Hot Button Issues – Page 5

So, an old question, just in a new way

I recently came across a social media thread that started out with someone yelling about how they hate Minecraft, superhero movies and Beyonce, only to be told to focus on what they like, rather than what they hate. When the person says they like Donald Trump, however, the person saying not to hate, well, we’ve seen what happens when someone says they like Trump, right?

So, in a wider sense, here is my question. Why is it “wrong” for one group to “hate” something, simply by not agreeing with or praising those who do, while the other side is “just standing up for equality” when they go completely off the deep end and all but murder people for “intolerance” or “hate?”

I’ve asked this in several ways in several different places, and only get hate and worse back, but the question is still valid. How does my personal belief system, my being a Christian, “deny rights” to anyone? I am not (nor ever will be) an elected official (I like my hair and health.) I hope to never again be in a position to hire/fire, and thus, I’m not responsible or involved in any way in who works for the company I work for. When I was in management, however, my primary foci were appearance (clothing and grooming) and ability. If you adhered to dress code (if there was one, if not, if you dressed appropriately for the job) and could do the job, that’s all I cared about. Oddly enough, the only two people I’ve ever fired, were white males.

Sadly, every time I’ve asked this question, even being as specific as to say “my person belief, not a manager, not a politician, just me specifically,” all I get in return is hate, and barely coherent rambling hate at that. I’m told loudly that “Christians are holding back equality,” am shouted down about how “Christians want to force women into back alley abortions only,” and when I “dare” try to interrupt (meaning I try to speak in reply to a comment when they pause) I’m simply shouted down.

I’m sorry folks, equality is a good thing in many respects, but not achievable in all. In hiring, it’s great, let qualifications decide who is hired. In other respects, you can’t have a right to free speech and silence others, that’s not equal, that’s simply giving total control to the loudest complainers. While funny in a “we’re going to hell in a handcart” way, the student screaming obscenities at the speaker then chanting “keep your hate speech off our campus,” who has now been dubbed Trigglypuff, is a sign of the times. These people firmly believe that by just calling something “hate speech” they are fully capable of forcing you to leave. This doesn’t just apply to racism or sexism discussions, you could suggest that by lowering income tax, and thus putting more money in the bank accounts of citizens, you’d actually see more money going to government through luxury taxes and the like, and they’ll happily call you names, then when you protest, it’s “hate speech” and “trying to censor their free speech.”

So, the final question here, how, if at all possible, do we turn this around from people who are so convinced that simply calling anything they don’t like or agree with “hate speech” doing anything they want, to what we were only 30 years ago, a country where freedoms were actually what they were laid out as?

One for tonight (and two questions I’ve been asked get answered)

OK, first, the questions. I doubt many (save close friends) know that I blogged from 2004 to about 2006 when school heated up after I returned to college and was done with the basic stuff. Now, I’ve been back blogging again since December of 2014, and I’ve been asked why, since the vast majority of bloggers have moved to Facebook, and just use Twitter to help get their stuff seen. To answer that simply, I like the WordPress interface, as I’m able to use HTML (yes, I actually studied HTML way back in the 1990’s) to make the posts a bit more “professional” in appearance. I have linked the blog to a FB page and to a Twitter feed, and I’m sure that the vast majority of any views are there, not on the actual blog, at least to start.

The other question I get asked the most is, why do this at all? Simply put, I won’t sit idly by and let this country just crash and burn. The topic I’ve picked for tonight is a great example of that, so let’s just roll into it and you’ll get your answer to this question.

In a speech at UMass Amherst, students shouted and cursed at the speaker, at one point chanting “keep your hate speech off our campus.” Sadly, this is not random or new, children are taught very young that if something “offends” them then it should be done away with. Sports teams aren’t allowed to reject any try out, nor are they allowed to cut players, as this would “hurt the young athlete’s feelings.” When this happens, the coach is simultaneously told, at least subtly, that they still must win as much as possible. Teachers aren’t to “hurt feelings” with words like fail or by using red ink (that last one, thankfully appears to have quickly been forgotten) since students need to be built up, not torn down by words like fail, when they fail an assignment. Well, where does this lead to? Here is where it leads. Students who’ve been coddled and made to feel as if they rule the universe for so long, that saying something they don’t agree with is “hate speech,” or where a chalk writing of the name Trump “frightens” them so badly they “feel threatened and unsafe.”

I’m sorry princess, but you aren’t the only person on the planet, and not everyone agrees with every piece of crap drivel that comes out of the hole in your face. It is not hate speech for me to say I feel that a male who “identifies as female” should not be allowed in the women’s restroom, as young children use those too. We’ve seen, before and after cities/businesses/schools allow this officially, people doing this so they can video or otherwise ogle the others in the restroom. At this point, I feel the only way to stop this lunacy is to get rid of multi stall restrooms and go to single person rooms. Of course, this will be decried as “wrong” and as “separating people based on their lifestyle” even WHEN rapes will have happened, as the idiots screaming this, just as the idiot SJW above screams about hate speech. I attended 3 rather large, public, colleges in north TX, so you’d think I’d have been in a rather conservative environment, being Texas, but you’d be wrong.

I won’t name the schools, but I was called a racist bigot while discussing classical vs supply side economics, I’ve been almost punched while debating historical comments, and I’ve been grabbed when I walked away, only to have the idiot who grabbed me claim I assaulted them when I simply got to within an inch of touching them and stared at them until they backed off. In the latter two cases, campus PD was present (we were in the outdoor areas, which were patrolled regularly) so nothing happened. At another time, after only a few seconds, some idiot began shouting whenever I would begin to speak, so I simply wrote out “if you refuse to allow me to speak, you are automatically wrong, and lose this argument.” They of course began shouting that I was wrong, that I needed to be silenced since I was promoting hate (how they got that from the 3 seconds I was able to be heard is amazing,) and how they’d “have be expelled for my obvious racism and hate.” Naturally, nothing came of it, as the Debate sponsor was having lunch with me and the rest of the team, and after silencing the moron, told him that by Robert’s Rules of Order, if you deny your opponent the ability to speak, you are disqualified, at which point he called her a stupid bitch, and stormed off. Comically, he then was surprised to find her as his Speech teacher the next semester, and was eventually expelled for his idiocy in class.

So, here’s the closing bit to all of this, and the ultimate answer to why I keep up with this. When you look around at people who firmly believe they have a right to resort to vulgarity and shouting down anyone who disagrees with them, at a world where if you don’t tow the constantly changing party line, you’re instantly a racist/sexist/bigot/etc, and at a world where people scream racism or sexism for not voting for this candidate simply because of their race/sex, but who then grow angry when you point out that another candidate, who is a woman or minority (or minority woman in the case of Condoleeza Rice) and who was basically run out on a rail, they instantly cry that you’re “stifling them” or “attacking them,” would you sit by and let the world be run by those idiots, or would you do all you can to shine the light of day on them, expose their attempt to impose a draconian standard on the world, and hopefully, push the idiocy back for even a short time?

I can tell you, I won’t sit idle, I can’t say how much I’ll accomplish, but I would rather go out fighting, than on my back in compliance.

It’s Saturday, time for a bit of a rant

More and more each day, I see the world hurtling to hell in a rocket powered wagon, and no one seems to care. We hear screams of racism, sexism, and so on daily, while those doing the screaming are the most guilty of those actions. Meanwhile, others are taking everything they can to “prove racism is institutional” and only proving themselves to be idiots. Case in point, this person claims to have been looking for buried Comcast wires, when approached by a police officer who had his weapon drawn. He was supposedly told to put his hands up, but said no, and was then given a ticket. I’m sorry idiot, but had the officer had his weapon drawn, you would have to have given him a reason. Contrary to popular media hype, police do NOT just approach every non-white person with a weapon drawn. Second point, you claim that your shirt and van are “proof you’re not in the wrong.” Well, sorry to tell you this, but criminals are getting smarter and stealing uniforms and vans, or at least copying them, to “case” places they plan to hit. In most situations, were I in a Comcast neighborhood and see a Comcast van and someone in their shirt, I’d have to think hard about if they were up to no good, and criminals know this. Second, the fact that you weren’t arrested and given a court date, but only cited instead, to me, tells me the idiot posting this to social media is just looking to stir up more trouble. If you are approached with a weapon drawn and you don’t comply, there will be a second (or more than 1 extra) officer there who will either pepper spray or taze you, you won’t just be given a ticket.

Moving on to something that isn’t a report in the media of bigotry or the like, but just a TV show, I still feel it shows a pervasive attitude in society today. So, while watching Supergirl, there’s a scene where two idiots are ramming each other at high speed, and are racing toward young school children.

Being a super hero show, of course Supergirl stops the cars, at which point one driver jumps out, angry that she totaled his car, and caring nothing for the children he almost murdered. He then throws a punch, only to later scream about how she’s hurting him. First, she’s freaking Supergirl! You surely know that you can’t hurt her, so why throw the punch? Simpler than that however, is that this is the attitude becoming more common. Someone stopped from doing something horrible then views themself as 100% the victim, and their actions, regardless of what they are, as 100% justified. Speeders sue the cops for “racism,” criminals who shoot old men (see a previous post) sue said old man for shooting back. Families of criminals sue the one who stopped said criminal from killing others for “negligence” in using a legal firearm to stop a crime.

So, what do you think? Am I right that the world is just headed for hell and doesn’t care?

When your cause is so weak you have to invent enemies, you need to stop.

We’ve seen the screaming mobs protesting against “Police racism” when a thug is shot by an officer who was legitimately in fear for his life, the screams and tears as Obama said if he’d had a son, the child would have been like Trayvon, who got high and attacked a man, and was ultimately shot. But when it’s violence aimed at whites, it’s ignored. Most recently, a student Kean University left a protest, created an anonymous Twitter account, posted threats to anyone who is black, then went back to the protest to report this. Story Link I can’t say if we’ve found a judge with a working brain, or if we just are being treated to a single event going as it should, but the student has been fined $82,000 and will spend 90 days in jail.

I hate having to clarify points like this, but I must do so more and more every day. I do not support threats or violence against anyone, save when used in defense of life. I will be the first to stand against anyone threatening to kill people because of their skin color, but because I’m white, I’m crippled socially, since it’s now apparently “fact” that simply being born white means I’m a bigot who wants to go back to pre-Civil War days and start buying slaves.

The point of this is simple, we need to stop the BS about racism where there is no racism. It’s not racist to argue that $15 an hour for a McDonald’s line cook is not fiscally sound. It’s not racist to hire based on qualifications. It’s not racist to defend your life when attacked. It is racist to run around chanting that some lives matter, rather than simply “life matters.” It is racist to point at one race and hate them based on their skin. Oddly enough, it’s the DNC both then and now spurring on the racial hate. The DNC enacted Jim Crow laws and fought for equal rights in the 1960’s and they’re fanning the flames of hatred still today.

So, what are we going to do about it?

A few great articles from Texas Law Shield

I can’t remember if I’ve posted about Tx Law Shield here before, so I’ll give them a shameless plug now. If you haven’t guessed by now, I’m a Texan, and I have my Handgun license and carry rather often. Yes, I’m the Bible thumping gun toting right winger that your professors warned you about. Well, as we all learned from George Zimmerman’s trial after he was attacked by and defended himself against Trayvon Martin, even if you’re completely in the right and innocent, that won’t stop the police from arresting you and others from suing you. While Zimmerman was acquitted, he still spent over $100K to accomplish that, just in legal fees. He also couldn’t work while on trial, so in essence, his life was ruined even though he wasn’t guilty.

When I last renewed my CHL (now just a handgun license with open carry now legal,) Texas Law Shield had a representative present to pitch their program. In a nutshell, I pay $11 a month and if I’m ever arrested, or otherwise dragged into court, because of anything to do with firearms, I have a lawyer and I don’t pay anything more than my monthly dues, which is a great comfort. They also have a nifty little statement on my card, written out in legalese, basically summing up to “I’m staying silent, please call my attorney,” which is all you should ever say if you’re arrested, since they can use “my arm is broken, can you call an ambulance” as “obstruction of justice” since it delayed them, given the right attorney of course.

So, first is a story from Houston about a Centerpoint contractor attacking a dog. I’ve worked for a retail electric provider, and our field guys reminded us regularly to let people know to post signs if they had dogs that might get upset at strangers, to give them when the meter reader would be out so they could have them inside, and more. Oncor made sure to do all they could to avoid being around unfamiliar animals. While it’s correct that the electric company doesn’t have to tell you when they are coming, or knock when they arrive to read the meter, this guy just walking up and swinging a wrench at a dog that was NOT ATTACKING, to the point of knocking out a tooth, is just wrong. One, it shows his first reaction to any “provocation” is violence that could be deadly. Second, it shows he believes he’s above the law, and that needs to be corrected. This is cruelty to animals, and he should do a lot of time for it, if you ask me.

Next is a comparison of the US and Australia when it comes to the Castle Doctrine. To sum this up, Castle Doctrine is a legal theory based on “A man’s home is his castle” and is the perfect example of logic, and how politicians twist it. In this one, we look at the case of a man in Australia who found someone, at night, in his home and near his daughter’s room. In the ensuing fight, the intruder (a convicted rapist by the way) was injured and later died at the hospital. The father now faces murder charges, for defending his daughter from a rapist! This article looks at a few states and how this would play out here in the U.S. I’m very glad to live in TX, since our definition does not state that if someone breaks into my home, I can only ask them to leave, but rather, I can use force to protect myself, my home and my family. Australia, sadly, is being held up by many in DC as what we should have. They want a disarmed society, so we can be kept under their boot, and that’s the least of the problem. Many want to make it legal to sue companies like Ruger or Smith & Wesson when a gun is involved. Naturally, many have asked if we should be able to sue Ford or Chevrolet when a drunk kills someone while driving, and they’re just “exaggerating so the evil gun nuts can stop progress.” Yes, I’ve actually been told I’m holding back progress for not wanting a law that allows someone that is not involved to be sued. Granted, I’ve been called a sexist and racist when debating classical vs supply side economics, which shows what I dealt with in college. So, here’s a simple question, should we, as humans, have the right to defend our lives, our family’s lives, and our home?

This one is just funny, since Howard Stern actually stands up for the 2nd Amendment. Granted, there’s a nod to Aquila ammunition, and a great article about Hillary and exactly why should shouldn’t be President of a fan club, let alone the U.S.

So, what do you think?

And here we see the response that we expect

It seems that, just as we expect, liberals won’t allow dissent. In this one a mother dressed up as a pirate, a Mexican and as Russell Wilson, asking “does this make me” then asked how clothing can make a man a woman. While many agreed and praised her dead on logic, others found it “horrible” or “offensive” that she would even consider posting it, so they reported her post for “offensive content” and LIED (I know, shocking) about the photos, saying they contained nudity. She responded that she would not remove them, as they contained no nudity at all, and of course Facebook removed them anyway. Now, I can’t say which it is, as Facebook has horrible service to begin with, but whether they just didn’t verify anything and remove anything reported, or whether they knew the post was well within guidelines and removed it anyway, well, they’re both very bad options, and reasons why Facebook won’t last much longer.

Here’s the crux of the matter. The left wants to scream about how the right is “forcing religion on them” and “forcing and outdated moral code” on them, while doing the very same. They scream that not letting a cross dressing man use the women’s room is “denying freedom” while then screaming WHEN that cross dressing man turns out to be a pervert. They scream that they want tolerance and freedom, then in the next breath are silencing anyone who disagrees with them.

It’s very simple, you either agree with and praise them, or you’re the enemy and they will do all they can to destroy you. Thankfully, they’re the ones who hate guns and find a chalk scribble of Trump’s name so frightening they need counseling, so it won’t be much of a destruction, but that won’t always be the case.

How long until these are “right wing nuts trying to cripple freedom?”

Yet again, we are seeing the exact outcome that conservatives predicted, and now I’m waiting on the liberals to find a way to make it a conservative’s fault. I wrote <a href=http://blog.sheepdogsmokey.com/archives/143″ target=”_blank”>this just over six months ago, pointing out how public schools (not colleges either) are now being targeted with demands that restrooms be open to anyone who identifies as that gender. When all of this began, many pointed out that this was just begging for a pervert to suddenly identify as a woman and use that to prey on those they could. Well, here are two stories where that very thing happened. First, a man used a women’s locker room, while the second had a man setting up a camera in the women’s restroom. Now, in this case, apparently, the man simply disrobed as he changed before and after a swim, but not the bit where it’s mentioned he was there when YOUNG GIRLS were changing for swim class. So far, no one has been arrested, so I’m just waiting for the story about how this man is now in jail after assaulting someone, then the outcry from the family, to be met with indifference from the left before they scream about freedom.

The second story does feature an arrest, thankfully, although the person was able to set up and use a camera for some time before he was caught. This is only one way that allowing people to choose which restroom they want to use can be horrible. Naturally, pointing out stories like this makes you a bigot, sexist, etc and you’re the problem not those misusing the policy. Next the people misusing this policy will be “plants” by the right wing to make this look bad so they can go back to forcing morality on others. Some, like Kroger have put up a sign saying somewhat nicely that the single person restroom is unisex, but the others are not. Personally, that is the only logical option in my mind, because to let anyone use any restroom they want will only end with one side or the other complaining. Parents of small children will be “bigots” when they complain that their minor child was exposed to something a child shouldn’t be exposed to, while the “poor, downtrodden LGBT community” will be “traumatized” by the fact that people just don’t understand.

It’s simple, restrooms are not for you to pick based on how you identify, they’re about what type of plumbing you have, plain and simple. When you let everyone choose, stories like the above will happen, and women who use the men’s room will have their problems too. I personally don’t think it will be long before a woman using the men’s room will have been “assaulted” in some way, although she won’t be able to remember what the attacker looked like, there will be no evidence, she will have no injuries, but it was assault and she should be given money for pain and suffering. This isn’t a slippery slope people, it’s the edge of a cliff!

Why is this OK?

I’ve posted many times about hot button topics, and in general I’ve seen about a 50/50 response, with some agreeing with me and others very much opposed. Thankfully, my audience has, so far, been civil, but it seems the world is just determined to speed toward hell. This story popped up for me today, and while I’ve never really been a fan of Bill Nye, until now, he pretty much seemed to be interested in real research. Now? In my book he’s no better than the mouth breathing trolls I encounter so often in discussion threads.

Simply put, according to this article, Bill Nye is “open” to criminal charges and/or jail time for “climate change dissenters.” Yes, you read that right, by that title, he’s OK with jailing those who don’t agree totally with him, no questions. This isn’t about jailing the Captain of the Exxon Valdez, but any “dissenter” and those doing the jailing will decide who is and isn’t a “dissenter.” I’m sorry folks, but this is exactly what’s wrong with this country, too many are “offended” or “upset” by the “lack of unity on important topics” that no discussion takes place. Rather than actually work together, and by doing so, maybe actually figure something out, the “scientists” on the left are just going to throw you in jail for not agreeing with them. This is the same as the idiocy in Houston, where a lesbian Mayor just declared all restrooms are open to anyone, then cried on TV about the “hateful bigots” when the voters overturned it. She then tried to force the area pastors to turn over all sermons, only to moan and whine when that was struck down by a court.

We no longer live in a world where “shall not be infringed” means DON’T ACT AGAINST, rather we live in a world where if you buck the system you are silenced or worse. For those of you who haven’t seen them, God’s Not Dead and God’s Not Dead 2 are great movies and great examples of this. Spoilers Ahead!!!!!

In the first movie, a college student has to take a class to graduate, but is warned that the professor is not the kindest person when it comes to Christians. The professor (Kevin Sorbo) tells the class to wright “God is dead” on a piece of paper, only to then humiliate the lone student unwilling to do so. With the student unwilling to bend, the professor decides to have a trial, with the student as defense, himself as prosecutor, judge and jury. Eventually, the class is allowed to judge the arguments, and the student gets the professor to admit he hates God, only to ask “how can you hate what doesn’t exist.” I loved that bit, but the movie shows so well just what so many go through, being ordered to deny their faith while others are praised for their “bravery” and “tolerance” for forcing someone to deny or hide their faith.

In the sequel, a teacher is asked about a quote attributed to Christ and how it pertains to the lecture on non-violence. This is a history class and the teacher simply answers the question, only to be later suspended and sued for everything for “pushing religion.” In the court case, a school official also says that quotes from MLK Jr wouldn’t be allowed since he quoted the Bible, indicating clearly that it’s not about education or history, it’s about silencing Christians. Over the course of the trial, it’s obvious that the ACLU lawyer is less and less concerned with the law, but only with punishing a teacher because it will set a precedent. At one point he even says they can’t lose and let a precedent be set.

Why is it OK for an atheist student to loudly proclaim that there is no God, for a Muslim to pray during school, for schools to have students “be a Muslim” for a week, but not for a teacher to answer a question asked when it refers to Jesus. Students have been punished for the smallest infraction, while other students are praised in the media for bravery when they “create” a clock by disassembling a clock and putting it into a case the looks almost identical to a bomb, but only after the school reacts EXACTLY AS THEY SHOULD?

The answer is simple, Christians pose a real threat to the “do what you want and feel good and everything will be fine” crowd. Christians are the ones telling people that lying, stealing, sleeping around, and so on are wrong. When that is said, suddenly someone’s “rights” are being yanked from them. Nevermind that the drugs they have a “right” to use are illegal, or they’re too young, they have a “right” to do that and you aren’t allowed to say anything. Women scream that it’s “their body so their right to an abortion” when any law is discussed, even when it’s not about what they scream. I’ve seen lawmakers attacked for even suggesting that a law be passed calling for harsh punishment when a minor child is transported across state lines for the purposes of any medical procedure, when there is no parental consent. Instantly, that law is “forcing women into back alley abortions” or “forcing rape victims to have their attacker’s child.” Read that again, a girl who wants an abortion, or a boy who wants lipo, same crime, transporting a minor w/o parental consent. WHEN that is brought up, they start screaming about girls who will be abused for getting pregnant by their religious parents. When you then point out that there is a clause allowing a Judge to allow the abortion and remove the child from an abusive home, they just scoff and say you don’t know how hard it is to leave an abusive home, then go on a rant about how you’re offending them, how you want to silence them (while they don’t let you speak) and how you’re “denying their rights” by simply existing.

I have asked, multiple times and in multiple venues how my simply believing what I do affects anyone’s rights. They generally point out this law or that policy, so I tell them I am not a government official, so they go off about voting, and I point out that I am one person and they are one person, so they can vote too, and suddenly I’m “trying to silence them” by responding to their accusations. I have asked the following question, word for word, “I am not involved in government, management, or any decision making process. Remove all of that, ignore voting, how does my simply sitting here, thinking and believing as I do, affect you in any way, at this precise moment?” The response I got was profane and nothing but an attack on my person. That one time, I wrote out “if you are going to act as a foul mouthed child, I’m leaving.” The idiot actually grabbed me and tried to push me down, until I had them against a wall in a lot of discomfort. Do you see what happened? I asked a question, was shouted and cursed at, and when I tried to leave, I was physically assaulted. Why is it OK to shout at and demean Christians, and we aren’t allowed to even get upset. I’m tired of the hypocrisy, and it’s only getting worse.

I am not about to force you to be a Christian, nor will I force you to believe as I do when it comes to various policies and laws. I will not allow you to silence me however, and I will no longer just ignore situations where Christians are silenced. If you want tolerance from me, you need to show it. If you want people to take you seriously, don’t act like a toddler told they can’t have ice cream for breakfast. In the simplest of terms, if you want to be taken seriously, then act in a way so as to deserve it.

God’s Not Dead

Earlier this year, I took my parents and nephew to see Risen, which had a preview for God’s Not Dead 2. I hadn’t yet seen God’s Not Dead, but being a history/political-science buff, and having gone to school to become a teacher (although that still hasn’t happened,) I was intrigued. I found God’s Not Dead and have to say, while hard to watch as a Christian, this is something that truly is happening on college campuses today, and I’m glad I did. Well, today, I took the parents and nephew to see God’s Not Dead 2, and we’re definitely going to see number 3 if/when it’s released.

Now, without spoiling the movie (and this is just from the trailer,) God’s Not Dead 2 follows a court case wherein a High School teacher is being sued by the parents of one of her students for “preaching in the classroom.” From the trailer we know that a student asked a question comparing Ghandi and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to Jesus in their stand on non-violence. She asked about his words “love your enemy.” Melissa Joan Hart’s character then quoted that scripture, that’s it. During that scene in the trailer, another student texts his parents about it, and the teacher then starts a wild ride.

Now, I won’t say more about the movie, so as not to spoil it, and I ask that you not include spoilers in any comments. Moving on though, this isn’t a made up issue, nor an isolated one today. The production studio has listed many cases where Christians are silenced, or the attempt is made, on their website. I have a PDF of it here for anyone who doesn’t have Word or another program which opens Word files. This document shows instances of teachers and students being targeted, from elementary to post-secondary school, and thankfully, ADF represents many of these individuals, and has successfully kept the right to have your own faith and not hide it.

I’m a history major, and love the study of history and politics, so I know the words of the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and much more. The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…..” Yes, it goes on to list freedom of speech, the press and assembly, but the establishment and free exercise clauses are at the heart of these cases. The ACLU loves using the Establishment clause, and ignoring the free exercise clause, and does so often. Of course, “Separation of Church and State” is flung around as if chiseled into the very stone of all government buildings, while it’s ignored that Thomas Jefferson used that phrase in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, and meaning that the separation is to protect the Church from the State, not to silence believers.

Yes, I am a Christian, and yes, that means I believe the words of Jesus, and believe that I, and every other human on the planet, is a sinner. I don’t say this to denigrate anyone, and you’ll notice, I put myself first in that statement, so neither do I use it to say I’m somehow better than others. I was and still am a sinner, but I choose to do all I can to not sin, and when I do, I confess and repent. Everything else, from marriage being a sacred union of a man and a woman, to homosexuality in general being wrong, and the need to repent and commit to Christ to avoid hell, I believe as well. “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,” Ephesians 2:8

Being saved by grace means you can never earn it. Not only can you never live a completely sin free life, but neither can you volunteer, donate, or do enough to gain entry into Heaven when you die. This, it seems, is now the crux of the matter. The people who attack Christianity want to force Christians to recant, and to tell the world that avoiding hell (if they even acknowledge the existence of Heaven and hell) is a “right” and to be told you must work at it, you must repent, and you must accept Christ as your savior, is “denying their rights” so that they can then try to sue to force people to, at the very least, be silent.

So, to wrap this up, an old quote from Voltaire “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” Now, I use this more often than not when referring to politics, but it works just as well in this situation as well. Today, criticizing the LGBT community, any minority group, or any faith other than Christianity, seems to be a lightning rod for the ACLU to sue. Why are we not allowed to speak about our faith, or criticize those who want to silence us? The answer is simple, those attacking Christianity in any way, want the benefits without the work. They want to go to Heaven, but want to live however they want until then. This is seen also in those who don’t want to work, but want a new car/TV/phone/etc. When you even suggest they work for the money to pay for those things, they scream that you’re “denying a right.” When anyone suggests drug tests for welfare recipients, or a “welfare to work” program, you’re “forcing single mothers to abandon their kids to strangers” never mind that women are having kids just to get more money, and these kids grow up to be criminals due to parents who don’t care about them. We must stand up and take our country back, or we will lose it forever.

You will never see me advocating a Theocracy, nor should you. The Founding Fathers set up a government where the people held the power, but it’s slowly been taken from us. I dream of a small government in DC, and at the state and local level. A government that only collects tax that it needed, no more, and doesn’t invent needs. I dream of the day when the government stops ordering how subjects be taught, how businesses operate, and how we live our lives. Yes, some will cite “discrimination” by businesses that refuse to serve gay customers, and it’s happened, but oddly, even when they are driven out of business by a small group of people, others rally to their aid. Why not let the market decide? If you don’t like a business, don’t spend your money there. If enough people do that, the business changes, or goes out of business. Christians are still doing that, we go to Hobby Lobby and Chic Fil A to support Christian/Faith Based businesses, and when a Christian is turned away by a business owned by someone who is part of the LGBT community, you don’t see a lawsuit, you just see them not go there at all, and word of mouth to their friends and family, no rants or cries for the “horrible discriminatory business to be destroyed,” just capitalism at work.

Odd isn’t it, that the very people who scream about discrimination, hate, intolerance and so on, are themselves the most guilty of it. While those they accuse, well, we may be upset and we may speak up, but we seem to be the ones, most often, who are the most inclusive and tolerant. Jesus taught that we are to love those who hate us, that we are to feed the hungry, house the homeless, and clothe the naked. To me, that’s it, I don’t care who you are, if you’re hungry I’ll feed you, and I’ll do all I can to help you back onto your own two feet. Why is it then, that I’m still a bigot or worse, simply because I happen to be a Christian?

Movie Website – PDF of cases obtained here.

More of the same

First, comes a story involving a Marine who requested his daughter not take lessons “promoting Islam” then was openly critical of such classes. I will say that he’s not correct when quoting the First Amendment with regards to these classes. That amendment states “CONGRESS shall not make any law….” not that no one is allowed, outside of their personal life, to promote one religion over another. It’s not a violation of the Constitution for a school to do that, it’s just morally wrong to push that agenda, regardless of the faith being pushed, in a school. He also maintains he did not threaten anyone at the school, but only “threatened” to take his concerns to the media, after which he was banned from the campus, and thus, commencement exercises, which I would only support if he was threatening physical harm on someone. Naturally, the school “cannot comment” and claims they haven’t even seen his appeal to lift the ban, and one must wonder if they’ll finally see it the day after his Daughter graduates. Will they not allow video recording? I’m sorry, but in cases like this, I’m more skeptical of the school than the parent, as I’ve seen far too many stories about children told they cannot pray, after school groups told they can’t have Bible study, and schools requiring kids to “be muslim for a week” while also removing all references to Christianity.

Next, from Canada, the government has overturned a man’s will for wanting to establish a scholarship for straight white men and non feminist straight females. From the story, it’s “against official policy” for a private citizen to ask that of his estate, but not for public colleges to have scholarships that straight white men cannot get! I understand the reasons quote, and I understand they’re invalid. When anyone tries to help straight white men or non-feminist straight women, it’s instantly “sexist” or “a throwback to the KKK” but it’s perfectly OK to have BILLIONS flow through the NAACP, most into the pockets of men like not-so-Sharpton or Jackson, but some going to college scholarships, for only black students. I’m sorry, when you either deliberately favor only one race, or deliberately ignore one race, THAT’S RACIST, but then again, according to the media and the apparent feelings of society, only whites can be racist today.

Finally, while it appears the two people who attacked a Marine after they yelled at him asking if he “thought black lives mattered,” it appears hate crime charges won’t be made. Personally, this seems the worst of the lot, as a Marine was struck in the back of the head with a firearm, then kicked until and after losing consciousness, then robbed. The others are bad enough on their own, but we also appear to live in a country where you can freely attack someone who isn’t black, and get nothing more than the minimum charges! I hope these two are glad they got that first shot in, since the Marine would not have gone down easy otherwise, and they’d be the ones screaming he “attacked them because they’re black” then screamed that the video had obviously been edited to make them look bad because they’re black, and the media would have run with it. But, when they can’t even act innocent, we don’t even get crickets chirping from them. I’d say I’ll watch this as it progresses, but it will be completely gone in record time.

So, your thoughts?

I’m in danger of sounding like a broken record

But to be honest, I can’t help it. I run this blog for two reasons, the primary reason being that I can rant and such here, somewhat privately, but also to comment on society and the issues we face today. Sadly, today’s issues all boil down to one thing, selfishness. In less than 30 years, we have changed from a country where people worked for their income, studied hard for good grades, and generally treated each other respectfully. Yes, as with any society of humans, there were problems, but overall, we had a solid society and were generally happy. Economically we were strong, taxes were low and life was good. Today, taxes are high, incomes aren’t enough to cover more than just living paycheck to paycheck, and people generally spend their time complaining that they can’t get a “good job” despite having no education, or that they “deserve” this or that.

To start off, a general look the situation. Racism/sexism is the biggest issue that people say causes all issues, but when you look at the issue they say is the problem, you can quickly get to the real root, and it’s selfishness. White men are told, often very loudly and vulgarly, that they are racist or sexist simply because they are white men. Black teens rob stores then claim they were arrested only because they’re black, while a city tore it’s self apart after a Police Officer wasn’t arrested for defending his life. Not long after that, two NYPD officers were shot, execution style, by a black man, and almost nothing was said or done, ultimately causing the NYPD to stand and turn their backs on the Mayor when he showed up at the funerals.

Students are being taught that this is normal, that “white men are racist and sexist” while the same university will admit a female or minority student who has horrible grades over a white male with a perfect 4.0 GPA, to avoid appearing racist or sexist. Some people joke about it, as I saw today on Imgur but I don’t think the person who asked the question in that first image as a joke. They fully believe that a store having no men on staff is “sexist” and if you point out that no men apply, they will just say the store either threw those away or ran the men off before they can apply. They are so sure of their own infallibility and perfection that if they told you it was raining, and you show them they’re wrong, they attack you. Now the big question, why is this so, and the answer is as simple as it is upsetting.

We’ve taught children this for more than 20 years. It started in the mid 1990’s, first with participation trophies rather than just a sticker or something, but a trophy. Next it was teachers being told to not hurt students’ feelings, rather than ensure students learn the material. Some schools removed red ink, others told teachers they couldn’t say a student failed an assignment, others told coaches that if someone tries out, they make the team and must be allowed to play. Children were taught that all they have to do is want something and they get it, or that if they complain, they’ll be passed. The ultimate result is what we see today, and is no more evident than with this story. It seems U of Oregon is contemplating removing MLK’s I Have a Dream quote, since it only mentions color, and is thus discriminatory against trans students, and thus, wrong. Yes, you read that right, MLK had a dream that all people would be judged by the content of their character, not by anything else. He was fighting for equal rights for non whites in the south, so he used that in his speech, but the crux of it is that the only factor in making a decision about someone is that person’s actions and character, but by not seeing 50 years into the future and including groups now demanding special treatment, he was discriminating, and is now accused of being what he fought against.

So, what’s next? Will we see people not allowed to buy a certain color car because it upsets someone? Twain’s quote is more applicable today than ever. Granted he said “Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.” but that applies to so much today. Restaurants are told they can’t serve bacon because Muslims don’t eat bacon, schools are told they must do this or that, often for a single student. Where will it end, sadly I don’t know but I see it ending badly. Hopefully it will “end badly” in that we’ll wake up and tell these groups that they already have equality, and to stop demanding special treatment, but I’m not holding my breath for that. No, the far more likely scenario is that it will get worse, ending with people being hired for jobs they can’t do, and never being fired because they “have a right” to the job they want, which will lead to businesses leaving the U.S. or going out of business. Wal-Mart is already closing hundreds of stores after giving wage increases. It’s of course the “evil Wal Mart” that would rather lay people off than pay a fair wage, but those of us with a brain know that if you increase pay, you can’t keep everything else the same. Sadly, those with a functioning brain are badly outnumbered by those who just demand everything be given to them.

Your thoughts?

Orwell must be spinning in his grave

For years, we’ve watched as this “minority” or that one demands “equal rights” while what they say is a right, only applies to them. Most recently, it’s been gay marriage and equal access to facilities. With the feds’ recent actions, no one may deny a gay couple the “right” to marry, but we have seen judges and others deny straight couples that very right. We watched as a county clerk stated she would not grant licenses for a gay couple to marry due to her religious beliefs was jailed, only to then see a judge state she would refuse to marry straight couples until gays could marry, and nothing was done. Can you smell the hypocrisy yet? Oh, but there’s more, so stick around. The next move was transgender rights, and not only for those who are physically female after being more male, or vice versa. No, this is for those who identify as female while being physically male or vice versa. You see, now, it’s a “right” to use whichever restroom you wish, and complaining only means you’re a bigot. Well, the Human Rights Commission, a group that will fight against the vast majority of humans on the planet to grant “rights” only applicable to a small group, seems to think this is a valid point. They are now crowing about organizations which are faith based being outed so they can know who to attack.

You see, they claim that it’s wrong to tell someone who is physically female they can’t live in a male dormitory. They claim it’s wrong to kick a student who is physically male out of college since he filled out that he is female on his application (falsification of the form,) so naturally, they focus on Christian organizations. Back in September, I wrote this piece about underage students demanding this very thing. In at least once case, the male student who was demanding his “right” to use the girl’s locker room was offered a gender neutral option, and TURNED IT DOWN! You see, this isn’t about “I don’t feel comfortable in the guy’s locker room because I identify as a girl,” rather, it’s “DO WHAT I TELL YOU TO, DO NOT COMPLAIN, OR I WILL SUE YOU INTO OBLIVION!” I’m sorry, but with as many people screaming about how they identify, the risk of this being abused is VERY REAL! What will happen the first time a guy who identifies as female rapes a classmate in the locker room the school said no one could say he can’t use? What will happen the first time a girl who is allowed in the boy’s locker room claims she is raped? This is a VERY REAL THREAT, and sadly, even suggesting this is, to the HRC tantamount to flogging someone to death.

I’m sorry folks, but I am not sorry if I offend you with this, but this is NOT A RIGHT! The old arguments are just being reused and they’re just as silly as ever. If you argue that restrooms are not about how you identify, but what plumbing you have, you’re a bigot who wants to go back to the dark ages and behead those who disagree with you. Even at a school where 90% of the students are underage, parents aren’t allowed to PROTECT THEIR CHILDREN, they are expected to buckle and let others tell them what is and is not right.

This WILL GET WORSE, we are moving toward Orwell’s 1984, just a bit later than he foresaw. We are moving toward a world where people will be expected to inform on everyone. We already have the “see something, say something” campaign from DC, we have doctors asking children if their parents own firearms, and children being taken into an office and their parents NOT ALLOWED in with them. What’s next? Will the government start removing all children from their parents at birth to raise them as they see fit? Will parents be told that daring to show their child a Bible will get them killed? We will only be able to see what happens as we go forward, I just hope we wise up and stop this mad dash to oblivion before it’s too late.

An old liberal argument that just won’t die

Every time there’s anything happening involving a firearm, the old debate comes back up about the Second Amendment. Naturally, there are people on all sides of the issue, from those who want any kind of weapon they can dream of being legal to carry anywhere, to those who want anyone who’s ever touched a firearm killed. Personally, I have a concealed handgun license, and now, TX has passed a law saying my license allows me to carry open or concealed. The argument here though, isn’t about if the second amendment allows this, but rather, that it only applies to the types of firearms available for use in the late 1700’s. The “they meant muskets” argument, to be honest, is one of the most idiotic arguments possible, yet when you point out that the founding fathers were well educated and specifically phrased the 2nd Amendment as they did to allow for advances in technology, suddenly you’re an idiot and shouldn’t be allowed to feed yourself, which in the minds of idiots who believe the musket theory, means they won the argument. Well, let’s take this to it’s natural path, shall we?

The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion, the right to petition for redress, free speech and freedom of assembly. If the musket argument is true, religion isn’t really affected, nor is the right to petition for redress or assembly, but speech at that point in time was either in newspapers or literally using your voice. There was no TV, radio, internet, etc. So, if you’re going to tell me I can only have a musket, you can’t have a blog/facebook feed/podcast, there can be no radio or TV commentary, and you therefore, can be silenced unless actually speaking or writing for a newspaper.

Do you see the idiocy here? To claim that the second amendment only applies to the types of firearms available at the time it was written is as mind numbingly stupid as it is to say that because TV, radio, blogs, etc didn’t exist, they aren’t forms of speech, and thus, not covered by the first amendment. The musket crowd are quick to spew their hatred for guns, and to vilify anyone who dares suggest that the framers of the very document that allows them to spew said hatred might have known weaponry would change, but they’re just as quick to say the first amendment covers this form of speech or that, even if it literally didn’t exist when the BoR was written. So, which is it? Did the founders know or not know that times would change, and if they did, are you willing to admit you simply want to impose your will on the rest of the world, or will you continue to demand we all bow to your will, praise your amazing intellect and believe as you do, while “championing freedom and individuality” as long as people are just like you.

Here’s a link to the tweet that spawned this rant.

More re-writing of the Constitution

We heard about this case a while back, and it appears it’s now working it’s way through appeals courts to the Colorado Supreme Court, and maybe even to SCOTUS. What infuriates me is that this should never have been in court, as the Constitution does not state that there can be zero discrimination, but rather that the people (all but the government to be perfectly clear) cannot have their religious liberty tampered with. The words are, just so you know, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Simply put, it is not a “crime” to deny service based on religion. We’ve seen muslims demand that no one bring pork or alcohol through their line at a grocery store, or sue an airline for “forcing them” to go against their faith. The latter is actually worse, because the muslim in question converted after getting the job, and her co-workers were willing to make sure she didn’t serve the alcohol on those flights. Both of those cases were not about embracing or exercising their faith, but about forcing others to do it with them. The idea of all of these cases is that people today firmly believe that they have a “right” to whatever they want, and can sue and attack people for saying no.

Back to the bakery, though, not even 20 years ago, this would not have gone to court, but rather would have been handled by the local economy. If there truly were enough people “outraged” or “offended” by this baker, then their business would have dried up and they’d have been forced to close by not having business. Today, however, they’re all but burned at the stake, simply because a small percentage of the population is hell bent on not only “exercising their rights to equal protection under the law,” but also to forcing others to praise and give in to them. Very shortly after this baker was sued, a man called bakeries owned by those in the LGBT community, asking for cakes or cookies with scriptures on them. When he was told no, called every name in the book, verbally abused, HE DID NOT SUE, he simply posted the story online. Naturally, he was requesting “offensive messages attacking people for their beliefs” and was lying when he showed what the scriptures he wanted referenced said, proving this isn’t about freedom, it’s about forcing people to change to accept and praise those they disagree with.

We’re getting close to a tipping point, and if we go over that point, you won’t be able to pray in public, wear a cross necklace, or in any way show your faith, for fear of being sued for “attacking” someone or “forcing your beliefs on them.” Those who have read Revelation know it’s going to happen, but are we really going to help hasten that day?

More of the same from the left

I’ve almost gotten to the point where if I don’t see some idiot complaining about America’s “gun culture” I begin to wonder if I’m dead and gone, though I don’t wonder that too often. The latest is an idiot who posted how she could “disarmed this dude and fired all his rounds without much effort” as if she has the right to (1) steal someone’s firearm and (2) discharge a firearm in public just to “prove he shouldn’t have one.” Next, this was in New York (unless there’s a Manhattan, TX idiots prefer to buy coffee in,) where it’s only Law Enforcement Officers who carry openly, everyone else must carry concealed if they’re licensed.

I can understand culture shock, and this woman, being from Europe, is naturally unused to a country where the population is armed. In the UK, it’s rare for even police to have more than melee weapons (asps, clubs, etc), tasers or the like. But this woman wants to present herself as “trained” even if minimally, and then claim she should be able to legally disarm someone when she is not a LEO, and two, doesn’t recognize that the holster is in fact one made to make disarming the person using it very difficult.

I didn’t spend much time as a corrections officer, and never was licensed to carry a weapon, but I do know a few things. First, the weapon is private property or city property, either way, it’s theft to take it, crime number 1. Second, that is a law enforcement officer, so it’s rather stupid to think you could get the weapon, and not get beaten to a pulp. We no longer live in a world where some criminals will shoot first when confronted while breaking the law, but one where people go hunting for officers. The police are very touchy, moreso now than ever, about people trying to take their weapons, and if someone tries, it’s likely the idiot will be shot!

My final complaint is the attitude that seems to be taking over the world, the “America is the problem” right up until the “save us America” cry. I guarantee if anyone went to the UK, Spain, France, Germany, or any other country, to work or just to live, and started publicly ranting about how “horrible” that country is, or how “backward their laws are,” that person would be deported very quickly, as long as their not muslim and screaming about discrimination and tolerance of course.

So, to wrap up another rant, what are your thoughts on this? Also, I can’t help but wonder if we found this woman’s Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest, etc feeds and posted this picture with well thought out, well argued, civil and logical statements about the sheer idiocy of thinking she could disarm a cop, didn’t know the holster alone wouldn’t allow that before the cop had her in cuffs, and about how the laws here are not subject to the whims of foreigners who are here enjoying the country they’re berating, just what would her reaction be?