Look at the photo on the Trump rally in NC and you tell me what's lacking.
Saturday, August 6, 2016
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
Review by Reginald Kaigler
Jason Derulo's 2015 album "Everything is 4" seem crafted for the pop charts. Many of the songs can be play in nightclubs as originals or as a remix of some kind. Many of the songs make my head rock, but there isn't much substance. In a year that has given up albums such as Kendrick Lamar's "To Pimp a Butterfly", I expect more from hip hop (and pop).
At times, Jason Derulo's music shines as bright as his "So You Think You Can Dance" persona. When he sings, he projects a charisma that pulls you into the music. The album is more pop than r&b and is perfect for a drive to work. His song with JLo is a wonderful, breezy pop track ("Try Me") that's worth replaying over and over.
Many of the songs are catchy and upbeat, but a few songs seem awkward and immature. For example, his duet with K Michelle in "Love Like That" feels silly and forced. Listening to him sing about sleeping with his best friend's girlfriend feels insincere.
His duet with Julia Michael in "Trade Hearts" is a joy to hear. It's a beautiful duet that belongs on the Top 40 Charts. It also makes me want to break out and dance one of those breath-taking Mia Michaels' contemporary dance number, except I have no dancing abilities and I would probably look like a flopping whale.
By the way, Mia Michaels is a choreographer on the TV show "So You Think You Can Dance".
Anyway, Derulo proves that he can still carry his own weight with "Cheyenne". The song "Painkiller" is awful. The lyrics in the song are tasteless and pedestrian. The tracks "Pull Up" and "Get Ugly" almost demand that you get off your ass and dance. Overall, the album is a strong effort. "Everything is 4" deserves a score of 7 out 10. If you enjoy "Want to want Me", you'll enjoy the album.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
By Reginald Kaigler (DEMCAD)
What's happening in Connecticut is not only unconstitutional, but downright irresponsible. Following the Sandy Hook shooting in December 2012, the CT legislature decided to ignore the second amendment and restrict gun rights by creating a state registry system that would require every so called "assault rifle" and high capacity magazine in the state to be registered by the end of Dec. 31st, 2013. This draconian law was passed by Democrats under the claim that it would make the public safer.
But there was never any evidence that such a law could ever increase public safety. For years, gun control advocates claimed that the pro-second amendment crowd was 'paranoid' to assume that registration would lead to confiscation. Despite the fact that there's a long list of historical precedents that show that governments often use registration as a perquisite to confiscation, the gun control crowd often lied about the ramifications of government forcing people to register their rifles.
Connecticut Gun Owners Ignore Registration Deadline
In Connecticut, gun owners have been forced to into a corner. The government has made it clear that they have two options: register their firearms or risk being charged with a felony. Remember, the new law requires that every magazine that held over 10 rounds must be registered. The deadline has passed and many people registered their guns. But the registration is very low. Thousands of gun owners were late in registering and therefore received letters from the State Police warning them to turn in their guns. Because the registration letters arrived late, the government now knows that they have unregistered rifles and this puts these particular gun owners into a very bad spot.
What should they do?
This maybe a good time for them to visit an attorney. Some people may choose to hide their weapons. And if the police come looking for these gun owners, we could see the beginning of a very nasty trend. No one wants to see a confrontation at someone's doorstep. The police may decide to go after these people or just ignore the list. Whatever these gun owners do, they shouldn't break any additional laws. For example, although it is legal for the police to lie to you, it is illegal for you to lie to the police. So don't provide false statements to the police.
CT: Those who missed gun registration deadline getting letters from state police
The U.S. Constitution vs. Legislative law
I came across an interesting video on Youtube that featured a citizen of CT calling an officer and asking if he was going to enter gun owners homes and confiscate their weapons if a GUN OWNER REFUSED TO TURN IN AN UNREGISTERED GUN.
The most fascinating aspect of the phone conversation was the officer's declaration that he didn't want to talk about the constitution. the offficer insisted that he would follow the law and would only consider it unconstitutional if the U.S. Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. This is interesting because officers are sworn to unhold the U.S. Constititution. Here's my question to that officer and any officer: If Congress passed a law ordering the indefinite detaining of all Black Americans and the U.S. Supreme Court declared it constitutional, would you still support such a measure?
It seems to me at some point, the police must decide that protecting the people is a higher priority than serving politicians. I understand that most officers are not psychotic assholes on a power trip. Most are normal people who just want to do their jobs. But I think the law enforcement community needs to have this very important discussion.
I doubt the Sate Police will start to target gun owners, but if there's a domestic violence call, the police may have a reason to search a home and therefore use the gun law against a gun owner.
How do you think this law will be enforced?
Friday, December 27, 2013
Remember the ATF gun running scandal?
The scandal centered around the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tabacco and Firearms) program Operational Fast and Furious which began in 2009. Based in the Phoenix, AZ field office, the ATF encouraged American gun dealers to sell guns to Mexican criminals so the bureau could track them and take out a cartel. Yet, there was no method of tracing the weapons and they ended up being used in a myriad of murders in Mexico. Thanks to ATF, 2,000 weapons hit the streets of Mexico and two of them were used at the murder scene of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
ATF agent and whistleblower, John Dodson blew the lid off of the entire situation in 2011. The ATF even stopped him from releasing a book on the topic. Now, Dodson is saying that the Mexicans thugs that killed Brian Terry, were sent to the border to do a drug rip off with information provided by the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency). But it all went bad. According to Dodson, these guys were known criminals who were armed by the ATF and directed by the FBI.
And this is the government that wants more gun control?
1. Why hasn't Attorney General Eric Holder been fired?
2. Why was the DEA, FBI and ATF supporting these murderous criminals?
3. Why didn't we find this out sooner?
Read the article...
Thursday, December 19, 2013
By Reginald Kaigler (DEMCAD)
I maybe the only man in America that hasn't seen the hit A&E reality television show "Duck Dynasty." But I really don't watch as much TV as I used to. Recently, one of its stars, Phil Robertson, was removed from the show after blasting an anti-gay rant in GQ magazine.
“...start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men... It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical...”
From GQ Magazine.
Needless to say, A&E released a statement rejecting Robertson's ignore rant. The man wantonly used his religion to justify his anti-gay rhetoric and I completely disagree with his message. I'm heterosexual, but I don't think any of us should be judging anyone based on their sexual orientation. If someone wants a dick up their ass, so be it. it's none of my business.
Now the question is should Robertson be fired for expressing an opinion that his employer fully rejects? A lot of people are calling this a violation of the second amendment. But it's clearly not. Robertson has the freedom to say whatever he wants, but the network reserves the right to fire him for whatever legal reason they want. And in this case, the network executives felt that he embarrassed them and hurt their brand.
If I were the head executive, would I have fired Robertson? If I were a corporate office manager, I would fire an employee for making a public statement like this.
However, in this case, they made a deal with him for a reality show. They knew what they were getting. They hired him so they could make money off of Roberston being himself. And now they're firing him for being himself.
So in this context, no, I wouldn't fire him. The comment was more ignorant than hateful. He's a reflection of what is preached about throughout the bible.
“...don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right...”
I'm not a Christian, but most Americans claim to be. So why is political correctness is such contrast with what's written in the bible?
The producers had to know that putting devoted Christians on the network would mean that at least some of them would share this viewpoint. And if so, why fire one for speaking out. Did the network hope that they would be politically correct, because of the large sum of cash they were making?
But it didn't happen. So why did they really fire him? Did they fire him because of what he said or because he actually said it publicly.
Although, I don't agree with his foolish comments, I definitely respect the fact that he wasn't willing to sell out. He spoke his mind and didn't seem to care if it was politically correct. And with this much money on the line, he may have been the only guy in America who was willing to do that.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
By Reginald Kaigler (DEMCAD)
Although, the media is still celebrating strong retail sales in November, the numbers are clear that the most important shopping days were indeed a disaster.
Census Bureau said November sales rose 0.7% throughout November (which includes Black Friday), but the biggest shopping days of the year were very disappointing.
Retail sales raise hopes for 2014
Retail sales in the brick and mortar stores during the Black Friday weekend (including Thanksgiving, Black Friday, Saturday and Sunday) were down nearly 3% nationwide with a loss of $1.7 billion from last year. the average amount of money spent by an American during the four day weekend dropped to $407.02 from $423.55. The total sales dropped to $57.4 billion, drop 3% from last year’s $59.1 billion.
Gloomy Numbers for Holiday Shopping’s Big Weekend
Even the seemingly optimistic report was misleading. Here's a section of USAToday's article,
"....A "temporary reprieve from pump prices, and a lingering wealth effect from rising home prices and record-high equity markets have helped support consumer confidence and consumer spending,'' Piegza wrote in a note to clients. "Going forward, however, temporary factors can only do so much.''
The growth was highly unbalanced, said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial. Cuts in food-stamp benefits held down food sales, and apparel sales are so weak that clothing prices are falling amid a highly promotional holiday season.
"People are buying big things — but they aren't buying clothes,'' Swonk said. "Grocers are complaining.''..."
Tim Mullaney, USA TODAY
These numbers can't be used to justify Dow 16,000.
Last week, jobless claims surged by 68,000 to 368,000 new people filing for initial unemployment benefits. I don't find this to be very alarming, because the only reason why the numbers drop is because of seasonal jobs. Simply put, there weren't any jobs to begin with.
Initial jobless claims surge to 2-month high amid holiday volatility
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
By Reginald Kaigler (DEMCAD)
Are they serious? According to market Watch, central banks are considering a negative deposit rate. Basically, the banks store their money in central banks such as the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank and get pay an interest rate. At least, that's the way it works now. With a negative rate, the banks would have to pay to park money in the central banks.
"The European Central Bank is reportedly considering such a move, and officials at the Federal Reserve keep bringing up the idea.... That means banks would have to pay the ECB to lend to it overnight, an unprecedented move for the bank..."
So the rate for the European Central Bank would go from 0.1% to NEGATIVE 0.1%. What the hell is going on in the financial markets?