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?

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

Two for today

It seems that I am not commenting as much on actual news and politics any more, as I am on people who fully expect the world to do as they demand, while they do as they please, and no one is allowed to question them on it.

The first for today, is once again something from DC, in this case, Harry Reid responding to someone pointing out that he blatantly lied about Mitt Romney during the 2012 elections. During a speech in the summer of 2012 Reid said “Let him prove that he has paid taxes, because he hasn’t.” referring to Romney, accusing him of never paying taxes. Romney, of course, responded, and I believe, made his returns available. Now, having been proven to have lied, and never responded when Romney called him on his statement, his only responses is “Well, they can call it whatever they want. Romney didn’t win, did he?” after being called a “McCartheyite” (referring to Senator McCarthey from the 1950’s). I’m sorry, had a Republican accused Obama of never paying taxes, only to have Obama prove he had, there would have been calls for all but public hanging, yet Reid jokes about ruining a man’s election run, and nothing is done?

I believe there are good people in the House and Senate, but they are in an extreme minority, their voices silenced. Sadly, there is little to be done, as to impose term limits, or have any legal action when our “illustrious leaders” break the very laws they pass, must be put in place by those same people. We are left with but one option, vote someone else into their office. I personally worked on a campaign in Tyler, TX in the 2004 election, where an incumbent Democrat was defeated. For those who don’t know, that area is a largely Democrat part of Texas, and Mr. Sandlin was the incumbent, which in a national election means you normally need to work very little to be re-elected, but he was defeated. So, the question here is simple, is it worth enough to you to work to oust those simply working to keep a cushy job and power, or not?


Next, we move to more of a societal issue, that being the attitude of (most) atheists today. Like any group, it’s not 100% of them believe or act as this next bit demonstrates, but sadly, those who simply want to live their lives are lumped in with the bad apples, and most of the “not bad apples” do little to nothing to correct the view of their group. In a great display of irony, these are the very people who trumpet the “not all XXX are bad” line regarding groups where horrible things are done in group XXX’s name. They say nothing about those members of the group who do those things, just “they’re not all bad, so stop complaining,” but when it comes to a lone Christian making a comment, or a lone wacko doing something terrible who might have been Christian, they jump all over “Christianity did this” completely ignoring their previous mantra of “it was a small percentage of the group” and so on.

In this case, it was an article postulating the possible discovery of the childhood home of Jesus of Nazareth. Note, from the author’s words, no claim that “this is Jesus’ house” was ever made. The question was asked, the evidence presented, and theories presented, that’s it. From there, the “Friendly Atheist” begins to liken this article’s theory to pure lunacy. Yes, I can say that while there is no proof that X happened in my home 100 years ago, there’s no proof it didn’t, so it may have, about anything, and as you can’t prove the negative, well, that’s the point. However, this “friendly” post about the article ridicules Christians and the entire article, all but saying “Jesus is a myth, so to find his home is impossible,” while comments simply spiral out of control attacking the mere fact that there are people who are Christians.

I have personally been called stupid, ignorant, and worse, simply because I am a Christian (also for being a Republican, a Conservative, and simply for being from the American south, but those are topics for a different day) as if this ends all discussion. So, my question is this, why is this even tolerated? The very people screaming that I, as a Christian, must “tolerate” people who believe differently than I do, or who’s “lifestyle choice” (and it’s not a choice either) is not in accordance with my beliefs, but for me to point out the childishness of their words is “attacking them on a personal level.”

Yes, I am a Christian, and no, I am not a scientist, so I can’t, and thus, won’t speak on the science behind the origins of life on this planet, or how humans have gotten to the place we are today, based on historical evidence of physical and mental changes. I don’t argue for or against the “big bang” for two reasons, there will never be fool proof evidence without time travel, and as I point out regularly, the physical act of creation could very well have been exactly what is called the big bang, simply caused by God commanding it to happen. I don’t question that humans have changed, or evolved, over time, because we are now on average taller, less hairy, smarter, and so much more, but I do question abiogenisis and the “we just evolved, there is no God” argument. When I do, I often get the “no one alive today was there? Great argument idiot” response, no reasoned discourse, but animosity and hateful attacks.

In a nutshell, you want respect, you earn it, you don’t demand it. I respect the Office of President of the U.S., just not the man in it right now. Second, to claim that “life just appeared and evolved to where we are today,” in my mind, is to boil human life, and all life on the planet, down to a “cosmic accident,” which to me, is just wrong, and often leaves me wanting to slap the living daylights out of the person refusing to act like an adult, then simply say “you’re an accident of the cosmos, so I choose to slap accidents of the cosmos” to simply get them away from me, but I then choose to remain an adult, and let them show themselves for the intellectual infants they are.

I am an educated and, I like to think, intelligent man, and I welcome civil and reasoned debate. However, when you stoop to name calling and emotional attacks on someone, you not only prove to be that same intellectual infant, you take all credibility away from your argument. Research, bring facts, use logic, and remain respectful. You’ll find more often than not, while you and the person you’re arguing with, or debating, but you will be able to part amicably, and continue your debates. Who knows, you both may just learn something, even if neither of you ever convinces the other.

Smokey out

Here we go again

We’ve seen many instances of people being labeled “bigots” or worse simply because they believe differently. I have personally experienced this in a few ways, being told I’m an “intolerant bigot” because I believe homosexuality is not natural. Speaking from a purely biological stance, it’s not. Two men or two women cannot have a child without assistance from the other gender, it’s as simple as that. I’ve been called a bigot and zealot by a total stranger for simply praying over my meal in a restaurant. And the highlight of my life so far, I was actually called an insensitive racist jerk in a debate over Keynesian vs Supply Side economics in a class!

In regards to an Anti-Gay bill

That is a post about a bill in Indiana that would protect business owners who refuse service to someone based on their religious beliefs. Personally, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in my mind, does that very thing, but as we’ve seen a baker sued into closing his business because he wouldn’t take someone’s money, and pastors threatened with their sermons being labeled as “hate speech,” so we know that the push for “equality” isn’t above denying the very freedom they scream for to those they disagree with.

But, it’s simpler than that. When a bill comes up that you support or don’t, VOTE or if it’s not on a ballot for you, call your elected official(s) and let your views be known. I’ve seen people screaming that this law or that, which “should be law to protect groups who need tolerance” was “stopped by bigots who hounded the House/Senate,” but when it comes to a law they don’t like, they simply demand their way be the only way. You can’t have it both ways, you can’t demand all laws you like be passed and enforced without question, while demanding all laws you disagree with be stopped without question. If you don’t like what those in power are doing, vote them out! If you don’t like that way the popular vote seems to go each time in your area, sadly, your choices are to move or just deal with it.

Finally, every private business has one right that needs no law, the right to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason. If you don’t like who they aren’t serving, don’t spend your money there, and encourage others like you to do the same. Help a business you do support compete, economics will either force them to change or to go out of business. But, suing and forcing someone to either fold or go away does nothing to strengthen your cause, it just makes you look like a petulant child throwing a tantrum because you couldn’t have more candy.

Smokey out

Welcome to the new world of business

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

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

Smokey out

“Tolerance” today

Southpark mocked the tolerance push years ago by showing a situation where Mr. Garrison, a very out homosexual got worse and worse, while the children upset by this were sent to “tolerance camp,” run as a concentration camp. In the end, it was actually Garrison who flipped, saying he wanted to be called out so he could sue and get rich, but also pointed out that there are limits to what we should be forced to tolerate.

I have had many friends from all walks of life in my 37 years, and while there are some I don’t discuss certain topics with, I don’t judge or hate them for something I disagree with or believe wrong. There are also parts of the current push that I actually agree with. Sexual orientation, gender, race, none of these should be used when hiring, save the very few jobs where you will work for a religious organization. Yes, a Church can refuse to hire you if you are gay, and it’s against their beliefs. Likewise, they can hire only those who are of the same faith, or even more, only those who attend that specific church, and it’s legal. Likewise, a private business can turn away any customer they choose, yet we have seen a bakery forced to close completely because the owner simply stood up for what he believed in.

I’m going to make this as clear as I can. The First Ammendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Yes, it goes on to address freedom of speech, the press, and more, but that’s the ONLY mention of religion. If I choose to not take your money for services I provide, because I believe you are living an immoral life, that is NOT ILLEGAL! It’s a business choice, and could cause me to go out of business due to lack of customers, but it is NOT a reason for the business to be driven out by the government. Likewise, it is not a violation of the First Amendment to have a cross, or nativity scene, or menorah, or star of David, on public land. Simply put, the First Amendment states that the US Government cannot give preference to one faith over others, nor can they in any way restrict anyone from fully embracing their faith, PERIOD!

Today, sadly, there is a push for “tolerance” from groups such as Code Pink and their ilk. They want to silence all dissenting voices, even trying (and they may have succeeded) to have Christians arrested for simply speaking NEAR (not at) a rally they organized. In the base meaning of the word, to tolerate literally means to endure. You tolerate an unruly or obnoxious child at the supermarket only as long as it takes to get away. You do more than that when it’s your child.

Now, on to what prompted this little rant. I have seen this before, and likely will again, but the image below circulates, and never fails to get people talking, often with those who believe the “activists” throwing items and screaming at the Priest are in the wrong shouted down.

In that image you see a Priest sitting and enduring an assault on his person by “tolerant” gay activists who are, in fact, breaking the law. Why are they not arrested? Because to do so would be “wrong” or an “attempt to silence them” or “deny them their rights.” We’ve been told this for so long that today, when the homosexual community wants the “right” to marry, people believe it’s a right for others already, and it’s not. I do not have a “right” to get married, why do they get that right put into law? Now that it’s there? While many will say I’m trying to stir up unrest or worse, we WILL see a Church sued, and likely have their 501C-3 status revoked for refusing to perform a gay wedding. This is not about freedom, it’s about doing what many claim others want to do, forcing beliefs on others.

I could care less what you do in the privacy of your own home, but when you tell me I’m not allowed to even think it’s wrong, you are nearing nazi brownshirt levels of ignorance and hate. I am a Christian, and I believe that homosexuality is wrong. I’m also a college graduate, and I know that, biologicaly, two men or two women cannot, without the use of technology, and something from a member of the opposite sex, reproduce. Yes, the act of sex is physically enjoyable, but it’s sole purpose is procreation! So, how is something that completely prohibits reproduction, without the help of others from the gender you don’t find attractive, not wrong? Answer? Ask that of any “activist” and they’ll point out frogs that change gender, or how animals all over the world have homosexuals in their ranks, or the fallacy of Greek pedophilia and homosexuality (rant for another time), or they’ll just start screaming at you for being ignorant.

We need to reclaim civil society people. Be who you want, I will believe what I believe, and you won’t do anything to change that by attacking and insulting me. Will I let my beliefs influence me in hiring/firing? Only if I work for a religious organization and I’m told to. If I’m in a situation where I’m hiring for a secular company, my sole concern is can you do the job, and can you do it better than others applying, THAT’S IT!

All of this said, remember one point. All of the examples of “gays striking back at their oppressors” are aimed at Christians, period. They refuse to discuss that Christianity preaches that homosexuality is wrong, but that we are not to hate them, while ignoring that shariah law still demands homosexuals be BURIED UP TO THEIR NECK IN THE STREET AND STONED UNTIL DEAD! Why is this? Could it be that they know Christians won’t attack them, and often will just walk away, while islam will KILL THEM? That is exactly it, as well as our current government and the “main stream” media screaming that islam is peaceful and all but saying Christians are doing everything and rigging it to blam islam.

Smokey out

History repeats, again

Last night we all found out that the Grand Jury chose not to charge Officer Wilson with any crime, as the evidence showed no crime was committed.  This, however, is completely irrelevant to the “protesters” in Ferguson, MO.  Rather than standing outside the court house with signs, or going online or what have you with their complaints, they are destroying businesses that are not their own,  many of them owned and operated by black men and women, completely destroying their claim that they only want justice for the racist crime.  Since Brown was shot, they have screamed that he was running away, or facing away with his hands up, even after reports were released showing that the bullet wounds were impossible from that angle.  Once that happened, they instantly either ignored the reports, or attacked them as racist.  Never mind that exit wounds are larger than entry wounds, and this was born out on Brown’s body.  Video was released of the “innocent teen” robbing a store and bullying the man working there, but this was ignored and, just like Trayvon, only photos that would be favorable were used, while Officer Wilson’s either made him look bad, or were at least bad quality.  I fully expect Sharpton and/or Jackson to claim that a “white jury cleared a white man,” or claims that the jury was “stacked.”  Never mind that Grand Juries are formed each year, and that means it would have been done long before this was even a case.

This is exactly the problem we face today, selfishness and entitlement.  We saw riots in Watts in the ’60s where the people burned blocks down, and even had snipers to take out Firefighters trying to stop the fires.  If you look at history, the 1960’s are also when the changes began for many parts of life.  Granted, there were many parts of the country where Jim Crow laws were in place, and yes, discrimination was a major issue, but we also see teachers begin to move away from what had been taught for years, “examining history” as some now call it, while I call it re-writing history.  Only a decade later, the 1970’s saw the Founding Fathers portrayed as “slave owning white men who didn’t want to pay their taxes,” and students more concerned with sit ins, peace and love, and protesting the Vietnam war.  For the first time in U.S. History, we had young men burning draft cards (a crime as well as stupid), we had soldiers, who had been held in high respect spat on and attacked by citizens, and worse.

It seemed to get better in the 80’s and early 90’s, only to have the spectacle of an impeachment trial for the President, and the circus that brought.  But, what wasn’t seen at that time was the effect of over 20 years of the new “education.”  I was lucky to have gone to school in a very conservative area, so what had been taught for years wasn’t just chucked out for the new ideas, and no, I wasn’t taught that evolution is dumb and the other crap some claim was taught.  Now, however, we have students graduating high school barely able to read or perform the simplest of math problems, yet they demand to be paid $15.00 an hour to run a cash register or flip burgers at McDonald’s because they’ve been told it’s their “right” to be paid what they “feel they deserve.”  When companies buckle to this, and then let half their staff go, because they can’t afford them, the company is attacked for “firing people rather than paying a living wage.”  Leading back to the culmination of this mindset eventually, the mindset that leads people to firmly believe that when a black person is killed by a white officer, it’s instantly murder, no evidence can change it, and the evil bigoted racist cop must be hanged at mid-day.  When the evidence is examined, the situation proven to be different, the one now dead proven to have been a thug, thief, and so on, riots break out “honoring the victim’s memory” and WHEN the rioters are arrested (or worse) it will never be their fault.

So, the ultimate question, how do we fix it?  It’s simple, and it’s not, but it must be done or society will collapse and we will all live in fear for our lives.  First, we have to stop with the idiocy of everyone makes the team, everyone gets a ribbon, and that kind of crap.  It’s a contest for a reason, and in any contest, there are winners and losers.  Yes, by all means, we must not denigrate those who don’t win.  I’ve seen track meets come down to less than 6 inches between 1st and 4th places, but 4th place wasn’t recognized at all, despite having done far better than many could have done.  I’ve seen spelling bees go on for hours, only to finally get a word most college graduates couldn’t spell for a child, which finally ends it, meaning that the “loser” can still spell words most of us never have heard before!  So, while we go back to contests having winners and losers, we must remember that just because you don’t win doesn’t mean you’re bad or stupid, it just means you learn from it and come back.  Along these lines, we need stop the idiocy of “little Johnny can’t compete in this contest any more since he wins every time,” as it shows only one thing, winners are punished, not the others encouraged to work harder.  This encourages kids to muddle through, and complain that so and so always wins, it’s not fair, as that gets the one who always wins punished, rather than them having to actually work..

Second, force students to actually learn.  There have always been stories of coaches intimidating teachers to pass this kid or that so they can continue to play, but those are more rare than you think.  No, students are taught the test today, not the material that would allow them to do better on their tests.  We allow students to speak in “ebonics” which would be laughed at by anyone still living in the regions of Africa these students claim to now be embracing.  We allow them to dress in ways that would have them suspended or even expelled only 20 years ago, girls are allowed to wear what wouldn’t be accepted outside of a night club, only to have them be confused when their dress and their actions end up with their being pregnant.  Yes, rape is a crime and there is nothing that makes it the victims fault, but when girls have sex and get pregnant, it’s not rape.  We have seen too many decide it was rape when it starts affecting their lives, ruining someone else’s life in the process.  We see women in their 20’s now screaming “no I won’t sleep with you” when a man says good morning or opens a door for her, and this is seen as normal.  Only when young people are taught that their actions have consequences, that they can’t “change their mind and make it someone else’s fault,” will we get back on the road we should be on.

Moving on, the current push for equality, which isn’t one.  We have groups of feminists who just want to punish men for daring to “eye rape” them when all that was done was a glance.  They scream when a man opens a door that they “don’t need a man to do that for them,” yet they will also claim that men need to be more courteous, complain that “chivalry is dead,” when men don’t treat them like a princess.  As a man, it’s very confusing when a woman screams at me like I’m trying to drag her away for smiling at her, tells me she doesn’t “need a man” to open a door, then minutes later when I don’t open the door for them to leave, I get told I’m a rude person and should be more courteous.  That’s not a push for equality, it’s a push for immunity from societal rules.  Women like that want everything, they want men to be chivalrous and kind, but also want to be able to scream and yell, possibly even attack, whenever they want and have no consequences.  Another group that is taking advantage of many things are the “gay rights” people.  They claim to just want equal rights, but marriage isn’t a right I have, yet they have the “right” to marry.  They couch it as rights to having the same  rights as married couples, but that doesn’t require marriage, it requires the government allow a same-sex partner be named next of kin, and medical power of attorney allows that.  It needs insurance companies to cover same sex partners, which can be done without marriage.  It means a change to tax code, which can be done without marriage.  They don’t want equality, they want special treatment.

For those who are curious about the rights that are protected, read the Bill of Rights, these are not granted by the document, they are listed there so that we know they are protected.  Sadly, even this isn’t enough, as the first amendment is cited when a school is sued for having a Christmas celebration, when the document clearly states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” meaning a school using the word Christmas isn’t even part of what is regulated, but no one cares, outside of when caring means getting what they want.  There is no right to food stamps, free phones, marriage, jobs, anything of the sort.  You can’t sue the Four Seasons Hotel for not hiring you because they don’t hire people with tattoos, and you have them, as long as it’s policy and written down, they aren’t “discriminating” against you, they’re following policy.  You don’t have a right to make more than some managers in retail stores immediately after you graduate high school and while working at McDonald’s, you have the option to go to college, or change careers, or both, so that you can make more money, but it’s not a right to have the easy job you want and the high salary you want.  And no, Bill Gates isn’t an evil person for not hiring you at $30 an hour to test XBox games, he’s a man who has worked for decades to build a company, and put his money and livelyhood on the line to get it where it is.  If you make him do that, then you can’t defend anyone who does exactly what Gates is evil for not doing.

It comes down to this, you are special, as there is only one you on the planet.  But that doesn’t mean you can demand others do something and then riot when they don’t.  You do deserve respect, but so do others, and you can’t scream at someone for doing something, then moments later, for not doing it.  If you want respect, earn it, when you act like an adult, you will be treated like one.  If you want to be heard, make your point in a civil and logical way, rioting is only good for destroying property that belongs to people who had nothing to do with what you feel was “done wrongly,” and will possibly lead to your own arrest or worse.  You don’t have a right to the salary you want, you have the right to work for it, and earn it, which may mean years of working to get where you need to be go get it.  Simply put, you don’t have any rights that everyone else doesn’t have, and those you do have, are clearly laid out, so you can read them.  If we don’t stop this push for “rights” and “equality” that ends up with the exact opposite happening, our country will be torn apart from the inside, with the groups who demanded these rights confused as to why the country is being torn apart.  They’ll scream that it’s the bigots being unwilling to honor their rights, when it’s companies going bankrupt and out of business.  They say it’s racists not wanting to give minorities a chance, when it’s really families who fear for their lives in areas were riots happen fleeing for another state.

Which future do you want?  The one where we watch America burn, or where she once again stands tall and proud?

Smokey out