As I write this in October of 2017, I hate to admit that I know several people who are living what I call “undocumented marriages”.
It works like this. A man and a woman meet, fall in love, and get engaged. They tell everyone they’re getting married. They have engagement parties. They set a date for their wedding . . . but they never really intend to get married. Some of them wear wedding rings. Many of them don’t care what others think and don’t wear them.
Here’s why. They can get a lot more welfare handouts if they’re not married. A common pattern is the man makes a good amount of money. Whether he’s blue collar or white collar. Whether he has a GED or a PhD. Whether he’s an independent consultant or a company man. He makes too much money for his family to qualify for big gov’t handouts if he and his woman tie the knot.
By not legally getting married, he can make the money, buy the house, buy the new cars, etc. She, by not being married, and unemployed or underemployed, can rake in the welfare while still enjoying the fruits of his labor.
These people are brilliant. Royal a$$holes, but brilliant. They are playing the system and and they are coming out winners.
They live like husband and wife in their private lives. They share a home. They have children together. She uses a “married” name for everything but legal purposes. However, in the eyes of the government, he’s not her husband. He’s her landlord and the gov’t is helping to pay her rent (to him). They have kids but, because she’s unemployed and single, she gladly welcomes the handouts through WIC, free or subsidized child care, free school meals, etc. As a single parent, even though she’s actually living with the father of her children, she can usually get free or subsidized college for herself or her children. She gets taxpayer subsidized gov’t health insurance because she’s poverty stricken in the eyes of the gov’t. She usually has little or no income. She files for EITCs every year and they take a nice vacation when the check arrives.
Like I said. It’s brilliant. Annoying as hell to us taxpayers, but brilliant.
I wish I was kidding. I’m not. I (unfortunately) know several couples living this way (including some extended family). The stigma of “out of wedlock” children is gone. There is no societal compulsion to actually make their marriage legal. Several of the couples have openly discussed their decision to have an “undocumented marriage” and have zero guilt or remorse, or see any ethical dilemma. When I’ve questioned the fairness of what they’re doing, meaning expecting people like me to pay for their existence when they can do it themselves, they confidently say there’s nothing wrong with it. I’ve looked into it. I can’t find any evidence that it’s illegal to do this. If you can, let me know.
20+ years ago, I was deciding on which law school I wanted to attend so my husband and I went to visit a few of them. Financial aid was a big deal for me. At every school, in addition to meeting the Dean of Admissions and getting a tour, I spoke with a financial aid counselor. I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth so I was paying for all of it. I needed to know my options. I will never forget what one of the financial aid counselors told me.
Unfortunately, I was planning to go to law school as a married person. That meant I was screwed in the financial aid arena. My husband would work while I went to law school. He didn’t make much, but it was enough to make me unqualified for any grants or other types of help. She apologized and gave me the same recommendation she gave to all of her married applicants, “GET A DIVORCE”. By getting a divorce, I would be going to law school as an unmarried, unemployed woman. I would have a ton of handouts coming my way. I asked her if that was ethical. She said it didn’t matter. It was legal. Then, she said, we could live together the entire time and we could get remarried after I was out of school. She said we didn’t need to even make a big deal about it. Just quietly file for divorce, I wouldn’t need to tell my family or friends, then have a simple marriage after three years of school. Nobody would need to know I was unmarried. I could still let everyone think we were married. It would just be so I could get all the gov’t handouts.
Needless to say, just because it was “legal” didn’t mean it was ethical and I walked out of that office incredibly mad and I scratched that school off the list. I ended up at another school. I ended up staying married. I ended up taking out loans instead of taking gov’t handouts. To this day it still makes me mad to know so many people take advantage of the system with this “undocumented marriage” trick.
So, tell me, what should we do to fix this problem? Can it be fixed?
I don’t like most Executive Orders. I certainly don’t like the growing abuse of using an Executive Order to circumvent the Legislature and upturn the delicate balance of power. The very balance of power that protects our country from a single person in the White House. When Obama started using Executive Orders to get what he wanted, I was concerned.
When I voiced my concern to liberals I was told, “Sit down. Shut up. You’re a racist.”
When I voiced by concern over his threat to use his pen and his phone I was told, “Sit down. Shut up. You’re a racist. He’s your President.”
When I voiced my concern over the large number of Executive Orders I was told, “Sit down. Shut up. You’re a racist. He’s getting things done.”
When I voiced my concern over his continued use of Executive Orders I was told, “Sit down. Shut up. You’re a racist. He has every right to do this as President.”
When I voiced my concern that the delicate balance of power was broken when Obama was “making” the laws instead of the Legislature “passing” the laws I was told, “Sit down. Shut up. You’re a racist. He wouldn’t have to do this if the Legislature would help him get this done.”
When I said this was an abuse of power I was told, “Sit down. Shut up. You’re a racist. Bush did it, too.”
When I said it was wrong when any President abused this power I was told, “Sit down. Shut up. You’re a racist. You’re only saying this because you don’t like this President.”
When I said Bush shouldn’t have done this either I was told, “Sit down. Shut up. You’re a racist. You’re lying because you hate what Obama’s doing.”
When I said NO PRESIDENT should use Executive Orders for anything except the most exigent circumstances I was told, “Sit down. Shut up. You’re a racist. You don’t know what you’re talking about.”
When I asked how the liberals would feel when the pen and phone were in another person’s hand I was told, “Sit down. Shut up. You’re a racist.”
Now, the pen and the phone are in another person’s hand and the liberals are suddenly outraged over the “abuse” of Executive Orders.
Don’t say I didn’t try to warn them.
Imagine it’s November of 2016. Everyone who can legally vote is given the opportunity to go to a restaurant and pick one sandwich. The sandwich that the most people order is the one everyone will be forced to eat for 4 years.
You do not need to go to a restaurant. You can decide to stay home. But, if you do, you have no input into the sandwich everyone will be forced to eat.
Instead, let’s assume you decide to go to the restaurant. On the menu the are only two options:
- A Turd Burger with Sprinkles and a Side of Rainbow Unicorn Farts.
- A Great Cheezy Burger with a Side of Rainbow Skittles.
That’s it. Two options.
Now, if you don’t want a turd burger or a cheezy burger, you can cop an attitude and insist on ordering a Cruz Burger, a Bernie Burger, a Carson Burger, or any other burger. However, if you chose a burger not on the menu, you have zero chance of your non-menu burger winning. Even if a bunch of other people also order the same non-menu burger; you can ask for it, but it will never be served. I promise you. Even if a bunch of people order it, there will never be enough orders because too many people will only pick between the two burgers on the menu.
You can also go on a hunger strike and refuse to pick off the menu and decide to order nothing. It’s your prerogative to decide to pick nothing. However, when the winning burger is served, you’ll still be forced to eat it. For four long years.
On the other hand, you can pick one of the two menu choices. You can still be completely disappointed that your favorite burger isn’t on the menu. You can still complain that the burgers on the menu have the wrong bun, a crappy side dish, and lackluster condiments. You can still lament the two choices. You don’t have to be thrilled about it. You just need to make sure your order is counted for the burger you’ll have to eat for four years.
I get it. But like it or not, there are two options. If restaurants really operated as described above, they’d all go out of business. Unfortunately, our political system currently works that way and it’s not going out of business any time soon.
As far as I’m concerned, although I think other burgers would have been better, I have to pick the more palatable sandwich. Although four years of a Great Cheezy Burger isn’t my dream option; I’d rather have four years of cheezy instead of four years of Turd Burgers with Sprinkles and a Side of Rainbow Unicorn Farts.
Think about it. Order wisely.
I posted a comment on a friend’s FB page and I thought I’d replicate it here and add a few more comments.
“We are facing four years of chaos or four years of Marxism. You are 100% correct. We have a chance of surviving chaos. We have no chance of surviving Marxism. The election is about salvaging the few existing freedoms we still have and recovering the freedoms the overreaching government has taken away. With Hillary we lose the chance of ever returning to the country our founders envisioned where the gov’t was beholden to the individual . . . not the other way around. Liberals think the gov’t needs to protect us from ourselves and the manipulative corporations. Liberals don’t stop to realize the gov’t is, by far, the largest and most manipulative corporation of all time. It’s quite sad, really. I am one of the “hold my nose and vote” individuals. I did not select Trump while standing in a voting booth during the primary. However, I will vote for the individual most likely to prevent Hillary from ascending to the throne. If she stacks the Supreme Court, it’s game over. Game. Over.”
I truly feel this way. I can’t comprehend the GOP individuals who are so offended with Trump they are voicing their support for Hillary. I can understand stating that you will not be voting because you have no confidence in Trump. I can understand stating that you will be voting for the person you wanted in the primary, e.g. Cruz, Fiorina, Carson. I can understand you saying you will be voting for another party’s candidate, such as Libertarian, Constitutional, etc. What I cannot fathom is a GOP person voting for Hillary. Unless . . . they are just another cog in the machinations of the progressive elite. And, honestly, that just might be the case.
See, a whole lot of us are pretty sick and tired of seeing the GOP (allegedly a pro-freedom, pro-individual responsibility, pro-smaller government) party frequently align with the liberal, progressive, pro-socialism, closet-commie left. I know the media is Hillary’s lap dog. But we don’t expect the GOP to be there, too. Hell, if I thought I might be at risk of having myself or my family join the ranks of the conveniently dead people around the Clintons . . . I might be swayed myself. However, I like to think I’d take the higher ground and do the right thing. Too many in the GOP are showing their liberal slips. Too many in the GOP don’t do the right thing.
I have been a conservative since I was young. I did not get swayed by the liberal bastions known as college and law school – although the pressure to adopt liberal ideals was overwhelming in both environments. I quickly learned the difference between earning an A and a C in Constitutional Law classes was answering the questions from the perspective of a communist – the uber-left professor preferred it that way regardless of his insistence otherwise. I have not faltered. I took the lower grade by standing my Constitutional ground. It was quite sad to watch it happen. So, while I have not faltered; the GOP has. GOP leadership, GOP politicians, and GOP pundits have. All of them.
Like it or not, Trump is our option. If you think someone else – honestly – has the chance of beating Hillary, let me know who they are. Because I will seriously consider giving them my vote. Until then, it’s chaos or Marxism. I’ll take the chaos.
I’ve noticed a growing trend in public schools. It’s no longer politically correct to have any type of honor society or honor roll. It all stems from the “everyone gets a trophy” mentality crafted by a pathetic society that is more concerned about people feeling left out than recognizing anything that dares to look like “exceptionalism”. There’s one article that’s getting a lot of attention these days, but I’ve been aware of this trend for a few years. I call bullsh*t on this trend.
There is nothing wrong with pointing out the students who achieved good grades. I’m not saying this because I was a member of any national honor group nor am I saying this because I was a frequent flyer on the honor roll. I was never in any formal society and my presence on the honor roll was occasional. I didn’t get to wear a special tassel at graduation . . . maybe I should demand a do-over. Nah, I’d never do that. I’m not an idiot.
I’m saying this because there’s nothing wrong with recognizing people who do well. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out the students who worked extra hard. There’s nothing worrisome about applauding intelligence. There’s nothing offensive about lauding good grades. There’s nothing obnoxious about rewarding the students who sacrificed other things to do well in class.
I have two kids. The overachiever and the underachiever.
My daughter is a textbook overachiever. She is an extraordinarily diligent student. She does all of her homework without being asked, she studies for tests (more than once), she throws herself into research assignments, she writes papers again and again until they are just right, she pays attention in class, she is self motivated to study beyond what is required, she reads instead of goofing off, she is an exemplary student. She does everything she needs to do to do well in school. She is on the honor roll. She earned every single one of her grades. She earned her place on the honor roll.
My son is a textbook underachiever. I’m not saying that he isn’t smart. He’s incredibly intelligent and has a creative streak his sister doesn’t have. In a side by side comparison, you’d be hard pressed to figure out which one is “smarter” than the other. What is easy to see is he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about school. He regularly “forgets” to bring home homework assignments, he often refuses to do his homework, he almost never studies for tests, he is often distracted in class – preferring to wage wars inside his desk with pencil erasers and other items, he hates school and has no interest in studying, he only reads if we threaten to take away electronic devices, he is a terrible student. He does very little he needs to do to do well in school. He is not on the honor roll. We celebrated a small victory today when we saw his report card included a recommendation that he be promoted to the next grade (his father and I were seriously concerned). He also earned every single one of his grades. He did not earn a place on the honor roll.
In the anti-exceptionalism world of liberals who demand equal outcomes for everyone, my daughter’s hard work and achievements would be ignored. They would be ignored because the educators wouldn’t want someone like my son to feel bad about not receiving the same honor.
Here’s where I want you to pay close attention. Seriously, lean in a little closer. I want to make sure you hear what I have to say.
HE DOESN’T DESERVE TO BE ON THE HONOR ROLL. And I’m OK with that.
SHE DOES DESERVE TO BE ON THE HONOR ROLL. And I’m OK with that.
I am perfectly OK with him not getting a trophy. He doesn’t deserve it. He didn’t earn it.
I am perfectly OK with him feeling left out. If he wants to feel differently, he can make the necessary changes to achieve the honor.
Let those deserving honoring be honored.
It’s time to go back to giving recognition only to those that deserve it.
When I think of Democrats at Christmas, I usually think of Scrooge. The Scrooge before he realized the error of his ways. Greedy, money-hungry, selfish. Bah humbug.
But even Democrats celebrate Christmas. Or whatever version of Christmas they find acceptable. I’m sure there are a bunch of liberal Atheists who think Mary (being young and not needing to be burdened with a child) should have stopped by her local Planned Parenthood (or whatever they called them back then) and taken care of the problem.
A few years ago, I decided to give “Deck the Halls” some new words. Words well suited for our friends of liberal persuasion. A song they can proudly sing at the top of their lungs. With gusto. I usually try to make songs rhyme when doing parodies. However, liberals never like to follow the rules and do the right thing . . . so this doesn’t rhyme.
I thought I’d share.
The list of offensive aspects of the White House Correspondence Dinner (#WHCD) is long. It’s the D.C. version of the Hollywood celebrity award shows. And based upon some of the pictures I saw, it’s just as vapid. Look at the list of invitees and it’s more about celebrities than journalism. It gives important people (or self-important as the case may be) an opportunity to gather together, wear very expensive clothes, and give awards to each other. Give me enough time and a nice cup of coffee and I’ll gladly share my thoughts on what all bugs me about those events.
I had a late dinner at a restaurant last night and I caught snippets of the live coverage on one of their TVs. I originally thought the woman who sat there looking at her cell phone while the National Anthem was being played to be the most patently offensive thing about the event. I’m glad a camera operator focused on her. Then again, he probably lost his job this morning. I hope all of America was as disheartened as I was at the sight of a woman on her phone. If the need to be on her phone wasn’t an emergency, and by that I mean life and limb instead of a hot news lead, her behavior was unacceptable.
I didn’t discover the thing I now find most offensive until after it was over, when I arrived home and stopped to read the Twitter feed for #WHCD and watched the news.
What do I now find to be the most offensive thing? The obsession with Michelle Obama’s hair. I’m no fan of Michelle, but I can’t believe a political party of self-proclaimed “feminists” would go so gaga over a woman’s hair style.
I thought her hair looked nice. Then again, it’s normal to find nice hair on any spouse of a world leader when attending a formal event. A pony tail and a baseball cap just wouldn’t have been appropriate. Even though I thought her hair looked nice, it’s just hair.
But don’t expect the same attitude from liberal women. For a bunch of ladies who demand judgment based upon their insides instead of their outsides, there is a hell of a lot of hubbub and hysteria over her “big and curly” look.
Type “michelle obama hair white house correspondents dinner 2015” into Google and you get over 17 million results. Seriously, folks? Seventeen MILLION?
It’s insane. Liberal women are asking if big curly hair is now back in style since Michelle wore it. Liberal women are saying Michelle was brave to take a risk with her hair. (Seriously? Selecting a hair style is an act of bravery?) Liberal women are wondering if it’s now OK to wear big curls gain. Web sites are saying to expect to see women with Michelle’s hair style at the office by Monday! Where the hell are all the feminists? Articles on web sites are calling her a “wonder woman” and saying she is “utter perfection” – because of her hair. Seriously, where are the feminists shooting down this appearance-based slobbering?
Here’s my response:
Dear liberal women: You do not need to wait for Michelle Obama to wear a certain hair style in order to wear it yourself. You are a woman. You can wear your hair any damn way you please. You do not need permission from an inhabitant of the white house. I can’t believe you’re asking if it’s now ok to wear “big and curly” hair. If you feel you need someone else to approve of hair styles . . . you are pathetic. This is what’s wrong with you liberal women. You say you’re independent then you look to someone in government, fashion, or entertainment to give you permission to look a certain way. Where are your feminists? I’m sure they’re out there, they’re just drowing in a sea of headlines proclaiming things like “Everyone’s in Love With The First Lady’s New Curls!” and “Michelle Obama Dons Curly Hair” and “Michelle Obama Looks Fierce”. What is wrong with you people? A nice hair style is not the final piece of being a real world “wonder woman” and it does not contribute to being “utter perfection”. You liberal women stay on your side of the fence and keep drooling over a hair style I bet was created by a stylist only affordable by the rich and famous. You liberal women stay on your side of the fence and keep asking if you can now wear your hair a certain way because the first lady donned it for an event. You liberal women stay on your side of the fence where you accuse conservatives of waging a war on women when you liberals obsess over what a woman wears on her head. I’ll stay over here on the conservative side of the fence where women don’t need permission or inspiration from politicians and celebrities to decide how to wear our hair. I’ll stay over here on the conservative side of the fence where women can acknowledge Michelle looked nice last night and leave it at that. Love, Me
After watching a few videos of Obama speaking about ISIS/ISIL and their unthinkable acts; it finally struck me. Obama is acting like a battered woman. (Or battered man, as the case may be when it comes to domestic violence.) We most often think in terms of battered women so, and in honor of Obama’s mom jeans, that’s the term I selected.
After graduating from law school, prior to my decision to get the hell out of the profession as a full time job, I strongly considered working as an attorney for groups providing services for battered women. One of the organizations put me through several interviews. For the final interview, I was to meet with the person who ran the program. As I entered her office, she greeted me and told me she had heard great things about me from my previous interviews with her staff. After a while, I figured the job was a done deal. Then, she asked me one more question.
Now, I don’t remember the specific words she used so I can’t give an exact quote; however, I can give you a version of the question that is very close to the original. Here’s what she said to me: “Imagine you are working with a women who has been the victim of domestic abuse several times. You have assisted her in obtaining a PFA order and she is now living in a secure shelter with her two kids. Several times, her injuries were so bad, she was in the ICU for several days. Every time she was injured, she returned home to her abuser. Except for the last time. She is now safe at a location where her abuser can not find her. Her children are safe and are comfortable in their temporary home where they play with other children of abuse victims. The organization has helped the woman get a job and she is saving her money to move into an apartment on her own.”
The question isn’t finished, but as she’s talking I’m listening intently and nodding my understanding. I’m waiting patiently for the actual question. Here’s the actual question she finally poses: “The woman calls you, after all of the help you have provided, and tells you she wants to return to her abuser. What do you do?”
My independent, individual-responsibility, make smart decisions, don’t be a fool mind knew just what I’d do. My answer was that I’d ask her why she wanted to return and then try to give her reasons as to why she might want to change her mind. I didn’t get the job. The woman stopped me right there and told me my answer was unacceptable. The correct answer was to give her 100% support for her decision to return. My jaw dropped. I asked for an explanation as to why. Her response was, it was more important to keep the woman’s trust by providing non-judgmental, 100% support for her decision than to try to save her life.
The woman then went on to explain that these women are so damaged, they can’t see their abuser for what they are. They think their abusers love them. They think things will be different this time. They think their abuser’s actions are because of something they (the victim) did wrong. They blame themselves for their abuser’s actions. In other words, they can’t think rationally. They can’t begin to fathom that something might actually be wrong with their abuser. They don’t see how people find fault with what their abusers do.
That’s not to say every victim of domestic abuse thinks that way, but my interviewer said it was seen often enough to be the default assumption on their part. The woman made her point and I respected it. She had more experience than I did; but, I still couldn’t see it her way. I could completely understand how repeated abuse could change a person and how they perceive their world and create their own reality. It was one of the reasons I wanted to help women regain their independence. However, it still didn’t change my mind about how I’d respond. Obviously, it wasn’t the job for me. I couldn’t, in good conscience, encourage a woman to return to that environment and take her children with her.
The more I think about it, the more I think Obama is acting like one of those victims of abuse. He can’t see ISIS for what they are. He thinks ISIS loves him. He thinks ISIS will act differently this time. He thinks ISIS’s actions are because of something the USA did wrong. Obama blames us for how ISIS is acting. He can’t think rationally. He can’t appreciate that the problem is with ISIS. Not with us.
One thing you see with many abuse victims is how they blame themselves and their imperfections for the actions of their abuser. The victim rationalizes things. The victim makes excuses for their abuser. The victim grow to believe their own imperfections are the reason for the abuse. But just as with abuse victims, even if we Americans aren’t perfect, that’s no excuse for ISIS to do the things it does.