Author: robinators19

A Few Simple Questions

/ robinators19 / 2 Comments

I think it’s time for a thought experiment.

Let’s say Congress takes action. Now, I hear you, quit laughing. It’s possible right? That Congress could actually take action? I mean more than just investigating Hillary. For this thought experiment we are going to assume that they actually take action on guns.

For this experiment I must take you a year into the future.

In the last year there have been multiple mass shootings in places like malls and other vulnerable areas killing hundreds of Americans. There have also been multiple attacks on police officers and many officers have been lost. The American people had had enough. They came together and demanded action. Congress finally acted. They passed sweeping gun legislation that banned certain types of weapons from being sold and also called for certain weapons to be taken out of circulation. Both the House and the Senate pass the bill and the President signs off on the bill to make it law.

As you can imagine there was one group in particular that was very upset by this. The NRA called on its members to protest. Law suits were filed and the law went through the courts up to the Supreme Court.

My first question is would this be something that finally gets you to protest something? Would you take part in marches and rallies to try and make your voice heard?

The Supreme Court upholds the law. Stating that it doesn’t violate your second amendment rights because you can still bear arms. You just can’t bear any arms you would like.

So the last road block has been pushed aside and enforcement of the law starts. People are told to turn in their weapons and they would be compensated for doing so.

Do you turn in your weapons and get compensated?

To make sure that all weapons have been turned in the police are sent around to make sure that every household has complied with the law. They have been instructed to use force if necessary to get the weapons.

As the police arrive at your home do you comply with the law? Do you allow them to look and make sure that you have given them all illegal guns? Or do you resist? Do you abide by the law or are you going to fight for what you see as your second amendment right?

Going from conversations I’ve had with my friends I would guess resistance. Many, many of my friends have simply said “from my cold dead hands”.

So you resist. The cops have no choice but to use force. You lock yourself in your house and open fire on any officer that comes to take your guns.

And now the most important questions of all. At this point would you still “Back the Blue”?

Would you still think “Blue Lives Matter”?

Well, would you?

History Lessons – Yes It Was Slavery That Caused Secession

/ robinators19 / Leave a comment

This is the second installment in my series of history lessons. A CNN poll taken on the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War found that 42% of Americans don’t believe that the cause of secession was slavery. Can you imagine that? 42%. That many people who were either taught false history or didn’t pay attention to the correct history that they were taught (which probably has to do with the part of the country where they attended school.)

Slavery has been a hot button issue for this country from the time it started to the time it was abolished, and the aftermath is still felt today. In his initial draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson condemned the injustice of the slave trade and acknowledged that slavery violated the natural rights of the enslaved. The Continental Congress rejected the passage and deleted it from the final document. It showed their commitment to subordinating the issue of slavery to the larger goal of securing the unity and independence of the United States. Jefferson later tried to ban slavery in all Western Territories in 1784, but it failed in Congress by one vote.

When Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860, it forced the hand of the Southern slave-holding states. During the election, they had made threats to secede if Lincoln was elected. Some of the Southern states went so far as to not include Lincoln on the ballot. The slave-holding states were afraid that Lincoln would not allow slaves into new territories, and would at some point take away their rights to own slaves. So in 1861, just a short time before Lincoln’s inauguration, the South seceded. Starting with South Carolina.

The fortunate thing about this part of history is that we don’t have to guess about why the Southern slave-holding states seceded. We simply have to go to their secession documents and listen to what they tell us. So, just pull up a chair and follow along. Remember, if you have any questions, please just raise your hand.

Let’s start with South Carolina. A state, which according to the 1860 census was made of 57% slaves, was the first to secede. In the document titled “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union”, we find the following:

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

Now on to Georgia. Georgia was made up of 44% slaves. Below is from their causes for secession document:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

Mississippi, which was made up of 55% slaves, stated the following in their secession document:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

And good ole Texas. Texas, at the time, was made up of 30% slaves. In their secession document, they wrote:

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery– the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits– a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

Now if that is not enough evidence for you, we can look at Alexander H. Stephens and his “Corner Stone” speech. Stephens was the Vice President of the Confederate States. The following is from his speech:

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails.

So, as you can see, the cause for secession was slavery. It’s not that slavery was a small part or a big part of the reason for secession; it was the only reason. That’s not an opinion. That is a fact based on the words of the people who actually seceded, and I think they have all the authority on the matter. Don’t you?

Oh those pesky facts

 

History Lessons – The U.S. was not founded on Christianity.

/ robinators19 / Leave a comment

It’s occurred to me that quit a few people in this country are in need of a history lesson. This will be the first in a series of lessons over many different topics.

I don’t know if it’s because people didn’t pay attention in school or that the school systems didn’t teach accurate history; but it’s clear that for a segment of our population they have no interest in taking it into their own hands and studying a little history.

Now these lessons are short and should be easy to follow and understand. Feel free to raise your hand at the end if you have any questions.

A lot of times with history, the best and most accurate way to learn is to go back to actual documents when possible and see what the people at that point in history were trying to do by reading their own words.

Such is the case with the founding of the United States of America. There are people to this day that believe the country was founded on Christianity. That being said, let’s take a look at what the founding fathers have to say about that.

Articles of Confederation (1777)

In all 13 articles there is no mention of God. What this document did was create a government in the form of a confederation of independent states. We can look at this document as the beginning of the separation of church and state because they give no authority to religion in civil matters it also denies any authority of government in the matters of faith.

U.S. Constitution (1787)

This document makes no reference at all to God or Christianity.

The only reference to religion, found in Article VI, is a negative one: “[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” And of course we have the First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Federalist Papers (1787-88)

God is never mentioned in the Federalist Papers. At no time is Christianity every mentioned. In fact the only time religion is ever mentioned is in keeping matters of faith separate from concerns of governance, and of keeping religion free from government interference.

The founding fathers could not be any clearer that God has no role in government and that Christianity has no role in government.

Now if that’s not enough for you we can look into some things that the founding fathers said outside of the three documents listed above.

“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.” James Madison — Letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” Thomas Jefferson — in letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813

“Every new and successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance.” James Madison — letter, 1822

“Congress has no power to make any religious establishments.” Roger Sherman, Congress, August 19, 1789

“We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition? In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.” George Washington — letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793

“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.” John Adams

“The legislature of the United States shall pass no law on the subject of religion.” Charles Pinckney, Constitutional Convention, 1787

“No religious doctrine shall be established by law.” Elbridge Gerry, Annals of Congress 1:729-731

“Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.” James Madison; Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments

”I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.” Founding Father Thomas Jefferson — letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799

“The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.” Thomas Paine

“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.” Benjamin Franklin — in Poor Richard’s Almanac

And I’ll give you one more. This last one literally answers the question.

“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” 1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams

Now tell me, does that sound like a bunch of guys that wanted this country to be founded on Christianity? Not at all.

Now I know people look to things like our money that has “In God We Trust” and most of them probably think that it’s been on our money since the founding of our country and that it somehow validates their opinion that the country was founded on God. Or they may look to the Pledge of Allegiance and think the phrase “under God” is also some sort of indication that this country was founded on Christianity. Well the truth is that both of those were not around when the founding fathers were alive.

“In God We Trust” was first placed on our money in 1861 due in part to trying to appease the NRA. Now I just want to clarify to all the gun nuts out there that I’m not speaking of the National Rifle Association. A group called the National Reform Association tried to replace the preamble “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…” with “Recognizing Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, and acknowledging the Lord Jesus Christ as the governor among the nations, his revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government….”

The phrase “under God” didn’t appear in our pledge until 1954. Congress in 1954, after lobbying from the Knights of Columbus and amid a red scare over the threat of the Soviet Union, added the phrase “under God” to the pledge, which even then drew lawsuits over the constitutionality over its inclusion. Congress reaffirmed the use of the phrase “under God” in 2002 after a legal challenge to the verbiage went all the way to the Supreme Court.

It’s not difficult at all to see that this country was not founded on Christianity if we just take the time to listen to the actual people who founded it. It’s also not difficult to see that the type of person that thinks it has have been around for a long time and will do their best to try and change that history to fit their belief.

Oh those pesky facts

The world has come to an end. But it’s not the one you were thinking of.

/ robinators19 / Leave a comment

I woke this morning to the sun shining and the birds singing.  I was surprised to wake up at all.  After the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that same sex couples could have the same right to marry as heterosexual couples all I heard from the religious right was that it was the end of times.  God was going to inflict his wrath on the evil Americans for doing such an abomination.  Well, maybe the rapture did come and I just don’t know it.  After all, anyone that knows me knows that there is a good chance that I would be left behind.  But I started seeing Facebook posts from my Christian friends so I figured that meant one of two things.  Either the rapture didn’t come or maybe they weren’t as God fearing as they thought.  Obviously it was the first option and there was no rapture and my friends are good God fearing Christians.

So, why no rapture?  Could it be that God is not as upset as they think?  After all the U.S. is the 21st country to make it legal.  If the first 20 didn’t piss off God why does anyone think that the 21st would?  Could it be that a lot of people think the world and the afterlife revolve around America?  America, a country residing on a continent that the people who wrote the Bible didn’t even know existed.  Yep, that America.

That being said people still think that homosexuality is the ultimate sin and will bring an end to this world.  Maybe not today but soon.  I’ve even seen people calling for Jesus to come soon and remove them from this hell that we call earth.  Yes, I know, those are the same people praying like crazy any time they are faced with a tough time or life threating issue and thanking God that they or any loved ones were not killed.  I guess they want the end of times but just on their time schedule.

This leads me to the big question.  Why do Christians think that Homosexuality will bring about the end of times while so many other horrific things that have happened on this planet have not brought about the end?

Mao Zedong had a reign of terror from 1949 to 1976 which led to between 49-78 million deaths.

Jozef Stalin’s reign last from 1922 to 1953 and he systematically killed 23 million people.

Adolf Hitler in the pursuit of the master race killed 17 million people between 1934 and 1945.  Nearly 6 million of those were Jewish people, Gods people.  Which made up 67% of the Jewish population.  67% of the population wiped out.

On August 1945 the United States dropped two nuclear bombs.  The first on Hiroshima, Japan killing 140,000 people and three days later dropped another one on Nagasaki, Japan killing 80,000 people.

None of these horrific events brought on God’s wrath.  And these are just events from the 20th century.  The world has a long history of horror and terror going back as far as any history book can depict.

Then you have Senator Ted Cruz, a Conservative Christian, who called the last 24 hours the worst 24 hours in United States history.  Think about that for a moment.  In the last 24 hours millions of Americans were allowed to keep their health insurance and also two people who love each other of the same sex can get married.  Please tell me how that could possibly be worse then 9/11 or Pearl Harbor? How?

If all of those acts of terror didn’t bring the end but letting two people love each other does?  How does that even make sense?

Then it occurred to me.  It’s not the actual world coming to an end that the Christians are talking about.  It’s their world coming to an end.  A world of privilege and prestige.  A world where all that they believe is the law of the land.  A world where they can look down on anyone that is different from them and put them back in their place.  A world where you must believe the exact same way as they do.  The thought that someone different than them is now, by law, treated equal to them spells the end.  The Supreme Court which for years and years ruled in their favor has now ruled against them and they can’t believe it.  They now dispute the Supreme Courts authority.

Now keep in mind this is by no way directed at all Christians.  In fact it is directed at a very small but very vocal segment.  Yesterday I saw a lot of churches and Christians acknowledge the event for what it was.  Progress and hope that maybe we are going in the right direction and recognizing that giving equal rights to all isn’t a bad thing at all.

So yes, the world has come to an end.  But what a better place it is going to be going forward.

Love wins.

Oh those pesky facts.

Texas has done it again

/ robinators19 / Leave a comment

The Republican led State Senate just passed a law that people are calling the “Anti Sharia Law Bill”. Even though the bill makes no mention of Sharia Law everyone knows its intent.  The bill guarantees that no laws for ‘foreign courts’ will be adopted by Texas civil court judges.  The sponsor of the bill, State Sen. Donna Campbell (R-New Braunfels), said, “It’s just to provide some belt and suspenders to make sure that, with judicial discretion, we don’t trump Texas law, American law, with a foreign law regarding family law”.

Again the state is giving in to fear mongers and trying to legislate something that isn’t even an issue.  Word got out that an Islamic tribunal was using Sharia Law in Texas.  That last sentence has two very scary words in it for white Americans, Islamic and Sharia.  Now while some Americans could probably identify someone that is Islamic, most of them probably couldn’t tell the difference between someone from Iraq and someone from India.  As far as Sharia goes I’m almost certain that not too many at all actually know what that means.  They just know it’s bad.  Fox News has done a great job of beating the fear into everyone about the evil Islamist coming to behead them.  Fear is something we do really well in this country.  And the people swallow it hook, line, and sinker.  Want to control a group of people just keep them scared.

Back to the evil Islamic group.  So, it turns out, that they are simply a mediation and arbitration group.  In fact below I will layout the scope of the tribunal:

Conflicting problems within American Muslim society may range from personal and family matters such as marriage and divorce, as well as disputes among community members and those in positions of leadership.  The courts of the United States of America are costly and consist of ineffective lawyers.  Discontent with the legal system leads many Muslims in America to postpone justice in this world and opt for an audience on the Day of Judgment.

It is with this issue that Muslims here in America are obligated to find a way to solve conflicts and disputes according to the principles of Islamic Law and its legal heritage of fairness and justice in a manner that is reasonable and cost effective.  These proceedings must be conducted in accordance with the law of the land; local, state and federal with the United States.  Through effective mediation and arbitration, decisions can be made that are stipulated in the Sharia’ah and adhering to the binding, ethical and legal code that exists within this country with the final approval of the relevant courts and judges.

The Islamic Tribunal seeks support and guidance from consultants and counselors to its attorneys to ensure that local, state and federal law are strictly conformed to and decisions that originate from the Tribunal are in accordance with said laws.

Now doesn’t that just sound scary? And look at how they are trying to make their own laws and…..oh wait, now this looks like any other mediation and arbitration group.  Maybe Texas is just upset because they are a faith based group doing this?  But that can’t be it because groups like Peacemaker Ministries do the exact same thing.  Below is a little bit about Peacemaker Ministries:

A non-profit, non-denominational ministry whose mission is to equip and assist Christians and their churches to respond to conflict biblically.   We provide conflict coaching, mediation and arbitration service to help resolve lawsuits, family conflicts, business disputes, and church divisions.

So, why is this type of faith based mediation and arbitration acceptable?  Oh, that’s right, it’s Christian based.  Texas is only concerned about keeping foreign law out of America and Christianity is 100% American right?  Now this may come as a surprise to a lot of people but the Christian Bible is actually foreign law.  That’s right people, Jesus wasn’t American.  I know that seems hard to believe since every picture depicts him as a very handsome bearded American.  The Bible was actually the law of the land in a place we call the Middle East.  The Middle East is also the home of the Islamic – Sharia Law that we as Americans have been taught to fear.

So, way to cave in to the fear mongers Texas.  It’s a shame you have no faith in the constitution to uphold our laws.  But then again you aren’t that fond of our constitution are you?  Using the Bible to defend anti-gay marriage.  That good old selective use of foreign law.

Those Pesky Facts.

So the ESPY’s see courage differently than you do. Get over it.

/ robinators19 / 2 Comments

Unless you live under a rock you have probably heard just how upset some people are over the fact that Caitlyn Jenner was honored with the Arthur Ashe Courage award at the ESPY’s.  Of course not many of those people know who Arthur Ashe was or even what an ESPY is.  They surely have no clue of who past honorees were.  They just know that to them there is no way someone like her could be courageous and be a hero.

Caitlyn Jenner was once Bruce Jenner.  As a former college football player, Jenner came to international attention as a decathlete; winning the gold medal in the men’s decathlon event at the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal and setting a world record not beaten until 1980.  With the unofficial title of “world’s greatest athlete” for the Olympic decathlon win, he was also an American cult hero winning an event dominated by Soviet Union athletes during the Cold War.  I was ten years old and I have a very vivid memory of his dominant performance and him being on a Wheaties box.

The Arthur Ashe Courage Award is a sport-oriented award, although it is not limited to sports-related people or actions, as it is presented annually to individuals whose contributions “transcend sports”. Often these transcendent figures are also athletes who have been at the top of their sport, such as Mohammed Ali, Dean Smith, Cathy Freeman, and Caitlyn Jenner.  Other recent non-sports related winners are Robin Roberts and Nelson Mandela.

So, Caitlyn fits the criteria for being honored.  An incredible athlete and a courageous person for being totally transparent through her transition knowing the abuse she would take for doing it.  She could have locked herself away and made this change without anyone knowing.  But like a lot of celebrities she wanted to use her fame for a good cause.  She had a platform and she used it. Caitlyn is transgender and that refers to people who were assigned a sex, usually at birth and based on their genitals, but who feel that this is a false or incomplete description of themselves. Transgender people may meet the criteria for a diagnosis of gender identity disorder (GID) “only if [being transgender] causes distress or disability.” This distress is referred to as gender dysphoria and may manifest as depression or inability to work and form healthy relationships with others.

According to surveys, 4.6 percent of the overall U.S. population has self-reported a suicide attempt, with that number climbing to between 10 and 20 percent for lesbian, gay or bisexual respondents. By comparison, 41 percent of trans or gender non-conforming people surveyed have attempted suicide.  So it is not hard to imagine the impact of what Caitlyn Jenner has done.  Trans gender’s now have an amazing role model.  Someone who concurred her fears and dealt with her problems without resorting to suicide.  I have no doubt that this one action will reduce that suicide rate and bring attention to this disorder and hopefully get rid of the hate that this group of people feel every day.

Now to the hate.  My Facebook feed has been filled with comments and memes from my conservative friends who are beyond upset that Caitlyn Jenner could win this award.  From an incorrect meme that said that an amputee veteran was a runner up and should have won even though according to ESPN there was no runner up.  To a picture that went viral with over 700,000 shares about how the real heroes are war veterans like the two in a picture which turned out to be a picture of two model soldiers from a diorama that a photographer used as therapy after being beaten by six men because he was a cross dresser.  Now throw in all the people who decided to comment their hatred for someone that they can’t relate to and could never understand.  All of those comments actually said more about the people commenting then it did about Caitlyn Jenner.

Even though she was honored with a courage award most people turned it into “how can she be a hero?”

We need to understand that being courageous and being someone’s hero are two different things.  A person can do something that is courageous but if they are a hero or not is in the eye of the beholder.  My hero growing up was Fran Tarkington.  Looking at the world around me now I am almost certain that I am the only one that I know that had him as a hero.  But he was my hero and it didn’t depend on what you think.  So it’s not hard to see what she did was courageous and it’s not up to me to say if she is a hero to anyone, that’s up to them and them alone.

It was hard to understand where the anger from the conservative side was coming from until I thought about it for a second.  “I didn’t vote for him as President, he must be impeached”. “I would never have an abortion, no one else can either”.  “I don’t approve of gay marriage, there shall be no gay marriage”.  So again I’m not surprised to hear “I would never consider Caitlyn Jenner a hero, so no one else should either”.

Oh those pesky facts.

Rock-Paper-Scissors Could Work

/ robinators19 / Leave a comment

At a festival in Burleson County Texas called Chilifest, a teen girl was forced to play a game of Rock-Paper-Scissors in order to avoid a citation for underage drinking.  As a huge crowd looked on they erupted as she beat the officer in the game.

Now of course everyone is up in arms saying that making someone win a game in order to avoid arrest is obviously cruel and inappropriate.  The Precinct Constable said he does not endorse the activity and that the officer in question will not work the festival in the future.

I think everyone is missing something here.  Is it possible that he was watching to see her hand eye coordination to assess if she had been drinking or not?  Even if he wasn’t maybe this officer has stumbled upon the next big thing in law enforcement.  With jails and prisons greatly over populated and our court system backed up with so many cases maybe Rock-Paper-Scissors is the answer.

Just think about it.  Imagine that a person has been pulled over for speeding.  The officer could just give him a ticket for $100 and start the process of all the paperwork and possible appearances in court for this ticket, or they could play Rock-Paper-Scissors.  Right there on the spot.  But now the stakes are a little higher for the offender.  If the offender wins then they get no ticket and they are free to go.  If the offender loses then they have to pay $500 with no court option or any other way out.  Sounds good doesn’t it?  Now the odds of winning at Rock-Paper-Scissors is 50/50.  That means for every ten stops an officer would make the fines would only amount to $1,000 using the old system.  With the new system it would be $2,500 and no court dates or expenses for trials and all that paperwork.

Now let’s take it a step further.  The offender has now committed a crime that would normally call for a one year prison sentence.  Break out the Rock-Paper-Scissors and play the game.  The offender wins and he walks free, if he loses he now goes to jail for five years.  No trials and no paper work and best of all no LAWYERS.  And instead of 10 people in jail you only have five and you’ve cut down on the prison population and saved tax payers a lot of money.

Now doesn’t this sound like a great plan?  There is, however, one caveat.  All of the games must be videoed because, well you know, it’s the cops.

 

Those Pesky Facts. 🙂

What Is Discrimination?

/ robinators19 / 1 Comment

I am amazed every day by how many people don’t know what discrimination is.  Oh, they think they know but they really have no clue.  As time goes on our nation seems to be sliding down a slope of ignorance that seems to have no bottom and its getting steeper every day.  Now, admittedly, I’m drawing this conclusion from politicians, reporters, and friends on Facebook so that may not be the best pool to choose from, but it is what it is.

One of the most headed issues is the war against the LBGT segment of our populous.  From gay marriages to bakers not wanting to bake a “gay” cake.  This, for some reason, is a very polarizing issue.  On one side you have the people who want equal rights for everyone and on the other you have people wanting everyone to follow what they perceive to be their own Christian rights.  Christians point towards the Bible as to why gays should have no rights.  They point to a fact that being gay is a sin and they should not have to associate with anyone that sins.  Now they are correct that the Bible talks about homosexuality, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman” Leviticus 18:22.  But what they fail to realize through there selective reading of the text is that good ole Leviticus is full of sins that they have no trouble seeing past.  I’ve yet to hear a story about a baker refusing, because of religious beliefs, to make a cake for a tattooed person, or a person wearing clothing woven of two kinds of material, or a man that had cut the hair at the sides of his head or clipped off the edges of his beard.  I’ve also yet to see to many bakers refusing to work on the Sabbath.

Now a baker refuses to make a wedding cake for a “gay” wedding by claiming it was against their religious beliefs and doesn’t feel that they are discriminating at all.  This is where I think everyone should take that time to learn what discrimination really is.  Let’s look at a couple of examples: A bakery has four different customers wanting to purchase a wedding cake.  The customers are: a heterosexual couple, a bi-racial couple, a homosexual couple, and a lady wanting to get a wedding cake so her daughter could have a wedding for two of her stuffed animals.  The baker decides that three of the four would get cakes because they all fall within his religious beliefs (the stuffed animal one is a little strange but his preacher has never mentioned that being a sin so he figured it was ok) but the homosexual wouldn’t get a cake because homosexuality is against his religion.  The baker feels he is within his rights to deny service to anyone he chooses so he feels he has not discriminated against anyone.

Meanwhile at another bakery a baker receives a call to make a cake with the cartoon character of Mohamed on the cake.  The baker refuses and states I don’t make those kinds of cakes.  The baker feels that they have not discriminated against anyone.

So which one is discrimination and which one is not?  If you said the second or both are discrimination you are in need of more education on the subject.  The first one is the only one that is discrimination.  Discrimination is defined as a treatment or consideration based on class or category, such as race or gender, rather than individual merit.  So when you refuse to do something because of the group that the person belongs to that is discrimination.  If someone comes into your bakery without a shirt on you can tell them to leave.  Also, if you are asked to make something you normally wouldn’t make and you refuse that is not discrimination.

It also needs to be said that forcing a baker to make a wedding cake for a “gay” marriage would not lead to a slippery slope of forcing business to do things against their will.  I have a friend that is a website developer tell me that if his religious rights aren’t protected then someone could force him to make a website.  I tried explaining to him that the government will not force a business to do something it would not normally do.  If you don’t build porn websites you will not be required to build one.  If you do build porn websites but refuse to build one for someone because of a class or group that they are in then you will have discriminated.  I’m still not sure if he gets it or not.

So to sum it up.  If the only people you will not make a wedding dress for is a gay couple then you are discriminating.  If you are a Christian and can’t get everyone to believe what you believe and can’t have group led prayer at school you have not been discriminated against.  That would only be discrimination if Christian prayer was the only prayer not allowed.

I hope this clarifies the situation.  If not then more education is needed.  Please seek it out if you need it.

Those pesky facts.

“Just Don’t Do It” Just Doesn’t Work

/ robinators19 / Leave a comment

All forms of government use the practice of moving funding from one program to another.  Texas is no exception.  The fact that they moved funds in itself doesn’t upset me, it’s the program they took it from and the one they gave it to that has me just a bit upset.

Just a short time ago the Texas house passed an amendment to move $3 million set aside for HIV prevention to abstinence education.  The amendment was the idea of Rep. Stuart Spitzer (R-Kaufman).  Is throwing more money at something that already doesn’t work really the answer?  Rep. Sylvester Turner (D-Houston) doesn’t think so.  In his opposition to the amendment Turner said “If we gave you a billion dollars for abstinence, would that be enough? Or would you need two?”

Despite the fact that abstinence education is proven not to work the amendment passed with a 97 to 47 vote.  Facts seem to be something that representatives don’t care too much about.  In a state where school districts are required to teach more about abstinence than any other method of sex education, HIV rates of infections are much higher than in the rest of the nation and Texas has the third highest rate of teenage pregnancy and the highest rate overall for repeat teen pregnancies.  Faced with those kinds of facts you would think that the people who are given the responsibility of representing us would find a better use for the $3 million.  How about actual sex education.  There is one thing that I am 100% sure about and that is that teenagers are going to have sex.  And that’s not a new revelation.  It’s been going on forever.  So, teach them about safe sex.  Teach them using birth control is crucial and that there are ways of obtaining it without embarrassing themselves.  Give condoms away.  You can still tell them that not having sex is the best thing but give them the tools they need in case they decide to do it.

Spitzer would have no part of that.  You see he was a virgin until he was 29 and married his first and only wife.  He said “My goal is for everyone to be abstinent until they are married”, he even went on to say that abstinence education and HIV prevention are “essentially the same thing”.  His take is that if they don’t have sex they won’t get HIV.  Done and done.  What a joke.  I guess we could say that if no one had guns there would be no mass shootings but that’s for another time.

What Spitzer and almost all other representatives at the state and federal level seem to not understand is that they are representatives.  What they are supposed to do is actually in their job title.  We need people to represent us.  We don’t need people out there just doing what “they” think is right.  Go to your constituents and find out what they want.  Actually have a conversation and see if the people you represent want more money to go to abstinence education or not.

Lastly stop trying to legislate your religious beliefs into law.  If you think that sex before marriage is a sin then don’t have sex before marriage.  As for all of the people you represent, you just need to come to the realization that not everyone believes what you believe and besides I’m pretty sure you are not the person to judge them.  Or am I missing something?

Those pesky facts.

Ted Cruz and the horrible, awful, ugly executive order

/ robinators19 / Leave a comment

In an interview with Breitbart News Senator Ted Cruz said that if elected President one of his first actions will be to undo all of President Barack Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders.  Ted Cruz is the first of a long list of Republican Presidential hopefuls to throw his hat into the ring.  Others who may follow include: Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Fox News, and Carly Fiorina, just to name a few.  Ok, you got me, Fox News isn’t going to run.  I just wanted to make sure you were paying attention.

I’m going to give you the quote directly from Ted Cruz

“The next 20 months are going to be very dangerous because President Obama, unfortunately, seems to have decided to disregard the United States Congress and disregard the American people and instead is trying to force through as much of his extreme agenda as possible via unilateral executive actions-and I think we’re going to see that only accelerate through the end of 2016 with more and more unconstitutional executive orders, more regulatory abuse and more and more efforts to go to the United Nations and foreign war tribunals in an effort to end run Congress.  In January 2017 we will have a new president and if I am elected president, the very first thing I intend to do on the first day is rescind every single unconstitutional or illegal executive action from President Obama.”

Now, Executive orders have been used by all but one of the former Presidents of our country.  The one not to use it was our ninth President William Henry Harrison who was only in office for one month before his death.  Harrison was also the first President to die in office.  In fact prior to President Obama 15,052 executive orders had been issued.  The record holder for the most used is Franklin D. Roosevelt with 3,522.  In recent years Ronald Reagan used 381, George H Bush used 166, Bill Clinton used 364, and George W Bush used 291.

Barack Obama is currently sitting at 208.  Now by the time he has left office he may well surpass Ronald Reagan but I can’t blame him.  Look at the congress he has had to deal with.  When you are dealing with Congressmen who openly said it was there job to make sure you don’t get re-elected you know you aren’t going to get to much cooperation from them.  Congress, over the last 6 years, could go down in history as one of the most inept of all time and Ted Cruz has been right at the forefront of it.

Looking through the list of President Obama’s executive orders I’ve yet to find one that spells the end to the country as we know it.  I did see one that probably pissed the Republicans off.  It’s EO 13673 “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” -here is the link to see all of President Obama’s executive orders – https://www.federalregister.gov/executive-orders/barack-obama/2014

This got me thinking.  First, when did executive orders become illegal and unconstitutional?  I’m guessing that Ted Cruz would put that date at January 21, 2009.  Why that date you ask?  Well, that is the date when everything changed.  The good ole Old White Guy Club was crashed.  A Black man was inaugurated as President of the United States.  So, what was perfectly fine in the past had to know be illegal.  What used to be praised must now be viewed as an abuse of power.  You want to give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants?  You want to try and negotiate with Iran and dismantle their nuclear arsenal?  You can’t do those things President Obama, only the white guys before you were allowed to do such a thing.  Now you want to use executive orders?  How dare you.  Who do you think you are? Hitler?

It just physically hurts sometimes reading the ignorance that comes out of most of these Republican Congressmen.

Secondly, Ted Cruz sees it as his mission if elected president to undo what President Obama has done with all his illegal executive orders.  How does Ted Cruz plan to do this you may ask?  With executive orders of course.  Now, I’m pretty sure he doesn’t see the irony in his actions.  But then again I’m sure he will see executive orders as being a legal and constitutionally sound way of getting things done now that a white man is back in the Presidency.

Those pesky facts.