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.

Please follow and like us:

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.

Please follow and like us: