this was it. And yet…

Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t think the people making these posts are in their right minds.

Russian bombers have been buzzing in our airspace on a regular basis since the Cold War.

Sure, there have been times of increased frequency, but all in all, this is nothing more than a public demonstration aimed at provoking the administration and, to a lesser degree, testing our response times.

If they had any intention of actually penetrating our airspace with intent to do harm, they would 1.) do it with a far larger, more widespread, coordinated attack, 2.) given their massive ICBM arsenal, probably not use manned bombers at all, 3.) definitely not use the world’s oldest and most radar-visible bomber, the 60-year-old, prop-driven Tu-95 Bear (pictured below flying alongside a more modern Tu-160 Blackjack, which was first flown by the Soviet air force in the 1980s).

tu95%2F160

And as far as North Korea goes, in terms of threat, that nation ranks right up there with Guatemala.

Despite its apparent hatred and hostility towards us, North Korea, even on its finest day, doesn’t have the capacity to do anything beyond starting a war with the West.

Even if the country had a nuclear weapon small enough to put on the tip of a missile (the weapons North Korea has tested so far have been the size of a house and only a few kilotons in yield), its missiles are neither reliable nor accurate enough to pose a legitimate threat, nor are its (purely theoretical) warheads powerful enough to do much damage in the one-in-a-million chance they ever reached our soil.

Moreover, we would know of a launch in its earliest stages, and, yes, we would almost definitely have the capacity to intercept the few missiles the country might get into the air in the event of a suicidal “all-out” attack against our Western seaboard.

But to even consider that is to give the scenario too much credit.

As a premise, it’s absurd.

If Kim Jong-un were the ruthless leader the left is trying to make him out to be at the moment, he probably wouldn’t condemn his nation and dynasty to instant ruin just for the sake of a token attack.

But never mind the facts. Assumption is always easier, especially when things appear to be falling into your narrative of choice.

Never Question a Catalyst

This gives rise to the curious phenomenon of liberal prepping.

To me, it feels like the bizarro world’s version of what happened just about eight years ago, when Obama first came into power and the conservatives kicked off the modern prepping craze in the first place.

It was back then that the social trend first became significant enough to get its own reality TV show.

Is it really possible that with the fear pendulum now on the opposite end of its swing, a whole new group of people is starting to feed this market?

The evidence is pretty compelling:

Popular wisdom dictated that interest in this category of goods — and guns especially — was predicted to drop after Trump’s election.

And while across the board shares of gun manufacturers dropped by as much as 18% following November 8th, less than three weeks later, FBI background checks for gun transactions soared to a new record for a single day — 185,713 — during 2016 Black Friday sales.

If all the supposed gun-crazy “Trumpsters” are sitting at home satisfied that all is right with the world, it doesn’t leave too many options as to who is out there doing the buying.

Just like their conservative counterparts, these liberal gun owners have no shortage of online forums, Facebook groups, and even lefty gun clubs, like the LGBT-focused group Pink Pistols, to egg them on.

And that’s really the most exciting part of this whole story.

Never mind the saber rattling and the media’s struggle to make relevant news from it. The true effect of Trump, at least so far, is to turn liberals towards habits and opinions they would have never considered before.

They’ve been angry, but now they’re getting scared, and the historical response to this is the same no matter which side of the political spectrum you subscribe to: guns, supplies, land, and everything else seen as necessary to live through the collapse of society.

With at least three more years to go in this presidency, I see this market, in all of its sub-sectors, becoming one of the biggest beneficiaries.

Fortune favors the bold,

alex koyfman Signature

Alex Koyfman

Source: Will County News

Judicial Watch Report April 29, 2017

Hundreds Vote Illegally in North Carolina after Court Bans Election Integrity Law

Obama Justice Department holdovers must be pleased with their work. In July 2016, they were successful in undoing North Carolina’s voter integrity laws in order to allow all manner of illegal voters the ability to cast ballots.  Our Corruption Chronicles blog tells thestory.

Less than a year after a federal appellate court sided with the Obama administration to strike down North Carolina’s election integrity reforms, a state audit reveals that hundreds of votes were illegally cast by felons and non-citizens in just one election.

Voter impersonation, double voting and irregularities in absentee ballots sent via mail also tainted the election, according to the investigation conducted by the North Carolina State Board of Elections (NCSBE). The probe analyzed records from the 2016 general election.

State auditors found that about 500 ineligible people voted in 2016, more than 440 of them felons. Dozens of non-citizens from 28 different countries also cast ballots, the probe found. “A number of non-citizens said they were not aware that they were prohibited from voting,” the report states. “Interviews and evidence show that some non-citizens were misinformed about the law by individuals conducting voter registration drives or, in at least one document case, by a local precinct official.”

North Carolina authorities are also investigating 24 substantiated cases of double voting in 2016. “Some violators appear to be ‘testers’ trying to find holes in the system,” according to the report. “Others claim property ownership in multiple jurisdictions should allow them to vote in each, and others brush past the law to support their candidate by any means necessary. Additionally, a case that initially appears to be a double voter—an individual who votes twice—may actually be a case of voter impersonation—an individual who casts a ballot using the identity of another person.”

The NCSBE concedes that there are probably many more cases of double voting but identifying them is difficult and there’s no reliable method to consistently find them and other types of election fraud. “While no audit exists to catch all possible cases of voter impersonation, double voter or deceased voter audits may detect such cases,” the report says. This brings up another alarming point; if duplicate registrations are voted, there’s no way to tell if that’s fraudulent voting by a single individual—which everyone assumes—or impersonation fraud. Even in the North Carolina probe, we’ll never know if that’s the whole number. “These kinds of stories are a feature of every election and that’s despite the fact that most states often don’t even track these crimes in a systematic way,” said Robert Popper, a former Deputy Chief of Justice Department Voting Section who heads Judicial Watch’s Election Integrity Project. “Some states admit they don’t track them at all,” Popper added.

Judicial Watch has been heavily involved in the North Carolina case and in 2015 filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in opposition to a lower court ruling preventing the state from implementing its election integrity reform law. Passed by the legislature in 2013 the measure requires voters to present a photo identification, eliminates same-day registration, shortens the early voting period from 17 to 10 days and requires voters to cast ballots in their own precinct. The Obama administration joined a group of leftist organizations to challenge the law in federal court, alleging that it disparately and adversely affects minority voting rights. A federal judge, Thomas D. Schroeder, rejected the claims and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled against North Carolina just prior to the November 2014 elections. State officials asked the Supreme Court for a temporary stay of the Fourth Circuit’s ruling and the high court granted it, allowing North Carolina’s election integrity rules to be used in 2014.

In its unanimous decision, the three-judge panel from the Fourth Circuit wrote that North Carolina’s voter integrity law harmed blacks, who overwhelmingly cast ballots for Democrats. “The new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision” and “impose cures for problems that did not exist,” the appellate ruling states. “Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation.”

Under the racial “disparate impact” theory, which is at the heart of the controversial 2014 Fourth Circuit opinion, a law can be struck down if it statistically disadvantages a minority group, even if that negative impact was neither foreseen nor intended. This decision was temporarily stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court prior to the 2014 mid-terms.  The broader view of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) adopted by the most recent 2016 Fourth Circuit decision says that a violation occurs when voting practices are motivated by a discriminatory intent even without evidence of any racially disparate effects on the minority group.  This decision is currently pending before the high court.

FBI Court Filing Reveals Grand Jury Targeted Hillary Clinton

Just when you think we’ve learned most of what there is to learn about Hillary Clinton’s emails a new mole pops up out of the hole.

This week Judicial Watch released State Department documents including a declaration from FBI Special Agent E.W. Priestap, the supervisor of the agency’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email activities, stating that the former secretary of state was the subject of a grand jury investigation related to her BlackBerry email accounts.

The declaration was produced in response to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit seeking to force Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to take steps to “recover emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton” and other U.S. Department of State employees (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Rex Tillerson (No. 1:15-cv-00785)).  We originally filed the lawsuit against then-Secretary of State John Kerry.  The Trump State Department filing includes details of the agency’s continuing and shameful refusal to refer the Clinton email issue to the Justice Department, as the law requires.

In the filing, Priestap declares under penalty of perjury that the FBI “obtained Grand Jury subpoenas related to the Blackberry e-mail accounts, which produced no responsive materials, as the requested data was outside the retention time utilized by those providers.”

On April 30, 2015, Judicial Watch sued Kerry after the State Department failed to take action on a letter sent to Kerry “notifying him of the unlawful removal of the Clinton emails and requesting that he initiate enforcement action pursuant to the [Federal Records Act],” including working through the Attorney General to recover the emails.

After initially being dismissed by the district court, Judicial Watch’s lawsuit was revived on appeal by a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on December 27, 2016.

While at the State Department, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton conducted official government business using an unsecured email server and email accounts. Her top aides and advisors also used non-“state.gov” email accounts to conduct official business. Clinton left office February 1, 2013.

The FBI convened a grand jury to investigate Hillary Clinton in 2016. Why is this information being released only now?

It is disturbing that the State Department, Justice Department, and FBI are still trying to protect Hillary Clinton.  President Trump needs to clean house at all these agencies.

JW Goes To Federal Court Monday on Another Obama Administration Email Scandal 

Hillary Clinton’s wasn’t the only Obama administration email scandal.  Another continuing email scandal centers on Jeh Johnson, Obama’s Homeland Security secretary.  We have another court hearing on the issue Monday afternoon (May 1).  We have a pending Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking emails “relating to official United States Government business sent to or from” former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and three other top Homeland Security officials who used “non-‘.gov’” email addresses (Judicial Watch, Inc., v. United States Department of Homeland Security (No. l:l6-cv-00967)).

The hearing will focus on whether the Department of Homeland Security violated FOIA by not producing any records responsive to Judicial Watch’s original December 29, 2015, request from the agency officials’ non-government email accounts.  The agency claims the emails are essentially inaccessible and it is too troublesome to recover them.

We previously obtained and made public 215 pages of documents containing official emails sent through the private, unsecure email accounts of Johnson, former Deputy Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, former Chief of Staff Christian Marrone, and former General Counsel Steven Bunnell. The documents include emails discussing high-level meetings Johnson was to have with the Kuwaiti ambassador and Saudi Arabian Interior Ministry officials, as well as a West African $4.5 million online consumer fraud scam using Johnson’s name.

Prior to the Obama administration’s leaving office, Judge Moss ordered the Department of Homeland Security to preserve email records sought by Judicial Watch “to minimize the risk of an inadvertent loss of potentially responsive emails.”  In petitioning the court for the preservation order, Judicial Watch argued:

A court order requiring preservation of these emails is particularly necessary now as DHS has suggested that these officials may have been acting without authorization by sending emails from these accounts … As such, there is no assurance that these officials will abide by a “request” by the agency to preserve these emails, particularly after their employment ends.…

Jeh Johnson and other top Obama Homeland Security officials, like Hillary Clinton, seemed to think the rules are for the little people.  We already uncovered documents revealing that Secretary Jeh Johnson and 28 other agency officials used government computers to access personal web-based email accounts despite an agency-wide ban due to heightened security concerns.

And yet another Obama government agency gamed Congress about emails.  We found other documents that reveal Homeland Security officials misled Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) when Perry specifically asked whether personal accounts were being used for official government business.

I’ll keep you apprised of developments in this lawsuit as events warrant.

View our Weekly Update on Facebook LIVE

Until next week,

Tom Fitton
President

Source: Will County News

Liberals hate her… Republican Nicole Malliotakis

Liberals hate her…

29 Shares

Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons

The American left has a nasty habit of pretending that conservatism is somehow inherently anti-woman, anti-immigrant and anti-youth. And when a candidate like the latest potential GOP entrant into the New York mayoral race comes along, they lose all credibility.

Super liberal New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, a middle aged white guy. has endeared himself to the social justice crowd with an anti-corporatism facade and attempts to restructure the city’s government to make the Big Apple a friendlier place to people committing “quality of life” offenses, such as living in the country illegally or taking a dump on the sidewalk.

While not encouraging New York cops to take so-called broken window policing to insane extremes certainly isn’t a bad thing, de Blasio’s New York certainly has its critics.

And rightly so.

No, correlation isn’t causation– but it certainly seems as though the mayor’s efforts to make NYC a better example of liberal utopia are having an opposite effect. Some even say the mayor’s policies are bringing the city slowly back to its bad old days of high crime and dirty boulevards.

Among the critics of de Blasio’s new NYC is the Trump administration, which undoubtedly would love to see the nation’s most recognizable city, and the president’s hometown, return to Republican control.

Of course in a city controlled by the liberal elites that worked overtime on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the presidential election, taking power from a liberal like de Blasio isn’t going to be an easy task.

But the GOP may have a secret weapon in the upcoming election.

As reported by New York’s Spectrum News:

After beating an Democratic incumbent in an upset in 2010, Republican Nicole Malliotakis has been serving Staten Island and parts of Brooklyn in Albany ever since. Now, she is looking to take on Mayor Bill de Blasio, if she can first win the Republican primary.

“I grew up with a strong sense of patriotism,” she said. “My parents always voted and were always very excited about being citizens and being able to contribute to the process. Especially my mother, who fled a dictatorship where they don’t have the ability to elect their leaders.”

Showing us around her Albany office, Malliotakis pointed to her sketches of Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, displayed photographs with her old boss, former Governor George Pataki, and let us know what a big fan she is of the singer Cher, whose book was neatly displayed between those about Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln.

“There’s no doubt that I’m unique,” Malliotakis said. “I’m a woman. I’m half-Hispanic. I am Greek. We haven’t had that combination in elected office in this city or state, for that matter, ever before.”

One thing Malliotakis says she will be doing less of in Albany now that she is running for mayor is late-night karaoke.

“I sing La Bamba. That’s my song. And once in a while, I’ll participate in duet with Joe Lentol of Sonny and Cher. ‘I Got You Babe,’” she said.

While Democratic colleagues stopped far short of endorsing her candidacy, many encouraged her to take on the mayor.

If she does win the GOP primary, expect the Democrats knives to come out– and expect yet another example of how the party only believes in diversity when they have the diverse candidate.

Source: Will County News