Post Hoc fallacies and SCOTUS having to follow their own rules?

Well, here we are again, discussing the sheer lunacy of today’s world. First, the Supreme Court recently gave their decision in a controversial case, which many are interpreting as “legalizing gay marriage” for all 50 states. Sadly, this is not the case, it simply applied the 14th amendment to this issue, but leave so much unsaid that I fear we, the American taxpayers, will be funding so many lawyers’ grandkids’ college education, we may never know the outcome. While the immediate outcome was seeing hundreds of people flock to courthouses to get their license, ISIS brutally murdered 4 men in response to the decision.

I’ve actually been told that this is a “post hoc fallacy,” or in layman’s terms, we should not say that this happened as a direct result of the decision. For that to be true, we must ignore all the tweets and other messages sent by ISIS just before the killings, so that is not applicable here. When I pointed this out, I was immediately attacked and accused of wanting to force people to hide their rights, so I responded with my own example. The very people screaming from the rooftops about this monumental and wonderful day, are the same people who call me evil and compare me to Hitler or Genghis Khan for owning a firearm. Naturally, the first reaction was to ask why I changed my stance, once again, ignoring logic and speaking only to make it appear as if I was either agreeing with them or attacking them personally so they can claim the victory in this matter.

We’ve also recently seen a lot about the “Confederate flag” not allowed on government buildings. For now, we’ll ignore that the flag in question was not the flag of the Confederacy, but a battle flag of a few units. We’ll also ignore that from 1865 until the mid 1900’s, this flag wasn’t seen much at all. But, the liberals are crowing over their victory for civil rights and ending another racist chapter in our history. Naturally, companies are scrambling to show their support for a popular cause, with Wal Mart refusing to bake a cake with that design on it. But wait, the same customer then requested a cake with the I.S.I.S. flag on it, and that was done! Yes, you read that right. Wal-Mart, and in “the South” refused to bake a cake with the Stars’n’Bars on it, but then baked one with the official logo of a terrorist group on it. I don’t know if they’re that stupid, that eager to pander to those who still want them dead, or just don’t care. Any of those three are equally bad.

It’s not that simple though. We don’t need to “hide our rights” but do we need to literally flood all social media outlets with nothing but what we KNOW will enrage people we know have killed for much less? I’ve said for years, and will continue to say it for years to come, I believe homosexuality is a sin, but I cannot force people to change their minds. I also believe that marriage is an institution created by God as being a man and woman joining lives. To that end, I want the government out of it, COMPLETELY! I don’t want the federal, state or county government to have anything to do with any marriage, period. You want a marriage you go to a minister who will perform it, and that’s it. You want the tax breaks, implied medical power of attorney, insurance, etc? You get a civil union and that’s that. It’s actually very simple, I want the government out of as much of my personal life as possible, as it was intended. The IRS is technically unconstitutional, but as the money collected pays the salaries of those who must act, meaning they’d actually have to work to gain their salary from us, they won’t.

Another fine example of the government meddling in our lives is the “affordable care act” which, on paper and in theory, will ensure “all Americans have access to high quality medical care at affordable rates.” Why then, are so many exempted? Also, why are so many who have signed up, unable to find a doctor? I personally know someone who signed up and got a plan, and was told there were several doctors in her area that took it, but NONE do. The closest one that will, and is accepting new patients, is over two hours away by car, and that’s assuming there are no delays. Well, there’s a new bill in the words to force the Supreme Court Justices and their staffs to use the ACA marketplace to get their insurance, and while I’m glad it’s there, just as I’m glad there is a law requiring members of Congress and their staffs to do the same, I don’t see much changing. Do we really believe that Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi are getting an Obamacare plan, or are they just saying they are, while fudging records and keeping their amazing health care that they don’t pay for personally? The sad part is that we need a law to tell those who write our laws they must adhere to them. But, when those in Congress are able to drive drunk, with the result being a dead girl, and nothing happens, you should understand why they feel they are our rulers, not our employees.

If you want a country where we can once again be proud of ourselves, where our government works for us, not to keep us paying taxes and so busy we can’t keep up with what they’re doing that’s illegal, you’ll have to work for it. Send a message to those in the House and Senate, at the State and Federal level, that if you don’t work FOR US, we will replace you, and if you replace them, make very sure the new guy knows you’ll do it again. So, are you willing to work and fight for your country? Or are you going to sit back and fiddle while it burns to the ground, from the inside out?

On a much lighter note, I’ve heard several people say that on July 4, if you show your CHL at Chicken Express, you will receive a free #1 combo. I’m curious if this is true or not, and if so, wonder how many of my fellow CHL holders will be eating delicious fried chicken with some sweet tea on the 4th? Along those lines, if it’s true, and the Chicken Express restaurants are packed with CHL holders, I wonder if anyone will be stupid enough to either try to protest them (maybe try to block access to this vile and hateful gun loving place) or will someone be even more stupid and try to rob them that day? You know, in a world where we’ve seen someone run into a gun store and point a gun at people who are all carrying, I won’t be shocked to hear about some “poor misunderstood and misguided teenager” who was “brutally murdered” as he TRIED TO ROB A BUSINESS AT GUNPOINT. But then again, we now live in a world where you must praise gay marriage, hate guns, love high taxes and democrats, and if you don’t, you’re instantly a racist bigot who needs to be brutally murdered for the “peace and love” to thrive.

This is completely unacceptable!

We have seen, in just the last year, protests and riots over “racism” when a Police Officer is forced to use any form of force against a black citizen, as long as the officer is white. Note, that in the case in New York, where a man died due to being restrained, the fact that he was resisting, was much larger than the officers, and the fact that the on scene supervisor was black and didn’t stop it, were all ignored. Yet, something like this is completely ignored in the media, and by the infamous race baiters, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Warning, do not watch the video if you are disturbed by violence, or don’t want to see a small child fall on her head on concrete.

Yes, that’s correct. The white woman, presumably the child’s mother, was holding the child and sitting down, when brutally pulled by the hair off the bench, which resulted in her DROPPING THE CHILD TO THE CONCRETE, and the child landed on her head. You can bet had a white woman slapped a black man or woman, in response to an attack, she’d be labeled racist and in jail, but this black teen forced a white woman to drop a child, which could have KILLED THE CHILD, and nothing is said.

I’m sorry, but I’m not sorry if this offends you, but I am appalled at where my country is now. I grew up in a small town in Texas, and trust me, the history of this area pre-Civil War, during and after Reconstruction, even as little as 60 years ago is what is referred to when the media wants to show racism. It happened, and it can’t be changed. But, why does that mean we can’t go after thugs who almost killed a child with their actions? Why are we vilified when we tell people that “hands up don’t shoot” makes you look like an idiot? Why are we treated as demons for saying something as true as ALL Lives Matter? The answer, the media wants ratings, and that sells. The current crop of politicians know that to get votes, they must appeal to people, and telling a group of people who destroyed their city when the verdict wasn’t what they wanted that they are all now criminals would lose votes.

I’ve asked this before and I’ve answered it before. How do we fix the issue? And the answer is as simple now as ever, stop the lunacy. Enforce laws equally, and report equally. Show these thugs on national TV, and ensure they spend a lot of time in jail. Stop with the idiocy of “hate crimes,” because all crime is motivated by some form of hate. Had this been an issue of a black woman dropping her child when a white teen pulled her to the ground, the teen would already be in jail to keep them alive! I want to believe we are not headed to hell in a hand cart, but we are. I also firmly believe there will come a day when we are told, though I don’t know by who, that white people cannot ever cause the death of a black person, even in self defense, because that’s racist. We will reach a point where video will be shown in court of a white person, on the ground, surrounded by black thug attackers, and when that video shows the VICTIM defending their life, that will result in the VICTIM being sent to jail for “murder” or some such. We will see a day when we will be told that if a black person wants your car, you are required to give it to them, because it’s “racist” to not do so.

It’s getting closer when you have idiots who can go up to people and take their phone (which we all know most phones are $300 or more) then when the person gets upset, they scream “it was a prank” and suddenly the person who rightly believed their phone was just stolen is not allowed to be angry. We’ve seen idiots dressed as clowns akin to Pennywise in IT running at people with what I assume are fake knives, then they get upset when one of the people they want to “prank” punches them or draws a weapon. They ignore than the “racist” was defending children, or reacting to what they saw as masked people running at them with a knife. They firmly believe they can say “it’s a prank” and that excuses their actions.

Only when we get to a point where none of this idiocy is tolerated, where it doesn’t matter if you “pulled the racist white woman who disrespected you,” when thugs and idiots are forced to live the consequences of their actions we will once again have a nation to be proud of. It starts with us telling our elected leaders that WE elected them, and we can just as easily not re-elect them. That we want them to stand for everyone, not the group screaming that they’re being mistreated. Police and Fire entrance exams aren’t racist, they’re tough due to the job being tough. If you can’t pass the exam, STUDY HARDER AND TAKE IT AGAIN! But sadly, this isn’t the world we have any more. We have a world where people are given handouts because they say it’s racist not to, and where victims are told they can’t do anything to their attacker, because it’s “racist.”

I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it

Virtually ALL crime is motivated by hate. Yes, there are those who steal to feed their family, and many of those only resort to stealing as a last resort, but those are in the vast minority of criminals. Sadly, we live in a world where certain people, if they are attacked, are seen as more of a victim than others. Just recently, Dylann Storm Roof shot and killed nine people in the basement of a Church, which is horrific on it’s own, but because Roof is white and the victims are black, this is a “hate crime” and carries heavier penalties than had the victims been white and the shooter black.

We saw in Ferguson and in so many other cases, countless excuses made from poor economic situations, to discrimination meaning they can’t find a good job, or just feeling that the world hated them because of their skin, when crimes are committed. We have also seen Police officials all but tarred and feathered when they respond against these suspects, including an officer who had one (Michael Brown) attempt to take his weapon from him, forced to leave the state after death threats were made, due only to his acting to defend his life. What would have happened had he not acted? What if Brown had gotten the pistol and shot the officer, then killed someone else? Would the family have sat idle while Brown was tried and convicted? No, they likely would have been screaming that the Officer should have done more to stop their baby before he hurt someone, and it’s the Officer’s fault that their poor relative has to live with what he’s done.

Well, I’m sorry, but this has to stop. Roof killed, that’s it, and the act of taking a human life when not in self defense or defense of others, should be enough to warrant the harshest punishment possible. I live in Texas and fully support that if you are convicted of murder, you can face being put to death! I don’t care if you’re white and kill someone who isn’t, if you’re black and kill someone who isn’t, or if you’re pink with orange stripes and kill someone who is the same! If you murder another human, that is, for me, enough for you to be put to death! Only when we begin demanding our leaders tell us why some lives are worth more than others, based only on their race, will we start the path back to a strong society. I fully agree that what Roof did has no place in civilized society, and that means people murdering others, I don’t care what race any of them are! We need to hold our elected leaders responsible for fomenting a society where one entire segment has been told their lives matter more, so anything they feel is done to wrong them becomes a hate crime or racism.

Finally, to answer the President’s comment that the ready availability of guns is a problem, that’s not what we need to address here. I can guarantee that making guns illegal will only make things worse! When you disarm those who do not break the law, you put them in danger. While I will agree that there are some who obtain their weapons legally, then use them illegally, these are the minority. Gangbangers and thugs buy theirs from the back of a car, the slug that shot up Sandy Hook stole his from a relative. I’d be willing to bet the weapon used by Roof wasn’t his, or at least wasn’t purchased by him. So, unless there’s a magic switch that will first make every single firearm on the planet vanish, and also remove all knowledge of how to build them and how to make ammunition, then making it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase them only disarms those who, honestly, need to be able to defend themselves more today than ever.

Two for today’s you have to be kidding file

First is this story from Mobile. It seems that Aldric White attempted to rob a Family Dollar and was shot by a customer as he had another man on the ground with a pistol to his head. Let me say this again, White had his weapon to a man’s head, but was shot instead of shooting that man. I realize this is almost two years old, but it still shows the state we’re in today. White’s family has actually said the other customer should have DONE NOTHING! They undoubtedly would be attacking the Police for racism had White MURDERED that employee and then been arrested, but now they have a private citizen who defended someone to attack.

Next is this story from South Carolina, where two people came in to rob a Waffle House, and when one of them pointed his weapon at someone, they drew and fired DEFENDING THEMSELF, but the family is planning legal action against this would be murder victim for shooting the person trying to kill him.

We’ve also seen the lunacy in Missouri where people DESTROYED THEIR OWN TOWN in reaction to Michael Brown and the officer who fired rather than let Brown get his weapon (the wounds show he was not fleeing, as they entered the chest first.) This is, sadly, the world we now live in. A world where, if you are attacked by a “minority” you either defend yourself and get sued or worse due to your “racist attack on a poor minority” or you die.

I’m saddened by any loss of life, but given the choice between someone who has clearly threatened my life or someone’s life in my presence or the person who was threatened, I will act, and I will act to stop them, period! Why is it, then, that this is evil, but Brown robbing a store and going for a cop’s gun is not? Why is it evil that Aldric White was shot while committing armed robbery but not evil for him to do so? Why is it evil for someone to defend a store clerk, but not evil to put a gun to said clerk’s head? If you listen to the media and those screaming, like Sharpton or Jackson, it’s because we’re all racist and those “poor misunderstood teens” were innocent and gunned down by hateful people, thus ignoring their criminal behavior.

Only when we wake up and start telling families of criminals they cannot sue their relative’s victims, they cannot sue someone for defending their own life or someone else’s life, that the actions of a thug have consequences they can’t change because they don’t like them, will we get back to a country that actually resembles the America of only 20 years ago. Do I think we’ll get there? Not in my lifetime, sadly, but I know I won’t be a victim, and when the day comes I have to defend myself or someone else, you can bet I’ll be tried for murder like Zimmerman, attacked for my “racism” when acquitted and sued civilly for “pain and suffering” due to my actions, but you can also bet I won’t back down.

This could’ve ended a lot worse

The image in this link shows a woman approaching a locked gate, when someone runs up to her, trying to grab her bags. She thinks a lot quicker than most, as she throws her belongings over the fence, so the would be robber runs off. Sadly, I can see that same situation ending in the woman being punched, stabbed, shot, or worse. We live in a world that no longer has respect for personal property, no longer has respect for hard work and providing for yourself. Tdoay, rather, children are taught that if they want something, that’s fine, and they have a “right” to whatever will make them happy. I’ve asked many people what the Declaration of Independence says, and they almost all quote “life, liberty and happiness,” and argue with me when I correct them that it’s PURSUIT of happiness. They firmly believe they have a right to be happy.

Consider this though, if we have a right to be happy, how does that work? What if what makes me happy, and thus is something you cannot deny me at all, is slapping people while wearing full iron armor. This is an action that will hurt people and injur them, but I have a right to be happy. But so do those I’m harming, so who’s right trumps the others? Clearly, in this scenario, almost all people would agree that you can’t have a right that is subjective, and if you somehow do, curb the right that harms others. But what about this same belief where people say that not working would make them happy, but they need money. The government is already taking from those who work, only to give it in the form of phones, food stamps, welfare and other programs, to those who WON’T work. I fully support the idea that those who CAN’T work should not be left out to dry, but almost everyone alive today could work in some way, so why are the lazy paid to be lazy?

Another example of this mentality is this. In this one, we see someone who sends texts (or calls), almost randomly, to attempt to get money from people so they can “get in on the next big thing.” I’ll clue you in, PEOPLE HATE THESE THINGS! We know they’re a scam, and it’s trolls like this one that have put over 200 numbers into my blocked list, and continue to build that list out. But, notice what happens when the troll has the tables turned. The person they scammed decided to troll them back, and the idiot quickly becomes angry and violent. I’ve gotten calls from these people, and with one had to threaten to sue. That one was actually very simple, I got at least 20 calls a day, some after 11PM, looking for another person who owed money. I was helpful at first, making sure it wasn’t me, and when I found out the person was supposedly near Los Angeles, I pointed out that my area code alone indicates a massive distance. I confirmed and proved I hadn’t been to LA in years, and that I’d never contacted the person owed the money. I had agents flat out tell me “This is the number we have, we’re owed money, we’ll keep calling.” I then asked, “You mean you’re saying I have to pay off someone else’s credit card to shut you up?” and got a yes!

I demanded a supervisor, and simply said that I’d already prove I wasn’t the person who owed the debt, I lived in another state, and now, if the calls didn’t stop, I was going to call the Attorney General for California, Texas and the US A.G., then my attorney to sue them for harassment. Only when I threatened to sue them for a lot of money and report them to the government, did they stop. Why did it take that? Why couldn’t their agents have been able to use their brains? Some of these cases are the company not allowing it, but that’s not always the case, and people often just decide that everyone owes them something, or they have a “right” to act how they wish, often leading to situations like this.

Simply put, we need to stand up for the society we want. We need to not just let robbers run off, but react so they know they’re in danger when they try to rob others. We need to teach the children of the world that it’s not OK to take stuff from others, and that it is good to work for what you want. Above all, we need to convince our governments that we are not going to sit idly by and let them continue down this path to oblivion.

Your thoughts?

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?

I’d say I’m surprised, but that would be a lie

It seems that, rather than simply being a bastion for liberal thought, colleges are now a bastion for students to get their way now, professors be damned. Yes, there are now professors who are SCARED to upset their students.

Students are getting professors fired, or just not brought back, for “offensive” texts on syllabi by authors such as Mark Twain. I’m sorry, but I read Tom Sawyer in JUNIOR HIGH, and it’s now gotten to where that author is not acceptable in college? Moving on, don’t forget that students actually had the nerve to suggest their finals be put off or cancelled due to their “emotional distress” over the Ferguson, MO situation. Yes, kids at IVY LEAGUE schools were so traumatized at watching a city tear it’s self apart over a criminal that they wrote a letter saying they believed they had a right to this, and were “shocked” when it didn’t happen.

The crux of the matter is simple, although I doubt many colleges will see it, or if they do, act on it. TREAT THESE STUDENTS LIKE THE ADULTS THEY ARE! When they scream about Twain being on the syllabus, tell them to grow up and read what is assigned. When they scream that being assigned something that doesn’t 100% mesh with their political leanings or other beliefs is “oppressing them,” and they ignore that only being assigned what they agree with is doing what they accuse to those who don’t agree with them, they need to be KICKED OUT! A college education is not a right, it’s a privilege! That’s why it’s not free!

We’ve moved from the era of students working their butts off to afford college, to the era of students studying “the social and political affects of renaissance French poetry” being shocked that their degree doesn’t automatically get them a six figure job, to the era of students getting professors fired for teaching the subject matter.

So, the question is simple and simple to answer, for me at least. The answer is to stop coddling these ADULTS who want to whine like toddlers denied a third cookie when they’re assigned something they don’t like, and to stand behind the professor. Sure, verify if an assignment is reported, and if it’s not relevant to the class, that’s different, but trust me, those will be rare items on this list. As for those who won’t give up the “fight to make sure they aren’t offended” OFFEND THEM BY KICKING THEM OUT OF COLLEGE, then when they sue, LAUGH THEM OUT OF COURT! Only when FORCED to work for what they want will any of them have any chance of actually growing a brain. Many won’t, and they’ll live on the dole and get high every day, but some will grow up and become useful adults, isn’t that worth it?

Yeah, it’s an old story, but I need to rant.

We’ve seen countless examples of pure selfishness in recent years, but this one to me, is one of the best examples of why we MUST act to reverse the trend.

Story Link

This is from September of 2014, where a woman takes a ball specifically thrown to a child, while smiling. In Houston, Juan Miranda threw a ball to a child in the stands, but this woman grabbed it and felt nothing wrong with that. I could ALMOST see acting like this were it a foul or a homerun hit into the stands, but this was specifically tossed to the child.

Fast forward and the outrage didn’t stop at the game. Yes, those in the booth held nothing back when discussing the sheer crapiness of this woman, but it’s her reaction that’s just perfect. She harps on how she is the victim. But get this, SHE IS A CHILD PSYCHOLOGIST! Yes, this woman went to school to study how to help children with mental issues, only to traumatize a child in public! Next, she complains that “her life was ruined” by people vilifying her for nothing. She claims that the child will have many opportunities while she won’t have as many, she expresses outrage that her belt was called ugly, as she “spent a lot of money so how could it be ugly,” then goes on to be shocked that the people who worked with her have left, and her “career has been ruined” by her simply catching a baseball.

This is just another symptom of society as it’s been for the last 20 years. Children are taught that they have a “right” to pass their classes with good grades, as teachers cannot use red ink or use the word fail. They’re taught they have a “right” to win when those who study and work to win contests are barred from competition for “winning too often,” and they’re taught that they needn’t work to be a better athlete, as coaches are told they can’t cut anyone from the team, and everyone trying out must make the team.

So, how do we fix this? Simply, reverse the trends! Make people who are able to work do just that, rather than living on welfare for decades. Let teachers actually teach, which includes marking those who do not study as having failed. Let those who are hired to coach a team select only those who will be best suited to play, and cut those who later prove they won’t or can’t. But, are we willing to make the hard call? Are we willing to tell people that hurt feelings are a part of life, and stand by that? I know I am, but how many others are?

This one is just too stupid to be fake

It seems now that waiting in an office to meet someone who works there is “harassment,” and thus, reason to have police called. An adviser at Kennesaw State University was accused of harassment by an adviser simply for waiting for them to be free. From the story, the student wasn’t waiting for the person who made the accusation, but she still called campus security.

I’m sorry, I thought Advisers were there to HELP STUDENTS! This story also notes that the student had tried to make an appointment, but was not able to. Having gone to three different colleges, I wonder if this Adviser was unaware that students rarely are able to know an exact time they will be able to (1) get to the Adviser’s office, and (2) have time to have a meeting? Personally, I was rarely able to schedule a time after my third year started, but none of my Advisors had an issue with me waiting for them to be free. In fact, most times there were several students waiting to see them, and no one complained. You see, for the most part, students are going to class, in the library, taking 2 or 3 minutes to grab something at the S.U.B. then eating it as they walk to their next class, and thus, can’t stop in the middle of their day when the Adviser is free, but rather, the Adviser is there to help them when the student can get in. In fact, all but one of my Advisers over the course of my college education were teachers as well, the one other being part time, and working early morning then coming back roughly when the last class of the day was out.

The issue I have here is simple, this is about attitude, that being that the Adviser is “above” those she is to advise, and thus, should not have to see them waiting to see someone. Add to this, that the student in question wasn’t there for her, yet she still complains. Personally, I don’t have any trouble believing the very low graduation numbers from Kennesaw, and I see their enrollment dropping, which means their income in the form of grants, loans, and scholarships dropping. So, I have to wonder, will this “Adviser” have anything done to her? Or will Kennesaw spew platitudes and rhetoric, then be “confused and saddened that students have chosen to leave, or not attend there at all” later down the road?

It seems that this dead horse is going to be beaten into goo

I’ve held off on this one simply because every time I pull up the link to think about how to address this, I either get angry at the hypocrisy shown, or break down into hysterical laughter, although the latter is far more common.

We’ve all seen the Age Of Ultron trailer where the Avengers try to life Mjolnir, with Captain America getting a minor reaction, and Black Widow declining to even attempt it. A side-note here, Cap. and Widow have both wielded Mjolnir in the comic books, indicating that they are, in fact, worthy. As for that bit, in the first Thor movie we see Odin banish Thor from Asgard, saying “Whosoever holds this hammer, be he worthy, he shall possess the power of Thor.” OK, geekiness aside, back to the real topic at hand, that being “feminists” attacking Joss Whedon over one line in the movie.

Now, the trailer above doesn’t have the line, but in this scene in the movie, Tony says he will be reinstating Prima Noctis, that being the right of a king to have sex with a new bride on her wedding night (used by King of England in an attempt to breed Scots out of Scotland) and they began screeching that he supported rape, or the like. Story Link

Here’s the deal, Whedon didn’t write or have any control over the script, he was the Director! But, his name was on it, so naturally, he should have had the male Avengers bowing to the women, doing what they said, and made Ultron an oppressed woman who just wants to be treated equally.

One thing that is conveniently avoided or ignored, is that later in the movie, when Natasha asks Clint’s wife how “little Natasha” is, and is told the baby is a boy, she calls the unborn child a traitor, in the same joking tone of voice Tony uses in the scene with Mjolnir. Both of these lines are jokes, and were it not for this idiocy about Tony’s joke, I’d never have even considered Tasha’s joke for more than a movie line!

Tony Stark, the character, while he’s grown since his time as a prisoner of war in the middle east, is still a playboy, and an emotional teenager, so these jokes are his mainstay, and that’s the biggest part of his character. Even when fighting as Iron Man, he quips and puns the same, so my question is why a character that’s been this type of person for decades should be changed because people who have never read any of the comics the movie is bringing to life don’t like it? Simple, because these idiots have grown up never being told no, never being told they can’t have everything they want, and now it’s what they firmly believe. It’s yet another symptom of a society where coaches are told everyone trying out must make the team, where teachers are told they can’t use the word fail or use red ink on assignments, and where people are not allowed to compete in a competition because they win too often and others deserve a chance to win. Heaven forbid people actually let others think differently, or study for their tests, or work to be better than others, no, we live in a world where it’s now a “right” to win or get an A, and we’re reaping the whirlwind of a generation who scream that they be given what they have a right to, and when you aren’t willing to pay for their new phone or purse, you are the villain.

Well, I’m tired of it, and sadly I don’t see much hope of changing it any time soon. These people, now adults, need the spankings I got as a child when I was a brat, they need to be grounded for not doing their work, and need to be made to work for money to buy the new thing they want so badly, but no one is willing to do this any more.

Smokey Out

I’m going to go all geek for a bit

Since Thor first appeared on the big screen, the debate about Mjolnir, his hammer, has raged. Most recently, we’ve seen running jokes about Age of Ultron, Thor: The Dark World, The Avengers, and so much more. But there’s a key part people are missing or ignoring, sentience. In Thor: The Dark World, he hangs Mjolnir (M-yol-near – as two syllables) on a coat rack, and the debate begins.

You see, in Thor, Odin says (and I’m paraphrasing here) “Whosoever holds this hammer, be he worthy, he shall possess the power of Thor.” Basically, Mjolnir can evaluate people, and decide if they should be able to wield a weapon as powerful as one forged in the heart of a dying star and imbued with Odinforce. This brings in the biggest question, how much does the hammer actually weigh? You see, if it was just weight, Thor would have to work out to be physically stronger, but strength doesn’t mean worthiness. We saw that in Captain America: The First Avenger, where the bigger guys were not worthy, as they’d abuse the power if given that boost, while Steve, a scrawny kid was given the power, which gave him strength to use in conjunction with his other powers (morals, mind, etc).

So, in essence, Mjolnir weighs nothing to someone who is worthy, and more than the Earth to one who isn’t. We saw the Ultron trailer where Captain America gets the hammer to wiggle, and Thor doesn’t know how, but only Thor (I won’t spoil Ultron for you, so I’m going with everything up to Thor 2 and Guardians, if you’ve seen Ultron, just respect others and don’t spoil it) can hold the hammer, and only after learning that there are things more important than his own life.

So, Thor could hang Mjolnir on a thumb-tack, and it would stay, but even Halfthor Bjornson (The Mountain from Game of Thrones) couldn’t move it with help from all the tech on Earth.

OK, my geek out is over, anyone else wanna weigh in on this?

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

It’s Friday, time for a rant

I’ve posted about little more than society and the hypocrisy coming from so called “disenfranchised” groups, for a good while now. Each time I comment or post about this, I generally get little more than what I would expect from a toddler when you tell them candy isn’t good for lunch, or a tantrum to be more precise. Basically, the go to argument is “oh yeah, well you’re an intolerant bigot, so you don’t count” or something similar. If they don’t go to that, they instantly go to challenging everything you said in a way that can’t be done to prove yourself right, or comparing your points to other points so idiotic that they have “proven you to be crazy.” If you don’t believe me, look at my post where I link to a story about an athiest’s response to an article about someone simply suggesting Christ may have lived in a newly discovered home in Nazareth. Their main points are “well, there’s no proof that Mark Twain hired a hooker in the home I now own, but there’s no proof against it,” or “there’s no proof aliens live in my closet at night, but there’s no proof against it.” Basically, they counter anything that they don’t agree with using the most idiotic points, so as to “prove the Christians idiots for even believing in a higher power, when it’s obvious that we atheists are smarter and better.”

So, the point of the rant. If you want to debate, learn how to do it first. You don’t just challenge a point made, you bring logic, researched proof, and stay respectful. I recently commented on a thread about gay marriage. I first asserted that marriage is not a right for anyone, as well as believing that, even if only at a subconscious level, homosexuality is a choice. The only response? “Marriage is a right when the government gives you benefits, and try being gay if it’s a choice.” No logic, just a “you’re stupid so I’m going to reply in a way to make you look stupid” response.

Marriage is not a “right” even if it automatically “grants” anything. Yes, a spouse is assumed to be next of kin, given power of attorney if not otherwise assigned, and so on. Guess what, you can grant those to anyone you choose, and no, it’s not “different because marriage does it.” When you get married, you still have to assign those things to your spouse, you still have to put them on your insurance, and so on. Civil Unions were created not too long ago, but they weren’t accepted because “it wasn’t marriage.” So, to me, this suggests that it’s not the power of attorney or other benefits that the gay marriage lobby wants, they want the WORD marriage.

Consider this, until roughly 500 to 600 years ago, marriage was largely (if not purely) a religious affair. It was only when the government saw they could use it either to control the population or make money, that they got involved. We know that during the Scottish fight for independence which killed William Wallace, the English would use Prima Nocte, in an effort to breed English blood into Scot lines. Others used it as a way to control families or clans. Eventually, it just became a cash machine, in that you had to pay for a license, then you had to get a blood test to “make sure your fiance knew if you had any disease, and to ensure you’re not already related” which you had to pay for. So, it’s not just being able to say that they have a spouse, or life partner, in the sense of insurance and such, it’s the actual word marriage that they want.

I’ve been ridiculed before, and likely will again, for suggesting this is only the first step, and before long a Church will be sued for refusing to marry a gay couple. We’ve already seen a bakery forced to close because the owner, acting on his faith, refused a customer, yet when a bakery owned by a gay man or lesbian turns down a straight customer, or worse, becomes verbally abusive, nothing happens. So, how long will it be before a Church is sued, or worse, a Pastor arrested for “denying the right to marry” to a gay couple? It will happen, it’s just a matter of when.

Finally, my point about choice. Notice my comment had “even at a subconscious level” but that was ignored. So answer me this. You grow up in a small town, surrounded by family who never eat pork, root for only one pro and one college team, and everyone drives only Chevy vehicles. You go to that college, driving a Chevy, have never eaten pork in 18 years, and still watch that pro team every game. Did you “choose” to do any of that? Or, did you grow up having those teams, the dislike of pork, and the preference for Chevy just be all you saw. Well, that’s my point. Kids are growing up today being shown homosexuality in a very different way than even 10 or 20 years ago (where it just wasn’t there on TV or in Movies). Schools are teaching that it’s “natural” for two men or two women to be lovers (and it’s not, as two members of the same sex cannot reproduce, and thus, it’s not natural) and parents who complain are ridiculed and threatened with having CPS called on them. My point is this, we all “choose” things every day that we aren’t even aware of. The natural order of any living being is to stay alive and reproduce. Reproduction requires something from a male and something from a female, so that is “natural.”

So, I’ve ranted, what do you think?

Smokey Out

Thursday thoughts

Those who have read my blog for any amount of time will know that, while I am personally rather conservative, when it comes to government involvement in the lives of Americans, I want as little as possible. The Constitution lists not only the rights protected (not given) and also the process to change that, yet people call for new “rights” almost daily. The very first amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, speech, the press and assembly, yet we see calls to silence this group or that, to restrict this church or that one, or to deny someone or some group a permit to hold a rally, because they are “hateful” or “bigots,” while others that actually advocate hatred or worse, violence, are allowed to do anything they want.

Phil Robertson (Duck Dynasty) was asked his personal opinion on homosexuality, and gave it, only to have people who likely never watched the show all but sue A&E to remove him. Only finding that the show wouldn’t go on without him, that it would be A&E who breached contract, and thus, they’d lose a lot of money, caused A&E to change their minds. When Dan Cathy was asked the same thing, there were calls for all but the firebombing of Chic Fil A restaurants. Yet, let a homosexual group demand a pastor be jailed, someone be fired, simply because they donated money to the GOP or another group that they don’t like, even 20+ years ago, and it’s “free expression” or “just voicing an opinion.” Why the difference? Why the hypocrisy?

Simply put? The government and the media want the country divided, as it allows them to play groups against each other, hoping that group a won’t watch speeches given to group b, so they can promise both groups everything, then blame each group for failing to deliver. The media wants higher ratings, so they jump on racism, sexism, or other issues that whip people into a frenzy, and damn the consequences. Had the media not gone gaga over the Ferguson, MO situation, it’s possible that the white police officers who have been targeted and murdered would still be alive. But, rather than be responsible, we were given constant coverage of weeping relatives, crowds “disgusted” by the “miscarriage of justice,” and the fact that a grand jury, which was called and assembled LONG before Brown robbed that store and attacked a cop, found the evidence said the officer was justified in his actions. Now, however, a man’s life has been ruined, his family has been threatened, and he has had to leave the state he lived and worked in, all because the media portrayed a thug who was shot while trying to take an officer’s side-arm as a “misunderstood teen gunned down by a racist cop.”

So, how do we fix this? The answer is the same as it’s been every time I’ve asked it. Stand up, demand accountability in the media, demand those who sensationalize things to the point of what we saw in Ferguson be fired, demand our elected officials actually represent us, and when they don’t, vote them out! But, that requires that people stay informed and actually accept that they can’t just demand something and get it, or call someone a bigot because that person wouldn’t bow to them, so I’m not holding out much hope.

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