Californians Escaping California For Citizen Friendly States
A report out yesterday talked about a study that was conducted recently. Its findings: Californians are fleeing in droves to live in better-managed states. This is according to The Manhattan Institute research group.
The long-running exodus from cash-strapped citizen unfriendly California is an old story, but a new study by The Manhattan Institute finds that the biggest beneficiaries of the population drain are Texas, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Idaho, Utah, Georgia and South Carolina.
The reasons folks are leaving are a few: Lower cost of living, less government debt, and a more business-friendly culture are the main drivers, according to the study.
"States that have gained the most at California’s expense are rated as having better business climates," the study concluded.
"The data suggest that many cost drivers - taxes, regulations, the high price of housing and commercial real estate, costly electricity, Union power, and high labor costs - are prompting businesses to locate outside California, thus helping to drive the mass exodus."
Census data shows that more Americans have left California since 2005 than have come to live in here. The finding is a sharp contrast to earlier decades. Between 1960 and 1990, a staggering 4.2 Million Americans moved to California from other states.
The report found that since 1990, the state has lost nearly 3.4 Million residents through migration to other states, like Texas, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Idaho, Utah, Georgia and South Carolina.
The average number of residents leaving the state of California each year over the last decade is 225,000, the report found.
"States that have gained the most at California’s expense are rated as having better business climates."
- Manhattan Institute study
There are many reasons for the exodus, including economic hardship and population density, according to the study, titled "The Great California Exodus: A Closer Look."
Many people are driven out of California in search of work in other states with lower unemployment rates, like say Texas and North Dakota.
The data also found high housing prices and high business taxes in the state to be factors. And no, the state government is not helping matters by trying to impose more taxes on an already tax strapped population.
The U.S. Census reported last year that residents of California are fleeing the state at a faster rate than people leaving any other state. The most common state-to-state move in 2010 was California to Texas, according to the Census.
A study earlier this year by the University of Southern California found that California's population growth has slowed to about 1 percent annually, mainly due to fewer immigrants and an increasing number of Californians heading to other states.
Demographer Joel Kotkin told The Wall Street Journal that a major problem is that parts of California are simply out of reach for the Middle-Class.
"Basically, if you don’t own a piece of Facebook or Google and you haven’t robbed a bank and don't have rich parents, then your chances of being able to buy a house or raise a family in the Bay Area or in most of coastal California is pretty weak," Kotkin told the paper.
He added that in his estimation, the state is run for the benefit of the very rich, the very poor, and public employees.
The Manhattan Institute says it based its findings on recent data from the U.S. Census, the IRS, California’s Department of Finance, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
There is only one thing to add to this report that really should be noted.
For you folks in other states, don't let escaping Californians turn your state into the place they left!
What am I talking about? Well, back in the early 1990s, I was in and out of Washington state for work fairly regularly. At the time, there was a problem with a growing resentment to people from California who were moving there - especially to the Seattle-Tacoma area.
While there on one particular job, I got an earful from guys there who were angry because Californians were moving up there after selling their expensive homes in places like San Jose. From those sales, those California refugees brought lots of cash - and soon the area had an inflated housing market no different than San Jose.
It got so bad that the Seattle-Tacoma housing market was such that locals could not afford to live there.
But then, to add insult to injury, those same Californians who wanted to get away from California decided to get on the School Boards and Local Government.
Before the locals knew it, those Californians were telling the locals how to run their schools. And yes, in many cases they were also running the local government by being on the different boards and committees.
Basically, those Californians tried to liberalize and "Californicate" the sate of Washington by trying to turn it into the very place they escaped from.
So my advice is to beware of those coming in. But remember this, its not all Californians.
Its the liberal Californians to be weary of. They screwed up California, now they are moving on. And yes, those are the ones who will certainly try to change your way of life.
And yes, liberal Californians are notorious for thinking they know what's good for others. So be aware!
Get involved and don't hand over your city, or your community, or your state government to liberals coming in from California.
If they turn your state into California, you'll be in the same lousy position we here in California are in right now. You could end up being just another California with government over-regulation, out of sight taxes, and criminals with more rights than citizens.
Pastors Pledge To Defy IRS - Preach Politics From Pulpit Ahead Of Presidential Election
Some pastors believe they have a First Amendment right to preach politics. It appears that the Obama White House may be using the IRS to put pressure on Pastors to shut up or be investigated.
More than 1,000 pastors are planning to challenge the IRS next month by deliberately preaching politics ahead of the presidential election despite a federal ban on endorsements from the pulpit.
The defiant move, they hope, will prompt the IRS to enforce a 1954 tax code amendment that prohibits tax-exempt organizations, such as churches, from making political endorsements. Alliance Defending Freedom, which is holding the October summit, said it wants the IRS to press the matter so it can be decided in court. The group believes the law violates the First Amendment by “muzzling” preachers.
“The purpose is to make sure that the pastor - and not the IRS - decides what is said from the pulpit."
- Erik Stanley, Alliance Defending Freedom
“The purpose is to make sure that the pastor -- and not the IRS -- decides what is said from the pulpit,” Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the group, told Fox News. “It is a head-on constitutional challenge.”
Stanley said pastors attending the Oct. 7 “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” will “preach sermons that will talk about the candidates running for office” and then “make a specific recommendation.” The sermons will be recorded and sent to the IRS.
“We’re hoping the IRS will respond by doing what they have threatened,” he said. “We have to wait for it to be applied to a particular church or pastor so that we can challenge it in court. We don’t think it’s going to take long for a judge to strike this down as unconstitutional.”
An amendment was made to the IRS tax code in 1954, stating that tax-exempt organizations are “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”
“Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax,” the IRS says in its online guide for churches and religious organizations seeking tax exemption.
The Obama White House may be using the IRS to put pressure on Pastors to shut up.
Stanley and others, like San Diego pastor Jim Garlow, say the IRS regularly threatens churches that they will lose their tax-exempt status if they preach politics. But Stanley and Garlow claim the government never acts on the threat because it wants to avoid a court battle.
“It is blatantly unconstitutional,” said Stanley. “They just prefer to put out these vague statements and regulations and enforce it through a system of intimidation … Pastors are afraid to address anything political from the pulpit.”
“The IRS will send out notices from time to time and say you crossed the line,” added Garlow, a senior pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego. “But when it’s time to go to court, they close the case.”
Garlow and other pastors say their concerns over the code extend well beyond the law.
“I’m very concerned about the spiritual side of this,” Garlow told FoxNews.com. “There’s a phenomenon occurring in America and that’s a loss of religious liberty.”
“If I would have said 50 years that ‘Tearing up a baby in the womb is a bad thing,’ people would have said ‘Of course it is,’” Garlow said. “But If I said that today, people would say ‘Pastor, you’re being too political.”
White House Can't Answer Why Obama's UN Itinerary Doesn't Include Meetings With World Leaders
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney faced pressure to explain Monday why President Obama has made no public plans to meet one on one with world leaders on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly.
Asked repeatedly at the briefing about the president's plans, Carney said that Obama likely would run into foreign leaders at a reception Monday evening and continues to stay in contact with them. He urged Americans to tune in to the president's U.N. speech on Tuesday.
"The president's obviously got a busy schedule. He has a busy schedule all the time," Carney said at one point.
But Carney did not appear to give a direct answer when asked why Obama was able to fit in 13 one-on-one meetings on the sidelines of last year's summit and none this year.
Instead of doing his job as our President, Obama had Hillary Clinton meet with world leaders while he and first lady Michelle Obama sat down Monday for a taping of ABC's "The View."
Why Can't Obama The Job Of President?
He is putting the election campaign above such issues as Iran's quest for nuclear capability and the violent, deadly protests in the Middle East and North Africa.
And yes, there is a wave of criticism about Obama allegedly putting his election efforts first began earlier this month with news that the White House had declined a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu because the president would be on the campaign trail.
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has repeatedly accused Obama of "throwing Israel under the bus" and most recently said the president's decision not to meet with Netanyahu was "confusing and troubling."
Romney backed up his comments Sunday by saying that declining the meeting was a "mistake" - as Netanyahu looks to the United States for assurance that it will stand tough or draw a "red line" that Iran cannot cross in its efforts to build a nuclear weapon.
"It sends a message throughout the Middle East that somehow we distance ourselves from our friends," Romney said in a CBS "60 Minutes" interview.
Labor Union pickets fellow Union’s construction project
Members of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades have started to picket in front of the construction site of a new Credit Union banking location in Pittston, PA that is using non-union labor.
A Pennsylvania construction local has found an unlikely target for its latest picket - a Credit Union run by a fellow local.
The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT) was carrying signs and chanting slogans in front of the future site of the United Food and Commercial Workers federal credit union in downtown Pittston. They even have the ubiquitous inflatable rat, the attention-grabbing icon labor locals use to draw attention to employers who use non-union labor.
IUPAT union representative Bob Griffiths said he never expected a fellow union to bypass organized labor to save a buck. The local's members have done work at the UFCW’s three other locations in neighboring towns, and Griffiths said his own local's 260 members have banked with the UFCW's credit union. Now he's told them to take their business elsewhere.
“When we asked why they were not using union workers, they [UFCW] told us that they did not own the building,” Griffiths told FoxNews.com. “We’ve found another credit union that is all-union. We are going to recommend that our members transfer their accounts.”
Griffiths speculates that the non-union work is a cost-cutting measure and that the credit union circumvented using union work by claiming that the building, which will be a fully operational banking location, will be sold or leased to the UFCW upon completion.
“It’s about the principal, not losing the work,” he added.
Members of IUPAT intend to keep picketing while construction continues. And no, it's not good to see such things going on - before you know it Americans might have a right to work!
Rep. Griffith: Obama Eroding Nation’s Economic Power
Four more years of President Barack Obama will bring a “real loss of economic power in this country,” Virginia Rep. Morgan Griffith said.
“We would see not just a few thousand layoffs, but tens of thousands of layoffs across the coal country of this nation – and then it would start to ripple out to other areas as well,” the Republican congressman, whose district includes one of the nation’s largest coal manufacturers.
“It affects the railroads. It affects the ports. We’re going to see a real loss of economic power in this country.
“Coal usage in the world is going up, and other countries are using it and other countries are digging it. We’ve actually slipped to number two in coal production. China has passed us. Why does this administration think it’s good when China passes us on something that’s as important coal or any other industry?”
Griffith is facing a challenge from Democrat Anthony Flaccavento in Virginia's 9th District. Griffith won election in 2010, defeating longtime incumbent Rick Boucher.
The district suffered a major blow this week when Alpha Natural Resources Inc. said that it would close eight mines and eliminate 1,200 jobs — including 400 immediately — in Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
The company, which cited “a regulatory environment that's aggressively aimed at constraining the use of coal” as part of its decision, is based in Abingdon, located in Griffith’s district.
“This is not the first set of job cuts that we’ve had in the coal industry,” Griffith began. “It’s certainly the largest. We were very sad to see that, but when you have all of the factors coming together, it really is going to cost a lot of jobs – and it’s not just the coal jobs themselves.
“It affects the small businesses in those communities. It affects the people who provide the equipment for the mines. We’re seeing a lot of layoffs in my district.”
The Alpha layoffs also will raise energy prices.
“Electricity will cost more. Everybody says to switch to other fuels, but the truth is even with natural gas prices going down, it will cost the utilities a lot of money to switch over to natural gas –and then, naturally, the price of natural gas is expected to go up. And when that happens, they’re not going to switch back to the more affordable coal. The consumer is the one who takes it on the chin.”
“What’s interesting is the president knows that, but he doesn’t seem to care,” Griffith observed.
He then referenced a 2008 interview in which President Barack Obama said his energy policies would make prices “skyrocket” and those costs would be passed on to consumers.
“Well, who does he think the consumer is?” the first-term representative asked.
“It’s the middle-class people of the United States of America. It’s the people who are working and struggling to make ends meet in an economy that he’s created that’s so bad that we have more than eight percent of our people not working – and those are the ones who are still looking.”
This is why Griffith backed the “Stop the War on Coal Bill,” that passed the House on Friday. The legislation seeks to ease EPA regulations on the industry.
“We’re sending the message that we want the administration to stop their War on Coal, and the people in my district – and in West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania – they all need to realize that we’re going to lose a lot of jobs because of the president and the Environmental Protection Agency.
“They’re just out there trying to put coal out of business every time they get a chance, and it’s unfortunate,” Griffith added. “There are a lot of jobs on the line.”
Its folks like Rep. Morgan Griffith who make me proud of being a Conservative and a Republican. He is fighting the good fight against Obama on behalf of blue-collar Middle-Class Americans. And yes, that says a lot about his character.
Influential Democrat Editor Calls Obama Campaign "Dishonest, Divisive"
The influential Democrat editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report, Mortimer Zuckerman, called the Obama campaign "dishonest, divisive" in an article published in the online edition of the magazine.
Zuckerman wrote, "It is a dishonest, divisive campaign. It's discouraging of enterprise. It does the opposite of uniting the country to deal with the current economic crisis."
Zuckerman, who is also the publisher and owner of the New York Daily News, said that Obama’s argument on taxes "is not just about whether the super-rich should pay more," which he said he would support.
His argument is that Obama's tax plans also include Middle-Class Americans who can't afford higher taxes.
"It is about whether individuals, households, and small businesses should now be seen to cross the threshold into a plutocracy when earnings reach $250,000 a year — which buys much less in metropolitan areas than in the heartland," according to Zuckerman.
"It is outrageous to infer that aspiring to reach such a level is somehow un-American, and the Obama campaign surely must know that. Shame on them if they don't!"
Zuckerman blames "careless remarks" from Mitt Romney for allowing Obama to "get away with a program that pits 'the millionaires and billionaires' against the people."
He said that Romney’s gaffes have put his entire candidacy at risk "to the point where he may not even qualify for the dismissive equation of Barack Obama that Marco Rubio formulated for the Republican faithful: "Our problem is not that he's a bad person. Our problem is that he's a bad president."
Zuckerman said that Romney’s "47%" remarks handed the Obama campaign a new line of attack.
"Voters can forgive a candidate who stumbles in the heat of an election, trapped by ‘gotcha’ questions from journalists, being quoted out of context in cunning TV attack commercials, and in the Twitter age, failing to appreciate that nothing that is said is secret anymore," said Zuckerman.
"We all know the game, and Romney has demonstrated that he is not perfect at this game."
But despite Mitt Romney's mistakes, Zuckerman believes that the campaign can still be salvaged.
"Romney's new language talks about appealing to the 100 percent. He will be doing well to reach 50 percent," Zuckerman noted.
"But he still has a chance at reversing the weak position if he will go all out on the economy, discourage personal attacks on the president (who is well liked anyway), and always remember the injunction the British were faced with every day when World War II started, ‘Loose talk costs lives. Think before you talk.’"
It's very good advice from a Democrat, but I can't help but wonder if Obama gives a damn about what people in his own party think of him and what he's doing? I'm betting Obama doesn't care.
It seems to me that Obama and his campaign are using a scorched earth policy that
Hollywood Democrat Queers Jeer Republicans At Liberal Love Fest Called Emmy Night
Let's talk about being queer!
Though I really enjoyed Robert Downey Jr as Sherlock Holmes, when I think of Sherlock Holmes, the movies starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce come to mind.
Besides the suspense, the language, the British accents, were always fun to listen to. In fact, it was from those old movies that I first heard the word "Queer."
I learned from those old Holmes and Watson movies that "queer" meant strange, or not normal as in "a queer situation." I learned that the word "queer" meant odd or strange behavior, a questionable attitude or character, suspicious actions, "very queer behavior."
Of course during college, I had a Criminal Justice teacher who would call counterfeit money - "queer notes."
Because I grew up in Hawaii in a very Blue Collar family, we referred to homosexuals as Mahus. The word mahu (mah-who) is the traditional word for a male who assumes female roles in his daily life.
I didn't hear the term "queer" to refer to homosexuals until I first arrived in California in 1972. Like many others, I remember hearing one guy call another guy "queer." It didn't make any sense right away, until later when I saw for myself that the guy labeled "queer" really did in fact act strange.
Over the years, I've referred to strange behavior as acting queer. And yes, I know real well that the homosexual community has put their copyright on the term "queer". But I don't see how they can.
Sure I call homosexuals "queer" just as I call them "gay" and even "mahus" at times. But homosexuals aren't the only strange acting folks in the Democrat party. There's a lot of queer behavior in that party.
Queer behavior is strange behavior. Acting queer is not the norm. Having a queer attitude is not OK. And yes, people recognize queers for what they are: strange people.
The 64th Primetime Emmy Awards on Sunday night brought out droves of Hollywood's small screen "stars", if there really is such a thing.
And yes, for the most part, they are a queer lot! It was a Democrat liberal love fest, as queer as the day is long!
Host Jimmy Kimmel set the stage for every queer there. Fakes all, in a business of make believe, the telecast ended up focusing as much on their own hypocrisy as it did on Presidential Politics. Forget the fact that they were supposedly there competing for awards for best TV shows etc etc etc, they wanted to use their time at the microphone to make their liberal politics known.
They all did the same thing, one by one, the queer group that they are, all marched to the microphone to tell their audience how they loathed Republicans, Conservatives, Middle-America, Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney. And no, it doesn't matter that Sarah Palin is not running for office. They just hate her guts.
The news said that Jimmy Kimmel "peppered the show with a handful of somewhat predictable political jokes."
"Are any of you voting for Mitt Romney? Oh good, only 40 Republicans, and the rest godless liberal homosexuals... Being a Republican in Hollywood is like being a Chick-fil-A sandwich on the snack table at 'Glee," he said, throwing in a jab at Republican supporter Kelsey Grammer, and comparing the PBS series on English aristocrats "Downtown Abbey" to what life was like for Mitt Romney growing up.
Both winners and presenters, including Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Stephen Colbert and Julianne Moore, who won Outstanding Actress for her portrayal of Sarah Palin in the HBO movie "Game Change," also used their moment in the limelight to put forth their own personal political hatred for anything Conservative and Republican.
"I feel so validated since Sarah Palin gave me a big thumbs down," Moore told the audience. "Game Change" won four Emmys in total. Of course, queer Hollywood would never say how much of a flop it was.
"Game Change" director Jay Roach avoided the fact that this little film was all promotion and no audience. And of course there was no mention how the movie has been met with criticism by Sarah Palin and aids for the McCain-Palin ticket.
The "Game Change" liberals conveniently leave out how the truth was not presented in the film, or how former Alaska governor Sarah Palin called the trashy movie "Hollywood lies."
While accepting the Outstanding Movie statue on behalf of the film, of which he was credited as producer, ultra-left Tom Hanks decided to make cracks about America's Founding Fathers.
Hanks said that he wanted to thank "our Founding Fathers for the process they came up with that has provided not only us and HBO and all the comedy series here a plethora of material, seems to just go on and on."
In my opinion, Tom Hanks is a queer bird. I mean, doesn't anyone else find it queer that Tom Hanks' "plethora of material" only ridicules Conservatives and Republicans? But then again, what should I accept from a queer group as those from Hollywood.
It's no wonder very few see Hollywood in the same light as it did years ago when they were pro-American.
It's no wonder most see Tom Hanks and others as all living in some queer place that many now refer to as "Hollyweird."
In addition to "Game Change," the other winner in the Liberal Love Fest was another politically-themed show, the national security Showtime thriller "Homeland." I know many of my readers are shocked that another hate America film would win an award, but honestly - look at those queer people who are voting.
And no, it wasn't just in front of the camera. Backstage, our so-called "stars" and wannabe important queer acting Hollyweird types got their chance to speak of their liberal political opinions. As if anyone gives a shit!
Louis-Dreyfus talked of how the current political climate influenced her role in some film that no one saw.
The creator of "Modern Family," Steve Levitan noted his hope for "all political candidates to support marriage equality."
Claire Danes spoke enthusiastically about President Obama's affection for her show "Homeland." Ultra-violent "Breaking Bad" lead actor winner Damian Lewis detailed his "insightful" political views on the "polarization" of the political landscape and the impact of 9/11.
Weak minds and queer behavior!
Strange, very queer indeed, but no one mentioned how Obama has done nothing to help the economy, stop the EPA's assault on farms and businesses, stop the attacks on Christians here and abroad, find the time to appear on "The View" yet not find time to meet with the Prime Minister of Israel?
It is very queer that some of those in Hollywood, did not take the time to condemn their own industry for its prolific violence and immorality, or their incessant attacks on Christianity?
Why can't ultra-left guys like Tom Hanks find the cojones to condemn Muslim violence, or the Muslim world's queer behavior like abusing their women, or even criticize Obama skipping out on his own National Security Intel Briefings?
No, not one liberal at the Democrat Love Fest got up there to use their microphone time to condemn Hollywood for advocating the use of drugs and random senseless violence.
Hollywood is a whorehouse, and most of those there that night are whores and pimps. They compromise any sort of principle for personal gain, even if that means sucking up to the political left in America.
Why aren't these wannabe intellectuals talking about Obama spending SIX TRILLION DOLLARS in 3 years and America has nothing to show for it?
And no, I don't think giving $10 Billion to Brazil to explore for oil, or Stimulus Fund contract to China is OK? But the liberals at the Emmys must have, because after all, it wasn't mentioned at all.
Where are these liberals on Fast & Furious and how Obama's Justice Department armed the Mexican Drug Cartels with over 2,000 weapons and is directly responsible for hundreds of murders?
How come no one there talked about the National Security Intelligence leaks from the Obama White House, or the global instability brought on by a lack of leadership from the White House?
Strange isn't it that no one Hollywood liberal, including that ultra-left poster boy Tom Hanks, mentioned the rise in poverty or the huge increase in food stamps or the high number of businesses that are closing after almost 4 years of Obama?
Not one liberal at the Emmy Awards stood up and asked why Obama has given $1.5 Billion of taxpayer money to Egypt for no reason, or why Obama and Hillary Clinton attacked a YouTube film and took its director into custody?
I would think that that would hit home? But then again, it just shows that Hollywood has no loyalty - not even to other film makers.
Instead of focusing on the real issues, Hollyweird is worried about gay marriage and pushing a liberal agenda that is against everything that most of America believes in. And yes, American ain't buying what Hollywood is selling.
Want evidence of that? Well, the politically-charged telecast - which aired on ABC - was not embraced by all those outside the Tinseltown bubble.
"If I wanted to hear vapid people talking about politics, I would read half my friends' Facebook walls," tweeted one. Another wrote that the Kimmel's political hate speech was "unnecessary."
One commented that the political chatter during an awards show was "just non-sense," and another noted that "Hollywood is delusional" in response to the proclamation by Kevin Costner that night.
In what was an unbelievable statement, Costner, who won an award for lead actor in a TV movie/miniseries for his role History's "Hatfields and McCoys," said that "everyone talks about politics, but it's so freaking hard to get films made about politics."
That was a very odd comment, an absolute queer statement to make, since several of this year's Emmys nominees from "Game Change" to "Homeland" to "Veep" to his own film were based on political themes.
Costner's comment sparked one viewer to tweet, "It is hard to make movies about politics? Then why are there 40,000,000 of them?"
Politics aside, the Emmy ceremony was widely panned by reviewers and industry watchers. TheWrap.com called it "hideous" and Kimmel's hosting performance "bad".
The Chicago Tribune referred to the show as being "far from a ringing endorsement of Hollywood's ability to produce anything but an eye-rolling awards show."
There is one thing that I find really interesting about all of their awful behavior. Its about the business end of making films.
Why would anyone selling a product, in this case wanting to get people to watch your film, go out of their way to offend as many people as possible in the process?
Why offend the vast majority of Americans outside of Hollywood if you need them as viewers?
The answer probably rests in their very strange way of thinking. It's probably the same reasoning they use when they make shows that insult most Americans, or Christians or Conservatives in general.
It most likely goes straight to their queer behavior of not caring if they make television shows that people are not going to watch.
It's probably the same reason that Hollywood and its liberals like Tom Hanks think they can stick their finger in your eye. They figure they have a captured audience and we will watch what they put out no matter what.
But honestly, that's queer thinking on their part.
Story by Tom Correa