Edgewater, New Jersey Mayor Slams Door on Perceived "Threat," And Leaves His Secretary to Fend for Herself

If you don't know who James Freeman is, perhaps you should. On the one hand, he's among a growing group of people known as 1st Amendment Auditors, but on the other hand, he is also a champion of policing the police and holding our elected officials and public servants accountable.

Regardless of what anyone feels about 1st Amendment auditors in general, with some people finding their antics to be antagonistic, what they accomplish, besides getting multiple hundreds of thousands of views on YouTube, are the exposition of countless glaring examples of our government running amok. What never ceases to amaze me during these encounters, which I have viewed countless hours of, is the common lack of understanding of our most basic of Constitutional rights.

With often times razor sharp precision, these auditors expose how common it is, and how easy it can be, to have our civil rights blatantly and unabashedly denied if We the People do not understand our rights.

In a recent video, posted by James Freeman, they entered a public building, which is within their rights to do, lawfully, and set about "auditing" the facility. What was most interesting to me about the video was the reaction of the Edgewater mayor, Michael J. McPartland, when James Freeman encountered him at his office.

Granted, there may have been some question about whether the area that James Freeman and his group that was with him on that day were in a "public hallway" accessible to the general public, it is clear that they were "buzzed in," and did not immediately pose any perceived threat to anyone before being "cleared" to enter the areas that they were in.

Which includes the mayor's office.

When James Freeman approached the office, the mayor was inside at his desk, and immediately panic alarms went off. I will grant you, being the mayor and considering sometimes people are up to doing nefarious things, maybe some of his "panic" was warranted.

However, he's the mayor. He is representative of the people. He is an elected official who enjoys his position directly by the will of the people.

Beyond that, James Freeman did not present himself as any threat, simply saying, "Hey, how you doing, mayor?" 

He immediately got up and said, "I don't know you," and proceeded to shut and lock his door. 

I mean, rather than greet a citizen, assess the situation, and perhaps even engage in a conversation, the mayor instead chose to isolate himself in his office. The question of course is, why did he do that? He felt threatened, of course. 

But wait a minute. If the mayor felt that James Freeman posed a threat, why did he lock himself in his office and leave his secretary, Nancy, to fend for herself? I think that's the story here more than the actions of James Freeman, whether or not he was supposed to be there, or whether or not he actually posed any threat.

Wouldn't his very first order of business be to protect at least his office staff?

Instead, the mayor decided to leave the "threat" to his secretary to handle on her own with the only support from the mayor coming from behind a closed, locked door, shouting commands to her. Meanwhile, you can also hear the mayor quite distraught, inside his office calling for the police to come.

Again, if this is such a dire situation in his mind, why would the mayor decide to protect himself and leave his secretary to deal with the issue? While I can understand fear, to me the acts of the mayor were cowardly—and frankly unbecoming of a mayor.

One can certainly question what James Freeman and others in his camp do, and perhaps even sometimes the way they choose to do it. But the bottom line is that in doing these audits, they also expose things that I think are important for the general public to understand.

In this particular case what was exposed was a mayor who believes he is above the people who elected him, and certainly more important than his secretary. Her safety was of no concern whatsoever for the mayor.

It has to be a terrible embarrassment for him, and that seems apparent considering in a follow up live stream James Freeman posted, the mayor has made privacy complaints regarding the video and is trying to have the video taken down.

It won't be taken down, but of course the mayor is embarrassed. And he should be, frankly. How can the people trust him to make the right decisions if the city is ever faced with a situation that calls for swift, decisive action in the interest of the people and not just himself?

If the mayor is ever called to answer questions about his actions, I'd be very interested to know what his explanation will be.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

 

Just Tell Me What It Costs, Man

There are few things I agree with the Biden administration on, but the one thing I do agree with them about are getting rid of junk fees, which have even become a very big thing for restaurants to charge customers.

To me it's simply a way to raise prices without actually raising prices. And even what restaurant owners say about it seems to suggest that. "Customers might be discouraged if they see their menu items costing more."

Sure. But what's the difference if the menu says my hamburger costs $10 but when I get the bill it actually costs $12?

Many restaurant owners say the fees help them to better navigate higher wages, health care costs and other business-related expenses, and to keep menu prices down. But whether you charge more on the front end or the back end doesn't matter. Just because you call it a fee and not a price doesn't mean consumers are getting any benefit from it.

They are still ultimately paying more. And frankly, consumers are tired of it. It's akin to being nickeled and dimed, and often times the fees are hidden—such as resort fees some hotels charge for services that should be included in the price of your stay.

"It's to pay for fresh towels and for a maid to toss your sheets."

Well, last time I checked that's part of what my hotel stay is supposed to include. So, why charge me a fee for that? 

Of course, the hope is that consumers will just get used to these things. Like paying to check in a bag to fly somewhere. "It's just a part of the cost of flying," they hope consumers will say. But the thing is that once fees start, where do they end? 

What exactly is a convenience fee charged at a restaurant, for example? Oh wait. I didn't have to serve myself and therefore I enjoyed the convenience of having someone cook my food and serve it to me. That should come with a price on top of my menu cost.

Of course, that's the reason I go to a restaurant in the first place. I am already paying three times the cost of making the same meal at home. Now I have to pay even more?

What consumers want is transparency in pricing. We understand that the price we pay for things is directly related to whatever costs are incurred by the business. If it's got to be included in the price, so be it. Tacking on additional costs at the end of the bill serves no purpose except to add further shock to the entire cost of the meal.

On top of that, while restaurants claim the fees help workers, I think the opposite is true. We are already, as consumers, inundated with extreme tipping—many consumers are going to say, "If you add a fee I won't tip as much."

Granted, it's a bit of tit for tat argument when you think about it. But for me it's the semantics that matter most. Whether you charge me a fee or raise my price, the end result is the same. Tricking me into thinking my hamburger costs less because it says so on the menu, only to charge me more in the end, is moot.

I mean, think about it, what if I went to a gas station and pumped my gas and then they charged me a fee for the use of the pump?

What happens as well is that once you start adding one fee, suddenly you slowly start adding more. And before you know it, you're paying dishwasher fees for the clean plates and silverware, and maybe even a gas fee for keeping the griddle hot.

The fees simply serve no purpose, and I think getting rid of them is a good idea that best serves consumers interests, plain and simple. It's a commonsense idea. Tell me what something costs, and I will automatically assume that all costs of the business are built into what you charge me.

Just like it has always been. To keep the fees is to have the waiter coming to your table with a smirk as you dab your lips with your napkin, "Psst, by the way..."

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

The End of the Harris Honeymoon and the Boost of the Kennedy Shift

Let's face it. Kamala Harris may be doing well in the polls against former president, Donald Trump. But are her chances of winning the presidency as good as the media would have us believe? I mean, take into account that she hasn't made any real appearances other than from scripted rallies she can read from a teleprompter at, and she hasn't had any interviews.

There is a good reason for that, and that's because the media is trying to separate Kamala Harris from Kamala Harris.

Wait. What? I know that sounds like a weird thing to say. But think about it. Here we have a vice president, who is now the Democrat nominee for president, who was perhaps the most disliked vice president in American history. How do you change that? 

You pretend like Kamala Harris is now something she wasn't before. You paint a new picture.

They are trying hard to separate her from her very far left liberal positions she held in the past. "That was then, this is now. This is a new and improved Kamala Harris, folks." Only, it's all smoke and mirrors. And if they can keep her on script and reading from a teleprompter, they can avoid the usual word salads she is well known for.

Folks, she hasn't forgotten the recipe for a blockbuster word salad. When someone else is writing the words for her, all she has to do is read them. But eventually she's going to be on her own. Off script with no teleprompter to guide her.

And it will all come back to us. Every muddled word that gets turned into nonsensical gibberish will make a remarkable comeback. It's impossible to avoid. And I think some of that will come back, front and center, on September 10th when the debate happens between her and Donald Trump.

I seriously doubt she will be able to get through that without at least some word salad and inappropriate placement of cackling. Besides, as I have said before, if the right questions are asked (and I have my doubts they will be), how is she going to explain inflation and the border? When she starts going on about price gouging, is anyone going to call her out on that and set the record straight? And if they do, will she be able to respond to it in a way that makes any sense?

I think what happens is that when the real Kamala Harris goes before the people and has to be herself, it's going to be her fall. Because that's a moment when the opportunity to pretend goes away. They can hide her from us (the media and the Democrat party), but she can't hide from herself.

Take into account another very interesting twist happening right now, and that's the possibility that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. might drop out of the race and, get this, endorse Donald Trump.

That's a rather interesting development considering that RFKJr. staying in the race actually helps Harris' odds of winning. If he jumps out and goes to Trump's side, the tables turn according to recent polling and Trump wins without question. It effectively erases any lead Harris currently has.

If you trust the polls in any event. But that's for another day.

It is also something that makes some sense, if you think about it. I am not going to say that RFKJr.'s positions align with Trump. But there are some similarities. And Trump has even said he'd absolutely consider a cabinet position for RFKJr. if he should come to Trump's side.

The fact is, and RFKJr. knows this full well, that while he can make a case to get at least 5% of the vote, he will never be elected president. It is clear he has not supported what the Democrats are doing and has been a strong voice against the Biden administration, and I think is no fan of Kamala Harris.

His move to the other side would be a logical one, all things considered.

Granted, it doesn't mean all of Kennedy's supporters will rush to vote for Donald Trump. But his strongest supporters just might, and I would contend that pool of supporters is large enough to dramatically turn the tables.

At the end of the day, I think what hurts Kamala Harris' chances the most, really, are the issues. And she's simply not winning on those. Her short-term boost will have to eventually come up against the reality that when it comes to the issues of most concern to the American people, the administration she was part of simply did not deliver the goods. She supported, endorsed and praised the very policies that greatly failed the American people.

The bottom line is that this race is far from over, and while the media is painting the picture of fear and unrest in the Trump campaign, I think the reality is that Trump's only getting started, the American people will not be so easily duped by Harris' "new look," and regardless of what the polls have said to the contrary, Trump's real lead never wavered a bit when Harris stepped to the front.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Can We Just Dispel the Trump Project 2025 Myth Once and for All?

You know, this whole Project 2025 thing irks me to no end, because here we have this document, that has been put out by conservatives in The Heritage Foundation, that has now become attached to Donald Trump regardless of whether Donald Trump has anything to do with it.

It's the latest buzz word on the left, and you hear it in the media, talked about by pundits and commentators, it's been mentioned several times at the Democrat National Convention—in their mind it's Trump's "world order," and that's that.

Even if it isn't, and even if the people saying it probably know full well it isn't.

Just like so many other things in the past launched against Donald Trump, nothing has to be true. Nothing has to have merit. You only need to say it happened and it becomes true.

Russia collusion, the impeachments, the indictments, the felony conviction—all of these are things the left will hang onto regardless of whether or not Russia collusion was proved to be a hoax, regardless of whether or not there was any real reason to impeach Trump, or regardless of whether a conviction actually followed a real crime.

There are still people wholly convinced Trump wants to be a dictator. "But he said it. It's on video. He said he wanted to be a dictator on day one!"

Only an idiot believes that, because when you add in the part where he said, "I want to drill baby drill and secure the border and then I won't be a dictator anymore," makes it clear that what he was saying is that he would simply use the powers of executive orders on day one to restore policies he had in place when he was president before.

To me, there is a real easy fix here. All the media has to do is scour through the Project 2025 document and match up Trump's former policy positions and current policy positions and see where things fall. They could easily do this and point out specific areas in the document that the former president clearly does not support.

Of course, that would require honesty and integrity in reporting. Something that the media abandoned probably decades ago by now. Besides, how can they try to use Project 2025 as some scary new world order manifesto unless they can simply tie it to Trump and leave it at that?

Wouldn't this be simple fact checking? I mean, we can trust the fact checkers, right? I digress. The reality is that even with most fact checking, it's not a team of people looking into something and saying, "Make it right." It's a group of people simply saying, "Make it so."

What makes matters worse is the power the media has over people's minds. Not so much on the right. Conservatives actually want to know what's going on. But the left will buy anything the media sells them without any question. 

Sure, some are going to simply say to me, "Well, you say Trump's not associated with Project 2025 because you support Trump." To that I say, I actually know what Trump's positions are because I have read them. I have seen them. I have heard them. So, I can look at parts of Project 2025 and know it does not align with Trump at all.

I mean, it may sound silly to suggest it, but what if we went all the way back to the formation of the KKK, which was formed by Democrats, by the way. Would we have automatically said that anything published by the KKK was a manifesto supported by all Democrats or the party itself? Would it have been a Democrat document? 

No. 

Sure, did some Democrats support parts of any KKK doctrine? Yes. Does Trump support some elements of Project 2025? Yes. But all of it? Hardly.

But again, that's the job of the media to tell us one way or the other how much of the claim that Trump is associated with Project 2025 is true. Beyond that, it's their job to point out specifically, especially the most radical parts of it, that are not true.

The reality is that truth is a really hard thing to come by these days, and never before in American history has it been more paramount for all Americans to shut off their TV's and start doing their own homework. Because no one's going to give it you straight anymore, and it's their word against ours. 

The fact is that Trump is not associated with Project 2025, and I say that because so much of what's in it simply does not line up with things Trump has said and done or is saying now. It's a document borne from a conservative think tank that is simply their idea of how things should be. It is not a mandate and certainly is not a directive that Trump is going to follow to govern by.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Politics Lacking Decorum is as Old as Politics Itself: Is the Current Political Atmosphere Anything New?

As can be said about so many things in life, "Perspective is everything." Most of us aren't necessarily historians. Even if we know a little bit about our past, we don't always remember it exactly for what it is, but for what we perceived it to be, based on what we see now.

The reality is that dating all the way back to the 18th Century in American politics, campaigns and politics in general, have always been nasty. And I think it's important to consider that as we get closer to the 2024 election, with so many people having this perception that somehow something has changed in the political discourse.

It really hasn't. It's just different faces and different names, and of course, a lot of how we see it all unfolding depends a lot on how the media portrays things.

And there's no question the media has a clear side and an agenda.

We feel like things are out of order and lacking a sort of decorum. But I think that's more of a perception than a reality. Again, I largely blame the media. They want to present danger, and the only way they can do that is to make things look like they are different now than they have always been.

When you think of all the name calling that has tossed around about Trump, it's really nothing new. In 1796, Alexander Hamilton wrote a piece under a pen name that was a scathing accusation against Thomas Jefferson that he was having an affair with one of his slaves.

Granted, that accusation turned out to be true.

But he also called Jefferson a coward, claimed if he was elected a Civil War would erupt sending the nation into a bloody chaos, and called him an atheist.

Even more telling of the "times," in comparison to the one we are in now, where Trump supporters have been labeled as deplorables, or MAGA extremists, racists and whatever other mean moniker you want to attach to what is being said, is Hamilton's saying of Jefferson supporters, "They are cutthroats who walk in rags and sleep amid filth and vermin."

That's a pretty ugly thing to say about your opponent's supporters. But again, this was 1796. Not 2024.

We act shocked when things like this are said. "Well, I never!" But of course, it's only our perception that ugliness is something new that makes us think that. 

And what about Trump's antics? How foreign is that to politics? Name calling, ridicule, and personal attacks were present in 1796 just like they are now, with Ben Franklin's grandson writing that another opponent, John Adams, was old, bald, querulous, crippled, blind and toothless.

If you simply wrote that line by itself, you might think it was from the pen of Donald Trump himself referring to Joe Biden in a mean tweet.

In 1828 Andrew Jackson was accused of being a cannibal and having eaten indians for breakfast. They called his mother a prostitute and claimed Jackson was the result of a British soldier who consorted with his mother for money.

Imagine these statements today. In fact, if you think about it, today seems tame compared. Has anyone been called a bastard child born from prostitution who ate indians for breakfast?

"Sleepy Joe" almost seems like a nice thing to say. It's rather benign. But of course, Trump gets labeled as dangerous, childish, and just downright mean. "This is so out of the ordinary," people claim. But of course, it's politics as usual. Nothing has changed. The history tells us the real story.

People said about Barry Goldwater that if you elected him the Soviets would drop nuclear bombs on your kids.

I think the thing that is important here is to consider the candidates not for what they say. Not for how they act. Not for the severity of their mudslinging. But for their policies and what they otherwise offer in terms of what they will do for the country. It is also important to restore our understanding of the way things are now so that we can have a better understanding that things really aren't any different now than they were.

We're not in as much of a chaotic, unhinged political environment as we think we are. If 1796 were today, the headline might have been, "Yo mama is a whore!"

Beyond that, it also offers a bit of a perspective into what have been come to be known as, "mean tweets." They didn't have social media back in the day to do their mudslinging and make wild accusations and engage in name calling. They did it in the papers. They did it on the campaign trail during rallies and speeches. The main point here is that they did it. Regardless of the forum. They did it.

Politics is as it has always been. Down. Dirty. Ugly. And nasty. The "pleasant" times of the past is something that only truly exists in our imaginations. And as I said, the chaos an unpleasantries we see today, compared to then, seem rather tame in comparison.

No one's mother has been called a whore and no one has been accused of eating indians for breakfast. Or Mexicans, for that matter, which might as well be the modern-day equivalent. On top of that, one must also consider that election interference is nothing new either. In fact, although Jefferson lost the election to John Adams in 1796, there was an implied notion that the French were interfering in the process to elect Jefferson.

Gosh. Doesn't all this sound familiar?

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

The Debate is Critical for Both Candidates

So, folks. We have a debate. For emphasis, you need to say that like the Arby's, "We have the meats," guy. The scheduled debate, which will air on ABC, will be held on September 10th between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, and I have to say, it will either be a defining moment for one or the other or an end to the honeymoon period Harris has enjoyed since Biden announced he would be stepping out of the race, making Harris the presumptive nominee for the Democrat party.

What will be interesting first and foremost, for me, will be how well Kamala Harris, unscripted and without a teleprompter, can command her words. She is, of course, well known for her many word salads, and from what we have seen in previous debates, she typically does not perform well in that setting.

In the Democrat primary debates leading up to the 2020 presidential election she never even made it to Iowa before being forced to drop out of the race.

The key thing for me is that Trump needs to maintain a sharp focus on the issues, especially the ones he is winning on, according to all polls. Those would be inflation, the economy, and the border. Regardless of how Kamala Harris tries to sell the success of so-called, "Bidenomics," the American people already know that it didn't work.

Trump needs to dial in on that and make it clear that it didn't work, and why. 

As for Kamala Harris, the hurdles for her are many fold considering that among former vice presidents, her favorability ratings were literally in the tank, and she trailed far behind even Joe Biden's. She's not a likeable person. If she cackles one time too many, it's going to make her appear as she has appeared in the past.

Out of touch and a little bit unhinged, and not to mention, not a serious person.

The thing is that this is "a moment" for Kamala Harris to try to erase any preconceived ideas about her, which she has largely been able to duck a bit from since the announcement of Biden stepping down. She's made no major media appearances and held no interviews. So, aside from some very well scripted rally venues, this will be the first time following Biden's departure that the American people will get to see, what presumably would be an attempt to showcase, a newly refined Kamala Harris, complete with some policies she is trying to distance herself from.

Including her own policy stances, by the way, which by even the most conservative measure are so far left, a walk to the center would take years.

She's going to try to deliver two direct messages, "I am not Donald Trump, but I am also not Joe Biden."

The first one is an easy one, of course. But what about the second one? For the past going on four years, Harris told the American people Biden was doing a remarkable job and touted success after success of the Biden administration, even joining in on the big stretch lie that Joe Biden is a president who accomplished more than any other president in past history.

The problem is, if she distances herself too far from Biden's policies, it is a de facto admission of sorts that it was all a big lie. Granted, she might get a small pass considering she was, of course, the vice president. But she still went along with the program, and she still owns the policies of the man she served under.

This inflation, this economy, and this border are all hers. Not only does she need to explain to the American people what her plans are to fix these issues, she needs to explain why they are issues after four years of her time in office.

If ABC asks the right questions, maybe we get to hear what she has to say about that. But it's the media, and if there's one thing you can bet, they probably won't ask the right questions. 

Either way, both candidates have a major opportunity to make an appeal for their cause, and both candidates, admittedly, have some issues in that regard. This debate, I think, has far more importance than the previous one held between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. The outcome of it, I think, determines the election, and because of that, both candidates have to be at the highest level of their game ever in their political careers.

Everything is at stake on September 10th for their future prospects. Literally, everything. Especially considering, I believe this may be one of the most watched debates ever in the history of American debates.

All eyes will be on. Neither one can lose sight of that. Especially Trump.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer 

Harris Wants to Ban Price Gouging on Groceries: Clearly, She's Out of Touch with Reality

Is it just me, or is anyone else getting the passing of the buck on inflation that has been dealt time and time again by the Biden administration, and now Harris, as she campaigns following Biden dropping out of the race?

She wants to propose a federal ban on "corporate price gouging" on food and groceries if she is elected.

Sure, some grocers, namely meat packers, have enjoyed record profits. But is that a result of price gouging and greed? The fact is that inflation is here because of the policies that Joe Biden put into effect that caused prices on everything to skyrocket.

You can even pin the damn timeline!

Within hours of Biden taking his oath of office he signed executive orders reversing Trump's energy prices and in March of 2021 he signed the American Rescue Plan into law, and by December 2021 inflation jumped to 10% and has risen year over year since well beyond the desired 2% rate the Fed prefers.

This inflation is not because of corporate greed. It is because of Biden's policies, which presumably would become Harris' policies if she is elected. What it should tell voters is that her eye is not on the ball. If she won't admit responsibility for the inflation, how can we expect her to have the right ideas to solve the issue?

To my mind, it's just the wrong focus and someone needs to call her out on this, and hard and fast. Perhaps Trump will do that and lay out exactly why we have inflation, which is for reasons other than the now Harris campaign is trying to sell us on.

I think the silver lining is that most Americans do know where the real blame lies. Based on the polls, Trump is still winning handily on the economy. But the problem is that there are enough haters of the rich who will side with Harris and give her a pass and agree with her.

But it won't solve the problem, of course, because it doesn't get at the heart of the cause. Beyond that, this will only put more restraints on businesses to operate profitably and effectively, and who does that hurt?

It hurts the consumer, and it hurts the workers.

It hurts the consumer because if suddenly a business is accused of gouging, it's going to have to adjust the way it makes its products. Quality may be compromised as recipes are tweaked. Packaging may change to adjust for the accusation.

And of course, if businesses make less profits, they can't pass any of that along to workers in terms of benefits and wages—or even new job creation.

You don't encourage a strong economic environment by stifling growth and progress in business. You encourage it by fostering growth and progress. Beyond that, you have to first prove gouging is happening, and I question how on Earth you do that?

What measure will be used to determine what a fair price is and what isn't? What method will be determined to decide whether a profit is good or exaggerated? How do you tell a business, "This is how much you can legally make on this item?"

It's more dictation and control over things the government has no business controlling or even deciding, for that matter.

The thing is that Harris really has no plan to tackle inflation at all, but because inflation is still here and it's a major concern to Americans, she has to say something. She has to at least look like she is interested in doing something about it.

Even Biden said price gouging was happening. If they truly believed it was, they'd have already done something about it. They haven't because, of course, it is something that only lives in their imagination and they are hoping the American people will join them on their fantasy trip.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer