Man Comes Up With Unique Plan to Catch Cheating Wife in the Act... And It Worked

Man Comes Up With Unique Plan to Catch Cheating Wife in the Act... And It Worked

Man Comes Up With Unique Plan to Catch Cheating Wife in the Act… And It Worked

A story that appeared in The San Francisco Globe about how one man caught his cheating wife in the act is going viral.


The man had the feeling and saw many indicators that his wife had
begun to cheat on him so he decided to throw her a “surprise” birthday
with her family and friends.



Here is the text of the story as told by the husband:


“So I had a feeling she was cheating as she set off a lot of red
flags,” said the man. “Constantly laughing and smiling when texting,
saying it was just her mother when I asked.”


“Needing to stay late every night after work, when I’d call in her co-workers said she left hours ago.”




“When I asked her what was going on she’d laugh it off and say it was
just something they did to each other at the office all the time.”


Continuing to see signs of infidelity, the man decided to catch her in the act on her birthday, inviting her unknowing family and friends along.


“You see after asking her what she wanted to do on her birthday this year
she was rather insisted on me going out of town with my friends as she
just had to work anyways and didn’t want to be reminded she was aging,”
the man said.


“So I know something is up and after finding a bottle of champagne and two glasses hidden in my closest something in me snaps.”


“So I do what any sensible man would have done,” the man said. “I
leave and go to my friends house pretending like I am going out of
town.”


“While there I call up her mother, father, sister and several of her
friends. I tell them how I want to give her a big surprise by sneaking
into her room with party streamers, kazoos and a big cake with candles.”


“Sounds fun right?! Well, boy was it.”


“I had everyone meet me outside our apartment at 8:30 in the morning,” the man explained.


“We all pile in the elevator (about 8 of us in total); her mother is
holding the cake and I’m reminding everyone to be as quiet as they can
be.”


“I put my key in and unlock the door; we all sneak in and make our
way down the hall towards the bedroom,” the man continued. “Each holding
a kazoo and her mom holding the cake grinning from ear to ear.”


The plan went just as the man had hoped, with everyone getting a big surprise… not just the wife.


“Well as I throw open the door, we all yell surprise! But the
surprise was on us and there was my wife, butt naked with her lover
staring at us wide eyed,” the man remarked.


“Mom drops the cake, sister screams, father begins to shout. I
pretend like I’m horrified to which her friends try to push everyone out
while yelling at her.”


“My wife, excuse me, ex-wife is sobbing and screaming how could I
while the lover is desperately trying to put his pants on while running
out of the place.”


“Needless to say, it was one of the best birthday presents I have ever given.” (H/T Opposing Views)


One of the biggest “taboo” topics is how to deal with a cheating
spouse. It’s considered rude and “trashy” to even talk about this
happening, as though the victim in the relationship is somehow a bad
person for not being a doormat.


This is wrong. Cheaters should be afraid of being caught. End of story.

REBELLION: This State Just Voted to Ignore ALL Obama's Executive Orders

REBELLION: This State Just Voted to Ignore ALL Obama's Executive Orders

REBELLION: This State Just Voted to Ignore ALL Obama’s Executive Orders

Barack Obama is not afraid to wield executive power to accomplish his agenda.  Whether he is ordering immigration officials to ignore deportation laws or mandating certain crimes not be prosecuted, Obama loves to run America by his own rules.


But one state just came up with a surprising plan to stop Obama’s
end-run around democracy. This state’s move could prove to be first
among many states rejecting Obama’s overreaching.



This week, Arizona passed two bills to stop Obama dead in his tracks.


The first bill, Arizona House Bill 2368, introduced by Rep. Bob
Thorpe (R-Flagstaff), prevents the state of Arizona from funding any
executive orders issued by President Obama, or policy directives issued
by the Department of Justice.


The Arizona State Legislature website described the bill as
prohibiting “this state or any of its political subdivisions from using
any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate
with an executive order issued by the President of the U.S. that has
not been affirmed by a vote of Congress and signed into law as
prescribed by the U.S. Constitution.” (H/T OpposingViews.com)




However, the defiant bill does not stop there. It also “prohibits
this state or any of its political subdivisions from using any personnel
or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate with a
policy directive issued by the U.S. DOJ to law enforcement agencies in
this state that has not been affirmed by a vote of Congress and signed
into law as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution.”


The legislation, if passed, would effectively make Arizona independent of federal laws.


The second bill, House Bill 2643, stops state and local governments from using state funds to enforce and implement the Affordable Care Act.


Both bills passed the Arizona House and will now move to the Senate.


We support Arizona’s opposition to Obama’s shocking power grabs and
hope the state is successful in its efforts to stop Obama’s executive
orders.  Democracy will be better served.

Why Obama So Dislikes Netanyahu

Why Obama So Dislikes Netanyahu Tuesday, Mar 3, 2015 There is no question about whether President Obama — along with Secretary of State John Kerry and the editorial pages of many newspapers — has a particular dislike of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But there is another question: Why? And the answer is due to an important rule of life that too few people are aware of: Those who do not confront evil resent those who do. Take the case at hand. The prime minister of Israel is at the forefront of the greatest battle against evil in our time — the battle against violent Muslims. No country other than Israel is threatened with extinction, and it is Iran and the many Islamic terror organizations that pose that threat. It only makes sense, then, that no other country feels the need to warn the world about Iran and Islamic terror as much as Israel. That’s why when Benjamin Netanyahu speaks to the United Nations about the threat Iran poses to his country’s survival and about the metastasizing cancer of Islamist violence, he, unfortunately, stands alone. Virtually everyone listening knows he is telling the truth. And most dislike him for it. Appeasers hate those who confront evil. Given that this president is the least likely of any president in American history to confront evil — or even identify it — while Benjamin Netanyahu is particularly vocal and eloquent about both identifying and confronting evil, it is inevitable that the former will resent the latter. The negotiations with Iran over its nuclear weapons program are today’s quintessential example. Those who will not confront a tyranny engaged in terror from Argentina to the Middle East, and which is committed to annihilating another country, will deeply resent Israel and its leader. For those who doubt the truth of this rule of life, there are plenty of other examples. Take the Cold War. Those who lived through it well recall that those who refused to confront communism vilified those who did. Indeed, they vilified anyone who merely labeled communism evil. When President Ronald Reagan declared the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” he was excoriated by those who refused to do so. Yet, if the words “evil” and “empire” have any meaning, they perfectly applied to the Soviet Union. But to those who opposed Reagan, these words could not be applied to the Soviet Union. New York Times columnists lambasted the president for using such language. The newspaper’s most prestigious columnist at the time, James Reston, condemned Reagan for his “violent criticism of Russians as an evil society.” Anthony Lewis accused Reagan of using “simplistic theology.” Reagan was using “a black and white standard to something that is much more complex.” Tom Wicker wrote that “the greater danger” than the spread of communism “lies in Mr. Reagan’s vision of the superpower relationship as Good versus Evil.” Columnist Russell Baker added his contempt for Reagan’s characterization of the Soviet Union. And, in a long Times article under the headline, “Reagan’s Gaffe,” an unnamed “strategist” for former Vice-President Walter Mondale told the newspaper that “Mr. Reagan had undercut diplomatic efforts of recent months” — exactly as the Times and the Obama administration now describe Benjamin Netanyahu doing to the negotiations with Iran. (For a detailed description of the reactions to Ronald Reagan’s anti-communism, see Ann Coulter’s book, “Treason.”) Some 20 years later, when President George W. Bush characterized the regimes of North Korea, Iraq and Iran as an “Axis of Evil,” he was likewise lampooned — as if those mass murderous tyrannies were not evil. In short, those who refused to characterize the Soviet Union as evil loathed Ronald Reagan and other anti-communists for doing so; and those who objected to the “Axis of Evil” label placed on North Korea, Iran, and Iraq loathed George W. Bush and his supporters. The loathing of Benjamin Netanyahu is simply the latest example of the rule that those who will not confront evil will instead confront those who do. (It’s much safer, after all.) Since the end of World War II, there has been a name for the people who refuse to confront evil and who resent those who do: leftists.

Why Obama So Dislikes Netanyahu - The Dennis Prager Show The Dennis Prager Show

Why Obama So Dislikes Netanyahu - The Dennis Prager Show The Dennis Prager Show

Why Obama So Dislikes Netanyahu

Tuesday, Mar 3, 2015

There
is no question about whether President Obama — along with Secretary of
State John Kerry and the editorial pages of many newspapers — has a
particular dislike of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.


But there is another question: Why?


And the answer is due to an important rule of life that too few people are aware of:


Those who do not confront evil resent those who do.


Take the case at hand. The prime minister of Israel is at the
forefront of the greatest battle against evil in our time — the battle
against violent Muslims. No country other than Israel is threatened with
extinction, and it is Iran and the many Islamic terror organizations
that pose that threat.


It only makes sense, then, that no other country feels the need to
warn the world about Iran and Islamic terror as much as Israel. That’s
why when Benjamin Netanyahu speaks to the United Nations about the
threat Iran poses to his country’s survival and about the metastasizing
cancer of Islamist violence, he, unfortunately, stands alone.


Virtually everyone listening knows he is telling the truth. And most dislike him for it.


Appeasers hate those who confront evil.


Given that this president is the least likely of any president in
American history to confront evil — or even identify it — while Benjamin
Netanyahu is particularly vocal and eloquent about both identifying and
confronting evil, it is inevitable that the former will resent the
latter.


The negotiations with Iran over its nuclear weapons program are
today’s quintessential example. Those who will not confront a tyranny
engaged in terror from Argentina to the Middle East, and which is
committed to annihilating another country, will deeply resent Israel and
its leader.


For those who doubt the truth of this rule of life, there are plenty of other examples.


Take the Cold War.


Those who lived through it well recall that those who refused to
confront communism vilified those who did. Indeed, they vilified anyone
who merely labeled communism evil. When President Ronald Reagan declared
the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” he was excoriated by those who
refused to do so. Yet, if the words “evil” and “empire” have any
meaning, they perfectly applied to the Soviet Union.


But to those who opposed Reagan, these words could not be applied to the Soviet Union.


New York Times columnists lambasted the president for using such
language. The newspaper’s most prestigious columnist at the time, James
Reston, condemned Reagan for his “violent criticism of Russians as an
evil society.”


Anthony Lewis accused Reagan of using “simplistic theology.” Reagan
was using “a black and white standard to something that is much more
complex.”


Tom Wicker wrote that “the greater danger” than the spread of
communism “lies in Mr. Reagan’s vision of the superpower relationship as
Good versus Evil.”


Columnist Russell Baker added his contempt for Reagan’s
characterization of the Soviet Union. And, in a long Times article under
the headline, “Reagan’s Gaffe,” an unnamed “strategist” for former
Vice-President Walter Mondale told the newspaper that “Mr. Reagan had
undercut diplomatic efforts of recent months” — exactly as the Times and
the Obama administration now describe Benjamin Netanyahu doing to the
negotiations with Iran.


(For a detailed description of the reactions to Ronald Reagan’s anti-communism, see Ann Coulter’s book, “Treason.”)


Some 20 years later, when President George W. Bush characterized the
regimes of North Korea, Iraq and Iran as an “Axis of Evil,” he was
likewise lampooned — as if those mass murderous tyrannies were not evil.


In short, those who refused to characterize the Soviet Union as evil
loathed Ronald Reagan and other anti-communists for doing so; and those
who objected to the “Axis of Evil” label placed on North Korea, Iran,
and Iraq loathed George W. Bush and his supporters. The loathing of
Benjamin Netanyahu is simply the latest example of the rule that those
who will not confront evil will instead confront those who do. (It’s
much safer, after all.)


Since the end of World War II, there has been a name for the people
who refuse to confront evil and who resent those who do: leftists.