44 Year old Educates 36 Year old who tried to Destroy 29 Year old who ripped 25 year old Yelp Employee

The 25 year old Yelp employee fired for complaining online about her company has stirred several reactions, including my own found HERE, and another from a 29 year old who "ripped" her.  Well along comes a 36 year old who claims to have destroyed the 29 year olds response which you can find in full HERE.  This of course just begs for a response so this 44 year old is happy to oblige.

The 36 year old in question is Sara Lynn Michener who's blog site can be found HERE.  This talented young writer describes herself in the following way:

Feminist. Cumberbitch. Trekkie. Peddler of Profanities @ fucksoap.com

Right from the start of this young woman's response she makes it clear she just doesn't understandnd Stefanie Williams response to the internets favorite ex-Yelp employee.

After reading your bizarre excuse for a mini autobiography detailing the privileged yet banal struggle you dealt with in your early 20s, which was apparently supposed to be a response to a younger woman’s perfectly reasonable request for a larger hourly rate, I felt it imperative to give you a taste of your own medicine and above all, your painfully deep need to acknowledge your own privilege, so maybe some advice will help while you piss all over what — to me — sounds an awful lot like a less fortunate (and far kinder) version of your younger self.


Spoiler: kicking a younger sister when she’s down in self-congratulatory snark is neither gracious nor humble.

For starters there is something called tough love.  As a parent I would love to give my kids everything they ever ask for but there are times you have to say no and make them earn things themselves.

No one is kicking Tatia while she's down.  They are criticizing the fact that instead of seeking to better herself or asking for help, she instead turns to asking for handouts and demanding a higher pay that she hasn't earned.

Sara continues for a bit attacking Stefanie but eventually brings us back to the point of personal responsibility.  Sara points out a statement Talia made that she had to leave where she was.  Fair enough.  We don't know the details, perhaps she was in an abusive relationship.  But that doesn't give her right to demand things she hasn't earned.

A lot of people have it tough.  Should we get into a Monty Python skit comparing who had to walk the furthest through broken glass up hill both ways just to be beaten by their father before going to bed hungry?

In a matter of 2 minutes I found an apparent being advertised with a roommate in that area for just $500 a month.  More then half of what she was paying.

But let's jump further where she continues to discuss struggle.

Around this same paragraph in Talia’s piece, she’s talking about her coworker’s struggles. You see, her piece isn’t just about her. It’s about all the ways that good, hard working people are taking whatever work they can get — and still being punished for it. Last time I checked, when you’re poor, taking whatever work you can get is a pretty responsible thing to do. Yet some are still homeless, some are in trouble, some live at home

Why are they having so much trouble?  Why is it so hard to live there?  It's not the fault of Yelp that such a hugh chunk of her living is taken in taxes before she even gets home.  It's not Yelps fault that zoning has created situations where housing is unaffordable.

These are faults of government, and judging by Sara's posts and site she fails to understand this and instead continues pushing for politicians who make it worse while offering the handout of scraps to those on the bottom.

Talia, again, never really talked about the supposed shame of doing less exciting things than others. She wrote about always being hungry. Again: did you even read her piece?

True, Talia argued that Yelp owed her and other employees more.

Her piece — again — wasn’t about her disappointment that she was fed, but not working in an exciting career — that was all you. It was about how she wasn’t making enough to meet her basic, human rights needs.

"Human rights" is an interesting term used when politicians and people want to demand something from someone else's pocket.

Sara and Talia both need to look in the mirror and realize there is a difference between demanding something for nothing (which is what Talia's entire rant was) and asking for help to get ahead.

She never asked for help finding better jobs, closest she came was ranting that her company wouldn't allow her to move up without first proving herself in the job she was actually hired for.  She never asked for help finding cheaper rent.  How about asking one of those other struggling nearly homeless coworkers if they wouldn't mind sharing an apartment with her to help them both save?

She never once asked for ways to network after moving to find the connections that could help lead her to a higher paying job.

Nope.  Instead she wrote an open letter to the CEO of her company ranting about how he somehow owed her something.

What exactly about working for Eat24 is a job about bragging rights and trends?

How about the fact that she has a job at all?

There are people who can't find any work at all.

And she pointed out her job had covered health insurance, dental and vision with only a $20 co pay.  Also a fairly good benefit I think many people would love to have.

And then there's the food she was allowed to eat while at work.  Do you think the minimum wage employees who also have to spend more of their income for meals during the day wouldn't love to get a company paid for lunch?

Lastly, I made a mistake in my last article about this assuming based on her complains that she made the state minimum wage of $10 an hour.  She didn't.  She made $12 an hour as pointed out in the NY Post.  Not a huge difference but again, if you were to ask minimum  wage employees if an extra $2 an hour would be something they would love I doubt you'll find many who would complain.

Sarah goes on for a bit more about how some people have it harder then others before dropping the following:

Then you told her “She could work two jobs!” In San Francisco, it’s pretty hard to get ONE job, let alone two.

Instead of demanding more expenses from companies leaving them less money to hire people perhaps you should wake up to why jobs are in such high demand?  Ever stop to think that the high taxes and regulation placed on these companies takes away the money they otherwise would have used to hire Talia at a 2nd job or perhaps pay her more in her first?

She continues on and on without ever once mentioning personal responsibility or asking the question of why is it so expensive to live there.  Instead we're hit with the following question which completely skips the point...

Because the more important question; the thing Talia’s piece is actually ABOUT, is that it should be criminal for billion dollar companies to pay minimum wage at the current rate; especially if they deign to set up their office in a place where the cost of living is high.

CA has a minimum wage higher then the national wage, they also have more government then most other states in the country.

And ironically in your question you point to the real problem when you point out Yelp is moving where the cost of living isn't so high.  Guess what... that means even fewer of the hard to find jobs in that area.

Do you think increasing their cost of doing business in Silicon Valley is going to create more jobs when you already point out the jobs are leaving because of the costs?

I could go on responding to ever last point but I believe I've made my point that placing more of a burden on companies and demanding more without taking any responsibility isn't the answer.


Welcome to the Real World

There is an interesting story floating around the interwebs about a young woman who posted an open letter to her CEO which lead to her dismissal from her company.  What's interesting about this story is I've seen both left and right wing sites posting it pointing out examples of what's wrong with our country each drawing very different conclusions.

The young woman posts under the name Talia Jane and you can read her blog in full HERE.

Skipping the part where she bad mouthed not only the company she worked for but the CEO as well, leading to her being fired (and assuming that was all she did wrong since we only have her side of the story), I'm going to share some key points in what she wrote.

I left college, having majored in English literature, with a dream to work in media. It was either that or go to law school. Or become a teacher. But I didn’t want to become a cliche or drown in student loans, see.

Based on her choice of words that she "left" college implies to me that she did not graduate.

She also states that her dream is to work in "media".  Rather vague term but she does later explain what she means.

...I was told I’d have to work in support for an entire year before I would be able to move to a different department. A whole year answering calls and talking to customers just for the hope that someday I’d be able to make memes and twitter jokes about food.

Her dream job is to make memes and twitter jokes about food.

What she is looking for is a job in marketing.  It's what my wife does for a living, and she'd worked in the field for over 20 years working her way up to "making memes and twitter jokes".  She also has a masters degree and as I also pointed out, 20 years experience in marketing.  And her job not only consists of "making memes and twitter jokes" but also managing people and with customer service which includes "talking to customers" among many other aspects.

I also work directly with other marketing people who "make memes and twitter jokes" on top of many other responsibilities in their daily jobs.

This young lady, who points out at one point her age is 25, has a lot to learn about life.  I'm sure there are a lot of people who would enjoy jobs in "media" which is why jobs like those are not considered entry level and companies can be choosy about whom they hire to fill them.  Marketing has a lot to do with branding and imaging, this means it would require someone with enough sense not to publicly badmouth the company in a public medium.  This is an aspect of such a job she clearly has proven herself not ready for.

But let us continue...

A whole year answering calls and talking to customers just for the hope that someday I’d be able to make memes and twitter jokes about food. If you follow me on twitter, which you don’t, you’d know that these are things I already do.

Out of a morbid curiosity I followed the link she provides to her twitter account, "Lady Murderface".  On it she writes about herself the following:

comedy • writing • better at thinking about things than actually doing them

Well there's a resume builder, "better at thinking about things than actually doing them".  What better way to attract a high paying job then to flat out say you are a lazy dreamer.  That aside, I felt the need to see what kind of jokes she is so proud of that she felt could land her a higher paying job in "media"...

why are we just now finding out about hitler's penis and how many decades must we wait for new information about his butthole?

Shockingly CEOs aren't jumping out of their seats to hire this woman to be in charge of their company image.

Moving on she does eventually bring up some numbers explaining why she is so dissatisfied with her current situation.

I got paid yesterday ($733.24, bi-weekly) but I have to save as much of that as possible to pay my rent ($1245) for my apartment that’s 30 miles away from work because it was the cheapest place I could find that had access to the train, which costs me $5.65 one way to get to work. That’s $11.30 a day, by the way. I make $8.15 an hour after taxes. I also have to pay my gas and electric bill. Last month it was $120.

Let's do some math with these numbers.

If her bi weekly pay is $733.24 that would equal $1466.48 a month.  Take out the $1245 for rent and she's already down to just $221.48 for the entire month.  After her electric bill she's down to just $101.48 which would not cover the $11.30 daily or $339 monthly cost of commuting.  And there is nothing left to purchase food.

If this is true then it really is a bad situation for her to find herself in but no where in this young woman's rant does she show any signs of personal responsibility.  Instead she goes on and on about how evil the company is because in some way they owe her a comfortable living.

That's not how life works.

She does point out how some of her coworkers are dealing:

Every single one of my coworkers is struggling. They’re taking side jobs, they’re living at home. One of them ... ended up leaving the company and moving east, somewhere the minimum wage could double as a living wage.

What she fails to notice is that each of those above examples she lists are cases of people taking personal responsibility to seek ways to eventually improve their lives.

Has she considered a roommate?

She points out that she moved to that area to be closer to her father, has she asked if she could room with him until she gets a better paying job?

She points out that she does have a car, any consideration to car pooling?  Perhaps signing up as an Uber driver to make extra money if possible driving people in the same direction you are heading anyway?

But back to her situation...

I haven’t bought groceries since I started this job. Not because I’m lazy, but because I got this ten pound bag of rice before I moved here and my meals at home (including the one I’m having as I write this) consist, by and large, of that. Because I can’t afford to buy groceries.

This is where I begin to question her honesty because at the time of her writing this, her twitter account was covered in pictures of food and expensive alcohol which you can see for yourself HERE.

In between everything she is ranting about she does point out some of the company benefits too.

She points out that they supply free food for the employees while they work and full vision, dental and medical coverage with only a $20 copay.

After taxes she was taking home $17,597.76 a year with full medical, dental and vision and free food during the time she was at work, and she points out that she worked afternoons and weekends which meant that she had two week days free to interview for a better 9 to 5 type job.  All this with no prior job experience and presumably no college degree.

I'm sure most people would love to walk into their dream jobs with no experience and no education but life doesn't work that way.  For someone starting from the ground level with no skills or training she was given a good opportunity.  Instead of looking at the positive, she focused on the negative.

As she rants about how the company somehow owes her and focuses on all the negatives about her job, she fails to address the real problem.  Why is the cost of living so high that a job paying close to $20,000 a year with full medical, dental and vision and free food while you work not provide a living you can survive on.

Assuming she was making minimum wage, which is $10 an hour in CA, I did the math and roughly 8.5% of her salary went right out the door to taxes before she even saw a paycheck.  That's not including sales taxes, car registration, property taxes (which are included in rent if you rent) or any other random taxes that you are hit with after you are paid.  If this isn't a spot on example showing why we need less government then I don't know what is.

Then there is the question of why is her rent for her apartment $1245 a month?  Looking it up, CA has the second highest state average for cost of rent average out at $2295.  Again, look no further then our own governments as far as the cause.  Zoning laws, other government restrictions and land grabs from the government taking property that otherwise could be used for cheaper housing off the market all contribute to increased costs of living.

And let's not forget the taxes the state and federal government take from corporations.  Looking it up, I found that the state of California has a state wide corporate tax rate of 8.4% on top of that you have federal tax rates of over 30%.  Don't you think that if a corporation had an additional 30% of revenue it could afford to pay it's employees better?

The problem is people like Talia Jane don't look at the root cause, they only see what impacts them directly.  Add on top of that a sense of entitlement from the everybody gets a trophy generation and we get what we see here.





Vote Again and Again and Again and Again

One more reason why voter ID is a good thing can be found in the story HERE.

State Rep. Christina “Tita” Ayala, D-Bridgeport, was arrested Friday on 19 voting fraud charges.

Ayala, 31, is accused of voting in local and state elections in districts she did not live, the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office said in a press release.

Ayala voted 19 times in state and local elections, that she's been caught doing.  What are the odds that she and others like her did not cross the border and vote in other state elections?

Our NH state primary is just a few weeks away.  If you other others plan on being out at the polls keep an eye out for out of state plates on cars. 


Interesting Times To Be A Democrat

It must be interesting times to be a Democrat.

From discussions with several of my left leaning friends they are all but convinced that Democrats will come back in a big way in the 2016 elections.  What's interesting is they feel this way regardless of whether they are supporting Hillary or Bernie as we all know, either side will end up voting for the winner of the primary simply because they have a D next to their name and the alternative would just be too terrible to consider.

But take a step back a minute and look at the reality Democrats are currently living in.

After years of crying out that Reagan was too old to be president and candidates like McCain, Dole, or even Ron Paul were too old, Democrats are now looking at their front runner Hillary Clinton.  Yet she is just a few months different in age from Reagan when he was president.  And Bernie Sanders is six years older then she is, which would make him the oldest president ever should he somehow get elected.

In the case of Hillary, she openly supported the wars in the middle east that the Democrats railed against back in the mid 2000s leading to their taking control of all three branches of government starting in 2006 and climaxing with the 2008 election of Obama.  Of course we are now seeing ground troops going back into Iraq and are hearing plans for escalations due to the deterioration under Democratic leadership.  So she can no longer play the anti war card.

The majority of Americans view Hillary as untrustworthy.  According to a poll released by Quinnipiac University poll, 54% of Americans see her as untrustworthy with only 38% feeling she could be trusted.  And even in her defense, after it was proven in the most recent Benghazi hearing that she knowingly lied to the American people, blaming the attack on a video (which lead to the arrest of an innocent film maker) when she know and was confiding in others including her daughter that the attack was a terrorist attack, Democrats simply argue that this is no big deal.

Both Hillary and Bernie are pushing for Billions in new spending.

And the best attacks they have right now against Republicans are that their party is internally fighting because some Republicans are acting like Democrats and caving in on all the out of control spending our current Democratic president wants.

This is a winning ticket?

If they do fall back on Sanders over Hillary, here you have an admitted Socialist who is pushing for more spending then we've ever seen, wants to tax religions, and openly admits to wanting to ban guns and limit the 2nd amendment.

But yet the "fringe" Republicans who actually do support less spending, less government, seek to balance the budget and defend our constitutional rights are the ones who are somehow viewed as extreme?  And it's the Republicans who should be worried leading into the 2016 elections?

Who Spends The Most (2015 Edition)

Politicians love to play numbers games with spending.  They all want to paint themselves and their party as fiscally responsible while showing the other side as the side most out of control with your money.

They'll play games showing percent of deficit spending, ignoring total budget because somehow if you tax people for every last penny of their paycheck and reduce how much deficit spending you are doing its somehow ok to spend away.

When it comes to federal spending, it's just as important to look at the total being spent as it is the amount of deficit spending.  And while most people can't look past the president, the party controlling the house and senate are just as important since they control the purse strings.

Let's dive deeper into the past several years of federal spending so we can see what's really been going on.

(Dollar amounts in trillions)

Total Budget Total Deficit
2015 Obama Republican Republican $3.7586(estimate) $.583 (estimate)
2014 Obama Democrat Republican $3.5061 $.483
2013 Obama Democrat Republican $3.4547 $.680
2012 Obama Democrat Republican $3.5370 $1.087
2011 Obama Democrat Republican $3.6031 $1.300
2010 Obama Democrat Democrat $3.4571 $1.294
2009 Obama Democrat Democrat $3.5177 $1.413
2008 Bush II
Democrat Democrat $2.9825 $.458
2007 Bush II Democrat Democrat $2.7287 $.161
2006 Bush II Republican Republican $2.6551 $.248
2005 Bush II Republican Republican $2.4720 $.318
2004 Bush II Republican Republican $2.2928 $.413
2003 Bush II Republican Republican $2.1599 $.378
2002 Bush II Democrat Republican $2.0109 $.158
2001 Bush II
Democrat Republican $1.8629 $-.128
2000 Clinton Republican Republican $1.7890 $-.236
1999 Clinton Republican Republican $1.7018 $-.126
1998 Clinton Republican Republican $1.6525 $-.069
1997 Clinton Republican Republican $1.6011 $.023
1996 Clinton Republican Republican $1.5605 $.107
1995 Clinton Republican Republican $1.5157 $.164
1994 Clinton Democrat Democrat $1.4618 $.203
1993 Clinton Democrat Democrat $1.4094 $.255
1992 Bush I Democrat Democrat $1.3815 $.290
1991 Bush I Democrat Democrat $1.3242 $.269
1990 Bush I Democrat Democrat $1.2530 $.221
1989 Bush I
Democrat Democrat $1.1437 $.153
1988 Reagan Democrat Democrat $1.0644 $.155
1987 Reagan Democrat Democrat $1.004 $.150
1986 Reagan Republican Democrat $.9904 $.221
1985 Reagan Republican Democrat $.9463 $.212
1984 Reagan Republican Democrat $.8518 $.185
1983 Reagan Republican Democrat $.8084 $.208
1982 Reagan Republican Democrat $.7457 $.128
1981 Reagan Republican Democrat $.6782 $.079
1980 Carter Democrat Democrat $.5909 $.074
1979 Carter Democrat Democrat $.5040 $.041
1978 Carter Democrat Democrat $.4587 $.059
1977 Carter Democrat Democrat $.4092 $.054
1976 Ford Democrat Democrat $.3718 $.074


One thing to keep in mind when viewing the above chart is that the budget should be credited to the row prior since they craft the budget the year before.

I'll leave it to you, the readers, to look at the above data and make of it what you will.

Short Quiz About The News

I have a short quiz for to think about which I hope will get you to all think about priorities and media fueled outrages.  I will supply the answers at the bottom of this article.

Question 1) What is the name of the lion that was killed by the dentist that has everyone upset?

Fairly easy one right?  After all there have been stories covering this lion and the protesting about it nearly non stop for the past couple days.


Question 2) Name any of the five military men who were killed in the attacks in Tennessee?

How about just a first name?  Not as easy right?  The shooter's name was Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, any help?  Four of them were marines and one was a sailor.


Question 3) Name either of the two victims of the Lafeyette, Louisiana movie theater shooting?

Hint, they were both women.  Shooter's name was Rusty Houser.


Take a few minutes to really think the answers over before reading on.




I'm sure nearly everyone reading this got the answer to the first question.  It was Cecil the lion killed by the dentist Walter Palmer.

The five men killed in the Tennessee shooting were Randall Smith, Thomas Sullivan, Squire (Skip) Wells, David Wyatt, and Carson Holmquist.

The victims of the Louisiana movie shooting were Jillian Johnson and Mayci Breaux.


Why is it that we as a society are spending more time and energy discussing a lion then the death of innocent people?

Have we become that desensitized about the loss of human life that it no longer matters?

We've seen more coverage on ABC news of Cecil the lion then any of the coverage of the Planned Parenthood videos discussing the dismembering of human babies.  Since the first video was released on July 14th, ABC spend a total of 46 seconds on it.  Compare that to the 12 minutes and 14 seconds covering the lion.  And there has been no coverage at all about the 2nd, 3rd or 4th videos released.

In total, NBC, CBS and ABC covered the story on Cecil more in the first day alone then they had spent in two weeks covering the Planned Parenthood story.

Don't get me wrong, I felt upset hearing the story about the lion but our outrage as a country has gone way beyond it's appropriate level when compared to other major stories in the news.  In a matter of days the dentist has become the most hated person in America.  He's a chump who paid out a huge chunk of money, more then many in American make in a year, to shoot a wild animal.  From what I've read and seen in the massive amount of coverage this story has had, he doesn't sound like the best person in the world but it also sounds like he was mislead by the guides he hired to point him in the direction of the animal to kill.

He now has people protesting outside his office calling for him to be hanged even.

On the other hand we have four videos of members of Planned Parenthood discussing ripping apart the small bodies of aborted babies, even discussing the most optimal ways to kill them so to preserve their organs.  In one video they even calously say "It's another boy" as they sort through the peices of the dead baby.

Since the release of the first Center for Medical Progress video on July 14, ABC covered the story in a mere 46 seconds. In contrast, ABC spent 12 minutes and 14 seconds on the story of Cecil, a famed African lion shot by an American dentist. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/katie-yoder/2015/07/31/what-abc-covers-cecil-lion-15x-more-abortion-videos#sthash.ZGT2upUE.dpuf

In that last video, the child parts they are sifting through is that of an 11 week old.  You can click HERE to read about how the baby has grown at that point.  At 11 weeks, the child has fingers (which you can see in the parts they are sifting through) and even teeth begin to form.  And after week 8 the baby can feel pain.

So as you sit at your dinner table with your family and the fist pounding on the table begins for the loss of Cecil the lion think about where our outrage is as a country.  Think about the stories important enough to us to even remember the names of those killed.

Since the release of the first Center for Medical Progress video on July 14, ABC covered the story in a mere 46 seconds. In contrast, ABC spent 12 minutes and 14 seconds on the story of Cecil, a famed African lion shot by an American dentist. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/katie-yoder/2015/07/31/what-abc-covers-cecil-lion-15x-more-abortion-videos#sthash.ZGT2upUE.dpuf
Since the release of the first Center for Medical Progress video on July 14, ABC covered the story in a mere 46 seconds. In contrast, ABC spent 12 minutes and 14 seconds on the story of Cecil, a famed African lion shot by an American dentist. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/katie-yoder/2015/07/31/what-abc-covers-cecil-lion-15x-more-abortion-videos#sthash.ZGT2upUE.dpuf

Government Controlled Smells

Libertarians have a basic rule that your rights end where mine begin and vice versa.  That basic rule can be applied to government actions to determine if government is taking away your rights or protecting them from someone else.

For instance, if a person where to sit in their own home a smoke marijuana, they are doing nothing to harm anyone else around them so if government steps in and arrests them it is overstepping its bounds since this is what most people refer to as a victimless crime.

If a person on the other hand kicks in the door of their neighbor and beats them and takes their money, there is a person being directly harmed.

That brings us to the video found HERE.

In the video a city official is giving a homeowner a hard time because the smoke and smells from his cookout are leaving into his neighbors yard.

It doesn't say if the government official was called in by a neighbor or if they saw smoke as they were driving down the road.  If it's the later and no neighbors were bothered then this would be a clear cut case of government overstepping where it shouldn't but let's assume for sake of discussion that a neighbor did call in this case.

Because a cookout is something most people would consider a pleasant smell, the first question is whether the particular odor matters.  For instance, from the parking lot where I work I can sometimes catch a smell in the air of one of two things.  Some days I come out and smell the beer from the Merrimack Budweiser plant.  I consider that smell to be one of the most pleasant smells in the world.  Other days when I leave I can smell the local crematorium burning.  Smelling dead bodies burning is horrible to be kind.  So does the type of smell matter?

Second question that comes to mind is whether or not this is a normal expected smell of life.  People eat food, so on a nice summer day most families will cook and eat outside.  That's an expected smell.  Someone who chooses to pile gym socks outside in their yard however is not an expected smell.  And if it isn't expected as part of normal life, was it there when you moved in?  For instance, someone moving in next door to a pig farm should expect to smell pigs where as someone in the city shouldn't.

Last question is whether or not it can be controlled.  If you paint your house for instance, others may not like the smell of the paint but you can't be expected to contain a paint smell if you paint outside.

Over all I see very few cases where odor in the outdoors should be a concern for government intervention but I also don't think it's as cut and dry as some people would think.

Sound off below and let me know what you think.


80s Children Are Offensive People

I'm an offensive person.

I don't intend to be but after reading a couple recent articles about people who have been offended and shocked by things I thought were ok to own I've come to the conclusion that I must be a bad person.  In fact I've come to the conclusion that every single child who grew up in the 80s are now horrible offensive people.

Example A, growing up in the 80s I owned Dukes of Hazard toys with the southern flag on it.  I didn't see the harm in such a thing.  I also own some 80s and 90s video games that had Nazi Swastikas in them.  Games like Castle Wolfenstei.

Clearly such items are so offensive that police need to be involved as in the case found HERE.

Local police received a complaint when a shopper discovered Nazi and Confederate merchandise at a popular flea market last weekend, according to Chief William Wright.


“I was shaking and almost vomiting,” he said. “I had to run. My grandmother had numbers,” he said, referring to the Nazi system of tattooing numbers on prisoners.

Just having such items on a table in a flea market caused this poor man to shake and nearly vomit.

And even the Mayor and head of the local NAACP had to look into whether or not allowing such things to be sold in their town was even legal.

Jason Teal, president of the Meriden-Wallingford NAACP, said he was not familiar with the flea market and had not heard any complaints about the merchandise being sold there.

“It’s difficult because it’s on private property and it’s considered free speech,” Teal said.

The man also contacted Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr., who immediately asked Wright to determine if any laws were broken.

“I had to check with the chief over what is actionable and what isn’t,” Dickinson said. “Unless something violates state or federal law, there’s no jurisdiction for government to do anything. We had to ask, is it something controlled by law?

Wow.  It's "considered" free speech so there's no jurisdiction but perhaps it can be "controlled by law" so poor easily offended people are not left shaking as they walk rows of tables of old happy meal toys or used VHS tapes.

But it doesn't end there. 

Example 2, young women aren't free from offense around me because I'm a huge Star Wars fan.  I have boxes of Star Wars toys including several of Princess Leia toys.  Some of those toys are of "slave Leia" representing her in a metal bikini and in chains as she was in Return of the Jedi.

Clearly that is equally offensive as pointed out in the story found HERE.

A trip down the toy aisle had a local dad doing a double-take. He's furious over a popular Star Wars action figure sold in stores in our area.  He says it's not appropriate for young children.


We caught up with Fred Hill and his daughters at the Target Store in Deptford shopping for their birthday gifts.

The single dad was shocked to see this on the toy aisle shelf. A Hasbro made Star Wars Black Series action figure of Princess Leia wearing what the box described as a slave outfit.

"That’s pretty inappropriate,” he said, "I got 2 daughters I don't need seeing that crap."

The toy features scantily clad version of Princess Leia complete with a chain around her neck.

I have a daughter and I not only have let her see "that crap" but I own it in my house.  And not only do I have the toys but I even own a Christmas ornament that I allow my daughter to hang on our tree every year.

I don't shelter my children from such horrible things.  So clearly I'm a bad person as is every other 80s parent who dared to allow their young children to watch such a filthy movie as Return of the Jedi.

What's next?  Will I find out that dressing up in punk rock clothing as I also did back in the 80s is also bad.... oh shoot, it is.


Men Beating Up On Women

Men should not hit women.

That is a statement I think most people will agree with.  Men on average are physically stronger then women.  Men have different bone structures and muscle density.  This is not sexist, it's science.

It is for this reason women have an additional 30 minutes for their qualifying time for the Boston Marathon and the physical qualifications for jobs like firefighters or military are different for men and women.

In 1979 Andy Kaufman brought this to the center of debate with a westling match he had on Saturday Night Live in which he beat a woman and went on to claim he was the World Inter-Gender Wrestling Champion.  Andy's stunt brought front and center a heated debate about the sexes and equality.

Jump forward in time to today.  Now we have a person who was born a man, went through puberty as a man and later had surgery to alter their body to appear female.

Fallon Fox was born a man and later through surgery altered themselves to become a woman.  Fox is also an MMA fighter.

In their most recent fight Fox not only beat their opponent but gave her a concussion and a broken eye socket.

On Saturday, Fox defeated Tamikka Brents by TKO at 2:17 of the first round of their match. In addition to the damaged orbital bone that required seven staples, Brents received a concussion.


“I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can’t answer whether it’s because [he] was born a man or not, because I’m not a doctor,” she stated. “I can only say, I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life, and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right. ”

His “grip was different,” she added. “I could usually move around in the clinch against...females but couldn’t move at all in Fox’s clinch.”

This is a professionally trained female fighter making these statements and pointing out how over powered she felt.  This isn't a stunt like what Andy Kaufman pulled, this is a professionally trained fighter.

Speaking to LifeSiteNews, military veteran Jeff Nader, who has fought for UFC competitor Bellator, said that “Fallon Fox has had the benefits of being a man for most of his life. [He has] bone density, muscle mass, and other physical benefits that one gets from being a man. You can't have that, and then make a minor adjustment -- basically, a cosmetic adjustment -- and suddenly claim to be a woman."

"Nothing can take away from the fact that you are physically a man. Mentally and emotionally, who knows -- but physically, he's a man.

There are so many questions rised by this I couldn't even begin to list them all.

For starters, since performance enhancing drugs are not allowed and in many sports athletes caught using them are locked out from halls of fame and have records they break questioned or marked with asterisk, so if an athlete who was formerly a man competes in women's sports and breaks their records how will the new record be treated?

If we open up professional sports to allow this form of body modifications, where do we draw the line?  Should swimmers be allowed to have webs grafted between their fingers for example? 

We want to pretend that if someone alters their body they instantly become the other gender they've altered themselves to look like but there is much more to being a man or women then what's between your legs.

To borrow the words of Austin Powers, "It's a man, baby!"

Use Of God In The Pledge

How many times have you heard Liberals bring up the fact that the words "under God" were not added to the pledge until 1954?

The pledge itself was written in 1892 but wasn't officially adopted by Congress until 1942.

The first occurrence of the pledge being used in a school was October 12, 1892 during a Columbus Day celebration.

Keeping in mind that the words under God were not added until 1954, a curious pledge was found on black board from 1917 that was found under the new black boards of an Oklahoma city school.  The blackboard contained the following version:

"I give my head, my heart, and my life to my God and One nation indivisible with justice for all."

Not only does this 1917 version of the pledge contain the reference to God but the pledges takers pledge their head, heart and life to God before country.

Something to think about.


Bernie Sanders And Why We Have A Federal Deficit

One of the best ways to deceive or mislead people is by giving them selective truths.  People no longer think for themselves as evident by how many people base their opinions and views simply on short 30 second sound bytes.

Case in point, there is a quote from Bernie Sanders making rounds on the internet.

Want to better understand why we have a federal deficit?

In 1952, the corporate income tax accounted for 33 percent of all federal tax revenue.

Today, despite record-breaking profits, corporate taxes bring in less than 9 percent.

-Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

Wow, shocking right?

Now what if I told you that the statement he made was 100% true as well?

Clearly it's time to get your pitch forks and torches out, those greedy capitalists want to bankrupt our fine country and keep all the money for themselves.

This is where it requires us to actually think and that's where most people stop.  They heard Bernie's statement and it's true, what more is there.

For starters take a closer look at what he's actually saying.  What's the first thing you notice about the numbers?  They are percents.  He fails to give actual dollar amounts or even qualify it against the percent of the GDP or anything relevant.  Instead he gives percent of the total revenue taken in by the government.

Why is that relevant?

If you go to lunch with 9 other co-workers and you each pitch in $10 for the total bill of $100, you've paid 10% of the total.  If you go to lunch with the same 9 co-workers but this time you go to a high scale sushi bar and 5 of those co-workers order a series of over priced drinks, the bill that previously came to $100 now comes to $1000.  The five who ordered the drinks offer to cover the majority of it so you put in $20 for your share.  You've paid more than you did the prior day but this time you only paid 2% of the total.

That is essentially what is happening here with corporate income taxes.

In 1952 the federal government collected $21.2 Billion in corporate income taxes.

In 2013 the federal government collected $274 Billion in corporate income taxes.

If you were to adjust the dollar amounts from 1952 into today's dollars it comes out to be $183.68 Billion so just as in my example, they are paying out more but because the government is taking in more revenue (read as higher taxes all across the board) the percentage is less.

According to Polifact, in the same article that validated Bernie's statement as true, the total revenue taken in by the federal government in 1952 was $65.3 Billion.  Here's how they broke it down:

1952 taxes

Individual income taxes

Corporate income taxes

Social insurance and retirement taxes

Excise taxes

Other taxes

Total tax revenue

$27.9 billion

$21.2 billion

$6.4 billion

$8.9 billion

$818 million

$65.3 billion

43 percent

33 percent

10 percent

14 percent

1 percent

100 percent


In 2013 the total revenue was $2.6 Trillion, again here's the breakdown:

2013 taxes

Individual income taxes

Corporate income taxes

Social insurance and retirement taxes

Excise taxes

Other taxes

Total tax revenue

$1.3 trillion

$274 billion

$948 billion

$84 billion

$19 billion

$2.6 trillion

50 percent

10 percent

36 percent

3 percent

1 percent

100 percent


All across the board the government takes more and more money every chance they get, so back to Bernie's original claim, if we want to understand why the federal government has a deficit problem, when you take into account that they take more of our money than ever before it isn't a revenue problem as he implies.  It's a spending problem.





What We All Believe

Recently one of my left of center frends shared out an article on Daily KOS highlighting a list from the Charlet Observer answering the question "why do you support such a liberal agenda".

I tracked down the original article since Daily KOS picked only a handful of the list for their reprint, you can read it in full HERE.

I'd like to share some of that list with my own comments.

We believe that everyone is created equal.

Why then would you support a party that believes in treating people differently based on the color of their skin in things like college admissions or job considerations?

We believe that children should not bear responsibility for the sins of their parents.

So the answer is to murder them before they are born so they don't ever have a chance at life?

We believe people should not be treated as lesser citizens, with fewer rights, because of whom they love.

Let me preface by saying I support same sex marriage.

That said, same sex couples are not denied rights.  They have the same rights as everyone else.  They can marry someone as defined by laws (man and woman) so technically they have the same number of rights.  What they want are different rights, or they want the laws changed.  That's far different then claiming you have fewer rights.

We believe a thriving city, state and nation rests to a great degree in the quality of its public schools, and that every child deserves a dedicated, dynamic teacher, regardless of what ZIP code that child lives in.

Then why not support school choice?

Not ever child learns the same but yet we force all children into the same school systems that teach one single learning style.  And if kids live in an area with a failing school, unless that children's parents can afford the option of a private school they are denied the chance at a dedicated, dynamic teacher.

We believe discrimination is wrong in every instance.

I will believe that when the left wing begin to reject the race-baiters like Sharpton who look to divide us at every chance they can.

We believe in consistency, so if you are going to drug-test recipients of public assistance, drug-test them all, including the corporate chieftains who are the biggest beneficiaries.

Consistency?  Sort of like requiring IDs to cash checks, drive, or purchase weapons then you should also show an ID when you vote?  Or do they only support consistency when it supports their views.

And while we are at it, let's say we did begin drug testing the chieftains who's companies receive government money in any way and let's assume one of the biggest beneficiaries tested positive.  Liberals are ok with the funding being cut to a company even if it results the loss of thousands of jobs while the Chieftain keeps his or her job?  Sorry but pushing an individual vs punishing a corporation which translates to innocent people being punished instead of the guilty party is not a form of consistency, it's a form of idiocy.

We believe that police officers should act professionally, under incredibly difficult circumstances, regardless of a suspect’s race.

Fair statement.  Shouldn't reporters also be expected to act professionally reporting the fact about the news instead of spreading rumors like the "hands up don't shoot" which turned out to be a complete lie?

We believe taxes should be kept as low as possible while still providing a sound safety net for the neediest, a robust education for all, decent health care for the elderly and the destitute, and other basics.

Keep taxes as low as possible?

After falling out of my chair in laughter it took me a minute to compose myself enough to respond to this one.

Part of keeping taxes low is keeping spending to a responsible level.

Also there is a major difference between providing a safety net and providing handouts for the lazy who are unwilling to do for themselves.

We believe politicians of any party should keep their promises, avoid the appearance of personal gain from the public trust, and look out for the general welfare, not that of any one special interest.

When the left begins to hold their own to this standard then I will believe it but when you have a president who ran on being the most open administration in history who has been everything but and the left doesn't say boo about it... sorry, not buying this.

We believe offenders have paid their price when their sentence is up and should be helped to assimilate back into society. And that that’s better for the community than neglecting them and watching them commit another crime.

This is coming from the same party that punishes the innocent by stripping away rights from everyone because of a few examples of those doing wrong.

We believe there are peace-loving Muslims.

As do most people, however most people can also acknowledge that while not every Muslim is a terrorist, every terrorist so far has been a Muslim.

We believe in the separation of church and state.

Yes but do you believe in freedom OF religion as granted by the first amendment.

We believe if you’re a fan of a politician solely because he has a ‘D’ or an ‘R’ after his name, then you’re not paying attention.

I agree.

We believe we have only one planet, and we should protect it for our grandchildren.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/taylor-batten/article21108579.html#storylink=cpy

Again I doubt you will find anyone who disagrees with this statement.  That said, just because something feels like your doing good doesn't mean you actually are.

Now let me come back with my own list of why I lean to the right.

I believe we should follow all of the Constitution, not just the parts we agree with, and I believe we should follow it as it was written and intended, not how we can twist the words to fit our current definitions.

I believe that all life matters.

I believe that there is nothing wrong in showing pride in our country or our flag.

I believe a government that takes 30% or more of anyone's income is taking too much and needs to re-evaluate where it is spending money.

I believe that American people are good people who will help each other and those in need and that charity does not need to be forced for us to give those who are most destitute a hand up.

I believe that Americans know what's best for themselves and do not need government to make choices for them or to tell them what they can and cannot do.

I believe in personal responsibility.

I believe that most police officers are good people who do act professionally.

I believe that there is evil in the world and that our country does need to protect itself from those evils.   And there is evil on a local level and while we'd love our police officers to be super people who can stop all crime before it happens, I realize they can't and therefore good people need the ability to protect themselves.

I believe that politicians who lie and show they have no integrity should be removed from office and replaced.

I believe the media has an obligation to uncover the truth about political scandals regardless of which party the politician is a member of and to report that truth so people are informed.

I believe educated voters are better voters and our country would be better off if people knew who and what they were actually voting for instead of basing their opinions on 30 second sound bytes.

I believe the founding fathers were right to set limits on the powers of the federal government (Article I Section 8 of the Constitution) and we'd be far better off if our federal government stuck to those limits and left the rest to state and local governments.

I believe that any time you take from those who produce and give to those who don't you are creating a formula for failure.

I believe the success of a country should be how many of its citizens do not need anything from its government, not the other way around.

I believe nothing the government gives out is truly "free".

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/taylor-batten/article21108579.html#storylink=cpy

Why Is America Falling Behind

We continue to hear how America is failing because we aren't educating our youth.  Our schools and colleges aren't producing the top notch students needed to compete in the global market.

Perhaps the story found HERE explains why.

The NFL scandal known as "Deflategate" will be the subject of an undergraduate course at the University of New Hampshire.

Unless you plan to work for the Patriots football team or perhaps ESPN please tell me what companies in America are going out of their way trying to hire new talent who can show they've taken a class in studying Tom's deflated balls.

We have spent more time as a country discussing the amount of air in footballs then any bill being discussed at Capital Hill.  And more time interviewing members of a football team and looking at who knew what and when then of any of the scandals surrounding any of the candidates from either party running for president.

We need to get our priorities straight.

Hassan And Dangerous Gun Bills

I came across a link on Facebook about Governor Hassan's pledge to veto the "Dangerous gun bill".  In the link, that you can read HERE, it states the following:

Governor Maggie Hassan pledged today to veto a dangerous gun bill that would let people carry hidden, loaded handguns in public across our state, without any permit whatsoever.

Sure sounds scary.  Just anyone can walk around with a hidden gun.

Of course once you consider facts and use logic, this "dangerous gun bill" no long seems so scary.

Consider the following:

1) You can open carry right now without a permit so the same scary people who they are worried about can still walk around, only they will have those same scary guns exposed so they can see them.

2) SB 116 does not change any laws regarding the purchase of weapons.  Think hard about this point.  SB 116 does NOT change who can purchase a weapon.  So if the fear is that someone is going to purchase a gun and use it in a crime, this bill does not change that if they are legally eligible to purchase a weapon in the first place.

3) If the scary person with the gun was going to use it in a crime, what makes you think they would follow the law preventing them from hiding the weapon?

I fail to see in any way how preventing a legal gun owner, who passed all requirements of purchasing a weapon, from being able to conceal carry is in any way endangering anyone.  It isn't preventing the person from purchasing the weapon in the first place.  It doesn't even prevent them from carrying it in public if they do so openly, which can be done without any kind of permit.

Where is the danger?  As I already pointed out, if the person was someone you needed to worry about because they intended to commit a crime, do you honestly think they would hesitate to break another law by hiding the weapon they were going to use in the crime?

Death Penalty In Boston

With the surviving Boston bomber being found guilty on all 30 counts the question now turns to how he should be punished for his crime.

Personally I believe there are states where the death penalty is given out far too easily, as evident by those who years later end up being cleared by evidence that wasn't available during their trials.  As a result I believe it should be reserved for cases where there is no doubt to the person's guilt.

In the case of the surviving member of the two Boston bombers, there is no doubt he was behind the crime with his brother.  Even the defense of the living bomber admits his guilt but pled that his brother made him do it.

That brings me to the article found HERE in the Boston Globe.

For jurors who believe execution should be reserved for the worst criminals, the lawyers laid out a clear path to conclude Dzhokhar wasn’t even the worst of the Tsarnaevs.


Tsarnaev was 19 at the time of the bombing; he was apparently a heavy drug user; he had no prior criminal record. By themselves, none of these would seem like a particularly good reason to spare him, but taken as a whole, and alongside evidence of his brother’s dominant role, they should plant seeds of doubt.

So the defense from the Boston Globe is that he was young and stoned and that his brother was worse then he was?

Look at the faces of those who suffered because of this fool, you can see the complete list of victims HERE.

Did he not know murdering children was wrong?  Did he not understand the building bombs to harm people was a crime?

Sorry but if there is ever a case for the death penalty, this is it.


Ignoring the Cause of Problems

Over the past few weeks I've step back, which is why you haven't seen any new columns written by me, and observed life.  I've been watching local political races in Merrimack, national politics leading into the 2016 elections and just general debates online.  One thing I've observed is that while everyone is quick to offer up solutions, and I'm talking about both sides of the political spectrum, very few if any ever stop to ask what is the cause of the problems in the first place.

Case in point, I was following a discussion about college tuition.  The argument was college tuition is too high.  Instead of discussing the problem and what was causing it, they jump right away to a "solution" supporting Obama's plan to pass the college bill from the college students to the tax payers.

This doesn't fix the problem, it only shifts it from one group to another.  Intead of driving students into debt, it drives the country and tax payers into debt.

Worse yet, the article found HERE, debating the need for "free" college education ignores basic economics of supply and demand.

Making college free would have one additional benefit: it would drive the for-profit schools out of business. They now enroll 13 percent of those currently attending American colleges, or 2 million students. A Senate Education Committee report in 2012 released by Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin provided “overwhelming documentation of exorbitant tuition, aggressive recruiting practices, abysmal student outcomes, taxpayer dollars spent on marketing and pocketed as profit, and regulatory evasion and manipulation.” For-profit colleges represent predatory capitalism at its worst.

Look close at the part I put in bold. 

Aggressive recruiting practices.  You mean like the concept that everyone needs a college education?  That's the problem.  Our public schools are judged by how many kids go on to college (which most fail to ever look at how many actually graduate) but let's face it, not everyone should go to college.  There are some very good careers for non college educated people.

It has more to do with the types of classes and degrees being offered then it does with private schools.  What exactly would you with a degree in Women's Studies other then perhaps teach Women's Studies?

But the problem is ignored, only the symptoms of higher education costs are looked at and addressed by passing the buck onto the tax payers.

College costs is just one example, when you begin to look at problem after problem you begin to see a pattern of people ignoring the difficult question of what is causing it and instead looking for what solution would make the most people happy.  Who wouldn't be happy with "free" college right?



How Facts Can Mislead

I have attached here the perfect example of how the media misleads with the stories they cover.

Here is a link to a story about an innocent man who while talking on his phone was pepper sprayed by the police.

The story includes a link to the following video:

Here's what the Seattle Times had to say about the inncident:

Jesse Hagopian, a history teacher who gave a speech during the event, says in the claim that as he began to head home in the afternoon to celebrate his 2-year-old son’s birthday, he was walking on the sidewalk in the South Lake Union area talking to his mother on the phone when the officer sprayed him.

During the press conference, Hagopian’s attorney, James Bible, said Hagopian was pepper-sprayed “irrationally” with “No provocation and no reason,” Bible said, characterizing the officer’s assault on innocent citizens as a challenge to free speech.

Watch the video a few times before reading on.

Being the skeptic I noticed a few things about the video right away.  For starters the cop already had the mace out and was in a defensive position before the video even started.  What caused that?

I also noticed how tight the video shot was.  You don't see what's going on behind the few people on the left or what is going on behind the police.

Clearly there is more going on then the video shows but based on that small slice of facts it does look like the cop went off for no justified reason.

But since I questioned what I saw I dug deeper.  For starters, who was Jesse Hagopian.  It points out he was a teacher who spoke at the "event" but doesn't say what the event was other then it being on MLK day.

Searching his name turned up a blog site he runs called iamaneducator.com on which he mentions his protesting for "Black Lives Matter".  One article titled "Hands Up, Don't Test: Police brutality and the repurposing of education" promotes the false claim about Brown having his hands up.  Several other articles echo the claim about police brutality which helps builds evidence that this is a man who already has a chip on his shoulder against the police and sees them as the bad guys.

Digging deeper uncovered the following YouTube video which shows the same event above from a different angle and covering more of the scene.  The scene in the above video takes place in the top left of the screen in this video.

Watch this one a couple times.

Couple things I noticed right away from this coverage.  For starters there is an injered cop on the ground on the right side of the screen proving this was not a peaceful protest.  Things had turned violent.  It's unclear how the cop was injured or who was involved but clearly something happened that wasn't peaceful.

At roughly 20 seconds into this second video you can see the police with a demonstrator who kicks over several newspaper stands directly behind the cop from the first video.  This was before the first video even started.

Several of the protestors in the center of the video are making jeastures with their hands toward the police.  At 24 seconds in a cop in the center of the video first uses pepper spray on the protestors getting the to back away from the area with the injured officer.

By 30 seconds in they have established a 2nd make shift bike baracade to keep people away from the injured officer.  It's at this same time (roughly 29 seconds in) that the officer from the first video can be seen pulling out her can of mace and at 33 seconds in she begins spraying as well.

Through the rest of the video you can see protestors swinging signs at the police and several stepping toward the police with hands up in agressive poses clearly yelling out.

Further digging turned up the article you can find HERE about the event.

Police say 19 protesters were arrested in the Martin Luther King holiday demonstration that blocked traffic on Highway 99 and the Mercer exit from Interstate 5 in the South Lake Union area.

Police say one officer was assaulted Monday afternoon and treated at Harborview Medical Center.

Protesters chanted “black lives matter” and said they were engaging in civil disobedience to protest police violence.

So we have gone from the original story of the innocent man walking down the street after speaking out at an event who was sprayed for no reason to a group of protestors who blocked traffic, injured a cop while screaming out "black lives matter". 

Interesting how some media sources choose to take that small video clip that doesn't show the whole story and present that as all the facts you need?  Then we wonder why people get so upset and protest in the streets convinced about things that never happened are fact.

Patriots The Democratic Party Of Football

I'm going to preface this by stating up front that I am not a football fan.  That said, I'd like to weigh in on the Patriots deflated ball scandal and compare it to something I see in politics.

To sum it the ball scandal, the Patriots were found to have 11 of the 12 balls their team used in their last play off game to be under inflated, giving an edge on handling.

As I've been reading about what the Patriots did I've been playing close attention to the comments being made and feedback given from fans.  Those who are not Patriots fans range from those laughing about the whole thing to those who want the Patriots punished to some degree for their actions breaking the rules of the game.  It's the Patriots fans however I see as the most interesting and the ones I will be discussing here.

The fans can be broken down into one of four groups.  Those who don't believe their team was cheating, those who do believe it but are embarrassed by it so they sit back and say nothing waiting for it to pass, those who agree the Patriots broke the rules but make excuses that they would either win anyway or that it wasn't a big deal and then you have the last group who realize the Patriots cheated but don't care and want their team to do anything and everything to win even if they have to break rules to do it.

That brings us back to politics, specifically voting.  Just like Patriots fans, you see the same thing with voters, some willing to overlook those who break the rules as long as their candidate (team) wins.

An NPR study actually found that Democrats are more willing to support a candidate who out right lies as long as they support the Democrat agenda.

We've also seen it when politicians attempt to push for laws like Voter ID, which would help prevent voter fraud, the Democratic party benefits the most and time and time again they are the ones pushing to prevent such laws being put into place.

And then just like the different levels of Patriots fans, when illegal voters are caught you see the same different levels of "fans".  There are those who disagree that the illegal voter did anything wrong, there are those who agree the voter did break the rules but argue the rules aren't such a big deal and then there are those who just don't care because those breaking the rules help their team win (but you'd see them screaming from the rooftops if it was the other team breaking the same rule).

It's also interesting that the Patriots also come from one of the most liberal Democrat states in the Nation.  Perhaps that is why they have the win at any cost including breaking rules mentality.


Challenge For 2015 Do Something Yourself

There is an image currently being shared out on Facebook that people have been continually sharing but I don't think many of those sharing have really stopped to think about what it is the image says.

It's a solid black background with a candle that reads "In memory of the six homeless Americans that froze to death in Washington, DC last week while our millionaire representatives were voting to gut the Food Stamp program."

At the time of my reading it the post had been shared over 108,000 times and had over 11,000 likes.  I saw a second group posting the same image which drew a few hundred additional likes and shares as I'm sure each of the many times it was shared around also did.  Based on the small portion I saw it wouldn't be shocking to say over a quarter of a million people agreed with the message enough to either share it or like it.  That's 250,000 people.

So the question I have is how many of those 250,000 plus people took the time to either donate to a shelter or food bank or volunteer their time helping the homeless?  If they each gave just $4 they would have raised over a million dollars for the cause.

According to ThinkProgress there are currently 578,424 homeless people living in the US.  Just helping two people each would solve the homeless problem.

That aside, let's back up for a moment and reread what the statement actually says.

"In memory of the six homeless Americans that froze to death in Washington, DC last week while our millionaire representatives were voting to gut the Food Stamp program."

How exactly would food stamps prevent someone from freezing to death?

Maybe I'm a little ignorant to how they work, being as I've been fortunate enough in my life never to need them, but having food and having a warm place to sleep are two different things, are they not?

Another fact to consider is that Washington, DC has the highest per capita income in the US.  The fact that six homeless people died freezing to death there is not a reflection on laws but on the people in Washington, DC itself.

Think about that.  What this meme is saying is that unless government passes more laws to spend our money they will not lift a finger to help out those in need.

And just where do those sharing this image think the money that those in DC are not giving willingly on their own will come from?  From their own pockets?  Of course not.  If politicians pass new spending it comes from me and you.  It will come in the form of new taxes, perhaps like those on cigarettes that lead to Eric Garner's death.

Here's an idea.  How about posting internet memes about how Washington politicians have failed to force money out of your pockets to help the homeless you actually do something about it yourself without the government gun put to your head?

I'm issuing a challenge to everyone reading this, when you see something wrong in this country, instead of complaining about how government isn't doing enough to fix it, try this.  Try to do a little to fix it yourself.  Go up in your attic and dig out some old blankets or coats that you no longer use and give them to the local homeless shelters in your area, you can find some HERE.  Find a local charity supporting the cause you find important and write a check freely of your own will, perhaps even volunteer at a fund raising event.

Stop complaining in 2015 about what others are failing to do for you and start doing more yourself!

Santa For President 2016

I know it's a little early in the election cycle to come out in support of a candidate for president but it has become clear that there is really only one man who deserves our vote in the next election.  That man is Santa Claus.

Santa started with humble beginnings with is toy delivery business but grew it to a multinational corporation bringing presents to children all around the world.  He clearly understands economic issues.

He earned early endorsement from major groups on both sides of the political spectrum with PETA supporting his adoption program for exotic reindeer and the NRA pleased with his supporting gun rights by bringing children Red Rider BB Guns (careful you don't shoot your eye out).  Not to mention his able to gain support of both the coal industry, being their biggest client, and the green energy group since he drives a sled powered by alternative means instead of a gas guzzling combustion engine.

It's also clear he has more foreign policy experience than anyone else in the race considering he travels every year to just about every country on the planet.

And if there is any doubt Santa would make a great choice for President just look at how he treats children, both rich and poor equal delivering toys regardless of income class.  And he's able to do it all without taxation, something our government could greatly learn from.

He also has a wonderful ability to work with the disabled.  Not only was he able to help Rudolph find work but eventually promoted him up to lead reindeer guiding the sled using his disability as an advantage.

Even Libertarians have stepped out to support Santa.  When asked who will build the roads, Santa proved once and for all that you can build a successful business in the North Pole without any roads at all.

Of course his campaign isn't without some hick-ups.  He has been blasted by the left for being too much of a religious right candidate, being that he is a Catholic Saint after all.  And they weren't all too pleased with his support of spying without a warrant to see who's naughty and nice.  Likewise Republicans blasted him for not being born in America but since it didn't matter with Obama, most are willing to let that slide for Santa too.

But perhaps his biggest hurdle is with woman's rights groups who are upset with his chanting "Ho Ho Ho" as he crept into houses late at night.  Could this be Bill Clinton all over again?  I don't think so.  Anyone who has remained married for nearly 1800 years to the same woman has a strong sense of family values.

So consider Santa for president in 2016 and be sure to show up at one of his milk and cookie campaign rallies.