"Black Lives Matter" Organization Has Lost Its Credibility

What could have been an effective means of holding police agencies accountable and responsible for the actions of police officers has digressed into a bunch of outrageous and out of control mobs demanding, not accountability, but the privilege to riot, loot, and commit other crimes as they see fit.  Not only that, but Black Lives Matter has moved on from protesting possibly questionable situations to outright demanding that BLACK criminals be allowed to freely operate without the fear of police intervention.

My case in point is the shooting of Che Andre Taylor by Seattle narcotics officers who had approached Mr. Taylor to arrest him for the alleged sale of drugs.  According to officers, AND to witnesses from the neighborhood, the police ordered Taylor to get down on the ground and submit to arrest.  Instead, Taylor reached into his vehicle toward a gun.  A gun?  Wait a minute.  Mr. Taylor was not even supposed HAVE a gun.  He was a convicted felon.  And not just a convicted drug salesman.  He had served time for drugs, aggravated assault, and rape.  In fact, due to his lengthy criminal record he did not even use his real name.

So, when ORDERED BY POLICE to lie down on the street with hands spread where they could see them, Mr. Taylor instead opted to reach inside his vehicle.  The officers, from their vantage point (not the camera's - by the way) were able to see a handgun on the car seat inches away from Mr. Taylor's outstretched hand.  What do you think happened next?  Two trained police officers defended themselves from a known felon whom they already suspected was carrying a gun on or about his person.  As might be expected, bullets from both officers' weapons struck the man who was about to shoot the officers.  And, not surprisingly, Mr. Taylor died from multiple gunshot wounds.

I do not know about you, but I myself am certain that police officers are justified in using deadly force against someone who is obviously about to use deadly force on the officers.  I also know that police officers are neither required NOR EXPECTED to let someone fire at them "just to be sure" that the person really intended to shoot.  I attended a police academy myself, many years ago.  In that police academy the trainees were of several races and both sexes.  Guess what.  We ALL RECEIVED THE SAME TRAINING.  The White officers, the Black officers, the Hispanic officers, and the male and female officers were all taught to vigorously defend themselves from criminals and ANYONE who was about to use deadly force against the officers.  This training is standard across the nation and across time.

Flash forward to Seattle a few days ago.  A criminal (who happened to be Black) attempted to use deadly force against police officers (the two directly confronting the criminal happened to be White) who were making a legal arrest and who had clearly identified themselves as officers.  Not only that, but there were marked police units acting in conjunction with the narcotics officers.  We are not told the race of these officers, but maybe they were White TOO.  Oh my God!  Or, maybe they were Black...maybe they were of different races and sexes.  In any case, the two narcotics officers ended the threat before any other officers OR CIVILIANS (there were several standing nearby) could be injured or killed.  The Seattle police chief, hoping to avoid riots and accusations of "cover-up" released a statement as soon as complete information was available.

Prompt communication and transparency was not enough for Black Lives Matter.  The fact that the criminal attempted to shoot officers was not enough.  The fact that Taylor was at least a two time felon actively engaged in yet ANOTHER felony was not enough.  The fact that police officers were justified in using deadly force, both according to police statements and according to witnesses on the street, was not enough.  Black Lives Matter organized a protest, BROKE UP a political event that had nothing to do with the situation, shut down streets, called for the firing and prosecution of the officers, and demanded that the police chief resign.  All of this AFTER the facts were out, AFTER Black Lives Matter almost certainly KNEW that civilians believed the police used justifiable deadly force.  Obviously, Black Lives Matter is not concerned about protesting alleged police abuse of power.

So Black Lives Matter is now protesting even though deadly force was not only justified, but (in the opinion of the police) necessary to save the officers' lives.  Black Lives Matter, in calling for protests and riots even when a felon is justifiably shot, has lost any credibility it might have had with the public.  Does Black Lives Matter (BLM) now demand that officers allow criminals to shoot FIRST before police can defend themselves?  More to the point, does BLM demand this of only White officers?  And, is BLM demanding that felons, if Black, be allowed to operate without police intervention, since the risk of gunfire is inherent with contact between felons and police officers?  Perhaps the most important question to ask of BLM is this:  When, exactly, are the police the use deadly force against Black criminals? 

If the whole premise of Black Lives Matter is to raise awareness of police brutality against UNARMED Black criminals, then why is BLM "protesting" the Seattle shooting?  If another premise of BLM is raising awareness of police abuse of ARMED Black criminals who surrender to police, again, WHY is BLM involved in the Seattle case?  So, we cannot depend Black Lives Matter to raise our awareness of police brutality, nor can we depend on BLM to highlight abuses of police powers when they cry "excessive force" and "police brutality" in incidents involving blatant and obvious attempts to harm police officers.  Since the BLM is not dependable in these areas, this organization ceases to be credible at all.  Now it is just another illegitimate mob on another illegal rampage.  This is very sad for those who really were interested in transparency and change.

Black Lives Matter?  BLM was not in Seattle protesting when Mr. Taylor was selling drugs.  BLM was not in Seattle protesting when Mr. Taylor committed aggravated assault.  Again, BLM's credibility rides off into the sunset when this organization is so loudly silent concerning the murder of Blacks by other Blacks that goes on daily in cities across the nation.  BLM seems to be saying, in its silence, that Black Lives Matter only when a Black person is killed by a White police officer.  I disagree wholeheartedly.  Black lives matter so much, as do all human lives.  Why is Black Lives Matter not protesting the senseless killing of thousands of Black people each year by the hundreds of Black criminals who prey on the good citizens of Black communities around this nation?

A good question that a lot of people should be asking...

I pray for the safety of all people, Black and White, and all other races, and I pray for the safety of the police officers who willingly put themselves in harm's way to protect all of us.

And may God Bless America. 



 

Justice Scalia And The Natural Causes Conspiracy

I recently blogged, only half "tongue-in-cheek, about what the next conspiracy would be after Jade Helm.  Well, it seems we neither had to wait very long to find out, nor to "invent" the elements of this conspiracy.  The federal and local authorities did all that for us!  I give you...the Scalia "Natural Death" Conspiracy.

The County Judge, Cinderela Guevara, of Presidio County, was not the first judge who would have been called for the inquest.  In fact, two Justices of the Peace happened to be out of the area at the time.  Judge Guevara was the third person on the list, as County Judge.  If you are not familiar with the southwestern border country of Texas, let me tell you that distances between towns, villages, and ranch headquarters are vast, counted by hours as well as miles.  The good Judge would have had to travel about three hours ONE WAY to get the Cibolo Ranch, the resort in the Big Bend country, south of Marfa, TX, whose owner is John Poindexter - yes, the same ADMIRAL John Poindexter who was convicted, and later acquitted in appeal, for his part in the Iran-Contra Affair.  But I digress. 

Judge Guevara spoke with some of the US Marshals on hand, the local sheriff, whom she presumably knows and trusts, and of course with John Poindexter.  All of these people assured Ms. Guevara that Justice Scalia died of "natural causes" in his sleep.  INEXPLICABLY, in my opinion, Ms. Guevara exercised her authority as a Texas county judge and chose NOT to order an autopsy.  This is the first step into the realm of conspiratorial thinking.  Ridiculous, you say?  Consider this.  Judge Guevara made news in Texas big time a couple of years ago when she refused to order an autopsy (yes, same thing, verse one) after a young lady was run over by a train.  The judge had information from at least two sources alluding to the unlikelihood that this young was simply lying on the track waiting for the train to run over her.  In fact, the locomotive crew told everyone who would listen (apparently the good judge was NOT one who would listen) the body of the young woman was lying "almost as if she had been put there while she was unconscious."  In other words, she did not jump in front of the train, did not fall onto the tracks, but appeared to have been "staged there" so that the train would neatly cut the body into three parts.  But Judge Guevara ordered no autopsy because the cause of death was "obvious."  This really inspires confidence...yes?  No, at the very least it is lazy, and at worst it sets a pattern which could have been exploited in the Scalia death.  Paranoid?  Maybe...but read on.

"Admiral" Poindexter, disgraced US naval officer (though I stress he was later acquitted on appeal) is also a skilled spy, as we learned in the Iran-Contra hearings.  This man, former spy and master of spy craft (including special drugs?) was the person who found Justice Scalia.  There was a pillow "over his head" in Poindexter's own words.  Now granted, there have been times that I placed a pillow over my head either because I had a headache, or because my lovely bride would not turn off the light when I was trying to sleep.  In other words, the pillow over the head could be an innocent thing.  But how would the Judge know.  She did not bother to go to the scene. 

Poindexter also tells us that Justice Scalia was lying on the bed with his clothes on.  An interesting thing (or should I say ONE of the interesting things) is that Mr. Poindexter felt the need to point out that the Justice's clothes were unruffled. Why?  Did someone ask Poindexter that very question?  Poindexter also said that the Justice told everyone he was feeling fine, just a little tired, and wanted to go to his room and rest.  In fact, Poindexter pointed out that NOTHING at all seemed wrong with Justice Scalia, other than that it was time for him to go to bed.  After all, he was 79.  Yes, a man of that age could have dropped dead of a heart attack at any time.  But he died when no one was around and with somewhat strange circumstances surrounding.  It is natural and, indeed responsible, to ask questions and to request an autopsy, for instance, when no one really knows what caused the Justice's death.  At the very least an autopsy that found the cause of death to be "natural" could have quieted all of us Conspiratorialists.

This post is getting lengthy and I have hardly scratched the surface with irregularities concerning the Scalia (LACK OF) investigation.  Justice Scalia had only recently dealt a death blow to Obama's global climate dictatorship.  The only witnesses to Justice Scalia's death scene are a former spy, federal agents, and a local sheriff with power to dissuade the county judge from issuing an order for autopsy.  I think it is first of all OUTRAGEOUS that the local judge would not honor this great man by doing all that was possible to rule out murder and prove that he indeed died of natural causes.  I think it was outrageous and DERELICT of her duty that Judge Guevara did not bother herself to take the three hour drive to Cibolo Ranch so that she could examine the scene and the body for herself.  But this lack of doing her job seems to be the norm for Judge Guevara.  Did Poindexter or someone else know this and specifically seek out Judge Guevara, knowing that she would not ask for an autopsy if she were told that "there were no signs of foul play?"  Paranoid thinking?

People across the nation were screaming for an autopsy of the young man killed in Ferguson during a confrontation with a police officer.  But in the case of Justice Anthony Scalia, it appears that only Conservatives and the "tin hat crowd" (maybe I fit in this one!) are calling for an autopsy, indeed calling for even the most rudimentary investigation into this unwitnessed death.  The mainstream media, instead of calling for an autopsy and answers, is already heckling anyone who wants further investigation into the Justice's death and calling them "truthers."  Instead of trying to lay this all to rest, instead of demanding answers, Big Media is telling us all to shut up, take all we are told as truth without any question, and to get on with the task of replacing Justice Scalia.  Incidentally his replacement will more than likely be a very liberal candidate, since Barack Obama will be the one who appoints a new justice.

If just wanting to have this matter competently and completely investigated makes me a "truther" or even a paranoid schizophrenic, call me those names and more....just investigate this case.  If after such investigation it is proven that the Justice died of natural causes, I will shut up and move on to my next conspiracy.  But I...and all of us...have the right and the DUTY to demand a competent investigation, after all, in President Obama's own words, "For almost 30 years, Justice Antonin “Nino” Scalia was a larger-than-life presence on the bench — a brilliant legal mind with an energetic style, incisive wit, and colorful opinions.

"He influenced a generation of judges, lawyers, and students, and profoundly shaped the legal landscape. He will no doubt be remembered as one of the most consequential judges and thinkers to serve on the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia dedicated his life to the cornerstone of our democracy: The rule of law. Tonight, we honor his extraordinary service to our nation and remember one of the towering legal figures of our time."

 

The President spoke very highly of Justice Scalia.  Is not the least we can do for this great man, and for his family, to find out for certain that he died of natural causes, or failing that, we determine what actually caused his death?  I think we are duty-bound to do so.

 

God be with the family of Justice Scalia, and...

 

God Bless America

 

The Checkout Line At Wal-Mart Has Its Moments

I had to make some purchases at Wal-Mart last night, and of course what I dreaded most was the checkout line.  Little did I know that tonight the checkout line was going to be a little different.

I had just stopped just to pick up a few items needed for the evening meal, and I was in a hurry to get home so my lovely bride could cook up supper.  After I had gathered everything, I raced to the checkout area hoping to find that mythical "shortest line."  By the way, I have learned to avoid the "speedy" checkout lines that limit the purchase to twenty items or less.  Why?  Because Wal-Mart high management has made the election to put the slowest, least-skilled, most poorly trained cashiers in the speedy checkout lanes, thus making the speedy lanes actually the slowest lanes in the store, but that is another story.

So I raced to a REGULAR checkout line that only had three people in it.  The first person was nearly finished being checked-out, the second person only had a few items, and the third person was a young girl, no older than ten or eleven, who had only one item - a really big candy bar.  So I was more than happy to get into this line, because it was a regular checkout line with a regular checkout clerk. 

The first lady in line was finished just a few minutes after I walked up, and the clerk began competently checking out the second person.  Not a single missing bar code, not one "price check on register 13," just a quick efficient checkout.  Then it was the young girl's turn.  She was very nicely dressed and was reminiscent of Lindsey Lohan in "Parent Trap II."  She had a very large yellow purse slung very lady-like over her right shoulder.  And she was so cute, so grown-up acting.  She placed her candy bar on the conveyor, then placed one of those separator sticks on the conveyor so that I could begin unloading my shopping cart. 

The cashier rang up the candy bar.  "That will be $1.65 please," said the cashier (who was also cute -thanks Wal-Mart).  The very grown-up young lady opened her over-sized purse and took out a large wallet, appropriate to the size of the purse.  When the young lady opened the wallet, I could see that there were no credit cards or other documents one would usually see in a wallet.  It was then that I realized the young girl's mother had probably given her the purse and the wallet.  The young lady took out a one dollar bill, then opened the change pocket of the wallet and, after some difficulty, removed a quarter.  She began really shaking the wallet then, but no more change came out.

The young lady then started really digging hard into the wallet, eventually producing a total of thirty-five cents.  She was thirty cents short.  Never losing one bit of her lady-like poise, the young girl said, "This is all I have.  My mom is just over there and I will get some money from her."  The cashier said, "That's fine.  All you need is thirty cents."  So I said, "Miss, I can help you pay for that."  She looked at me and said, "Yes...if you don't mind."  So I reached into my pocket and pulled out couple of quarters.

Just then a grown woman, whom I rightly assumed was the young girl's mother, came over and asked how much the young lady needed.  The cashier said "thirty cents."  The mother produced the needed cash and the young lady got her candy bar.  Then she turned to me and very sweetly said, "I am sorry for holding you up."  I told her that it was quite alright.

As the mother and daughter walked away and I took my turn at the checkout line, the cashier said, "She was sooo CUTE!"  I agreed with her.  The cashier than apologized for the delay, and I said it was quite alright.  My only regret was that I did not video the young lady as she made her transaction and place it on Facebook.  But in the interest of not alarming the girl's parents, I did not do so.  Nonetheless, this was one of those few times when waiting in the checkout line at Wal-Mart definitely had its moment.

And God Bless America

Why Do Cops Treat EVERYONE Like Criminals?

I have heard for many years, and still hear it all the time now because of my position, about how cops are suspicious of everyone, or treat everyone as if the person were a criminal.  Or I hear people talk about how the cops "kept their hands on their guns" all the time.  "Why can't cops treat people as just people unless they know the person is a criminal?"  I refer you to today's tragedy in Harford County, Maryland.

The Sheriff's Office there received a call from a local restaurant requesting that an officer come check out an elderly gentleman who has been sitting in the restaurant for over an hour but has not ordered anything.  Plus he was disheveled, maybe homeless.

The first officer to respond located the elderly man sitting in a corner in the back of the restaurant.  The deputy set down next to the man and began talking with him.  Witnesses said the deputy was trying to find out if the man needed food, was thirsty, etc.  The witnesses said the deputy made no move to detain the man or do anything other than offer him a meal.  While the officer was talking, the man pulled a pistol out of his clothing and shot the officer in the head, point blank.  The elderly man then just shoved the dying officer out of the way and walked out of the restaurant.

Within minutes more police officers responded to the frantic 9-1-1 call that an officer had been shot.  A deputy located the fleeing suspect and confronted him.  Somehow the suspect was able to shoot the officer, who then returned fire, as did two other deputies who arrived seconds after the man shot the second deputy.  Between the second wounded deputy and the others, one or more of the officers fatally wounded the suspect.  Unfortunately the second deputy died as well.

Two officers killed by a "elderly, possibly homeless" man who, it turned out, was a wanted felon.  I cannot fathom why the man was able to shoot a second officer, when responding officers should have been ready for a gun fight and ready to shoot to kill.  But I was not there so I do not know any of the circumstances.

Back to my point.  As I said, I have been asked many times over the years, right up to just a few days ago, why police officers seem to treat civilians like criminals, or why officers seem to keep their hands on their guns even though they are talking to "regular" people.  What would people have said if the deputy had walked into that restaurant with his gun drawn, ordered the elderly man down to the floor, cuffed him, and then found nothing?  Excessive force!  Police brutality!  The cop was scared!  Well, the truth is, as was borne out in this tragedy, the police MUST be very cautious, must always remember that the person to whom they are talking COULD BE A WANTED FUGITIVE.  Or, the person could simply be a "crazy" person who suddenly shoots the officer due to paranoia or some other psychological problem.  Regardless, the cop is just as dead.

In Odessa, Texas a few years ago, the police in that city were called because a certain man and woman, who had been fighting and assaulting each other for years, were once again fighting and assaulting each other.  The police had been to this house numerous times, and some of the officers knew both the husband and the wife.  Several officers had been to their house multiple times.  Over the years police officers had suggested that these two people consider divorce, since they were dangerous to each other.  But they stayed together and fought night after night for decades.  But finally one Saturday evening the wife ran to a neighbor's home for refuge.  The neighbors called police, and the police responded, as usual, fully expecting to simply talk with the husband (an ELDERLY MAN, by the way), calm him down, and everything would continue as usual.  But that evening things turned out differently.

A police sergeant and a patrolman knocked on the elderly man's door.  Seconds later they were literally blasted off the front porch by several rounds from a twelve-gauge shotgun.  This from a man who had never lifted a finger toward the officers before.  Seconds later a third officer, who had stationed himself behind the home, called out to the other officers to find out if they were hurt.  They of course did not answer.  The officer then stealthily made his way to the front of the house where he saw the dying officers lying in the grass.  As the third officer passed a window, he himself was cut down by multiple shotgun blasts.  Two officers died that night, and the third died less than a week later.

These officers, like the deputy in Maryland, placed themselves in harms way because they chose to confront elderly people with the least force possible, in the kindest way possible.  And they paid for this choice with their lives.  So next time you see an officer approach an "elderly person" or a pregnant lady or anyone else with hands at the ready to use weapons, with eyes on cover, with two or three officers when there is only one person to talk to, just remember this incident in Maryland today, or the murder of the three Odessa officers.  THIS is why officers cannot afford to ever be off their guard.

Years ago when I was still a police officer, there were numerous times I approached vehicles, especially at night, with my gun already drawn (though concealed from the driver's sight), or when I had my hand on the gun butt ready to draw even though I was talking to elderly people, to obviously emotionally disturbed people, or just to someone I did not know.  I survived nearly two decades in law enforcement, sometimes due to skill, but many times due to luck and God taking care of an idiot.  I do not believe I was a better officer than any officer who was shot or otherwise murdered on the job, I just survived somehow.  I know from a civilian standpoint, people may wonder why cops are so suspicious, always alert, always watching people...and it is because of incidents like that in Maryland today.  So maybe people will realize that officers are in danger at all times when they are at work.  People should also realize that criminals do not wear signs identifying themselves.  Cops MUST be careful.

My prayers and my sympathy go out to the families of those officers killed in Maryland today, as well as to the families of the Colorado officer who died today of wounds suffered several days ago.

The Thin Blue Line in Heaven has three more heroes tonight.

God Bless America

Sometimes The First Amendment Can Hurt

Any of you that know me know this, and any of you who do not know me now know this:  I am a firm believer in the United States Constitution, every word of it.  Particularly I believe in the First Amendment, and most specifically in freedom of speech and religion. The United States Constitution, although it contains the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments), is a document that enumerates the responsibilities of the "government" and, more importantly, LIMITS the powers of the government.  Further, the Constitution reserves power not given to the federal government to states, or to the people.

Several years after the Constitution was adopted by the several states, the 14th Amendment (and several Supreme Court rulings) have applied most of the Bill of Rights to the states.  Thus Freedom of Speech, Freedom to freely practice one's Religion, and the Freedom FROM a State-Established Religion are binding on state governments and even city or county governments. 

Flash forward to Phoenix, Arizona in 2016.  Just this past week the city council there stopped the practice of opening each city council meeting with a prayer, or should I say a TRADITIONAL prayer.  Now the Phoenix City Council will open each meeting with a "moment of silence."  In other words - No More Prayers at Phoenix city council meetings!

It seems that the city fathers and mothers would rather have no prayers at all at council meetings than allow the local Satanical organization to have its "turn" at the prayer podium.  This is the good and the bad of the Constitution; on the one hand a person is free to practice "his" religion; on the other hand, the bad is that any other person is ALSO free to practice "his" religion (or hers, or theirs, etc.,).  A Baptist can pray, a Catholic can pray, a Jew can pray...but so can a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Methodist...and yes, even a Satanist.  In Phoenix, the Satanists just wanted to be allowed their turn at the podium.  Actually in today's climate in America, it is quite likely that many people would prefer a Satanical prayer to a Muslim prayer!  But not in Phoenix.  There, no prayers at all are preferable to any "non-traditional" prayer.

Now, please do not get me wrong, and do not misconstrue my personal feelings with my belief in the United States Constitution.  For one thing, I do not need any government law or other legal approval to practice my religion.  My religion, like yours should be if you are a Christian, means that I will obey the Lord no matter what ANY GOVERNMENT, including my own, might say.  For another, my faith is strong enough that one (or ONE MILLION) Satanical prayers or Islamist prayers will not sway me in the least.  I do not WANT to hear a Satanical prayer the next time I go to a County Commissioners' Court, but if we are truly following the First Amendment, if a Christian is allowed to pray at the opening of the meeting, a Satanist should be allowed to pray at the next meeting.  Then a Baptist might pray, a Catholic might pray, and so on.  Instead of allowing this step out into the zone of un-comfort, the Phoenix governors took the right to pray from EVERYONE.  No one can pray at a city council meeting anymore there.  Ironically, the Satanists are disappointed with this ruling as much as any one else in Phoenix.  They wanted a chance to lead an opening prayer.  Who knows why?  Maybe to shock everyone...maybe just to gain exposure and thus possibly gain new members. 

Whatever the reason, the Satanists expressed disappointment, but they also expressed another sentiment, as well.  They expressed that their goal in their threat to sue the Phoenix City Council for the right to pray before that group was not to STOP prayer, but to force the Council to allow them a chance to open the meeting with a prayer once or twice a year.  The City Council's ruling will no doubt be followed by other cities and counties, state legislations, and maybe even Congress some day.  But I wonder, is it so horrible to listen to someone's prayer, someone we may disagree with so profoundly, if the alternative is to be told we cannot pray at all?

So the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States enumerates some of our "inalienable" rights such as the right to practice our religion freely (including Satanism), and the right to be FREE FROM a government-established religion.  The good is that we Americans are free to practice whatever religion we want to practice.  The "bad" is that we Americans are free to practice whatever religion we want to practice.  That means that if one religious group is allowed to pray at an official government (non-religious, by the way) function, so must all other religions be allowed that same freedom. As much as I feel sorry for those misguided into Satanism, as much as I DETEST the fanatical Islamists, I also respect these people in their right to practice their religion. What can anyone say in a five minute prayer that can do anything to me, can harm me in any way, can in any way keep me from the Good Shepherd? 

If this situation should arise in Midland, Texas some day, I hope my government leaders will simply put the Satanists or whoever on the agenda, give them their turn at prayer, and go one with their business.  Will they have that kind of courage?  Only time will tell.

God Bless America...the America that no Satanist or Islamist or any other "ist" can move one iota.

Amen.
 

Super Bowl 50 - It's Just Chicken Wings To Me

As most Americans are aware, Super Bowl 50 will be played this Sunday, February 7th, between the Denver Broncos and the Carolina Panthers.  But I suspect very few Americans know another fact: American football fans will eat at least 1.3 BILLION chicken wings during that football game.  That's right! 1.3 billion with a "B"!  I think this is a very tasty fact, and I would like to do my part to help reach that huge figure.  I love chicken wings!

Yes, a lot of chickens will make the ultimate sacrifice for the upcoming Super Bowl games, but I recently came across an article that helps put this great sacrifice into perspective.  For instance, according to this source, 1.3 billion chicken wings translate to 600 wings per every seat in all the NFL stadiums combined (32 stadiums around the nation).  I can eat a few wings, maybe a dozen, but I would not be able to finish all six hundred of my allotment during the entire 2016 NCAA football season!

As one prepares to take a mouthwatering, tongue-searing, tear-jerking bite of a hot wing (or ATOMIC if you are brave enough) one might believe that said chicken wing is near weightless; however, when chicken wings come in bulk of 1.3 billion pieces, the weight can be calculated.  It turns out that the weight of all those chicken wings comes out to roughly 6,000 times the combined weight of the respective Super Bowl teams.  In pounds, the weight of this feast will be approximately 160 MILLION!  This is THOUSANDS of truckloads of chicken wings - enough chicken wings to stretch from Denver to Charlotte about fifty-three times!

I know that you, dear reader, must be amazed, astounded, and overwhelmed by the above chicken wing facts, but there is actually a point to all this...er...fowlness.  You see, if we look at the pregame sales of chicken wings in Denver and Charlotte, we are able to predict the most likely winner of Super Bowl 50.  It seems that in four of the last five Super Bowl games, the team whose home city consumed the most chicken wings (according to pre-game sales) won the game.  That's right, so place your bets, my friends, then on the day of the Super Bowl just monitor the National Chicken Council's sales figures for the two cities.  Be sure to give your bookie a call right before kick off.  If you become a millionaire you will have me to thank.  Thanking me with cash is just fine!

So, wings UP, America...

And may God Bless the USA



source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/super-bowl-chicken-wings_us_56af7f1ce4b0010e80eac7d1?ir=Weird+News&section=us_weird-news&utm_hp_ref=weird-news