You Budgeted, She Splurged

image from gab.ai

I just saw this and was, well, not amused. 

Those that follow me know that I was fired in Feb of 2022 (after multiple unpaid suspensions) from my 20+ year career/job for asserting my rights to medical privacy and refusal of experimental biological products (among other things). During that time, I put my finances on lock. Out went every non-essential food item and entertainment. Outside dining and vacations. I had no idea how long I would be out of work (turned out to be a total of 5 days) or how much that work would pay.

It being the "pandemic" and all, my employment opportunities were severely limited and I had to consider that I may have to leave my state of residence. For the next 20 months, I was a contractor. Meaning that if I didn't work, I didn't get paid. This meant zero vacations as I wasn't blowing a week's pay to sit on a beach or in my apartment.

I also created a spreadsheet in order to keep detailed records of where my money went and was going so that I knew how much I needed to live. You should do this as you'd be surprised at how much you spend above your "base needs". Previously I hadn't had a need to do this as my general budgeting was fine for my lifestyle. However, for the point of this post I want to emphasize that I did not take a vacation for 2 summers (where I usually took 3 weeks total).

Now this story:

You know what, I'm annoyed by this.  But this part got me:

She was also receiving funds from the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families fund, which helped her cover her $120-a-month rent.

$120/month rent? So when she got this money, it was the equivalent of 83 months of rent. 7 years of rent. Instead she blew it on a week's trip to Miami. In essence DC gave $10k to Florida.

"But still, Miller said she was struggling to make her food stamps last.

“Groceries last us the first three weeks of the month, then it’s trying to figure out the last week of my benefits,” she explained."

Say you used one year of that rent and put towards food. 

"She justified her spending by saying she hoped to inspire her children and teach them that if they work hard enough, they may one day be able to afford one of the mansions."

There is absolutely no need to make a trip to Miami to "teach" that lesson.  It's called Silver Spring Maryland, and it's not far. Matter of fact, assuming she has a working smartphone, Google maps can show her kids all manner of mansions without spending a penny on airfare or bus fare.

It's one thing if a private party wants to fund someone's lifestyle. It's another thing when it's from tax payers. Many tax payers have foregone trips and other luxuries to better or maintain their lives. Even the ones who did not do not deserve to have their income extorted for this kind of behavior.

 

8 U.S. Code § 1324

 In light of NY finding a renewed sense of "rule of law", Please note the following:

(1)

(A) Any person who—

(i)

knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;

(ii)

knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;

(iii)

knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

(iv)

encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or

(v)

(I)

engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or

(II)

aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,

shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

 

This is the law on immigration. Now the point:

 

 This is harboring and inducing residence.

"NEW YORK -- Questions are being raised about a controversial program launched by the Adams administration to give migrant families pre-paid debit cards to buy food and other necessities.

Mayor Eric Adams says giving asylum seekers debit cards to buy their own food will save the city millions, but the head of the City Council's oversight and investigations committee wants to know why the city issued a $53 million no-bid contract without seeing if it could get a better deal.

"I think you should bid it out to see who would do the best job at the best cost for taxpayers," Councilmember Gale Brewer said.

Brewer says she wants to investigate a pilot program launched by the mayor to give asylum seekers pre-paid debit cards that will allow them to by food, baby products and other necessities at supermarkets, bodegas, grocery and convenience stores.

Of course "Asylum seeker" is a euphemism for illegal alien which is used to provide cover for the blatantly illegality of this program

"The $53 million contract reviewed by CBS New York gives the firm, Mobility Capital Finance, lots of fees for services, including:

• A $125,000 one-time set-up fee, 
• $250,000 in annual management fees,
• And fees based on how much money is distributed to migrants -- $1.5 million for the first $50 million handed out, and $2.5 million for the next $100 million.

The pilot program will involve 500 families staying in short-term hotels."

That's a nice chunk of change for criminal activities. And the hotels? They are harboring. Knowingly. 

"The mayor insisted that part of the allure of the company was that it was a minority-owned firm.

"WMBs -- you know, women- and minority-owned businesses -- have historically been locked out ... So I know I'm disrupting what people traditionally would like for us to do," Adams said."

Well that makes it OK then.

It's one thing when sanctuary cities and states said they would not enforce federal law. That is and was their right. One is not compelled to report an illegal alien or assist in their apprehension. However; these actions by NY have moved far beyond a "hands off" approach. They are clear violations of law. Not only by the state but the private entities contracted to do the financials as well as the hotels.

Trump (and Sessions) should have dropped the hammer on NYC when they did the ID cards, which were ALSO in violation of 1324.

The Goodfellas NY Court

 Unless you live under a rock, or on that Island that Tom Hanks was cast away on, you know that Trump was hit with a $350m fine plus interest. You've probably read and seen a lot on the subject and I have a rather lengthy video from when this first hit so I'm not going to go into details or be long winded on the matter. Suffice it to say, this was a gangster move on by a gangster state. Hence the title.

Supposedly in America, you have the rule of law. Supposedly in this "free" society, we do not investigate people in search of crimes, but we investigate crimes to find people. That is, unless someone has been injured, the state ought not have any business prosecuting anyone. Actual harm is key. There have been many cases that have been dismissed because the complaining party has no standing because they are alleging future probable harm but no actual  harm. NY apparently has a law on the books in which no harm need be presented.

If that wasn't bad enough, The US Constitution, which all states are bound by, explicitly prohibits excessive fines (along with cruel and unusual punishment). 

In what world is $350m fine for an "offense" that had no actual harmed parties, not "excessive"?  In what world is it that a $350m fine due to "fraud" where the alleged victims of said fraud would actually engage in more business with the person who 'defrauded" them?

Gangster world. That's where.

I was watching Goodfellas (again) and whenever someone fell out of favour with the bosses, they got whacked. Trump fell out of favour with the bosses and this was the assassination attempt. Despite claims to the contrary, Trump was pretty well liked in NY until he made that fateful descent down the escalator. Everybody knew Trump played all kinds of tricks to get and make deals (and he stiffed some people too). None of this was unknown by anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Trump. Generally speaking banks lent money to Trump because Trump was good for business. They knew he lied and "stretched the truth" to get what he wanted. They had accountants and lawyers who did the real investigating and loaned money to him anyway. A lot of them got paid even on Trump's many failures. What you think those bottles of "Trump water" were free to Trump?

New Yorkers knew the game and played the game, just like the gangsters in Goodfellas. But Trump crossed the line.

9% interest? 

Daily?

That's gangster loanshark behavior and we all know it. Engoron should be disbarred and removed from the bench for that alone. So should James. Won't happen though. 

Hochul all but admitted that this was a targeted hit with her recent comments. Other business people would be fools to think it's just Trump. That if they just keep their head down and "do business" they won't be caught up in an extortion scheme.  They forgot that NYS previously went after gun sellers and the NRA for no other reason than anti-gun politics. Today you're safe because you are on the "right side" of the NY  bosses. Tomorrow you could be the one getting the proverbial shot to the back of the head by the same people who you were laughing and playing cards with.

Now We Know The Mandate Was Politics

Back when Biden was attempting to use OSHA to force people to get the experimental shots for COVID, the reasoning given was that COVID represented a threat to employees and the shots prevented death and transmission. For the purposes of this post we will concentrate on "transmission". 

Now we know that neither claim was true. Furthermore, as I wrote and vlogged about, these mandates were a clear violation of the ADA, the 4th Amendment and the 1st Amendment to the US constitutions. In addition to being a violation of title 1983 of the CRA.

I also noted that the reason no court has found both government and private entities guilty of these violations is because the courts themselves engaged in this illegal activity. In NY those that prevailed against the city of NY did so only on "arbitrary and capricious" grounds. Essentially the court said that if the city had been "less arbitrary" then it could force a person to take an experimental medication.

Total bullshit. 

The real reason for this though was to boot non-conformist from various organizations including the military.  How do we know this? Well news out of Tennessee:

What could the state of Tennessee be doing to people with HIV that could warrant such a lawsuit?

"The Justice Department filed a lawsuit today against the State of Tennessee and the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The department previously notified Tennessee and the TBI that they violated the ADA by enforcing the state’s aggravated prostitution statute against people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)."

Aggravated prostitution statute? 

"he department’s investigation found that the state and TBI subject people living with HIV to harsher criminal penalties solely because of their HIV status, violating Title II of the ADA. Tennessee’s aggravated prostitution statute elevates what would otherwise be misdemeanor conduct to a felony because the individual has HIV, regardless of any actual risk of harm."

So if a prostitute, already committing a crime, has HIV and knows it and is still committing the crime, then the state charges a more severe penalty. Why? Because HIV is a deadly disease that, if it doesn't kill, subjects the infected person with a lifetime of medication. Absent that medication death is almost certain in the long term.

For example, the complaint identifies one person who has struggled to find safe housing that complies with the registry’s requirements and has experienced periods of homelessness, has been denied employment because she is on the registry, and is prevented from spending time alone with her nephew because of her conviction.

Boo the fuck hoo.

This person decided to trick (for whatever reason) while having an actual deadly disease (unlike COVID).

So in this case the Biden admin is of the opinion that a person who, in the process of comitting a crime, also is capable of transmitting a lethal virus which can only be survived via a lifetime of drugs, should be protected from consequences of that action. On the other hand this same admin was and is of the position that people going about their law abiding lives who refuse to take an experimental injection without any consequences from the state or private party, as is their right, should be fired from their jobs, denied unemployment and be barred from employment due to said mandate.

I bolded that on purpose because the contradiction is so blatnant that it should be enraging to anyone who suffered as a result of the Biden (and private party) mandates.

"Tennessee’s aggravated prostitution statute elevates what would otherwise be misdemeanor conduct to a felony because the individual has HIV, regardless of any actual risk of harm."

The actual nerve. Regardless of actual risk. For students who were (and still are) subject to these mandates, the actual risk of COVID is negligible (as in 10ths of a percent). The risk of harm FROM the shots are far higher. Yet such thinking did not prevail. For the vast majority of the public the risk from COVID was being ill for a few days. HIV is a long term killer without lifelong drugs. The contrast could not be more plain.

They, the Biden admin and their lackeys, simply hated those that refused and used whatever power they had to punish those persons. And have gotten away with it.

The NATO Comment

 So Dems have also went to town on two NATO comments. One from Putin's interview with Carlson and the other from the mouth of Trump. In regards to the former, Putin said that NATO had agreed to not expand eastward after the end of the Warsaw Pact. Dems have responded by saying that there was no such agreement. Except:

I suppose the LA Times, an outlet I stopped following some time ago, was a Kremlin front organization back in 2016.

Leaders in Moscow, however, tell a different story. For them, Russia is the aggrieved party. They claim the United States has failed to uphold a promise that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe, a deal made during the 1990 negotiations between the West and the Soviet Union over German unification. In this view, Russia is being forced to forestall NATO’s eastward march as a matter of self-defense.

The West has vigorously protested that no such deal was ever struck. However, hundreds of memos, meeting minutes and transcripts from U.S. archives indicate otherwise. Although what the documents reveal isn’t enough to make Putin a saint, it suggests that the diagnosis of Russian predation isn’t entirely fair. Europe’s stability may depend just as much on the West’s willingness to reassure Russia about NATO’s limits as on deterring Moscow’s adventurism.

Does this mean there was an actual signed contract? No.

Anyone who knows how these things go know that there are often a lot of unsaid things and unmentionable "promises". Often these "gentlemens agreements" are "off the books" and are used by BOTH parties to have plausible deniability later on when the political winds change.

"We never promised that..."

In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion.

Gorbachev, in my opinion was negotiating from an extremely weak position and probably wanted such a promise in writing but could not get the concessions he wanted/needed with such a demand. At best, the "iron clad guarantee" was merely a stalling tactic, but if it had been a promised kept, then would Ukraine be in the position it is in today?

I doubt it.

Nevertheless, great powers rarely tie their own hands. In internal memorandums and notes, U.S. policymakers soon realized that ruling out NATO’s expansion might not be in the best interests of the United States. By late February, Bush and his advisers had decided to leave the door open. 

Like I said.

It’s therefore not surprising that Russia was incensed when Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states and others were ushered into NATO membership starting in the mid-1990s. Boris Yeltsin, Dmitry Medvedev and Gorbachev himself protested through both public and private channels that U.S. leaders had violated the non-expansion arrangement. As NATO began looking even further eastward, to Ukraine and Georgia, protests turned to outright aggression and saber-rattling.

So yeah. There was an agreement. Paper agreement? No. As they say, get it in writing. Verbal agreements rarely hold up in court.

The Next Narrative Dropped

 So with the report about Biden making the rounds, where I even saw a very left television show admit that the report is 'not good" and admitting that most voters see Biden as not able to do the job, the next narrative has dropped.

Yes, The report about Biden is not really about Biden you see. It's actually an attack on Kamala Harris as the would be first black female president. The initial narrative (or perhaps sub narrative) paints Harris as black rather than biracial or POC, because:

Black women.

And it has been largely black women (at least in profile appearance) that have been pushing this new narrative. The narrative is that whites are attacking Biden in order to discredit Harris because they don't want to see a black female as president.

While I have no doubt that there are some who actually hold that position, this narrative requires short term memory loss.  Kamala Harris was very much unliked *by Democrats* when she ran in 2020.

The latest RealClearPolitics average of recent polling showed Harris with just 3.4 percent support nationally, and just 3.3 percent and 2.7 percent backing in the early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, respectively.

 

So in reality Democrats didn't want her to be president period. They know, like we know, that Harris is a literal DEI appointment. Dems wanted to shore up the black vote so they decided upon black woman.  This was done in part to keep women on board as well even though I think that to be the lesser issue. Single white women are overwhelmingly Democrat and all you have to say to them to keep them in line is "abortion".

It will be interesting how Dems go after black voters, particularly males, when you're on year 3 of spending their taxes on illegal aliens and going so far as to say those illegal aliens are their priority.

If This Is True...

Last night I saw that a special council reported that current US president Joe Biden was unable to remember things like when he was VP, the date of his son's death and perhaps other things.  The decided that they could not prosecute because a jury would be sympathetic to Biden't frailties and perhaps the prosecution would not be able to show criminal intent.

There are a few things about this. Disregarding the actual alleged crime, the report means one of three things must be the case:

1) Biden's legal team purposely went about having their client appear as demented as possible in order to give the DOJ a good reason to decline to prosecute. In other words, they are using a form of the insanity plea that some lawyers will use to get their client off while knowing full well their client is fine.

2) The Special Council made all of this up in order to, once again, provide cover for not prosecuting Biden. This would be like what happened with Clinton where the facts as known by the DOJ were enough to prosecute but they declined based on some made up "intent" explanation.

3) Biden is in fact that far gone.

That Biden was, that same day put out in front of the press, suggests that item one is a strong likelihood.  I've already pointed out that Biden is, at minimum in the early stages of Alzheimer's. I didn't think he'd get past year one because I thought Dems had more decency than that. So here we are in 2024. That Biden mixed up two leaders and colors is not a big deal. Seriously. The image painted by the prosecutor would have us expecting far worse a performance.

Item three brings many important questions to mind, first of which is, who exactly is running the country. Clearly Biden would be a figurehead who does what he is told by whoever is wielding the actual power. This is, how do they say it? Undemocratic. Whoever would be wielding actual power was not elected by the people to do so. Nor were they elevated to such a position through constitutional means.

Secondly, If Biden is that far gone, there should be calls and moves to invoke the 25th Amendment. We know that such a move was considered for Trump. Those responsible and empowered to do this would be shirking their constitutional duty by allowing Biden to continue as president. 

If item one is the case, then Biden's own performance and claims to the contrary would and should be enough for the prosecutor to reverse his decision (assuming that is possible), I don't see how that triggers double jeopardy since Biden was never charged with a crime to begin with. Of course that would presume that item two is not true (as well).

However it turns out, the report would provide cover for the DNC should they decide to replace Biden on the ballot for 2024.

Undocumented Americans?

Sen. Chris Murphy: Congress “has failed to deliver for the people we care about most, the undocumented Americans in this country.” pic.twitter.com/UJjehYiFr1

— Immigration Reform Law Institute (@IRLILaw) February 8, 2024

I don't know which is worse. That he called illegal aliens "Undocumented Americans" or that he /Dems care about them "the most".

I mean, we know Republican Inc. have members that feel the same way but GOT DAMN, they know better than to say this kind of bullshit.

Watch African-Americans still vote for these folks 90+ percent. 

Yes The President Is Not Immune...

 But that's not actually the point.

Lets get this out of the way. The president of the United States can be tried for the same crimes you or I can be. That includes if he is in office. This is obvious on it's face. What a president has is, like police officers, qualified immunity. There is a higher bar of presumed innocence given to the police given the very nature of the job. Even then, police can, and are, held to account.

Similarly POTUS has wide latitude when exercising his duties. That latitude is not immunity.  An obvious example is that if a president decided to break into a person's home and kill them. That is breaking and entry and murder. Whether he is POTUS at the time is irrelevant.

Since this is all very obvious, why are his lawyers going through this? There are two answers I can think of:

1) The usual delay tactics: Lawyers will make motions, etc. in order to buy their client time. This time could result in the charges being dropped or any other number of circumstances that are favorable to their client. If your client is guilty of the crime they are accused of, these tactics buy time before the inevitable trip to jail.

2) They are setting up other officials, Democrat officials in particular. See, if the court rules that government officials are not immune from prosecution of crimes while they are in office or acting in an official capacity, There are a LOT of officials that would be in legal jeopardy. As I mentioned in my last post, all these sanctuary cities are in clear violation of federal law. If they try to argue that they were acting in their official capacities, well precedent would say "too bad". Not that Republicans actually have the balls to put this to the test, but the possibility would be there.

All that aside, what I'm bothered by is the accepting of the terms. The legal team seems to be accepting the framing of the prosecution:

Their argument in that regard has three main planks: First, that Trump’s actions amount to “official acts” in his role as president and are therefore not prosecutable. Second, that any prosecution of Trump would excessively constrain future presidents and invite partisan prosecutions once they left office. And third, that a president cannot be convicted by the criminal courts if he or she has been acquitted by Congress in impeachment proceedings regarding the same conduct.

The actual issue is WHAT Trump is being charged with, not whether he can be charged with anything. Perhaps I don't understand lawyering, but my contention is that the charges themselves are bogus and should never have been brought because they criminalize constitutionally protected behavior by trying to criminalize legal speech of THIS person.  Further they criminalize the stated constitutional right to petition the government. This right to petition includes the president. Lastly it attempts to use the heckler's veto in the form of alleged "insurrectionists" threat that Trump should have known about and thus not spoken.

These are ridiculous charges and THAT is what SCOTUS should rule unanimously about should it reach them.

As for the immunity argument, I think those thinking Trump should have such immunity should step back and think of what they are saying. Do you really want a president to not have to consider the law when going about his duties? I sure don't.  As far as I'm concerned executive disregard of the law IS a large part of the problem!

We Don't Need New Laws

 Various Dem legislators and media mouth pieces spent the day yesterday talking about how they have a "bipartisan" bill to secure the border and send money to Ukraine and Israel. It was the biggest show of nonsense we have witnessed possibly since the response to COVID.

One of the things that Dems do is "never let a crisis go to waste". Create a crisis and when the people say "do something", government agents then go about expanding their power. It's an old trick and it continues to work. This bill was nothing more than  Democrats taking yet another inch on their quest for the metaphorical mile.

Lets get this out of the way first: There is no need for any laws. Period. We have all the laws already on the books. The problem isn't the law, it is the non-enforcement thereof. The "crisis" is not the numbers. The crisis is the unwillingness to do what the law demands. It is the unwillingness of those in charge to do their jobs. It is a crisis of voters not holding their represantives to account. It is a crisis of parts of America holding the other in such contempt that they literally do not care what happens to them if it gets in the way of their showing how "good" they are. 

Lastly, it is a crisis on communist agents to destroy America. Period.

It is already within the power of the president of the United States to declare "no entry" to any class of people. It is not subject to judicial review. This is why when SCOUTS interfered with Trump's power to do what has been called the Muslim ban, they should have been ignored just as Texas is currently defying the Feds.

It is already the law of the land that aiding persons to enter or stay illegally in the US is a crime. Yet there are actual government agencies along with multiple private parties engaging in this clearly illegal behavior. None of them have faced prosecution even though they have put their name to paper. Trump had the opportunity to go after these people but failed to do so. Now they are doing to him (RICO charges) what he should have done to them on year one of his presidency.

All these jurisdictions providing shelter and money to illegal aliens are in violation of the law. Period. Each of them should be seeing prosecutions. Perp walk entire city councils if need be. 

Right now Democrats are arguing in court that Trump committed crimes while in office and that him holding office doesn't provide him with immunity. Fine. That then applies down to the members of NY and Chicago city councils. Let's go and arrest these people and put them on trial.

If Trump is guilty of insurrection because he vigorously made claims that the election was stolen from him and made a speech, then how can these sanctuary city leaders who have openly stated their defiance of law any less guilty?

Enough letting these Dems get away with that which they would do to Republicans or any other party that gets in their way. Knuckle up and defy their unlawful acts and put them on the dock when the opportunity arises or sit down and let strong spine people do the job.

Lastly, the idea that security of the US Border is somehow connected to sending money the US doesn't have to Ukraine, who, I remind the reader, broke it's treaty with Russia. Not to mention the US instigated removal of it's [Russia friendly] president, OR the US's continued eastward push via NATO even though there were promises not to do that.

And why is any money going to Israel? It's a relatively wealthy country that can defend itself (as we've seen via the rubble that is currently vast parts of Gaza).

It's pretty clear that to Democrats and a large portion of Republicans,  the American citizen is just a sucker to be squeezed for money to send to someone else. Too many citizens are fine with that though. If they weren't the last few elections (and this primary) would have gone much differently.

RTO and Unpaid Time

Fortune.com has a piece out about how much RTO costs employees. They found that employees are resentful over the RTO. They should be.

2020 was an eye opening year for a lot of people. We found out that our so called legal protections against government overreach had an "emergency" loophole that apparently allowed gave the state ownership over your body. 50% of left leaning citizens revealed themselves to be willing to jail people who asserted such things as "my body my choice". Some willing to advocate for firing squads to enforce vaccine injections.

But also, with the lockdowns many people actually noticed just how much they spend going TO and FROM work. They realized how much actual unpaid time went into goign to the office, And it wasn't small change. 

Consider this. Say you have a 1hr commute by car. You don't wake up and jump in the car and head to work. No. You wake up and get dressed and then get in the car. So that hour commute is ACTUALLY 2 hours. If you eat in the morning, then there's time for that as well. And all of that is unpaid AND is NOT your leisure personal time it is time spent preparing to work which you cannot avoid. You don't get paid for that.

Then at the end of the day you commute BACK home. Often that drive is longer than the one coming in because EVERYBODY is leaving at the same time unlike the morning commute which you can decide to come in earlier or later than the main crowd. So there's another say 1.5 hours gone. Get home and change clothes and that's 2 hours. So just in preparation to go to work, go to work, leave work, change out of work clothes, you have nearly 4 hours of unpaid time. Fully one half of your "on the clock" time and if ADDED to "on the clock" time, is nearly 12 hours in "job related activities" in which you only get paid for 8.

Any company offering a 50% raise to RTO?

So employees having done this analysis rightfully are objecting to that.

In addition, now that employees are freed from the commute, they can actually get 8 hours of sleep without changing their bed time to 9PM. That has massive health benefits.

Those who have school age children are able to see them off or maybe even TAKE their children to school (a place that is quickly becoming a groomer infested nest of vipers) rather than do the latch-key thing. Children can come home from school to a parent rather than an empty house.

This is a great psychological benefit to children AND parents.

People, freed of time spend commuting can use that time to get healthy. Instead of commuting they can run, bike, walk, weight train or whatever else.

Healthier employees cost less.

Then there is food. I "brown bag". I have been for decades. There was a time I paid for lunch. Total money waste. Yeah, tasted good and I gained weight. A  lot of weight but it was a financial disaster. Staying home makes less of a difference for me but for those buying expensive cafeteria food or from delis, the savings can be quite large.

Then there is the clothes situation. Rather than a wardrobe of dress clothes that often has to be dry cleaned, all you need is two shirts or blouses, a blazer and tie. Zoom calls only require "professionalism" from the chest up.  The savings on clothes is also HUGE.

So overall, RTO demands are companies asking for employees to once again pay their employers in order to come to work. If these companies were serious, they would at a minimum compensate their employees for all the time required to RTO. Even then that doesn't compensate for the activities one can partake of when at home (or whatever location).

You Get What You Voted For

 So this morning I see that Governor Hochul announced that she secured reparations for victims of the Holocaust and their descendants. 

 

Now I don't know if "secured" means they got private organizations to put up money or something like that. In such a case the state of NY would be merely facilitating the funds (which I have issues with as well).  It could also mean that taxpayer money was "secured". Which would be faar worse.

Either way, why is the state of NY "securing" compensation for Jews in America for an act committed by a sovereign state, Germany, some near 80 years ago?

Of course some black folk on X were annoyed because black folks in NY got a "commission" to study compensation for slavery and Jim Crow. The partner argument being that these were things done by the US to US citizens (now if not then) which would be far more relevant than the actions of Germans.

To them I say, you get exactly what you voted for.

Hochul beat Republican Lee Zeldin by way of 90% black votes.

 

While Zeldin’s law and order campaign made inroads with once blue-leaning Asian, Jewish and Latino voters, black voters were Hochul’s firewall in southeast Queens, central Brooklyn, Harlem and parts of the Bronx, the analysis done by The Post found

Hochul garnered a staggering 90% or more votes in many of the city’s predominantly Afro-American and Afro-Caribbean districts — the same working and middle class voters who propelled Mayor Eric Adams last year.

So, by this reading, just about every other demographic split their vote, Hence making them parties worth courting, except blacks who then are largely responsible for putting this woman in office, who then gets compensation money for...

Checks notes...

Jews.

Y'all deserve that smack in the face and knife in the back.

"

“Oh, absolutely. Oh, definitely the black community elected Kathy Hochul governor,” said state Assemblywoman Inez Dickens. In Dickens’ 70th Assembly District, residents delivered 27,968 votes for Hochul, and just 2,287 for Zeldin.

According to Dickens, Zeldin is too closely associated with former President Donald Trump for black voters — and isn’t seen as a moderate in the mold of former three-term GOP Gov. George Pataki. Trump endorsed Zeldin just weeks before the Nov. 8 election.

“If Zeldin was a Pataki Republican, he would have done better,” the Harlem political veteran said. “He was considered a Trumper by black voters. That was a very, very big part of it.”"

Orange man bad. And anyone who is in same party. Where's my reparations money? 

Meanwhile, speed cameras supposedly intended to protect school children and only to be active during school hours, pop up like weeds after a rainstorm all over Queens and Brooklyn taxing black folks for driving on streets they lived on for decades.

You know they don't have those things in Nassau and Suffolk county. You know they don't have those in Westchester or other northern counties.

They are taxing YOUR black behind to drive in YOUR neighborhood on some "think of the children" nonsense.

That's what you voted for. Enjoy the taxing. Enjoy watching others "get theirs" and watch the "migrants" get theirs....out of your pocket.