Month: March 2019

Top technology talent may be in high demand, but that doesn’t mean IT job seekers can skate through the application process. In a survey conducted by staffing firm Robert Half Technology, CIOs shared what they consider to be deal breakers when evaluating candidates for open roles.

Technology executives said the biggest resume red flags are frequent job hopping (21 percent); poor formatting, sloppiness or typos (17 percent); and too much unnecessary information (17 percent). Making it to the interview stage comes with its own set of potential pitfalls. According to CIOs, the biggest blunder is speaking negatively about past employers or managers (20 percent), followed by poor body language (19 percent) and being unprepared for technical questions (16 percent).

CIOs were asked, “When reviewing resumes, which of the following would most likely cause you to remove a candidate from consideration?”

Frequent job hopping for a non-consultant candidate	21%
Bad formatting, sloppiness or typos	17%
Too long or too much unnecessary information	17%
Not highlighting strategic thinking and business knowledge	13%
Overuse of technical jargon	12%
Overly complicated	11%
No context around prior experience	9%
	101%*

* Responses do not total 100 percent due to rounding.

CIOs were also asked, “When conducting an in-person interview, which of the following would most likely cause you to remove a candidate from consideration?”

Speaking negatively about past employers or managers	20%
Poor body language, such as no eye contact or a weak handshake	19%
Unprepared for technical questions	16%
No clear understanding of the business	15%
Ineffective explanation of career history	15%
Unprofessional dress	13%
No “thank you” or follow-up after the interview	1%
	99%*

*Responses do not total 100 percent due to rounding.

“It’s a candidate’s market in technology right now, but that doesn’t mean applicants can sit back and wait for offers to roll in,” said Jeff Weber, executive director of Robert Half Technology. “Job seekers should tailor resumes that highlight specific skills and experience related to the open position and be prepared to answer technical questions during interviews in order to make an impression with potential employers.”

Weber added that while frequent job changes may be more common in today’s technology workforce, some employers are wary of hiring applicants with a long list of short stints. “Hiring and onboarding a new employee takes significant time and resources, and organizations want to avoid investing in someone who may jump ship if another opportunity comes along.”

As part of the editorial team here at CDN, I pay way too much attention to the stuff people post to Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and all sorts of other social media sites. The good stuff is inserted into articles, suggested as starter material to contributors or given their own showpiece posts. The rest of it .. well, I’ll just leave these here for you. You can thank me later.

First, we get to watch “Hero” – a dog with ser door issues.

Then to India, where a traffic cop has redefined “Traffic Jam”

Here’s what happens when you give Grandma a lightsaber

uhh, Vietnam’s first and only robot … waiter???

Annnd, what collection of internet videos is complete without one featuring cute pets?

Please feel free to tweet, post, email, or whatever this to your favorite people. You know, kinda like when your friend tells you to try something they clearly thought tasted horrible.

Protests and riots across France are taking a toll on the country’s economy as demonstrators leave work, damage and loot stores and discourage tourism.

“I’m not in a situation to make a clear assessment of the level of impact but I can tell you it will be an important one on the attractiveness of France,” French finance minister Bruno Le Maire told Euronews Sunday. Le Maire made the comment while touring the damage done to businesses in Paris.

Le Maire expects the French economy to lose at least 0.1 percent of economic growth on the year. The Bank of France has redone an estimate of fourth quarter growth, revising the projected 0.4 percent growth down to 0.2 percent, Reuters reported.

An economic slowdown is a “reality for our businessmen, entrepreneurs, it’s the reality for those whose shops were vandalized, looted, in the most violent way,” Le Maire said, according to Reuters. “And it’s a reality too for our foreign investors.”

The protests have hit during what otherwise would have been the busiest shopping season of the year. Now, retailers have lost over $1 billion in sales since the start of the anti-carbon tax protests in mid-November, the French retail federation (FCD) told Reuters Friday.

“It’s a period when commerce is usually brisk, just before Christmas — but this, this is a catastrophe,” Le Maire said.

The protests continued through a fourth weekend on Saturday and Sunday. Renewed clashes between protesters and police resulted in over 1,300 arrests in Paris Saturday. 135 were injured, including 17 police officers, according to NBC News.

Nearly a month ago, hundreds of thousands of middle-class French citizens began protesting a Macron administration proposal to hike the tax on gas and diesel. The increased carbon tax was part of French President Emmanuel Macron’s agenda to lower emissions and combat climate change.

Macron scrapped the proposed tax on Dec. 5, but protests and riots have continued unabated as the “yellow vest” protesters, named after the neon traffic vests they wear, demand lower taxes and a cheaper cost of living. Many are calling for Macron’s resignation.

Armored vehicles patrolled the streets of Paris for the first time since World War II Saturday. The riots are the worst to sweep the country since 1968.

Several service members recently got a tour of Las Vegas Motor Speedway from a NASCAR driver who showed them the ins and outs of the track, the cars and the work that goes into making a race happen. It’s a perk of military service. But what’s even cooler? Getting that tour from a NASCAR driver who’s been in your shoes.

Meet Navy Reserve Lt. Jesse Iwuji, the first Navy officer to race for NASCAR.

“It’s been pretty cool to be able to have that [designation] to myself,” the sailor-turned-race car driver said.

So … how? Why?

It all started when he was playing football at the U.S. Naval Academy. Yes — football. Which has nothing to do with cars. But during the offseason, he started taking an interest in the motorsport, so he took his V-6 Chrysler 300 on weekends to a drag strip at Capitol Raceway in Maryland.

During his very first race, he was surrounded by cars that were faster and louder than his. It was a feeling he’ll never forget.

“You’re nervous inside. … You’re hoping everything goes well, nothing breaks, and you don’t crash,” Iwuji said. “But once you hit the pedal and you just smash it and go, it’s almost like everything gets calm. You’re finally in the moment, you’re one with the car, and you’re just racing.”

And just like that, he was sold — he knew he wanted to be in motorsports someday. He started devoting the few hours he had free at the academy to racing. After graduating in 2010, he served as an active-duty surface warfare officer, but he kept racing on the side when he could.

“I bought a Dodge Challenger that I used to race at drag strips,” Iwuji said, adding that the strips were often hours from where he was stationed. “I started doing half-mile and one-mile drag race events.” Later, he said, he bought a Corvette to race on open track days.

He wanted to take it to the next level.

“In January 2014, I was in my room and I wrote on my whiteboard, ‘become professional race car driver,’” he said. “From then on, I was on this journey.”

Over the next three years, in between deployments and other duties, Iwuji raced more competitively, including in the NASCAR K&N Pro Series.

The Inside Scoop

“Being on a track with other race car drivers is not like on the street,” Iwuji said.

Aside from going a lot faster, drivers also don’t have brake lights, so you have to judge when someone brakes.

“People are bumping you, they’re hitting you, they’re trying to spin you out. They’re crashing in front of you, behind you, around you. It’s a lot of contact,” he said.

And it’s hot.

“There’s no air conditioning or music. You can’t hang out and chill and relax,” he said. “You’re trying to control a car that’s very hard to control at high speeds.”

Swapping Careers

By early 2017, Iwuji knew he had to make a major decision.

“I wanted to still be connected to the Navy. It’s something that’s been a part of my life since 2005,” he said. “But I also wanted to race. So, the best way to mix the two and have the time to do it was for me to transition from active-duty to the [Navy] Reserve, and it’s probably the best decision I ever made.”

That’s because his career is flourishing. Earlier this year, Iwuji got promoted to the NASCAR Camping World Truck Series, which is the only series in all of NASCAR to race modified production pickup trucks.

“It’s been a pretty incredible journey. I’ve gotten to race a ton of different cars on a ton of different tracks like Daytona, Talladega, Charlotte [Motor Speedway], Pocono, Sonoma, you name it,” he said.

His advice to other service members?

“No matter what, you can still go after all of your goals and dreams,” Iwuji said. “The military isn’t going to be something that stops you. It’s something that helps you become a better person and builds you so that you can go after big goals and dreams.”

Setting the bar high — we like it!

In a previous article, I refuted the basic leftist myth at the heart of all arms control (=arms reduction=disarmament) policies: that cutting America’s weapon inventories, and eventually dismantling them completely (and leftists want to do so soon), will somehow make America and the world safer.

The reasons why it won’t are severalfold: disarming oneself only invites aggression; a world without nuclear weapons would be much more violent and warlike than without them (and was, before nuclear weapons were invented); and if America disarmed itself unilaterally, others would never follow suit – they’d only exploit America’s military weakness. We’ll explore this third reason in this article in more depth.

Already a few leftists have admitted that even if the US cut its nuclear arsenal dramatically, or disarmed itself completely, others wouldn’t follow suit. Global Zero chairman Bruce Blair has admitted in a Congressional hearing that if the US did so, “no one” would reciprocate. ACA leaders Daryl Kimball and Tom Collina say that Russia and others only “might be induced” to follow suit if the US made deep further cuts to its arsenal unilaterally, but don’t claim it would be sure to happen. (They advocate that the US make such unilateral cuts anyway).

But the brutal truth is that if the US cut its arsenal unilaterally, NOBODY would follow suit. On the contrary, other nuclear powers would only be too happy to exploit America’s weakness mercilessly. And you can take that to the bank.

How do we know? Because the US has already tried unilateral cuts multiple times and they’ve only emboldened America’s enemies and encouraged them to INCREASE their arsenals. Which they have done.

As even Jimmy Carter’s defense secretary, Harold Brown, has said, “When we build, they build. When we cut, they build.”

The US cut its nuclear arsenal unilaterally during the 1970s, strictly adhering to the two SALT treaties. The Soviet Union did not; it violated these treaties with abandon (the Reagan Administration withdrew the US from SALT II in 1986 over Soviet noncompliance). Russia’s behavior has been no better.

The elder President Bush cut America’s arsenal by over 50% since 1989, stopped warhead production and testing, killed the B-2 strategic bomber at just 21 aircraft, withdrew US nuclear weapons from US surface ships and South Korea, killed Peacekeeper production, killed the “Midgetman” small ICBM program, and stopped cruise missile production.

Russia, however, did not reciprocate. It made cuts to its arsenal only within the framework of the first START treaty, which expired in 2009. Nor did anyone else reciprocate: since 1989, Pakistan and North Korea developed and tested nuclear weapons while China, India, and Israel have all significantly increased their arsenals. (China now has at least 1,800, and possibly up to 3,000, nuclear weapons.)

The US again cut its nuclear arsenal under the younger President Bush, to just 5,113 warheads. Again, Russia did not reciprocate. In fact, since President Putin came to power in 2000, Russia has been building its arsenal up.

The US again agreed to cut its arsenal unilaterally under the New START treaty signed by Barack Obama in April 2010. Under that abomination of a treaty, the US is obligated to cut its strategic arsenal by one-third; Russia is not obligated to cut anything and is actually allowed to add nuclear weapons – which it has already done. Moreover, the treaty contains so many huge loopholes that you could drive a track through them. Experts Peter Huessy and Mark Schneider report that:

“The New START Treaty has many loopholes the Russians will exploit. This includes, according to Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists, a “totally nuts” bomber weapons counting rule, and the complete exclusion from the Treaty limits of even nuclear-armed air-launched ballistic missiles, surface ship-launched ballistic missiles and rail mobile ICBMs. We do not hear a word out of the administration about fixing any of these problems in the next round of nuclear arms control talks.”

Also, Russia’s 171 Tu-22M strategic bombers, which have air-refueling equipment, are not counted by New START as strategic bombers, even though they are such.

Russia is not only rapidly increasing but also modernizing its nuclear arsenal. All legs of its nuclear triad, as well as many tactical delivery systems, will be replaced by new ones by the early 2020s. It is developing or deploying several ICBMs, including the RS-24 Yars (silo-based and mobile versions), the “Avangard”, the “Son of Satan” heavy ICBM (replacement for the SS-18 Satan), and a rail-mobile ICBM. The Russian Navy is receiving new Borei class SSBNs, with 16 SLBMs per boat, while the Air Force is receiving new Tu-160 bombers and developing a new, stealthy strategic bomber. Tactical nuclear units are receiving new Iskander SRBMs and Su-34 tactical bombers.

Meanwhile, the US is not modernizing. Development of new classes of SSBNs , cruise missiles, and bombers is lagging, there’s no SRBM and no plan to develop a new ICBM, and no new warheads or even warhead upgrades are being developed. Obama’s Assistant Secy. of State for Arms Control, Rose Gottemoeller, who negotiated New START, has even said it explicitly:

“We’re not modernizing. We’re not modernizing. That is one of the basic, basic, I would say, principles and rules that have really been part of our nuclear posture view and part of the policy.”

If you’re not modernizing your arsenal, you’re essentially disarming yourself unilaterally, because your arsenal will eventually wear out due to old age.

No modernization equals unilateral disarmament. And “no modernization” is the official, stated policy of the Obama Administration.

Nowadays, Russia absolutely refuses to enter into any talks about cutting its own nuclear arsenal; it only wants to discuss cutting America’s. The treasonous Obama Administration, composed of anti-American leftists like Obama himself and Goettemoeller, is only too happy to oblige.

Russia has stated explicitly that it will NOT cut its nuclear arsenal and that, as former Chief of the General Staff Gen. Nikolai Makarov has said, “The strategic nuclear forces for us are a sacred issue.” Russia is currently building up its nuclear arsenal, a fact repeatedly reported by reputed journalists such as Bill Gertz. Moreover, Russia has, in the last 6 years alone, made at least 15 public, overt threats to use nuclear weapons against the US or its allies, and has publicly reserved to itself the right to use nuclear weapons first, even against a non-nuclear adversary or in a purely conventional war. In April 2012, when Russian bombers practiced strikes against Alaska, Russian military spokesmen said they were “practing attacking the enemy.”

Since then, Russia has sent its strategic bombers to practice strikes against the US and Japan 4 more times – in the last 14 months alone. One of these practice strikes was on… the Fourth of July 2012.

This is not surprising: during the Cold War (which Vladimir Putin apparently wants to replay), the Soviet Union’s war plans and military doctrine also called for using nuclear weapons first, on a massive scale, despite Leonid Brezhnev’s public assurances of a no-first-strike policy.

To cut one’s own nuclear deterrent in the face of such an adversary who has a huge nuclear arsenal, is rapidly growing and modernizing it, frequently makes threats to use it preemptively, and has repeatedly practiced attacking the US and its allies with it, would be worse than an utter folly. It would be downright suicidal (or treasonous).

And it isn’t just Russia. Since 1989, China and India have significantly increased their nuclear arsenals, while two new states (Pakistan and North Korea) have joined the nuclear club and Iran has made tremendous progress towards nuclear weapon status. Moreover, since their first nuclear tests, Pakistan and North Korea have increased their arsenals of both warheads and ballistic missiles, and North Korea has announced its intention to grow it further.

Meanwhile, the US is cutting… and cutting… and cutting its nuclear arsenal unilaterally, even though NO ONE is following suit.

And I’m not the only analyst warning about this fact. Multiple other analysts, including CSBA Vice President Jim Thomas and Center for Security Policy Frank Gaffney, have warned about this as well.

And it’s not just America’s enemies who are developing their nuclear capabilities; so are America’s allies. Japan, for example, has just opened a nuclear facility where it could produce enough fissile material for 3,000 warheads in a year if need be! South Korea also has the potential to “go nuclear” in less than a year, and according to a very recent poll, 66.5% of South Koreans already advocate doing so, in the face of the North Korean threat and America’s rapidly-shrinking and increasingly obsolete nuclear deterrent.

Likewise, CSBA experts Andrew Krepinevich, Eric S. Edelman, and Evan B. Montgomery warn that if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, and if the US cuts its arsenal below New START levels, its nuclear umbrella will not be credible and Persian Gulf states, such as Saudi Arabia, will develop their own nuclear arsenals.

So the unilateral nuclear arsenal cuts that successive administrations have made (and which Obama plans to double on), and which pacifist organizations advocate, have not only emboldened America’s enemies but also made America’s allies very worried and forced them to prepare for “going nuclear” in a matter of months if need be.

So despite the myths that the Left has been spreading for decades, cutting the US nuclear arsenal has NOT encouraged ANYONE to follow suit; on the contrary, NOBODY is following America’s lead, and MANY are going in the opposite direction.

So the unilateral nuclear disarmament of the United States, and the entire arms control process, is an abysmal failure and has made America, the West, and the entire world dramatically LESS secure.

The problem is not just a poor execution of arms control agreements; the problem is arms control itself, period.

Arms control is just a codename for unilaterally disarming the West while Russia, China, North Korea, and others build up their nuclear and conventional arsenals.

Nor should it be a surprise to anyone. If you disarm yourself while an evil person does not, do you really think he’ll likewise disarm himself? No, he’ll attack you.

Likewise, if the US continues to cut and gut its nuclear deterrent, other countries, like Russia and China, will not say “Oh, America has set such a great moral example, let’s follow it’s lead and disarm ourselves, too!” They will only build up their arsenals further and become even more aggressive towards the US and its allies. A Russian nuclear first strike is a very real possibility, by the admissions of Russia’s own leaders.

As Harold Brown has said, “When we build, they build. When we cut, they build.”

• House Democrats introduced a bill Wednesday that raise the federal minimum wage to $15-an-hour by 2024.
• Small business owners have “grave concerns” over the economic impact of the bill, Job Creators Network President and CEO Alfredo Ortiz says.
• A $15 minimum wage could cost the U.S. around 750,000 jobs if implemented, according to Ortiz.

Small business owners have “grave concerns” over a recent House Democrat bill that would more than double the federal minimum wage in less than five years.

House Democrats introduced a bill Wednesday that would increase the federal minimum wage from $7.25-an-hour to $15-an-hour by 2024. The Raise the Wage Act give Democrats a chance to showcase the party’s policy priorities going into the 2020 election, CNBC reports.

“I offer the kids in my community their first job. They learn new skills and establish a reputation for coming to work on time and what all of that means. They go on to get jobs and frequently ask me for references and continue to move up,” Susan Kochevar, who owns an 88 Drive-In Theatre in Commerce City, Colo., told reporters Wednesday.

“I’ve already had to figure out to get by with fewer people” because of recent and scheduled state minimum wage increases, Kochevar said. “In Colorado, we’ve already seen some small [sic] businesses go out of business, such as [the restaurant] White Fence Farm.”

The bill has little chance of passing a Republican-controlled Senate and earning President Donald Trump’s approval. Rather, Democrats want the bill to garner popular support and position themselves on the side of workers in the middle of the partial government shutdown, which has caused roughly 800,000 federal workers to miss a paycheck.

“A $15 federal minimum wage affirms the bedrock idea of fairness in our country: that hard work deserves a decent wage,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said while introducing the Democrat bill. “We will open up opportunities for working families and drive economic growth that lifts up all communities – because our economy works best when it works for everyone, not just the wealthy and privileged few.”

A minimum wage increase would kill jobs and disproportionately hurt low-skilled workers that the policy is marketed to help. Forcing businesses to pay higher wages makes employers reluctant to take a chance on hiring someone who needs more training or can’t immediately make the company a profit, according to a 2016 report by former Heritage Foundation researcher James Sherk, who currently advises Trump on labor policy.

“Right now we are in an economy that is thriving,” Job Creators Network President and CEO Alfredo Ortiz told reporters Wednesday. “We have grave concerns about the impact that this is going to have on small business overall.”

Around 750,000 jobs may be lost across the U.S. if a $15 minimum wage were to be implemented, according to Ortiz.

Liberal economists have also questioned the benefits of hiking the minimum wage up to $15-an-hour.

“A $15-an-hour national minimum wage would put us in uncharted waters, and risk undesirable and unintended consequences,” Princeton economist Alan Krueger, former Chair of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, wrote in 2015.

Stephen King’s It is truly scary, entertaining and fun. The story takes place in a small country town in Maine (Stephen King’s home state) and centers around a group of savvy kids around 12 years old. The six boys and one girl are alienated from the town, their parents, and teachers while they confront a force that returns every 27 years and preys on people’s fears –  It has been taking the souls of children since 1901.

This film is a remake of the 1990 television mini-series adapted from Stephen King’s novel. The story revolves around a predatory shapeshifter alien who has the ability to transform itself into its prey’s worst fears allowing it to exploit the phobias of its victims. It mostly takes the form of a sadistic wisecracking clown named Pennywise . Everyone in this film is mean including the bullies who constantly attack the kids. I think that was to make the kids personalities stand out more.

Although there are some bloody scenes they are far between allowing time for story and character development. The kids were all excellent and very realistic. Their characters were readily identifiable. They all see different things happening to them and then find it is a mind trip, but when they start putting the pieces together and do some research they find out that this has reoccurred every 27 years and ends with the taking of the souls of missing children. This group of kids then vows to put an end to it.

The shapeshifter is truly evil in more ways than one and lives in the old haunted house in the town and roams through the sewers of the town.

There are plenty of creepy passages and rooms in the house and plenty of sewer romps in here also. It can extend its’ mouth to reveal what looks like long steel pointed sharp teeth and can swallow a whole face which it tried to do with one of their pals. It also sprouts large spider-like claws when it wants to and has various stringy things shoot out of its’ body tangling its’ victims up in.

Although this film is well done and a big hit and making lots of money I couldn’t help but think I’ve seen this all before. When the kids find out it is using them against each other and preys on their fears, they decide not to show it any fear to defeat it. I couldn’t help but think of an old Star Trek episode where a force enters the enterprise when they are meeting with the Klingons and forces the crew of the Enterprise and Klingons to war with each other and gets its’ strength from their anger. When they discover this they show the force they are wise to it and stop being angry and it goes away. The same thing happened here. Some of the effects I’ve seen before too such as an entire room becoming covered in blood and the way blood oozes up through the drain boards in the floor. But overall it’s a good movie and lots of fun, good scares and worth seeing.

Check out this creepy trailer from It.

As Congress continues to feud over construction of a border wall, another Central American caravan of 10,000-plus migrants has entered Mexico and intends to reach the U.S.

The caravan, which first departed Honduras on Jan. 15, began as a smaller group of around 500 people. However, the caravan ballooned in size as it continued to travel across Central America. Numerous foreign nationals from Guatemala and El Salvador, eager over the possibility to apply for humanitarian visas in Mexico, joined along the way.

President Donald Trump made note of the caravan as it set course for the U.S., and derided Central American governments for doing “nothing” to stop it.

“A big new Caravan is heading up to our Southern Border from Honduras. Tell Nancy and Chuck that a drone flying around will not stop them. Only a Wall will work,” the president tweeted on Jan. 15.

“Mexico is doing NOTHING to stop the Caravan which is now fully formed and heading to the United States,” he tweeted again on Saturday. “We stopped the last two – many are still in Mexico but can’t get through our Wall, but it takes a lot of Border Agents if there is no Wall. Not easy!”

Many of the migrants are attracted by a new policy recently enacted by Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. The new left-wing president, who has criticized Mexico’s past treatment of migrants, is allowing many of them to apply for humanitarian visas, allowing them stay in the country legally as they try to gain access into the U.S.

Historically, migrants would reach the border and apply for asylum within the U.S., allowing them to disappear into the country without ever appearing to their immigration court date. The Trump administration has worked to prevent this by pressuring the Mexican government to keep migrants their country as they wait for their asylum cases to work through the U.S. courts — a policy known as “remain in Mexico.”

Mexico’s National Immigration Institute reported that it had processed a total of 10,343 migrants. About 75 percent were from Honduras, with the remainder coming from El Salvador, Guatemala, and a small number of Haitians, Nicaraguans Cubans and Brazilians.

The looming caravan, which further highlights the issue of immigration, comes as lawmakers in Congress continue to fight over border security. A bill that would have provided $5.7 billion in funding or a border wall failed a Senate floor vote on Thursday — as did a Democratic-backed bill that excluded wall funding.

The budget impasse has resulted in the longest partial government shutdown in U.S. history.

Yes, we have Baghdad Bama and his trusty sidekick John Kerry! As national and satellite pictures were showing American troops taking over Baghdad airport and moving towards the city, Baghdad Bob proclaims, “There are NO AMERICANS infidels in Baghdad. Never!” on live TV… as you can hear the shells going off in the background! Reports came in from various news sources with Baghdad Bob saying, “I blame Al-Jazeera – they are marketing for the Americans!” When asked by reporters how the Iraqi army would do against the Americans he replied, “My feelings – as usual – we will slaughter them all.” And let’s not forget, “Our initial assessment is that they will all die.” Baghdad Bob had so many gems that he tries to sell but failed.

I believe we are seeing that same thing here in America. We consistently hear from the White House that the economy is good, jobs are on the rise, people are feeling better, and the biggie… we are living in the safest time in history! In what universe? Consumer confidence is down, most jobs created are part-time, the economy can’t maintain a 2% misery index, credit card debt is up, home sales are down. Do you need more?!

This Administration also goes on to say there are no scandals, and no issues at the IRS. Benghazi, though a tragedy, was played out by the U.S. perfectly and it all happened because of a movie maker. We are stuck in a Twilight Zone marathon featuring the Obama Chronicles.

The economy, after the (real) Great Depression of 1930 made a strong comeback. The US saw growth rates of 11, 8, and 13 percent over the 3 years it took to recover. Most experts agreed, if the government had gotten out of the way recovery would have been so much quicker! What wouldn’t I give for a 5 or 6% recovery today?

Read the rest at:  Baghdad Bama

This is the time of year that “porch pirates”, people who steal delivered packages from entryways and porches, become active and YouTuber Mark Rober has an answer that not only serves a bit of rough justice, but is quite funny as well.