It’s Saturday, time for a bit of a rant

More and more each day, I see the world hurtling to hell in a rocket powered wagon, and no one seems to care. We hear screams of racism, sexism, and so on daily, while those doing the screaming are the most guilty of those actions. Meanwhile, others are taking everything they can to “prove racism is institutional” and only proving themselves to be idiots. Case in point, this person claims to have been looking for buried Comcast wires, when approached by a police officer who had his weapon drawn. He was supposedly told to put his hands up, but said no, and was then given a ticket. I’m sorry idiot, but had the officer had his weapon drawn, you would have to have given him a reason. Contrary to popular media hype, police do NOT just approach every non-white person with a weapon drawn. Second point, you claim that your shirt and van are “proof you’re not in the wrong.” Well, sorry to tell you this, but criminals are getting smarter and stealing uniforms and vans, or at least copying them, to “case” places they plan to hit. In most situations, were I in a Comcast neighborhood and see a Comcast van and someone in their shirt, I’d have to think hard about if they were up to no good, and criminals know this. Second, the fact that you weren’t arrested and given a court date, but only cited instead, to me, tells me the idiot posting this to social media is just looking to stir up more trouble. If you are approached with a weapon drawn and you don’t comply, there will be a second (or more than 1 extra) officer there who will either pepper spray or taze you, you won’t just be given a ticket.

Moving on to something that isn’t a report in the media of bigotry or the like, but just a TV show, I still feel it shows a pervasive attitude in society today. So, while watching Supergirl, there’s a scene where two idiots are ramming each other at high speed, and are racing toward young school children.


Being a super hero show, of course Supergirl stops the cars, at which point one driver jumps out, angry that she totaled his car, and caring nothing for the children he almost murdered. He then throws a punch, only to later scream about how she’s hurting him. First, she’s freaking Supergirl! You surely know that you can’t hurt her, so why throw the punch? Simpler than that however, is that this is the attitude becoming more common. Someone stopped from doing something horrible then views themself as 100% the victim, and their actions, regardless of what they are, as 100% justified. Speeders sue the cops for “racism,” criminals who shoot old men (see a previous post) sue said old man for shooting back. Families of criminals sue the one who stopped said criminal from killing others for “negligence” in using a legal firearm to stop a crime.

So, what do you think? Am I right that the world is just headed for hell and doesn’t care?

More from the “all about me” crowd

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

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

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

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

Enough ranting from me, what do you think?

When your cause is so weak you have to invent enemies, you need to stop.

We’ve seen the screaming mobs protesting against “Police racism” when a thug is shot by an officer who was legitimately in fear for his life, the screams and tears as Obama said if he’d had a son, the child would have been like Trayvon, who got high and attacked a man, and was ultimately shot. But when it’s violence aimed at whites, it’s ignored. Most recently, a student Kean University left a protest, created an anonymous Twitter account, posted threats to anyone who is black, then went back to the protest to report this. Story Link I can’t say if we’ve found a judge with a working brain, or if we just are being treated to a single event going as it should, but the student has been fined $82,000 and will spend 90 days in jail.

I hate having to clarify points like this, but I must do so more and more every day. I do not support threats or violence against anyone, save when used in defense of life. I will be the first to stand against anyone threatening to kill people because of their skin color, but because I’m white, I’m crippled socially, since it’s now apparently “fact” that simply being born white means I’m a bigot who wants to go back to pre-Civil War days and start buying slaves.

The point of this is simple, we need to stop the BS about racism where there is no racism. It’s not racist to argue that $15 an hour for a McDonald’s line cook is not fiscally sound. It’s not racist to hire based on qualifications. It’s not racist to defend your life when attacked. It is racist to run around chanting that some lives matter, rather than simply “life matters.” It is racist to point at one race and hate them based on their skin. Oddly enough, it’s the DNC both then and now spurring on the racial hate. The DNC enacted Jim Crow laws and fought for equal rights in the 1960’s and they’re fanning the flames of hatred still today.

So, what are we going to do about it?

A few great articles from Texas Law Shield

I can’t remember if I’ve posted about Tx Law Shield here before, so I’ll give them a shameless plug now. If you haven’t guessed by now, I’m a Texan, and I have my Handgun license and carry rather often. Yes, I’m the Bible thumping gun toting right winger that your professors warned you about. Well, as we all learned from George Zimmerman’s trial after he was attacked by and defended himself against Trayvon Martin, even if you’re completely in the right and innocent, that won’t stop the police from arresting you and others from suing you. While Zimmerman was acquitted, he still spent over $100K to accomplish that, just in legal fees. He also couldn’t work while on trial, so in essence, his life was ruined even though he wasn’t guilty.

When I last renewed my CHL (now just a handgun license with open carry now legal,) Texas Law Shield had a representative present to pitch their program. In a nutshell, I pay $11 a month and if I’m ever arrested, or otherwise dragged into court, because of anything to do with firearms, I have a lawyer and I don’t pay anything more than my monthly dues, which is a great comfort. They also have a nifty little statement on my card, written out in legalese, basically summing up to “I’m staying silent, please call my attorney,” which is all you should ever say if you’re arrested, since they can use “my arm is broken, can you call an ambulance” as “obstruction of justice” since it delayed them, given the right attorney of course.

So, first is a story from Houston about a Centerpoint contractor attacking a dog. I’ve worked for a retail electric provider, and our field guys reminded us regularly to let people know to post signs if they had dogs that might get upset at strangers, to give them when the meter reader would be out so they could have them inside, and more. Oncor made sure to do all they could to avoid being around unfamiliar animals. While it’s correct that the electric company doesn’t have to tell you when they are coming, or knock when they arrive to read the meter, this guy just walking up and swinging a wrench at a dog that was NOT ATTACKING, to the point of knocking out a tooth, is just wrong. One, it shows his first reaction to any “provocation” is violence that could be deadly. Second, it shows he believes he’s above the law, and that needs to be corrected. This is cruelty to animals, and he should do a lot of time for it, if you ask me.

Next is a comparison of the US and Australia when it comes to the Castle Doctrine. To sum this up, Castle Doctrine is a legal theory based on “A man’s home is his castle” and is the perfect example of logic, and how politicians twist it. In this one, we look at the case of a man in Australia who found someone, at night, in his home and near his daughter’s room. In the ensuing fight, the intruder (a convicted rapist by the way) was injured and later died at the hospital. The father now faces murder charges, for defending his daughter from a rapist! This article looks at a few states and how this would play out here in the U.S. I’m very glad to live in TX, since our definition does not state that if someone breaks into my home, I can only ask them to leave, but rather, I can use force to protect myself, my home and my family. Australia, sadly, is being held up by many in DC as what we should have. They want a disarmed society, so we can be kept under their boot, and that’s the least of the problem. Many want to make it legal to sue companies like Ruger or Smith & Wesson when a gun is involved. Naturally, many have asked if we should be able to sue Ford or Chevrolet when a drunk kills someone while driving, and they’re just “exaggerating so the evil gun nuts can stop progress.” Yes, I’ve actually been told I’m holding back progress for not wanting a law that allows someone that is not involved to be sued. Granted, I’ve been called a sexist and racist when debating classical vs supply side economics, which shows what I dealt with in college. So, here’s a simple question, should we, as humans, have the right to defend our lives, our family’s lives, and our home?

This one is just funny, since Howard Stern actually stands up for the 2nd Amendment. Granted, there’s a nod to Aquila ammunition, and a great article about Hillary and exactly why should shouldn’t be President of a fan club, let alone the U.S.

So, what do you think?

And here we see the response that we expect

It seems that, just as we expect, liberals won’t allow dissent. In this one a mother dressed up as a pirate, a Mexican and as Russell Wilson, asking “does this make me” then asked how clothing can make a man a woman. While many agreed and praised her dead on logic, others found it “horrible” or “offensive” that she would even consider posting it, so they reported her post for “offensive content” and LIED (I know, shocking) about the photos, saying they contained nudity. She responded that she would not remove them, as they contained no nudity at all, and of course Facebook removed them anyway. Now, I can’t say which it is, as Facebook has horrible service to begin with, but whether they just didn’t verify anything and remove anything reported, or whether they knew the post was well within guidelines and removed it anyway, well, they’re both very bad options, and reasons why Facebook won’t last much longer.

Here’s the crux of the matter. The left wants to scream about how the right is “forcing religion on them” and “forcing and outdated moral code” on them, while doing the very same. They scream that not letting a cross dressing man use the women’s room is “denying freedom” while then screaming WHEN that cross dressing man turns out to be a pervert. They scream that they want tolerance and freedom, then in the next breath are silencing anyone who disagrees with them.

It’s very simple, you either agree with and praise them, or you’re the enemy and they will do all they can to destroy you. Thankfully, they’re the ones who hate guns and find a chalk scribble of Trump’s name so frightening they need counseling, so it won’t be much of a destruction, but that won’t always be the case.

How long until these are “right wing nuts trying to cripple freedom?”

Yet again, we are seeing the exact outcome that conservatives predicted, and now I’m waiting on the liberals to find a way to make it a conservative’s fault. I wrote <a href=http://blog.leverett.us/archives/143″ target=”_blank”>this just over six months ago, pointing out how public schools (not colleges either) are now being targeted with demands that restrooms be open to anyone who identifies as that gender. When all of this began, many pointed out that this was just begging for a pervert to suddenly identify as a woman and use that to prey on those they could. Well, here are two stories where that very thing happened. First, a man used a women’s locker room, while the second had a man setting up a camera in the women’s restroom. Now, in this case, apparently, the man simply disrobed as he changed before and after a swim, but not the bit where it’s mentioned he was there when YOUNG GIRLS were changing for swim class. So far, no one has been arrested, so I’m just waiting for the story about how this man is now in jail after assaulting someone, then the outcry from the family, to be met with indifference from the left before they scream about freedom.

The second story does feature an arrest, thankfully, although the person was able to set up and use a camera for some time before he was caught. This is only one way that allowing people to choose which restroom they want to use can be horrible. Naturally, pointing out stories like this makes you a bigot, sexist, etc and you’re the problem not those misusing the policy. Next the people misusing this policy will be “plants” by the right wing to make this look bad so they can go back to forcing morality on others. Some, like Kroger have put up a sign saying somewhat nicely that the single person restroom is unisex, but the others are not. Personally, that is the only logical option in my mind, because to let anyone use any restroom they want will only end with one side or the other complaining. Parents of small children will be “bigots” when they complain that their minor child was exposed to something a child shouldn’t be exposed to, while the “poor, downtrodden LGBT community” will be “traumatized” by the fact that people just don’t understand.

It’s simple, restrooms are not for you to pick based on how you identify, they’re about what type of plumbing you have, plain and simple. When you let everyone choose, stories like the above will happen, and women who use the men’s room will have their problems too. I personally don’t think it will be long before a woman using the men’s room will have been “assaulted” in some way, although she won’t be able to remember what the attacker looked like, there will be no evidence, she will have no injuries, but it was assault and she should be given money for pain and suffering. This isn’t a slippery slope people, it’s the edge of a cliff!

Why is this OK?

I’ve posted many times about hot button topics, and in general I’ve seen about a 50/50 response, with some agreeing with me and others very much opposed. Thankfully, my audience has, so far, been civil, but it seems the world is just determined to speed toward hell. This story popped up for me today, and while I’ve never really been a fan of Bill Nye, until now, he pretty much seemed to be interested in real research. Now? In my book he’s no better than the mouth breathing trolls I encounter so often in discussion threads.

Simply put, according to this article, Bill Nye is “open” to criminal charges and/or jail time for “climate change dissenters.” Yes, you read that right, by that title, he’s OK with jailing those who don’t agree totally with him, no questions. This isn’t about jailing the Captain of the Exxon Valdez, but any “dissenter” and those doing the jailing will decide who is and isn’t a “dissenter.” I’m sorry folks, but this is exactly what’s wrong with this country, too many are “offended” or “upset” by the “lack of unity on important topics” that no discussion takes place. Rather than actually work together, and by doing so, maybe actually figure something out, the “scientists” on the left are just going to throw you in jail for not agreeing with them. This is the same as the idiocy in Houston, where a lesbian Mayor just declared all restrooms are open to anyone, then cried on TV about the “hateful bigots” when the voters overturned it. She then tried to force the area pastors to turn over all sermons, only to moan and whine when that was struck down by a court.

We no longer live in a world where “shall not be infringed” means DON’T ACT AGAINST, rather we live in a world where if you buck the system you are silenced or worse. For those of you who haven’t seen them, God’s Not Dead and God’s Not Dead 2 are great movies and great examples of this. Spoilers Ahead!!!!!

In the first movie, a college student has to take a class to graduate, but is warned that the professor is not the kindest person when it comes to Christians. The professor (Kevin Sorbo) tells the class to wright “God is dead” on a piece of paper, only to then humiliate the lone student unwilling to do so. With the student unwilling to bend, the professor decides to have a trial, with the student as defense, himself as prosecutor, judge and jury. Eventually, the class is allowed to judge the arguments, and the student gets the professor to admit he hates God, only to ask “how can you hate what doesn’t exist.” I loved that bit, but the movie shows so well just what so many go through, being ordered to deny their faith while others are praised for their “bravery” and “tolerance” for forcing someone to deny or hide their faith.

In the sequel, a teacher is asked about a quote attributed to Christ and how it pertains to the lecture on non-violence. This is a history class and the teacher simply answers the question, only to be later suspended and sued for everything for “pushing religion.” In the court case, a school official also says that quotes from MLK Jr wouldn’t be allowed since he quoted the Bible, indicating clearly that it’s not about education or history, it’s about silencing Christians. Over the course of the trial, it’s obvious that the ACLU lawyer is less and less concerned with the law, but only with punishing a teacher because it will set a precedent. At one point he even says they can’t lose and let a precedent be set.

Why is it OK for an atheist student to loudly proclaim that there is no God, for a Muslim to pray during school, for schools to have students “be a Muslim” for a week, but not for a teacher to answer a question asked when it refers to Jesus. Students have been punished for the smallest infraction, while other students are praised in the media for bravery when they “create” a clock by disassembling a clock and putting it into a case the looks almost identical to a bomb, but only after the school reacts EXACTLY AS THEY SHOULD?

The answer is simple, Christians pose a real threat to the “do what you want and feel good and everything will be fine” crowd. Christians are the ones telling people that lying, stealing, sleeping around, and so on are wrong. When that is said, suddenly someone’s “rights” are being yanked from them. Nevermind that the drugs they have a “right” to use are illegal, or they’re too young, they have a “right” to do that and you aren’t allowed to say anything. Women scream that it’s “their body so their right to an abortion” when any law is discussed, even when it’s not about what they scream. I’ve seen lawmakers attacked for even suggesting that a law be passed calling for harsh punishment when a minor child is transported across state lines for the purposes of any medical procedure, when there is no parental consent. Instantly, that law is “forcing women into back alley abortions” or “forcing rape victims to have their attacker’s child.” Read that again, a girl who wants an abortion, or a boy who wants lipo, same crime, transporting a minor w/o parental consent. WHEN that is brought up, they start screaming about girls who will be abused for getting pregnant by their religious parents. When you then point out that there is a clause allowing a Judge to allow the abortion and remove the child from an abusive home, they just scoff and say you don’t know how hard it is to leave an abusive home, then go on a rant about how you’re offending them, how you want to silence them (while they don’t let you speak) and how you’re “denying their rights” by simply existing.

I have asked, multiple times and in multiple venues how my simply believing what I do affects anyone’s rights. They generally point out this law or that policy, so I tell them I am not a government official, so they go off about voting, and I point out that I am one person and they are one person, so they can vote too, and suddenly I’m “trying to silence them” by responding to their accusations. I have asked the following question, word for word, “I am not involved in government, management, or any decision making process. Remove all of that, ignore voting, how does my simply sitting here, thinking and believing as I do, affect you in any way, at this precise moment?” The response I got was profane and nothing but an attack on my person. That one time, I wrote out “if you are going to act as a foul mouthed child, I’m leaving.” The idiot actually grabbed me and tried to push me down, until I had them against a wall in a lot of discomfort. Do you see what happened? I asked a question, was shouted and cursed at, and when I tried to leave, I was physically assaulted. Why is it OK to shout at and demean Christians, and we aren’t allowed to even get upset. I’m tired of the hypocrisy, and it’s only getting worse.

I am not about to force you to be a Christian, nor will I force you to believe as I do when it comes to various policies and laws. I will not allow you to silence me however, and I will no longer just ignore situations where Christians are silenced. If you want tolerance from me, you need to show it. If you want people to take you seriously, don’t act like a toddler told they can’t have ice cream for breakfast. In the simplest of terms, if you want to be taken seriously, then act in a way so as to deserve it.