There have been many articles and much shared words on blogs and throughout social media.  So I just humbly offer my thoughts into the pool of the many given.

This past week, Brendan Eich resigned as CEO of Mozilla as most of you are probably well aware.  He left over internal and external pressure, because in 2008 he donated to help Proposition 8 in California, a proposition which defines marriage between a man and a woman.

I find myself this week, agreeing with some gay rights activists on this story.  Sure we may not agree, but shutting anyone out is a very wrong thing to do.  We all have the right to free speech, to speak of our beliefs freely without being silenced.  That is what our founding fathers wanted for our nation, knowing that where they had come from, limiting speech was wrong.

One gay rights activist said this week that the actions taken by Mozilla and gay rights individuals makes them no better than the anti-gay rights campaigns of the past, working to shut up the opposition.  This is the wrong way to go about things.

Though I am a devout Catholic, and hold firm to my beliefs.  I still believe that we all in this nation should retain the right to whatever they believe.  Whether they be gay, straight, Catholic, Atheist.  Even CEO’s, business owners, store clerks and servers.  We all share the same rights to hold fast to our own beliefs.  Do I agree with everyone?  No.  But does that mean I should cut off their right to free speech?  Certainly not.

We must come to an understanding in this country that we are all created equal, it’s in the very words our founding fathers handed down to us in the Constitution.  Only when we wash away the stain of political correctness which has plagued this nation for years can we see each other clearly, and maybe then we can come to an understanding.

Political correctness get’s in the way of moving our nation forward.  It is a belief that is hurting the free speech that we have.  Shutting someone out because their words might ‘offend’ or ‘hurt’ an individuals or groups feelings is what brings us down.

Once we eradicate political correctness, it will help us take a step forward.

After all.  Free speech is there to protect the people we perceive as crazy or stupid.  If the crazy man on the corner no longer has a right to speak freely.  Then we have lost.

About these ads


Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania Senator and 2012 Presidential Candidate, is returning this week to Iowa.  A state which he won against eventual nominee Mitt Romney in a long fought race.  He will be in the state for a jam-packed 24 hours in which he will be holding a press gaggle with reporters and will be headlining a fundraiser for Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz who is running for Congress.

This busy day in Iowa comes just after Rick’s group Patriot Voices released a new web ad that goes after Pres. Obama, and as stated in their press release, that highlights how despite the dramatic events and foreign policy challenges our country is facing, President Obama seems to care more about becoming a pop culture icon than a serious Commander-in-Chief.”

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”//” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>


The ad does a very good job at hitting the presidents celebrity status that he has chosen to foster over his role of being Commander and Chief to this nation.  If you agree that we need to take foreign policy seriously, and our leaders especially need to protect our foreign interests, than please sign your name on the video page HERE.

It is important that we demand responsibility from our elected officials.  We are the people, the power that voted them into office, and they should take our demands very seriously.

Also, this Iowa stop helps further confirms suspicions that Rick Santorum is seriously considering running for President again in 2016.  And whether the national media realizes it yet or not, a Santorum candidacy could very well lead to a Santorum presidency.  There was another candidate who no one thought much of after he won 11 states, and then went on to become the next president of the United States.  And what was his name?

Ronald Reagan.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane at a news conference with Mayor Nutter in February. This month, Kane spoke to several dozen women in Philadelphia at a daylong training session put on by Emily's List, which aims to elect more Democratic women.

This month, news broke that Pennsylvania’s Attorney General Kathleen Kane, closed a case that had been conducted during Tom Corbett’s time as AG, that revealed several members of the state legislature that accepted bribes for votes and contracts.

Kane stated that the case was “poorly conceived, badly managed and tainted by racism”.  The racism she speaks of stems from the fact that the only legislators caught in the investigation are African-American.

Though Kane and her office state the reason for dropping case because it was racist and ill-conceived, will not fly for long.  The state of Pennsylvania voted for her in part because David Freed was caught up in the mess left behind Gov. Corbett with the unsolved Sandusky case.  It is a known fact that Pennsylvania don’t have a high tolerance for mismanaged and dropped cases that should be a priority.

Also, Kane will have a harder time dropping this issue now that a government ethics group in Philadelphia is calling for the Pennsylvania state legislature to create an independent council to conduct a fair and non-partisan investigation into the dismissed sting operation.  And likely more individuals and groups will request that this be looked into.

This is all becoming a headache for Kane, who has been reportedly seriously looking at running for Senate in 2016.  She did have a very good shot at gliding through the primary and probably would have handily won against incumbent Sen. Pat Toomey who was elected by barely two percent.  But with this recent scandal, her reputation with Pennsylvania voters has been tarnished.

Unless she makes a full 180 on this case, instead of protecting her fellow Democrats, she will lose.  Kane has to rise above the fray and party politics if she even wants a good shot at winning re-election if she chooses not to run for senate.  In any case, this has hurt her reputation with voters and she have a hard time climbing over this hurdle in the next election cycle.

Posted by: Shawn_the_Writer | March 23, 2014

Computers Can’t Hire People

Throughout the past several months, I have been applying for jobs, at grocery stores and other places.  But through all of my applying and talking with people.  I’ve only had one interview, and almost every other place has not given any response (the responses that I have gotten are emails).

The big issue I’ve found when applying online.  Is that you take questionnaires, that are supposed to tell the management something about you, and in some cases, if you don’t answer the questions in the right way, then you don’t get put through the system at all.

Computers are wonderful, social media is great.  But these impersonal ways of communication are being used by companies to hire people, and this is something that does not seem to be working.  At least for business’ around me.

There is a gas station down the road called Sheetz, a place where I’ve applied at several times and would love to work at.  But because of the system, the manager, who at the time needed several new team members, could not hire me without having me go through the application process.  And if, as I mentioned, you do not answer the questions correctly, you do not get put through.  This isn’t then just an applicants issue, but an issue for managers who are trying to hire people, and can only interview people who the system deems appropriate for the job.

My big issue that I’m getting at is that computers do not know people, and cannot sense emotions and character.  Only another human beings can do that.  So, though computers are convenient, I would highly encourage companies to look into other avenues for hiring people.

Maybe there are benefits to this system that I have yet to see, but from my current vantage point I see none.  And I welcome opinions, so if you have a view-point different from mine than I invite you to please comment about it below.

Until then, I will continue to keep applying and work odd jobs.  Hopefully at some point soon, I will find the gainful employment that I seek.

Scott Wagner embraces his sister Sue Wagner as he comes in to speak to supporters at Santander stadium on Tuesday, March 18, 2014. Jason Plotkin -  Daily

This week, Pennsylvania held a special election to fill the state senate seat left empty by a resigning Republican state senator in York County, and the results were shocking to say the least.

Initially businessman Scott Wagner and State Rep. Ron Miller were set to face off in the May 20th primary, until the state GOP decided instead on holding a special election, the winner to immediately fill the seat.  This was done in an attempt to throw off the race, and make it harder on Scott Wagner as he would then have to fight in the primary against a then incumbent.  But Wagner did not give up, he fought against the Pennsylvania establishment who pulled out former governor Tom Ridge and spent over $300,000 in attempt to stop Wagner’s write-in attempt.

On Tuesday night, after all of the votes were tallied.  The Republican establishments candidate Ron Miller and Democratic candidate both ended up conceding the race to Wagner in a historic write-in victory.  Wagner won with 48% of the vote, Miller only received 27% and the Democrat in the race received 26%.  The first time in Pennsylvania state history that a legislator has won in a write-in campaign.

This historic win, coming just off the heals of David Jolly’s victory in Florida, has now gained national attention.  This win, for Wagner and for citizens alike, is proof that the tide is shifting, and that political establishment style candidates have a lot to fear in their respective primaries.  Especially when it comes to the topic of Obamacare, as it is reported that Scott Wagner heard a lot from citizens who are upset with how the law has rolled out.

Along with the national implications, this also holds importance in the state elections coming up on May 20th.  When Gov. Tom Corbett will be facing businessman and political activist Bob Guzzardi, who successfully got on the ballot this month.

This write-in victory, proves that 2014, is an election year that will be very interesting.

Posted by: Shawn_the_Writer | February 20, 2014

Wagner To Enter Crowded Democrat Primary Race For Governor

Via – Pittsburgh Post Gazette

This is the surprise event that I had thought might happen after Jack Wagner’s loss in his primary bid for mayor of Pittsburgh to eventual election winner Bill Peduto.  Though some had thought that he would not enter after just losing a primary race.

Looking at the bigger picture of the Democrat primary race, Jack Wagner has much to gain.  Out of the whole crowded field of 7 candidates, he is the only one the resides in the western half of the state.  Which creates a headache for candidates like Cong. Allyson Schwartz and State Treasurer Rob McCord, both of whom are native to Montgomery County, needed to make a big push out west where they are not known, to get enough votes to overcome the wide field of eastern Pennsylvania candidates.

The top candidate to beat in the primary thus far, appears to be Cong. Allyson Schwartz, who made her intentions of running for the bid for governor widely known early last year.  Rob McCord’s chances are good as he has run for statewide office before and will not be a total stranger to Democratic voters.

Jack Wagner, former Auditor General, State Senator and Pittsburgh City Council President, presents a challenge as I’ve outlined.  Democrat voters will be more familiar with his name across the state, especially in the west where he could solidly win in.  He just has to put together the right team to get his campaign for governor out there as he is coming late to the game.

The biggest issue, for Jack Wagner, and the rest of the Democratic candidates.  Will be Tom Wolf.

Wolf is a successful multi-millionaire businessman from York County, who also served as the State Revenue Secretary under Gov. Ed Rendell.  And he did something this month that I did not expect.  He started putting out ad’s in all the Pennsylvania airways, except for Erie.  The ad he put out is light-hearted and he presents himself well.  I found myself intrigued after watching the ad, and I realized something.  This ad can be a game changer.  After the nasty slew of negative campaign ads Pennsylvanians have had to deal with, this is a welcome sight, and from talking to voters in my area (Northern Allegheny County), light-hearted, message driven ads are what is preferred over the smearing attack ads.

With that said, this will be an interesting primary.  This could potentially be a nail biter for the Democrats.

Posted by: Shawn_the_Writer | February 10, 2014

Mike Rowe and Walmart Team Up To Bring Job’s Back To America

Last week, Walmart released an ad, narrated by Mike Rowe who has partned with the store, to announce a multi-billion dollar project that the company is undertaking to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States of America.

Below is one of the many videos they released in conjunction with the new project.

It is encouraging to see a company put a substantial amount of money toward putting hardworking American’s back to work.  This is something that is needed in this time.  And I must add that this is the way to get jobs back.  For the private business sector to work to provide more jobs, and not the government.  I’m sure that some in government may have good intentions, but they should really keep their noses out of what they don’t know.  And learn that government doesn’t create jobs.

For America’s sake, I hope that this project is successful and puts many good working men and women back to work, so they can support their families.


Posted by: Shawn_the_Writer | February 10, 2014

Reports: ‘Major explosion’ at New Hampshire ball bearing plant

Originally posted on Twitchy:

There are reports of a large explosion or explosions at a ball bearing factory in Peterborough, New Hampshire:

View original 101 more words

Posted by: Shawn_the_Writer | February 4, 2014

Coca-Cola’s “America Is Beautiful” Ad Normalizes Homosexuality


Simply put, the ad that Coca-Cola ran during the Super Bowl was a piece of propaganda.

It started off with what sounded like a beautiful rendition of America the Beautiful, but then quickly broke off into a multilingual version of the song that left me puzzled and feeling a little uncomfortable. I chose to continue watching and see what it portrayed. It was over halfway and it seemed fine, but then, near the end came the part that I was uncomfortable with.

In the middle of all of the normalcy of the scenes, was showed a gay couple with a daughter roller skating and then hugging. This, not the multilingual America the Beautiful song, is what troubled me the most. Because the whole video was meant to portray America and give that old time Americana feel. And then it had that scene. What that all together meant to me, is that they are normalizing homosexuality and gay parenting. Making it seem like a normal thing in American society, when it clearly is not. That is not the America I know and love. This is why it is propaganda, because it promotes normalcy of something that was classified as a mental illness and in issue up until 50 years ago. In that span of time it has quickly been shown as main stream, and it is very troubling.

This is what we should be troubled most about, it is not the multilingual song, but this scene among the other scenes of a normal American family and activities/events. I can get over the multilingual song as it does represent the melting pot that America always has been. Sure it is weird, but at least they kept God in the song.

That is what we should focus on. Be upset for the right reason.

We now need to send a message loud and clear to Coca-Cola that this is not the America we know. That they portrayed it wrong and missed the mark.

Posted by: Shawn_the_Writer | February 2, 2014

A Pro-Life Response To A Pro-Choice Argument


“For starters when a “baby” is first implanted it isn’t even a fetus. It’s considered a zygote. Doesn’t even go by the fetus term until later. Abortion is normally, and lawfully performed by 20 weeks. Before the fetus is developed into what you are imagining as that baby. You want to look at things from a science stand point, then I think you need to take a look at actually unbiased facts. Being pro choice is NOT pro abortion. Pro life activists not only oppose abortions, but they have also been opposing any type of birth control or contraceptive to keep unwanted and unplanned pregnancies from happening. Science can tell you that a woman not on birth control will actually naturally “abort” more zygotes than a woman on birth control. Because a woman’s body naturally decides to flush the zygote out or allow it to attach to the uterus. That’s what Jackie meant by natural abortion. Getting rid of safe and legal abortion options for women will only lead to more women risking their lives for an unsafe abortion. Abortion isn’t the problem. It’s the lack of availability for women of any age to can access to proper health care, birth control, and education.”

First of all, I want to address putting a baby in parentheses and then explaining how it is not a baby when it is first conceived, and instead first called a zygote, the definition for which reads as follows, “a diploid cell resulting from the fusion of two haploid gametes; a fertilized ovum.” I, personally, have no problem with words created for stages of life. Zygote, fetus, to baby can be as simple as stages of life, like child, adult to senior. But in the context of a pro-abortion argument, it becomes demeaning, as though the child within the mother’s womb does not mean anything until it reaches a certain stage of growth, or for some, when the child is born. The fact is, the life within the mother’s womb is a baby, no matter what the argument is.

Next she goes on to say that pro-choice is not pro-abortion. How is this so? I’m curious, because in the movement, people who proclaim to be pro-choice are fighting for the right to abortion, so does that not make the two stances one in the same? She tries to make it seems like it is two different things, that pro-choice is for contraceptives and other pills and measures so that women don’t have to have an abortion. Then she goes on to talk about how pro-life supporters not only oppose abortion, but also “any type of birth control or contraceptive to keep unwanted and unplanned pregnancies from happening”. Well yes, it only makes sense for those who are pro-life to oppose such measures as they abortion drugs as well, that put unwanted chemicals and hormones into a woman’s body, which then unnaturally terminates the pregnancy, killing the baby.

She then goes on to argue that it would be terrible to take away “safe” and legal abortions, as it would make women risk their lives with unsafe abortion. I argue that no abortion is “safe”. Pro-choice supporters like to imagine that world is better now that there is legal and “safe” abortion, and that there are no deaths. What a fantasy world they must live in. The fact is this. More than 400 women have died from a “safe” abortion, since the procedure became legal. That does not sound very “safe” to me.

Also, in response to the last line of the paragraph. It is not a problem of lack of access to health care, education or birth control. The problem is that women are not presented with the facts. That abortions are very dangerous. Chinese researchers recently discovered that having an abortion makes you 44% more likely to have breast cancer, and that percentage grows with the number of abortions a women has ( New Study Puts Abortion-Breast Cancer Link Back in the Spotlight ). It also results in infertility, which seems to be a little known fact. I’ve heard from countless women how violated they felt after an abortion, the sense of loss and pain. And how upset and even depressed they became afterwards. My response and firm belief is that there is absolutely no such thing as a “safe” abortion. (NOTE: The word safe is in parentheses to convey the point that it is a myth and not in fact true)

“You also argued the rape card. Well, 1.) a child from rape has a huge probability of being hated by the mother because of the situation. That child and mother could through mental and emotional, sometimes physical torture. For life.”

This is one of the most touchiest topics that I’ve come across, on both sides. And my response to her argument is this.

Where is the proof that a child born from rape will be hated? Why does this innocent baby, who has done absolutely nothing, have to die because of the crimes of the father? Is the answer that people like Rebecca Kiessling, a “product of rape” and long time supporter of the pro-life cause, should have died? In Rebecca’s case, and many others like her, she was given up for adoption. And surprise, she was not hated! She was loved, even though she was born from a terrible thing, she still grew to be an amazing individual, along with many others. For me, there is no way you can confirm that just because a child is conceived in rape, that the baby and mother will go through mental, emotional or even physical torture for life. That is unfounded and in my experiences, are rare. Every child deserves to live.

“Adoption is not for everyone. There are already hundreds probably thousands of orphans in the world today. It is very low percentage that even half those children will be adopted. And then there is a huge possibility they go through life mentally, emotionally, and again sometimes physically tortured. Not all orphanages or foster homes are happy places where everyone loves you. And, most people look to adopt an infant, so once that child hits a certain age the get an even worse feeling of being unwanted.”

Yes, adoption, is not for everyone, some women actually keep and raise their children. And how convenient of an argument it is for them say there are thousands of orphans “in the world”, instead of pointing out the many children in the United States alone that are looking to be adopted. I know more than one couple and family who have adopted, and it was a long and strenuous process, because there were not that many children available for adoption. When you look at the number of children aborted each year, and the number of couples and families in the United States looking to adopt, it is easy to see that nearly all of those lives that have been destroyed could have gone to a loving home.

Also, I again don’t believe that all children who are adopted, put into an orphanage or into foster care, go through mental emotional and physical torture. Contrary to what the media tends to portray, the majority of families who take in foster children, or adopt are not pedophiles and child molesters, looking to exploit the child, or any other malicious thing you can think of. Most families or couples, who might not be able to conceive a child of their own would want to adopt a baby or child.

And what does this person suggest we do with children who get passed a “certain age” and suddenly are no longer adoptable? There is definitely somebody out there that will take that child in, no matter what the age. You may say that I live in a fantasy world. But my belief and hope is in the best of humanity, and though I do know it may not turn out that way all the time. It is extremely likely that it can. Adoption is, and always will be, the best and only option, that is actually safe and does not harm the mother the way an abortion does.

“Now, health issues. There a numerous cases when a women’s life could be in danger due to a pregnancy. There are numerous cases when a child will be born with such a severe health issue they would not be allowed to function in this world on their own and would live in pain and agony all their life. Abortion is not just about a women who doesn’t want her baby. It requires A LOT of decision making, and more times than not it is the only and best option available. I’m a mother of a child with special needs. I’ve seen what happens when a child is 1 week needing open heart surgery because of health issues. I’ve talked to parents who wish they would have known before the baby was born because aborting an trying again would have been better than watching their child grow up a vegetable.”

This is another common argument, the health of the baby and mother. The fact about this, is that we now live in a modern age of medicine and technology. There are many things that we can do now to help the mother and the baby in the case of a health issue. And also, why should a child be aborted because it has down syndrome, trisomy 18 or any other “disorder” or special need? Will a parent love the child less, or regret having the child? In my experience that is not the case. Children with special needs are amazing people, sure they cannot do everything that you and I can. But in some cases they have an incredible capacity for love, and though they need major attention and care, that does not mean we should do away with them. What type of people have we come to just abort a special needs baby all in the name of convenience. And the last line she writers disturbs me. It disturbs me that she believes, and have spoken with parents who feel that they wished they had known, then they could just get an abortion and try again. That is the sickest thing I’ve heard. In that argument, you make having a precious baby sound like playing a game, “oh, made a mistake that time, better give up now and try again later”. That is terrible, and inhumane. Some people who act this way, like their child is something of not much worth that they could through him or her away because they have a defect, I think that they should not be parents. Those are the children who are going to grow up tortured, and with issues.

“You need to do some research and listen and read stories of women and men who have gone through the acts of abortions. It’s not just trying on the women. The men feel it too.”

Of course men feel it too, and I and others have heard many stories about couples experiences with abortion. It is very trying, it sends people into depression, it can give women health issues as we have seen. How can she say how trying an abortion is on the mother and the father, and yet go out and promote it later?

“Then when you actually hear the other side and the completely UNEASY decision of abortion you need to go to an abortion clinic and watch the pro life activists completely and totally torture a woman going into a clinic or in some cases just walking past and the assume she’s there for an appointment. Women have to be escorted into clinics because they are violently bombarded with pro life activists who could care less what their life or situation is.”

Yet another rare case. There is only one such group that I can think of, that berates and does wrong things in the pro-life movement, and I will not name them as not to give them recognition as what they do is wrong. The majority of pro-life activists who stand outside of abortion clinics are loving people who are either praying, as I have done. Or are trying to save women and girls from the horror of abortion, and also save the life of the baby. And pro-life activists actually do care about the people going into the clinics and other places to get an abortion, in that statement she is absolutely wrong. Some of the people praying and trying to help sometimes are even rape baby survivors or victims of abortions themselves.

In conclusion, the majority of pro-choice arguments for abortion, are either blown out of proportion to try and make a false point, or are sometimes completely wrong. All of that, just to get their point across. The inconvenient truth for the pro-choice supporters, is that the facts are on the side of life, and there is nothing they can do to change that. Even science and medicine are beginning to prove our points.

I urge all of you to keep up the courageous fight, like many have. Follow in the trail blazed by the men and women leaders in the movement. Like Nelly Gray who founded the March For Life, Jill Stanek, a nurse turned blogger and activist after witnessing the horror of late term abortion, and Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood clinic director, who is now one of the most powerful voices in the pro-life movement today. And someone of our own generation, Lila Rose, who at a young age founded Live Action, an organization that fights to show the truth of the Planned Parenthood abortion industry, and abortion in general. We must all take up the banner of life and wave proudly for all to see.

If we all stand up and speak, I know that one day in the very near future, this evil will cease to exist and become a distant memory. So I urge you to keep up the fight. We will be victorious in the end.

Older Posts »


%d bloggers like this: