Legal – Page 4 – Smoke Signals

An update, and it’s a bit of good news

I posted on the 26th about a video which shows a girl being pulled by the hair off a bench, causing her to drop a toddler. In the video you can see bystanders doing nothing, and in some cases taunting her and celebrating as the attacker kept hitting her. It turns out this was in Rowlett, just outside of Dallas and the attacker has turned herself in. The attacker is 13 and the victim is 14, while the toddler is the victim’s 3 year old niece. While the update story goes into detail saying it’s believed this was not motivated by race, and to point out that the victim’s father is black, but I have to ask, why the rush to say it’s not based on race? I can guarantee that, were the victim black and the attacker white, there would have been calls for her death! You could point out the victim had pulled a gun on the attacker and she was defending herself and it would still be a “brutal attack motivated by race,” and this is a major issue in this case.

First, the bystanders who did nothing to aid the victim or the toddler need to be arrested as well. They may not have physically helped injure either the teen or toddler, they are still involved, and need to be taught that there are consequences to their action, or inaction.

Next, we MUST stop jumping to racism as the cause for all crimes. Yes, there are crimes motivated by race, and that is a big problem in society, but to instantly jump to racism as the cause when any crime is committed by a white person, or to jump instantly to loudly saying it’s not about race when the victim is black, is only exacerbating the situation.

As for this, sadly, this girl’s life is ruined, as she now has a third degree felony on her record, and that will never go away. She will likely never be allowed to work anywhere near kids, which rules out a LOT of jobs, although if she doesn’t get some good role models and counseling, she’ll simply claim they aren’t hiring her because she’s black, not because she brutally attacked one child, which caused a toddler to be injured.

Enough from me, what do you think?

Open carry coming to TX

Video Link

OK, before anyone starts screaming that we’re back in the old west, with everyone carrying whatever they want and gun fights in the streets, please watch the video. Yes, the attorney shown works for Texas Law Shield, a firm that specializes in defending their members in cases involving weapons, but they are still attorneys and point out several key points.

First, you must be licensed! I hold my CHL, and I am allowed to carry my weapon in many places, but not everywhere. My license, as of 1/1/16, will simply become a handgun license. I am researching if concealed carry will be affected, or if anyone with a license can carry openly or concealed. This does not remove the restrictions on CHL holders for locations either. The 30.06 law is still there, and 30.07 will address open carry.

Next, I can only carry a handgun and only in a belt or shoulder holster. I cannot walk the streets with an AR-15 on my shoulder or a shotgun slung on my back, period.

The implications for interacting with the Police are also addressed. There were amendments proposed that would make it so a Police Officer could not detain someone, or ask for their ID/License, solely on the fact that the person is openly carrying a weapon, both were defeated. I support that, as I don’t want just anyone able to carry and not be questioned. I am not a criminal, and have no record, so if I am asked for my ID, I will provide it, and I will obey all laws. If a Police Officer steps over the line, I will comply and call my lawyers, it’s that simple.

The crux of the matter is that there are 4 groups in this fight. The first simply doesn’t care, and won’t do more than watch. The second is my group, law abiding citizens who may or may not take advantage of this. I doubt I’ll openly carry much if at all, but will stay with my concealed option. Group three are the idiots trying to “make a point” by walking around with AR-15’s and the like, then getting upset when even questioned. I’d not be shocked to find out that group four, the liberals trying to ban all guns, had a hand in getting them to do this. Group three makes people like me look bad. To date, I have been openly visible with my handgun on my property (we have predators here, and they can’t all be scared away by noise), at the range, or when taking it for service or to the range.

Group four are the worst in my book. Not only do they actively shout that guns are the evil, not the people who use them, but they do not allow dissent. They actively work to undermine logic, as I can use a gun, rock, knife, baseball bat or my bare hands, to commit violence against another. They don’t want to hear it, because it shows that anything can be a weapon, and they’ve got a hard on for guns and anyone who disagrees with them is instantly a murderous psychopath who should be put away or put down. To achieve their goals, they not only lie and shout down anyone who doesn’t praise their intelligence, but they work to make people like me, who own firearms but use them responsibly and legally, look bad by encouraging the idiots among us to carry an AR-15 openly, and to then argue with police that “the second amendment is my license, you can’t stop me” or worse.

So, what do you think?

Interesting, isn’t it?

It seems that while businesses run by Christians who stand by their faith are being run into the ground, those run by homosexuals are protected from the same laws. This story appears to be one where a Christian wanted a cake showing a Bible that had “God hates gays” on it. The customer claims that isn’t true, and points to two scriptures they requested. Nevermind that the verses were not what the baker said, the judge ruled that a bakery can discriminate against Christians. The verses?

Psalm 45:7 – You love righteousness, and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you, more than your companions, with the oil of joy.

Leviticus 18:22 – You are not to sleep with a man as with a woman; it is detestable.

Now, what I find interesting is that the customer claims that they did not request “God hates gays” but say that the first scripture is “God hates sin.” Yes, you could interpret that verse to say that, but it’s a stretch. They go on to claim the second is “God loves sinners,” a stretch many wouldn’t go for.

This looks like a setup to me, either with a group trying to make one side or the other look good or bad, but it’s clear the customer has not read their Bible. I took less than 5 minutes to find, read, then type both verses here. My Bible is not an online version, but a printed copy I’ve had for many years.

I do not believe God truly “hates” anything, and I do believe he loves sinners, as we all are sinners. I believe God is saddened when anyone chooses a life of sin over a life of righteousness, or the attempt. We can never be truly righteous, but we can try to live as He wants us to.

Now, before anyone decides to point to anything in the Old Testament as my need to not eat pork or shelfish, or to bury adulterers up to their neck and stone them to death, remember that I follow Christ. He that stood in the temple and proclaimed that the prophecy and scriptures were fulfilled in Him. Christ that stood against a crowd trying to stone an accused prostitute and said “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.” Christ, a Jew, who was kind to Gentiles, while others were not. Who befriended tax collectors and healed lepers.

This is what I believe. I am to feed the hungry, help the sick, and I try every day to do this. Why then, when I uphold what Christ did, in this case that homosexuality is a sin and therefore something I must not promote, as in the case of a baker making a cake, am I to be forced by law to do this or go out of business, while a baker who is homosexual can tell me they won’t serve me because I’m Christian?

I don’t want a nation where people are forced to violate their beliefs, nor a country where the government can force much of anything, if anything at all. If you are a business owner and choose to turn away a segment of the population, and your business fails, obviously you are in an area where the majority disagree with you, and the market will decide your fate. But that isn’t the country we have today. Rather, we now live in a country where a single customer can force a business to close, when if the market decided they would flourish, simply because that one customer was “offended” or their “rights” were violated, ignoring the rights of others, or that their winning a court case offends many others.

So, do you want a country where a miniscule portion of the populous can force their views on the rest? Or do you want a country where people are free to decide for themselves? If that decision is such that they fail in their business, it’s only their fault, but if they flourish, it’s obvious the majority agree with them, and you leave it at that? The first sees the majority as needing to be FORCED TO CHANGE, the second, well, it’s the one where every individual is free to decide for themselves.

Smokey out

Freedom for those who do what we like

Indiana and Arkansas have been in the spotlight recently, having passed laws stating a private business owner can deny service to anyone they choose to. This is, in the simplest terms, saying they have a right to TURN AWAY MONEY. Nowhere is sexual orientation, race, gender or religion mentioned. What it does is protect a baker who, due to religious conviction, decides he won’t bake a cake for a gay wedding, or a restaurant owner who refuses service to vegetarians because he uses all kinds of meat in his cooking, or a lawn care professional when they tell someone who happens to be gay, or a different race, or a different religion, they can’t mow their yard because their booked.

We used to be a society where, if you were denied service and felt it was wrong, you told your friends, they told theirs, and so on. If enough people believed your version, the business just began to lose money, and either changed their practices, or went out of business. You affected them simply by convincing others, without whining on TV or suing, to avoid that business. It’s the same as a restaurant that serves bad food, people find out and just don’t go there. Today, however, we live in a society where, despite the First Amendment, and now two states passing additional laws, people who feel “discriminated against” sue to “punish the bigot.” I’m sorry, if I went to a bakery owned by a gay or lesbian couple, and asked for a cake honoring traditional marriage, and they said they won’t do it, I WOULDN’T WANT THEM TO at that point, for fear they’d not do as good a job as they do on other items. Second, I wouldn’t sue them for turning away customers, I’d simply let it be known that they turned me away due to my faith and my request, and let people decide if they want to do business there, leaving it to the market who succeeded and who didn’t.

To show how this is not the case any more, and how one group has decided to force another to not only tolerate, but to accept them, I give you two cases. First, a court ruled that a baker had “illegally discriminated” against a gay couple. Keep in mind that this is a private citizen who decided to turn away a paying customer. Rather than simply letting their friends and family know, and instead of simply encouraging anyone they could to do business elsewhere (free market economics) they sued, and a judge ruled that a private citizen could not act on their beliefs. This case however, is the opposite, and not about only one baker. No, in this case, thirteen bakeries turned away a request to make a cake with a message that stated gay marriage is wrong. Nothing was vulgar or profane about the message, it was simply a message that a majority of people, based on their religious affiliation, agree with. None of these bakeries were sued, some of them were very insulting, one even saying they’d made the large cookie, but they would “put a phallus on it.” How is it that the first instance of a private business turning away a customer is “illegal” or “wrong,” but not the other thirteen cases?

Simply put, the media and too many in government have decided that only one group is protected. This isn’t the only situation either. We have seen instances where people state only whites can be racist, only men can be sexist, and believe it. This is the problem today. If you claim to want equality, then you cannot do anything the other guy can’t, and then expect him not to react as you would. If you can call someone evil, ignorant, a bigot, or worse, then they can call your “lifestyle choice” wrong, or immoral. If you can turn away a customer wanting a cake supporting traditional marriage, then he can turn your request for a cake for a gay wedding away. Simply put, no one can have a “right” that others do not have. That is called privilege, rights are for everyone, and too many today have either forgotten that, or chosen to remain ignorant in their demand for “rights” that only they enjoy.

Smokey out

Welcome to the ADD News!

First on the list, budget proposals by the self declared emperor Obama. Is it any wonder that a budget that, primarily is “more taxes and more spending” with little substance outside of that is rejected? We can only expect Obama to begin decrying the House and Senate for “taking food from babies” or “denying help to those who need it” while those he speaks of helping are those who WON’T WORK not those who can’t, as we’ve all seen his ignoring of our Veterans who WANT TO WORK, but can’t, and still get nothing from his administration.

Next on the block, an idiot who didn’t learn fast enough. It seems a man who had a six figure salary with a seven figure stock package decided to attack Chic Fil A many times. He went through the drive through multiple times, only ever getting a free cup of water, only to then video his berating of the poor person at the window. He told her she was working for a hateful company, told her he wanted to slow down the line, wanted to take money, wanted to hurt the company, because he felt they were hateful. The girl in the video? She was courteous and gracious, and even accepted his apology. He was, however, fired from his job after the video he tried to delete went viral, then fired again when his new employer found out who he was. Now? Well, he’s in an RV on food stamps trying to sell his memoirs. Seems to me he came off as the hateful jerk, and Chic Fil A the company just trying to serve their customers.

Moving on, a child is forced to shave his head due to a “distracting” hair cut that HONORS HIS MILITARY FAMILY! Yes, a child is forced to shave his head or be suspended because he had a “high and tight” hair cut. I’m sorry, but I’ve worn this cut for more than a decade! I also watched as students in my graduating class (20 years ago, yes) had hair cuts that wouldn’t pass at even the most lenient of jobs. I can’t help but ask, had he braided his hair with pink ribbons to support gay rights, would they have done the same? Also, notice the district throwing the school under the bus, and the too late apology, as the CHILD WAS FORCED TO SHAVE HIS HEAD before they acted.

This one’s just for a link. It seems Ted Cruz is signing up for Obamacare. I can’t help wonder what his campaign speeches will be like.

This one needs no introduction, other than, what did we expect? It seems a passenger was BEATEN for not blindly praising Michael Brown. According to this story, a passenger on a bus was asked about the Brown case, and when he responded that he hadn’t thought about it much, he was BEATEN by the questioner. Yes, we now live in a world where someone can ask you about a case where someone tried to take a Police Officer’s weapon, and was subsequently shot, and when you don’t side with the CRIMINAL THUG, you are beaten. Notice the photo, they’re smiling! I can’t help but wonder, if I was ATTACKED AND HAD GUNS PULLED ON ME, only to react to save my life, would I be jailed based on my attacker’s race? Apparently, we must ask this now.

Not much to say on this one. It seems that while schools FORCE Christians to hide their faith, they also FORCE children to read the quran. This one is about a US Veteran finding his grand-daughter was being forced to learn islam, and his reaction. Personally, since so many people sue for less, I’d have demanded the ISD pay for a private school education for my child or grand-child.

Finally, we explore the idiocy of the left. It seems Kroger has publicly said they will simply follow the laws of the states their stores are in, but that isn’t enough for some. In open carry states, Kroger refuses to deny those who embrace their rights entry into the stores, so “Moms demand action” is putting out ads comparing someone with an assault rifle (which no open carry advocate carries, only those trying to make 2nd Amendment supporters does) to a child eating ice cream. They cite incidents at Kroger stores where guns were used to kill, ignoring that the people who killed others should not have been free at all. But beyond all of that, they scream about “rights” when it comes to gays or something else the majority of a state doesn’t want, then scream to stop something the majority does. It’s very simple folks. If your state has a law you don’t like, vote against it and/or those in power supporting it. If you lose, accept that you are in the minority or move away. If a company does something you don’t like, don’t shop there, and encourage others not to. If the company does well, accept that you are in the minority or act like a toddler denied candy, and hurt your argument/side.

I don’t expect anyone to comment other than in agreement or to say how ignorant or bigoted I am. If the latter, remember that by not engaging in reasoned, civil and logical debate, you only prove yourself a mental 2 year old, but after all, calling me names is all you have, right?

Smokey out

Welcome to the new world of business

It seems that, recently, Hershey filed a lawsuit due to international candy, some of them at least, having extremely similar packaging/names. This story actually has an image of the British candy, where two of them are almost copies of Hershey brand candies. As a part of this, the story also points out that British candy will no longer be imported to the US, but this is NOT about “squashing competition” but rather, it’s about not importing candy that VIOLATES COPYRIGHT LAW! Let me put it a bit more clearly. You create a product named World’s Best Chocolate Bar, with a specific design on the wrapper. Later, you find a product made in another country with the same design/colors, and named World’s Best Chocolate. You then push to not have it imported, so that your consumers are not confused by the chocolate that mimics yours. Why are you the bad guy? That’s exactly what happened here, as you can see in the image in the story that there are British candies named Maltesers (as opposed to Malteser), KitKat (not even trying now), or Toffee Crisp using a font that is very similar to what’s used for the Reese’s candy bar.

When did the world get to a point where protecting your copyrighted brands is bad? Why are we expected to let anyone do whatever they want, rather than standing up for what is our? I’ll tell you, when students were no longer taught right from wrong, it started. When they were taught that simply trying out for a team means you got on the team, it got worse. When students saw everyone getting a ribbon, and no one being marked as better than others in a competition, it was almost done. But when the idiocy got to a point where you actually have people disqualified from a contest because they win too often, or students being allowed to not study, then successfully say they failed because the teacher hates them, rather than them being lazy, it was over. We now live in a world where we are expected to let others have our stuff, let them do whatever they want with our ideas, and not complain. Personally? I’m tired of it, and I say we start calling out the idiots who demonize a company for doing exactly what they would do if they were in Hershey’s place. I plan to keep buying Hershey products, even if just to spite the idiots who feel anyone should be able to use any name they want and steal ideas that are protected.

Smokey out