Smokey’s rants – Page 6

A question for you to start the week

In recent months/years, we’ve heard more and more that we must be “tolerant” of the LGBT community. We’ve been told quite harshly that it is not a lifestyle choice, and those who “dare” defy that are vilified or worse. There is NO EVIDENCE that homosexuality or “being the opposite gender to your body” is in any way biological, genetic, or anything more than a choice, even if buried so deep in your subconscious, but we’re told we cannot question that it’s not a choice. The most recent manifestation of this is the restroom question. We have people ORDERING the world to let them choose which restroom they wish to use, and anyone who doesn’t immediately bow to their demand is a bigot or worse.

The biggest opposition to this is from parents of children who will be faced with people that aren’t the same sex as them in the restroom/locker-room, but as is now obvious, a parent’s concern for their child is lesser than someone feeling uncomfortable. There have been instances of men “identifying” as a woman just to plant cameras or just ogle the women they now can. There WILL be rapes and assaults, but we can’t suggest that because to do so is “denying the rights” of those who truly feel trapped in the wrong body. This comes down to the same question that has been at the forefront since homosexuality became a “hot button issue.” Why can’t we even question it? The “right” to demonstrate and parade is only vehemently defended by those who parade or demonstrate almost nude. Men who are grossly overweight want to walk the streets in nightwear no one wants to see, but to suggest that no one wants to see that, nor should children ever see it is “denying rights.”

Personally, I believe that homosexuality is not “normal” as the purpose of a species is reproduction, and you cannot reproduce without someone of the opposite sex. As a Christian, I believe it is a sin, and as it was called in Soddom and Gomorah, an abomination. That said, I am simply one person, I am in no position to hire/fire, nor do I have any influence on public policy or law that my fellow citizens do not have. I am simply a voter, yet I’ve been told, loudly and profanely, that my simply believing this is tantamount to having them burned at the stake, only to be told “I just don’t understand” when I ask how a simple thought that is only in my head has that power. The answer is, IT DOESN’T! Our government is not a democracy, it is a representative republic, and as such, we elect our leaders, then they debate (endlessly in many cases) and pass laws. My one vote is my way of expressing my opinion as to who should represent my state/district, that’s it.

Getting back to the restroom question, we’ve seen many reactions to this. Some companies ignore the situation and just let people do what they wish, some go full negative, enforcing that the restrooms are based on biology. Others went a different way, offering a third option, a unisex restroom, that is single occupant. Naturally, that wasn’t enough, giving an option that isn’t complete capitulation is tantamount to the Scarlet Letter or an armband a la Nazi Germany. Let me tell you a secret, NO ONE CARES WHO USES THE UNISEX RESTROOM! There is no camera taking pictures to post and “out” the trans people who use it. There is no one standing guard and writing down names! In many cases, the unisex restroom, as it’s where parents take children to change diapers and such, is the only one truly clean and people will stand in line for it, ignoring the restrooms based on biology. Much like the parade issue, if you’re gay, but aren’t so flamingly gay that you even offend or worse, sicken, members of your own community, I cannot do anything other than believe as I do. If you feel you can’t use the men’s room because despite having male “plumbing” you’re really a woman, just use the single occupant restroom, without making a fuss. It’s only when you’re loud about “why can’t I go in the women’s room? I’m a woman in a man’s body, you’re oppressing me, you’re all evil.” that you get attention. If you just go in, do your business, and leave, NO ONE CARES!

But, then again, I’m using logic to point out the idiots screaming about rights, disenfranchisement, bigotry and such do more to their own cause by acting like rank idiots, so of course, I’m evil for not emptying my brain of all but autonomic functions and screaming “you’re so brave to stand there and order us around. You’re so wonderful for telling me how to live while demanding no one tell you how to live.” Sorry, not gonna happen. I have a brain, I’ve been well educated in history, sociology, psychology, political science, and more, and I’m NOT going to let anyone order me to do something against my belief, just because it’s against theirs.

Your rights don’t trump anyone else’s rights, and they end where the other person’s nose begins.

Why is the first reaction always to hamstring the helpers?

OK, while it’s technically a spoiler, it’s from the trailer, so I’m not sorry. We know that the main plot of Captain America: Civil War is that the governments of the world want to force the Avengers to accept someone being in control of them, and that causes a split. We also see in the preview, General Ross (although he’s not named beyond his title of Sec. of State) showing clips of NYC (Avengers,) DC (Winter Soldier,) Sokovia (Age of Ultron,) and Lagos (Civil War,) as if to cement his assertion that the Avengers are the problem, when that’s only mildly true in the case of Sokovia, since Tony and Bruce did create Ultron, who then caused the destruction in Sokovia. In the case of NYC and DC, it was “SHIELD” either messing with things they shouldn’t (the Tesseract) or Hydra acting from within SHIELD to kill millions. Now, let’s look at each instance where the Avengers were not responsible for the issue being present, meaning all but Ultron.

Avengers, Fury was trying to make better guns, which caught Loki’s attention, and ultimately led to an alien invasion. The Avengers were only brought in when it was clear Fury’s soldiers weren’t able to find or capture Loki, and he then was silent about their getting involved. Yes, he did try to stop the plane he thought was going to nuke New York, but that’s all he did in regards to the Avengers acting against the Chitauri. In Winter Soldier, it’s Hydra exposed as running SHIELD, and their plan to kill millions “to save Billions.” Fury tried to stop the launch of their plan, and when he was killed, had Steve and the others not acted to stop what they had zero part in starting, well, I don’t think General Ross would be alive to sign those accords, nor would T’Chaka or T’Chala be around to glare at those who didn’t sign them. Finally Lagos, without spoiling the movie, it’s Steve’s team acting to stop someone they know, but that acquaintance is the only connection. It’s the same as if a S.W.A.T. commander had worked with someone in the past, then he and his team had to storm a building to stop a drug ring, and in the firefight, more than just the bad guys went down. Is it S.W.A.T.’s fault that they were fired on, and since they ducked and took cover, the bullets continued flying?

This is the argument we hear today, the “if you hadn’t been reckless” or “if banning guns saves even one life” as if that’s possible. The same people who scream these arguments to any camera they can are those who belittle and demean the police when they don’t act fast enough for their liking. When it’s a police officer in a shooting situation that takes cover, leading to the criminal killing others that they expect to show up in seconds and violently arrest the “evil man who didn’t knock when he wanted to read the meter” or some other plainly idiotic thing. When it’s pointed out that “banning guns” would only remove firearms (a gun is any weapon with a smooth barrel, a pistol/rifle with a rifled barrel is not a “gun” just FYI) from legal owners who aren’t going to use them for criminal reasons, they rant about how you “just don’t get it” or “how naive” you are. They point to some family of a robber who is wailing on TV about their “poor child who just wanted some money to get a meal” while ignoring the pages and pages of criminal history, and while ignoring the victims of illegally owned firearms, since it doesn’t fit the narrative.

So, what do you think?

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.

More from the “all about me” crowd

I’ve written and commented many times about criminals suing their victims, and about how Presidential hopeful Clinton wants to expand that, allowing victims to sue the maker of whatever firearm was used. Interestingly enough, no one has yet to even respond when that is expanded to allowing victims of DWI accidents to sue the company that made the car. I’m expecting the “but a car isn’t designed to be a weapon” or “cars aren’t all made in the U.S.” arguments, as I will be able to counter with “firearms weren’t designed to be a weapon against man” and “not all firearms are made in the U.S.”

I can hear the question already, and while yes, firearms were quickly picked up after their invention by Military forces all over the world, but they were designed as a means of hunting and self defense. A baseball bat is meant as a sporting tool, a hammer as a construction tool, and a crow-bar as a means of opening things, yet all can just as easily be used as a weapon to kill. While I will maintain that suing whoever manufactured the firearm, or car, is idiotic, I’ll actually agree that the DWI example actually has someone other than the driver who might be at fault, the person who helped the driver get drunk, be it a bartender, or store that sold to someone already drunk, seeing as it actually is a crime to serve to or past the point of intoxication, or to sell to an intoxicated person.

Thankfully, not all cases where the criminal sues their victim end with the criminal winning, and in fact, it’s still a very low number where the crook wins, although I think it should be disallowed to sue the very person/people you attempted to rob/attack/kill, even winning the case isn’t the end. The case linked above is one where a man broke into someone’s home, and was shot in the process of robbing them, late at night. So, very dark, attacker is much larger than the resident, but they shouldn’t have shot him until after he’d killed them. Number four on this list is even crazier, as a burgler who SHOT THE HOMEOWNER is suing since the man fired back. Yes, you read that right. In that case, the burgler basically held the home owner hostage, not letting him leave a certain spot, eventually letting him go to the bathroom, only firing when he spotted that the man was now armed, HITTING HIM IN THE JAW, at which point the victim fired back. The criminal lived, and sued for “negligent” use of a firearm, as if him shooting an older man in the face was responsible.

While I whole heartedly agree that even letting these suits get to a courtroom (or all but a very select few) is stupid, until judges start not only ruling in favor of the victim, but also protecting them from the almost always crippling debt that follows, criminals will continue to sue, just because they can. The coups de grace for this little foray into insanity, is the number one item in the 5 victims story. It seems a man was driving on a foggy night, near homes, at nearly 90mph. As the driver was sober, he at least didn’t get a sixth DWI charge, but he did sue. He alleged that the parents were irresponsible since the child wasn’t wearing a helmet, that the child jumped off a ramp into the road, and that due to fog, he didn’t see the child. One wonders how he saw that the child wasn’t wearing a helmet or that he’d been jumping off a ramp due to the fog. To me, this is the ultimate middle finger to grieving parents. A man not only doesn’t deny that he hit and killed a child, but then has the gall to say it wasn’t his fault, but was either the parents’ or the child’s. This not only should never have seen a courtroom, this man should never again see sunlight.

Enough ranting from me, what do you think?

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.

A rather apt depiction of society today

With the elections only months away, and the primaries all but taking the form of cage matches, we’re seeing more and more of the PC and “tolerance” cultures. Bernie Sanders is praised as a diety, Trump is the anti-Christ, anyone who doesn’t blindly agree with those statements is an ignorant bigot, and if you don’t like Hillary as well, you’re a sexist just as you’re racist for being white. This one, however, shows an issue that has been around for a bit longer, that being the “rape culture” that the social justice warriors scream about. Men are now told that simply looking at a woman is rape, and are then told they must be taught not to rape, ignoring that rape is seen as abhorrent to a good number of criminals, only topped by child abuse.

What has changed from only 20 years ago? Mid 1990’s we punished criminals, but not those who were just living their lives. While I’ve not heard of any instances of a woman pepper spraying a man for merely speaking to her, but I won’t be surprised if and when we do see that. Yes, we hear the joke about a woman screaming “I will not have sex with you” after a man asks for a book in the library, only to have him then turn the tables on her, and we laugh, but girls are being taught that all men are constantly thinking about violently raping them, and the only time they stop screaming that this is true, is to vilify anyone who suggests that we teach women actual ways to defend themselves, rather than “teaching men to respect women and not to rape.”

So, the million dollar question, how do we change this? Yes, I firmly support the harshest punishment possible for a convicted rapist. No, I do not believe that simply looking at, or speaking to, a woman is in any way raping her. I have personally experienced the idiocy of modern society not only while I was attending University, but also when I was yelled at for holding a door for a woman. Never mind that I held the door for several people, she ranted for almost two minutes about how she didn’t need a man to hold a door. I’ll admit I didn’t handle it correctly, as I just went inside and let the door close, then lost a bit of my cool when she then accosted me for being rude. But this shows the same mentality, she is always right, even when being right is doing contradictory things.

The answer? We teach children as we did when I was a child. Teach them to say please and thank you, use sir and ma’am, hold the door for anyone you can, help others and not assume the worst. Maybe if we do that, we’ll see a better world, and even maybe start to address the other issues we face today. Your thoughts?

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?

Old, but are they harbingers of society to come?

These two stories show an attitude that has been growing in the last few decades, one of entitlement and arrogance. In California and Louisiana, Firefighters have been cuffed, if not arrested, at accident scenes, for blocking traffic, which is standard procedure when called to the scene of an accident. I have personally responded to more than my fair share of vehicle accidents, several just to block or direct traffic while the EMS crew works on the victims. I don’t care if there’s no fire, if the tones go off, we respond.

At this point, I’m waiting for a “feminist” to all but assault a first responder for “assaulting a woman” by simply carrying her away from an accident, or for “illegally detaining” someone who should be kept immobile until cleared by an EMT. We live in a country where people have been told for decades that they have a “right” to this or that, or that there is not “right or wrong” only what you decide. How long until Police are called and told to kill someone because it’s the caller’s “right” to have their “assailant” killed for “denying their rights?” We’ve seen children kill their parents for the smallest of things, children report their parents for “abuse,” that being not buying a new PS3 or XBox1, and even laws prohibiting police from interfering when someone who does not have custody wants to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion, because the girl would be “abused” by being told her parents were disappointed.

At this point, I’m waiting to be told that as a white male, I’m not allowed to earn a salary, am required to kneel in the presence of all non-white-males, and am required to hold my wallet open while doing so. We’re headed to hell in a nitro fueled handcart people, and unless we wake up, we’re close to a hot welcome.