Category: Legal

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.

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?

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.

The votes are in, and of course, Houston is full of bigots

One of the big issues being decided in Texas yesterday was an ordinance which, supposedly, was about promoting equality for the LGBT community. What most didn’t want to point out, until it was discovered then it was all anyone talked about, was that this ordinance would allow anyone who identifies as a gender not their own, to use that gender’s public restrooms. Naturally, when someone pointed out that this could be abused by predators to be in a restroom with those they prey on, that person was accused of fear mongering to promote a bigoted agenda. I don’t know if anyone asked, but how was Houston going to guarantee that only those who were truly “born the wrong gender” took advantage of this new ordinance? I don’t remember anything in the wording about it, other than simply allowing anyone to use the public restroom they wished based on what they identified as. I can personally all but guarantee that, had this passed, we’d see someone raped or worse in the one room in public they should feel safe against the opposite gender in, after which it would be someone else’s fault, naturally.

The sad part is that this is only the latest salvo in a fight where one side is determined to force you to praise and obey them, while of course claiming it’s all about equality. This is a piece I wrote a while back, showing instances of students demanding this same “right” at public schools (as well as ranting on a few other things.) Houston was of course the next step. If a city declared that you can’t tell a male citizen he cannot use the women’s restroom, then you can’t tell students which one to use, and this would be used as proof that it’s a “right” while ignoring that the minor children were being put in danger.

While I am likely more conservative than many of those around me today, at least in my age group, I find it hard to see how people can not only ignore the security risk being posed by these laws, but honestly believe that “no one will abuse it, it’s just about equality.” We’ve now seen private businesses run out of town for refusing to bake a cake, seen businesses owned by those in the LGBT community refuse service and nothing happen, and now we’re seeing entire cities attacked for doing exactly what this crowd claims to believe in, let the people decide, but apparently they are to be allowed to decide to follow the screaming at them that they’re bigots.

I will be the first to argue for equal treatment, but marriage is not a “right,” choosing to go into the restroom for the opposite sex is not a “right,” and so many other “rights” fall in this same situation. Until we grow up, wake up and stand up, demanding that logic and reason be once again a core qualification for government, I fear we’ll see far worse, until we’re either forced to capitulate in public, or be jailed, or worse. But, enough of my ranting, what do you think?

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?

The country reacts to the UCC Shooting

And once again, the loudest reaction is the BAN ALL GUNS NOW OR YOU’RE A MURDERING PSYCHO chant from the left. Sadly, they’re believed, and not by a small percentage of the population. They say that gun control works by saying the states with the strictest gun laws have the lowest violence, which is a bald faced lie. One need only look at Chicago or Detroit to see this, as MI and IL have some of the most restrictive laws in the US regarding owning a firearm, and are in the top (if not AT THE TOP) of the numbers for gun violence.

To put this in context, as UCC was a “gun free zone,” meaning signage to that effect was posted, likely everywhere, would you leave a sign on your door that said “I’m not home and it’s unlocked” and then not expect to be robbed? Of course not. You don’t advertise your weak points, you hide them.

Sadly, when someone who is legally carrying a weapon stops a crime, they are demonized and dragged through the mud in the press as a “gun nut who puts people in danger” or some such idiocy. THIS MUST STOP! We need to stop pandering to the lowest common denominator, to stop letting the idiots be the loudest, and start demanding that the truth be reported.

Yes, it is a tragedy that people died at UCC, and I honestly hope this idiot enjoys his time in hell. Unlike many, I want those who do this and survive their rampage to be put to death in a painful manner. Gilbert and Sullivan said it best, let the punishment fit the crime. You stab someone 87 times, you get stabbed 87 times. You shoot someone, you get shot! I realize that’s not popular, but why are we concerned with the rights of someone who murdered innocent people? Simply put, we’ve been told for decades that “it’s not civilized to sink to their level.” While true, it’s not civilized to sink to their level, it’s not sinking to their level to put to death someone who murdered others. I realize we won’t return to hangings or embrace Gilbert and Sullivan’s suggestion, but we need to remove people like this idiot not only from society, but from the planet’s breathing population.

Finally, what angers me outside of the fact that someone who should have been locked up long ago based on what leads people to do this, is that others are perfectly happy verbally attacking those who would “dare” suggest that, had their been someone who could fight back with force equal to this idiot, lives could have been saved. These are the people who firmly believe a “no guns allowed sign” is the equivalent of Dumbledore casting a spell to prevent any gun from crossing that line, and also the same group seen on the news, utterly confused about “how such a thing could happen here” after a criminal ignores their magical boundary marker. In a country where criminals sue those who they victimize, I wonder what would happen were the families of the victims at UCC to sue the college for ensuring they were as vulnerable as possible?

Well, I’ll tell you this, I won’t stand for it or take it any more. Yes, you’re free to speak your mind, and I’m free to do the same. You spout idiocy at me, I’ll tear down your “logical argument” in a civil manner and leave you crying. You throw insults at me, I’ll ensure those around you know that your parents were either horrible at raising kids, or not there. And above all, you actually dare to attack me physically, I’ll have you on the ground, your right hand scratching the back of your left ear, and my knee on your back in seconds, so make the only shot/punch/kick/whatever count, as I’ll make sure mine all count.

Tweets from Steven Crowder

Yet more proof the inmates are running the asylum

Well, I had a good weekend, until today. Friday night and last night I spent time with my high school classmates, celebrating our 20th reunion. It was fun, goofy and all around a great time reconnecting with friends from a lifetime ago. Sadly, my good weekend was not to last, and I find more idiocy in my inbox.

First students at the University of Delaware insist that a falsely reported hate crime is still a hate crime. Apparently, paper lanterns were used for a celebration, and not completely removed, leaving wire in some trees. Fast forward and now they’re nooses (nooses are made of rope and shaped completely differently, but hey, who needs logic, right?) Well, the University first told them it was not a hate crime, but merely a misunderstanding, only to have students persist, and tell the University they were wrong, and it was a hate crime. So, what did the University do? They buckled! Rather than telling students to grow some backbone and brains, they’re “investigating” and launching a diversity action plan. I’ve heard questions for years, asking why the country is going downhill fast, THIS IS WHY! We’re no longer teaching students how to use their brains, how to think critically, how to survive in the modern world and earn a living. Rather, we’re teaching them they can scream “hate crime” and get what they want, we’re awarding degrees in “fields” that have ZERO application, and then commiserating with the students who “can’t get a job because the patriarchy is keeping them out,” rather than pointing out that a degree in women’s studies or 17th century French poetry is not going to help them find work when the world wants engineers, doctors, lawyers, IT professionals, and the like. Is it any wonder that we have people working at McDonald’s demanding the same pay as an entry level IT professional?

Next we’re once again seeing the “we can’t do anything until it’s over” mindset. With Obamacare, it was Pelosi telling the country that a law must be passed before anyone can read it, now we have Hillary telling us that she didn’t read her e-mails when they were being checked (after being recovered from deletion) so she is all but saying she can’t be convicted. This is a woman who literally asked what difference the torture and murder of an American diplomat at Benghazi made, but when confronted with her own career ending and possible jail time, she now wants to say that since she didn’t read and sort recovered e-mails, we shouldn’t ask her about them? This is the world we’ve made, with a massive portion of the country not voting, a good portion of those who do being bought off with “free” phones, food stamps, and the like (many of them voting fraudulently) and those who use their brains being the vast minority. I’ve seen countless diatribes ranting about how Trump wants to deport billions of “hard working Americans,” or how Jeb Bush hates those living in poverty, or how Cruz is an idiot. Here’s an idea, stop all the idiocy, use your brain and actually vote based on who best fits what you want done, rather than just ticking the straight ticket for the DNC, and who knows, we might actually see the country survive a bit longer.

Last, but by no means least is the story of a woman arrested in Georgia for online videos where she advocated the killing of cops and white people. Naturally, as soon as this happened she was only urging people to defend themselves against racists bent on killing black people. We shouldn’t listen to her words about “open season” or telling people to “gun up” or anything else. Her words are not valid, we are supposed to let her tell us we’re wrong, and then apologize and give her millions of dollars and anything else she wants, while she then continues to foment hate in the country. This must stop! All lives are precious, and death is always a loss, if not a tragedy. But I’m sorry, Trayvon was a thug who tried to attack (and may have been trying to kill) Zimmerman. Michael Brown was a thug who had just committed a crime (theft) and was wrestling Officer Darren Wilson for his sidearm (NOT on his knees, hands on his head, back turned). In both cases, the shooting was in self defense. Zimmerman had wounds showing he had been hit multiple times, and forensics showed clearly that Brown was shot at very close range and not in the back. But to those who only see racism, facts and logic do not matter. I will defend anyone who shoots in self defense, no matter their race or their attacker’s race. Why then, do I seem to be in a minority who thinks like this? Why is it no longer OK for white people to defend themselves, and perfectly OK for black people to advocate murder? Why is it OK for this woman to tell millions on Youtube to “gun up” and that it’s “open season on cops and white people” but for me to even mention I have a gun for self defense means I’m planning mass murder? The simple answer, the media has decided (YEARS ago) that ratings matter more than lives or anything else. They found a story and only showed photos that would whip the country into a frenzy, and ran with it. The solution? Stop watching the news or listening to it on the radio. Stop buying papers and other news magazines. Only when they realize they’re losing money will they change, but I’m not holding out even the smallest bit of hope that I’ll live to see this happen, even if I live to 200.

Well, that’s my rant for the day, what are your thoughts?

Time for a linkfest rant

First, this guy wins today!

Next, we have three stories showing just how insane the world today is. One, two, and three.

The first and third are stories about “trans-gendered” children “denied their rights” when DEMANDING they be allowed to use the restrooms/locker rooms of those not the same biological sex. In both cases the schools made a unisex bathroom available, and BOTH SAID NO, GIVE ME WHAT I WANT! Make no mistake, this is NOT about “tolerance” or “equality” in any way, this is about ORDERING parents to FORCE their minor son or daughter to use the restroom or a locker room with someone of the opposite sex! I don’t know and don’t want to know what the details of these children’s lives are that they have decided they must be the opposite gender and must now throw a hissy fit about not getting to use the opposite sex’s bathroom, but I can just see the next step. Both would claim they were “bullied” while “just embracing who they really are,” while everyone ignores that they were offered a place that couldn’t happen, and turned it down! Not to mention the “girl” could rape another student, only to claim “she” was seduced and the other girl lied. This, again, is NOT ABOUT TOLERANCE, it’s about FORCING OTHERS TO DO WHAT YOU WANT, AND DEMONIZING THOSE WHO DON’T AGREE BLINDLY AND PRAISE THEM!

Finally, link two. We’ve all seen the stories about the county clerk jailed for contempt when she wouldn’t issue a marriage license to a homosexual couple. Again, she was not jailed for “denying rights” but for contempt of court. Well, link two shows a lesbian judge DOING THE SAME THING, just in reverse. Yes, a JUDGE is refusing to marry straight, Christian couples. Where is the outrage over equality? Where’s the order for her to do the job she’s paid to do? It won’t happen, plain and simple, because she’s a “victimized minority and just helping show the imbalance in society.” Or at least that’s what the media would SCREAM 24/7 if this idiot was told to do her job!

Next, we’ve seen stories about muslims being “bullied” because people “dare” to bring bacon or alcohol through a checkout line in a store THEY VOLUNTARILY WORK AT AS A CASHIER! Well, one decided that she should be allowed to order her employer around, and now that she’s been put on leave, CAIR is actually suing. Now, the story as I’ve heard it has her not wanting to serve alcohol and being told to, or her co-workers would do it so she didn’t have to, or her just not doing anything. I don’t personally care, if you work as a flight attendant, SERVING DRINKS IS PART OF YOUR JOB! Add to this that the woman converted after she took the job, so SHE KNEW THE JOB REQUIREMENTS! Her claim that she “can’t earn a living” because of her faith is WRONG! She doesn’t have to be a stewardess, there are LOADS of jobs that don’t involve booze, pork of any kind, or anything else. As above, this is about FORCING OTHERS TO DO WHAT YOU WANT.

Next to last is this one about Mexico charging $20 to cross the border into Mexico, and I won’t be surprised to find them, one day soon, CHARGING TO GET HOME! While we are all but forced at gunpoint to accept the dregs of their society and to keep them as Mexico doesn’t want them and our “leaders” are too spineless to do their jobs, we’re now told we must pay to go there? I personally say that no American visit Mexico ever again, and see what they say when tourism takes a NOSE DIVE.

Finally, Uncle Ted gives us a great laugh.

So, that said, your thoughts?

There are and should be things you just can’t say!

It seems that, lately, we are seeing a rise in two things, one is vigorous defense of “free speech” while the other is the rise of groups all but calling for open war on whites and Police. I’m sorry, but despite having a right to free speech, advocating and/or otherwise supporting murder is NOT something that should be accepted or even tolerated by anyone. Well, it seems that a Texan student is getting a crash course in the fact that her actions and words have consequences. She tweeted that the Houston Police Officer who was brutally gunned down at a gas station “deserved it” because he had “creepy perv eyes.” I’m sorry, but there is just so much wrong with that I want to put this idiot in a padded room, so we don’t have to suffer from her verbal hate. First, how do you define “creepy perv eyes?” I know I’ve seen people who seem to be watching me or others with definite malice in their thoughts, or just “perving” on women they are mentally undressing, but that’s my opinion and others would disagree in many of those situations. Second, why does that warrant his death? I guarantee that were I to say that someone who is not white, but was a brutal murderer, rapist and worse “deserved death” because they killed others, I’d be branded a racist and have to run for my life. Never mind that I was satisfied the world was no longer subject to a psychopath, I’m racist, while because she advocated the death of a white Cop for “perv eyes” people are all but fire-bombing the school for “daring” to investigate her. Never mind she had an outstanding warrant. Never mind that she ADVOCATED MURDER. And never mind that white people are TOLD on an almost DAILY BASIS, that we aren’t allowed to say something, simply because we are white, but when it’s ADVOCATING THE DEATH OF A WHITE COP, it’s OK?

No, it’s not, and never will be. I know it’s not popular or politically correct, but we live in a world where it’s OK to all but kill someone because their white, to demand their money because they’re white, and suggesting someone stop being a criminal and get a job is “racist.” This MUST CHANGE, or we will see things worsen until we truly live in a world where only someone who is white can commit murder, while anyone else can video themselves screaming die whitey then admit they killed the defenseless person because they’re white, and nothing will be done. Which do you prefer, logic, or open warfare?

In parting, while I would never tell you what to do, I can tell you that until and unless the corporate office for Arby’s fires the idiot, and makes it very clear that they did fire them and why, I will not be eating there again. I realize that I’m fast approaching a time when I’m left with Chic Fil A and making my own food, but I will not care, as I will not support any company that accepts, tolerates, or condones idiocy and bigotry like this.

White House VS Christians, you read that right

It seems that SCOTUS forcing all states to recognize gay marriages isn’t enough. Nor is having US Judges help gay activists shut down private businesses, while they practice discrimination and hate all the way. Now the Vice President of the United States has come out and said that simply believing the Bible says what it says is “violating the rights of the LGBT community.” Yes, you read that right, VP Joe Biden has said that interpreting the Bible literally is violating rights. I’m sorry, I thought I had to actively silence someone to violate their right to speech, or restrain them and prevent them going to a rally to violate their freedom of assembly, but no, I was wrong. I simply need to think to do so.

I’m sorry VP Biden, you are completely wrong here, and I have to wonder what you’ll say next.

I’ve said this before, the first amendment does NOT mean you can’t have a statue with the 10 Commandments on the lawn of a public building, nor does it mean that students cannot pray before a football game. It means, simply, that Congress cannot establish a state religion, and cannot restrict the free exercise thereof, PERIOD!

Sadly, we now live in a world where students were taught that seeing a Bible was tantamount to being dragged to church and forcibly baptized, not simply viewing a book. A world where my praying of my meal is “forcing my views on others,” and daring to wish someone a Merry Christmas is forcing them to abandon all they believe.

Even more upsetting is knowing it will get worse. We have seen what happens when regimes are out of control. We’ve seen them pander to one group to the detriment of others, until they must silence all dissent. I just wonder what will happen when that day comes. Will the LGBT community be shocked that the government that “bravely protected their rights turned on them?” Or will they tuck tail and go meekly?

Your thoughts?

Two for tonight

First up is some news on the gay marriage front. It seems that fashion icons Dolce and Gabbana didn’t get the memo about everyone towing the party line and praising the recent decision from the US Supreme Court. The two men, both gay, openly criticize not only gay marriage, but the idea of children being raised outside the traditional nuclear family.

Naturally, the homosexual community spoke favorably about two of their own embracing their own right to think for themselves, right? Wrong, these two were lambasted and vilified for “daring to criticize gay marriage” with Elton John even going so far as to say he will never again wear anything of theirs, and calling for a boycott.

I can’t help but wonder what would happen were Dolce and Gabbana to completely blacklist E.J. from their products? While he’s the one avoiding them, it’s “fighting against intolerance” but if they were to tell him he is not allowed to ever own anything of theirs again, I just know he would “demand they give him the same right as any other customer” maybe even going far as to sue for “discrimination.” I’m also reminded, in this line of thought, of a village in Austria which in 2005 was considering removing Arnold Schwarzenegger’s name from a stadium due to an execution (capitol punishment being illegal in Europe) until he beat them to the punch, requesting his name be removed. Once he asked that it be done, the mayor quickly began asking that the then Governor of California reconsider. So, once again, if it’s their idea, it’s great. If it’s something the person they now hate wants done, that person must “show tolerance by doing exactly what they demand” right?

The second story is a bit simpler. It seems a father took his daughter to have a tooth pulled, but was not allowed in the room with her. When he heard her SCREAM he barged in to find her restrained with a “papoose board.” Yes, a father was removed from his child’s presence against his will, only to find that child restrained as if she was a criminal! Naturally, the AAPD (American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry) maintains that this is a last resort and should never be used without parental consent, so of course, the father is lying, his little girl was a monster and the “poor vilified dentist” was just doing his job, right? Of course, we’ve never had anything go wrong when parents are not allowed to even watch their child alone with another adult. Personally, I’d like to see this dentist lose his license to practice, be unable to get any job in any medical field ever again, and be investigated as to what else he used the papoose board for, but that would just be “going on a witch hunt” wouldn’t it? After all, there’s nothing to see here, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain……….

So, your thoughts?