Pedophiles may get the same rights as gays?!

Definition of a pedophile: "adult with sexual desire for children: an adult who has sexual desire for children or who has committed the crime of sex with a child"
So you know what a pedophile is, now how about gay: "attracted to same sex: relating to sexual attraction or activity among members of the same sex"

Pedophiles are wanting the same rights as gays now that the gay rights activists have won their rights. Pedophiles think that what they are and what they lust for is a sexual orientation and not a disorder. Pedophiles are now protected under the law for sexual orientation discrimination. They claim they should have the same rights as gays do because they can't control the fact that they have sexual urges for children. They are also saying that because they can't change the way they feel about children that they shouldn't be shunned for it.

Now it says that two psychiatrists in Canada state that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like being a heterosexual or a homosexual. This means that they think of pedophiles as one of us, just another normal human with 'normal' urges.

Here is a quote from the article that you can find a link to in my sources;

Quinsey said pedophiles’ sexual interests prefer children and, “There is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”

Um... I have something that can cure these disgusting urges- DEATH!
Another quote;

Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, stated that child pornography could be beneficial to society because, “Potential sex offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex against children.”

Here is my view; Child pornography is STILL hurting the children! It's no better then if some sick fuck had sex with them! Child porn is illegal and should be! Taking naked pictures of children doing acts is still harmful and should not be allowed. It is NOT beneficial to society for one other reason, what happens when it's not enough for pedophiles? They will then seek out children to reenact the porn they have seen. 

Pedophiles are vile creatures who are nothing like the rest of us! They are NOT the same as homosexuals or heterosexuals or any other orientation. They have a sexual attraction to children who have not even begun to mature yet. They want these little kids because they have a deeper underlying need to feel powerful and in control! Children do not understand sex, or touching or any other mature acts like this. They get scared, they do not like it and they do NOT know that is going on. It IS harmful to them and it will hurt their future if they can't get the help to recover from the traumatic experiences.

Homosexuals (gays) are not the same as pedophiles. Gay couples are of age and are mature enough to consent to sexual acts. They do not seek out young children to overpower and control, they seek out the same sex that are either the same age or are still OF AGE to make mature decisions. That is a sexual orientation, that should and is legal.

Anyone who has kids or has family with kids knows how disturbing it is to even think that some adult man (or woman) might someday be able to legally touch and have sexual relations with your child! I don't know about you but if I have kids and some older man tries to do anything to them, I will be in jail for shooting the bastard regardless of if it's legal or not.

This is sickening news and it's even more so that it's actually gotten this far into the government and authority systems. It's gone through the White House even, and they are AGREEING with some of the crap that these pedophiles are pushing for! This is showing that the people we have elected to be in charge of this country have little to no moral standing or common sense!

What do YOU think of this sickening situation? Do you agree with the government and think pedophiles should have the same rights? Or do you think this is sickening and shouldn't have ever even been brought up? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

Sources: pedophiles want same rights

Zimmerman trial Vs Alexander trial who's REALLY guilty?

I just learned of this whole Zimmerman case and the verdict and I have seen a lot of controversial conversations and arguments on it. So, naturally I decided to blog about my thoughts on this verdict and case after reading a few articles and the backgrounds of both parties. I have also seen a lot of pictures on social media sites comparing this case to several others such as the Casey Anthony's not guilty verdict and the Andrea Yates case with her being not guilty then the Marissa Alexander case with her being found GUILTY without killing anyone.

Lets start by looking at the victim's background and side of this situation. Trayvon Martin was an 17 year old junior in High school. His parents are divorced and his fathers new fiance lived in the neighborhood that he was shot in. He was visiting his father and his fathers fiance when he was shot down in the street. Martin's background might sound sketchy and he did seem like a troubled youth but he was never found to be violent. Martin had been suspended from school twice due to truancy and writing graffiti on the school grounds. Martin had also been in possession of a marijuana pipe and some jewelry that the police automatically thought to be stolen. On the night he was killed, the last anyone saw of him was when he bought candy and an Arazona Tea from a 7-11 store.

Now lets look at the defendants background and side of the situation. George Zimmerman is an insurance underwriter and was going to collage. He is a 200lb man (aprox) at 30 years old with several acts of violence in his past. At age 21 he was arrested for the assault of a police officer and resisting arrest. Then in 2005 Zimmerman was charged with domestic violence and has a restraining order from his ex-fiance. Zimmerman had called the non-emergency police several times in 18 months, five of those were reports of suspicious looking men around the neighborhood. To me, Zimmerman seemed to be of the paranoid sort that took matters into his own hands when he shouldn't. On the night of the killing, Zimmerman had called the police about a suspicious looking man walking around at night. He thought he was suspicious due to the fact that he was walking around at night in the rain just looking at houses. Now if you think about it, if you where depressed because your parents had taken you away from your friends and home what would you be doing? Martin was most likely only out walking around because he was upset.

Zimmerman blatantly disobeyed what the police dispatcher had told him while he was running after Martin that night. The police dispatcher told him NOT to follow or chase the 'suspect' but Zimmerman did so anyway. Zimmerman eventually shot and killed Martin who was unarmed, and only 70 yards from where he was staying.

Many different scenarios could have taken place but one seems to pull to my mind. From looking over the backgrounds of both persons and reading through articles of the trial what plays out in my mind is this:

Martin was walking home from the store after buying some snacks and was wearing a hooded sweatshirt due to the rain. He was probably upset about being away from his family and friends and from being suspended from school. Zimmerman, who already had a violent history, was part of neighborhood watch and from having so many break ins and robberies in his area saw Martin and automatically thought he was a bad person. Zimmerman's defenses were up and alert due to this and he wanted to take action thinking the police would arrive too late so he took matters into his own hands. He chased after Martin who was unarmed and probably startled him. Martin begins to run seeing someone is chasing him and then turns to defend himself against the mysterious man coming for him. Martin and Zimmerman have a scuffle and both attack one another leaving cuts and bruises. Zimmerman gets even more defensive and worries for his life thinking this young man might have a gun or knife and pulls out his own. Zimmerman (not thinking rationally) shoots Martin who was unarmed and fighting for his own life. 

To me this seems like the most realistic situation. I mean if you think about it, Martin was a young boy who was walking home at night in the rain and is being followed by a strange vehicle. Martin gets scared and starts to run, Zimmerman, thinking he is high and mighty, chases after him. A fight breaks out from both scared men and one gets shot. I'm not saying Zimmerman's verdict is right but it should make you think. Both parties where standing their ground.



Now, lets take a look at the other case where the verdict ends differently. A 31 year old Florida woman was found guilty of aggravated assault and attempted murder when she fired warning shots at her abusive husband. She had already filed an order of protection against him and claims she was protecting herself from another beating. Marissa Alexander has never been in trouble with the law before yet when she tries to defend herself against a brutally abusive husband she gets charged and convicted.
Here is a quote from Wikipidia on this case:

Alexander had a restraining order issued against her ex husband at the time and, during the day of the incident, had returned to their old home to collect clothes and some possessions thinking he was not there. Her ex husband was there, with their children, and they began to argue. After the argument became heated, Marissa Alexander returned to her car, picked up her firearm, and returned inside the house where she threatened him with the handgun before firing a warning shot into the wall. She was charged with reckless endangerment of children and threatening with a deadly weapon.

The stand your ground law-

In the United States, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first. The concept sometimes exists in statutory law and sometimes through common law precedents.

So what do you think about these cases? Who was in the right or wrong? Or was anyone right?



Sources: Zimmerman verdict  and Alexander case Alexander Case2
Other source: wikipedia

Paula Deen under fire for what?

News Article

Paula Deen is a famous chef and owner of a successful restaurant. She has put out 14 cookbooks and is very well known for it. Now however she is getting slandered for using the 'N-word' approximately 30 years ago.
Paula Deen and her son's Jamie and Bobby own and run the restaurant The Lady & Sons where some of the former employees claim to have had to listen to racial slurs and jokes from the owners. One employee even claims that she was sexually harassed by Paula's brother Earl Heirs. You can see the lawsuit here: Lawsuit

Paula Deen seems to be having a lot of racial secrets coming out about her past and her restaurant with the white staff allowed to use the front restrooms and the black staff having to use the back restrooms. There is also talk of her planning a

"true Southern wedding" with an all-black waitstaff wearing white shirts and black pants. Deen is alleged to have said, "You know in the Shirley Temple days, they used to tap dance around."

 Now the thing you must understand is that Paula Deen was born January 19, 1947, and in the 1940's and 50's when she grew up blacks did not have the same civil rights as whites. Employers could legally refuse to consider black applicants for jobs. Landlords could refuse to rent houses to black people. Blacks and whites lived in separate neighborhoods. Often, blacks were barred from registering to vote. This is how she was raised, to be taught by society that blacks where not equal. As she got older however, and time and society changed she may not have changed as much as it did. A lot of older people in America are used to the old ways that they grew up. They still hold onto the old beliefs but they do try to change.

Knowing this, you really can't blame her for what she said so long ago. Many, MANY people even now say that word a lot and often. Some people mean it and some just say it to piss people off. Others still say it jokingly. If a famous black person admitted to calling someone or saying "Cracker" they would probably not get as much attention as she is now.

Her past does not, however, give her the right to treat staff so poorly. Now none of these accusations have been found to be true or not but if they are then she is wrong in doing so. As a business owner and someone who is looked up upon she should know better then to let her old fashioned ways get in the way of business and being a role model. She claims that she doesn't care about your skin color, only what is in your heart. If these racial claims about how she runs her business prove to be false accusations then she shouldn't be blamed for anything more.

Paula Deen is an older southern woman who grew up when slavery was still a thing and blacks didn't exactly have any rights. Is it any wonder that someone who grew up in this era has said the N-word a few times more then what she is willing to admit to? When she gets slandered so much for admitting to saying it once? It would be like judging someone who survived Pearl Harbor for calling a Japanese person a "Buddhahead" or some other slurred term.

People need to let it go. Forgive Paula Deen, she is just acting in the way she was raised to act.

Dog Breed restrictions

It has come to my attention that their is a list of 75 dog breeds that are either banned or restricted. Many of these dogs have great temperaments and have no right being on any banned list! I will not go through all dogs on the list but you can check out the list here: 75 innocent dog breeds

Ok so I will start off with a breed that most people wouldn't ever think is a danger to society: ALASKAN MALAMUTE, the larger breed with a lot of fur that looks like a husky. This dogs temperament is as the quote says,

The Alaskan Malamute is extremely loyal and intelligent, sweet and most affectionate toward its master. Great with children who are old enough to play with him safely. If its canine instincts are met, it matures into a dignified and mellow adult dog. They are very friendly and therefore are not suitable as guard dogs.

Now how in the world did this dog get on a banned/restricted list? Apparently it is due to the wolfish look they can have.

Another dog on the list is AMERICAN BULLDOG, despite it's strong muscular body build and possibly intimidating loyalty, this dog's temperament is described as:

The American Bulldog is loyal, reliable, brave and determined. Not a hostile dog. Alert and self-confident, this breed genuinely loves children. It is known for its acts of heroism toward its master. It has strong protective instincts, and needs a firm, confident, consistent pack leader.

So how can a dog breed that is known to be heroes and be awesome with children on the banned/restricted list? Because people lump this breed in with Pit bulls. Yes that is the reason, and it's a stupid one.

Third breed I want to talk about is the AMERICAN HUSKY, you might think of this as the black and white dogs with a fluffy tail but this is the American Husky, not Siberian. This breed is actually almost all gone!

The American husky, or Canadian Eskimo Dog, is a very old breed originating nearly 1,000 years ago where the breed was raised by the natives of Thule. Unfortunately, this breed is almost at the point of extinction.

Not a lot of pages on this breed, I was lucky to find this one so I will share it with you now: American_husky

Some other dogs that I will not go into as much depth about are Boxers, Bulldogs, Eskimo, Fox Terrier, Pugs I mean so many dogs on this list have an above average temperament! Just because you get a few bad apples, does that mean you will never eat one again? Honestly this is just bullshit discrimination against dogs. Society thinks that just because a dog looks mean or has bitten ONE person then the whole breed is evil. Well guess what, any dog can bite, any dog can turn on a dime and lose it. They are like us, they can only handle so much stress and bullshit before they snap! Also it depends on how you raise them.

Another dog that nobody will be surprised to hear on the list is the American Pit Bull Terrier. I own a pit bull mix and he is a baby! He is sweet, and a flirt. He gives kisses and cuddles and he is also loyal and protective of me. He is a great dog and I would love to be able to get a full blooded pit bull. So many people have the wrong idea about these dogs and it's due to
A) Stupid owners- If you raise a dog wrong they will be a confused dog. If you punish them by beating them they will become fearful and more likely to be aggressive. If you don't take control of your dog at an early age during training then you will never have full control later on.
B) Misidentification- I see it all the time, so many people just assume a dog is a certain breed cause of the way it looks. Did you know a lot of these so called 'Pit Bulls' that attack people are actually not pit bulls? Boxers, American Bulldogs, Alpha Blue Blooded Bulldogs, Dogos, Bull Mastiffs, Presa Canario and even some Labradors. So many other breeds are mistaken for pit bulls, makes you wonder how many pit bulls have actually attacked people huh? If you want the full list, here is a link: find the pit
C) Bad Owners- These people are the reason why pit bulls have such a bad rep. These BAD owners are the ones who use them to fight, or train them to be mean and aggressive. These people who use dogs as weapons and pons to make money are the ones who need to be banned and restricted from owning any animal. Hating the breed that has been mistreated is like hating an abuse victim for lashing out due to being hit everyday by a spouse or parent.

So the next time you think about buying a dog or looking for a place to rent, think about what breed you have and if it will be allowed in your home or even another state. Then when you think you see a pit bull in a pet store or on the street, think to yourself "Do I REALLY know what pit bulls look like?" because for all you know, you could be scaring yourself over a fake reputation on the wrong dog.

Clay Creations for sale (NC)

Well due to this blog dieing before it was even able to live.... I have decided to try and post my handmade clay creations here. If you like random and cute clay creations, then you should take a look at this link. I make pencil toppers, pendants, mini figures and medium figures. From Teddy Bears to Dragons and Wizards. If you want to check it out please feel free to do so! I'm making new things all the time and I'm hoping to get this little online business into working operation.

Wolfies Creations

Sample Works:

Horse meat for humans?

http://news.yahoo.com/horses-could-soon-slaughtered-meat-us-080907323.html

Have you ever thought about trying a new kind of meat? Maybe squid (calamari), Alligator, Shark fin, Snake even? People eat these animals all the time, maybe not all in the united states, but all over. A lot of Americans do however eat snake meat and alligator. A ton of animals in the United States are killed and eaten every year, some in mass others in smaller portions. Cows (beef) are breed and raised to be food for us, same as chickens and pigs but horses are different for some reason. Is it because we can get more use out of them instead of just killing them for meat? Is it because too many people see them as pets and not food? You can ride a horse just as you could probably ride a cow! Horses can learn to do tricks and love you and have personality, but you know what so do pigs. Didn't know that did you? Pigs are actually highly intelligent but the only thing you probably think of when we say pig is BACON! If you don't want to believe me on their level of intelligence then here is a link: Pig Smarts  
Now pigs are actually just as smart as dogs but you wouldn't eat dog would you? Or cat even? Why is this? It's because they are seen as pets, as members of the family and as loyal animals that have emotions and feelings just like we do. But you know what, so do cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, ect. Any animal we eat has feelings and emotions just like us. Any animals could also be someones pet if our society had been different.

Just think about this- If this world had been different, and cows were used like horses, and pigs/chickens used like dogs/cats then what do you think we would be mass producing to eat? Yes that's right, dogs, cats, and horses. The only reason why we have such a strong feeling and sense of right and wrong is because we learned it, we have been taught that eating some animals is ok, but eating others is wrong. If I really wanted to I could go into more depth about other ANIMALS that CAN but are not supposed to be eaten. Well, they are eaten by wild animals but not its own kind... I'm talking about humans. Humans are animals and you know what? If we were not the dominant species on this planet we could very well be some other creatures food source. Wild animals already make meals out of us yet we shun and blame them for it but why? Do you blame yourself for eating other animals? I didn't think so. Another thing I want to mention on this subject is that cannibalism is seen in the wild a lot more then you might think. Lions will kill and eat other lions of different prides, male Lions will kill and sometimes even eat the cubs of other lionesses in order to mate with her. Tigers are solitary animals in the wild and will kill each other and on occasion will eat the other. A large number of reptiles eat their own kind all the time! Fish eat other fish of the same species and even wild dogs will eat each other.

Now back to the main topic of this blog (seeing as how I've gotten a bit off track), horse meat. Why is it so taboo for humans to eat it? I love horses just as much as I love cows but I still eat beef. I think cows are absolutely adorable but yet I will still make myself a hamburger or a steak. Why? Because it tastes good and my body needs meat. Horses are really no different to me, I would eat horse meat if I had the choice just to taste it and see if I liked it. Horses are already used as pet food so why not use it for humans as well? If you think it's wrong for horses to be slaughtered at all even for pet food then what would our pets eat? The crap that some companies do is just mix the leftovers of YOUR food into a grinder. Left over parts of intestines/bones/feet/fat/spoiled meats <-- this is what is called MEAT BY PRODUCT. I would rather my dog eat a dog food made from nothing but horse meat and some veggies then that garbage! Would you eat something that was a BY PRODUCT? No, you would want to eat actual food, not a food-like product that I also see on the shelves of our stores.

Horse meat might also be good for the economy of food distribution and slaughter houses anyway. Beef/pork/chicken is so mass produced that these animals are breed like crazy and given an ungodly amount of chemicals and steroids to make them grow faster, larger and to kill off any disease or sickness they might have. If we allow horses into this mix it might take some of the pressure off of the other animals if people allow and accept the new change of meat into their diets. Hell if anything, I believe they should allow deers to be produced for meat. I've had my share of deer jerky and deer steak and it is really good! I can't wait till my husband gets a hunting license and we can go and get our own meat instead of having to rely on chemically enhanced beef. You can use deer meat as a sub for beef I've done it before and it was still very good.

Horse meat has already been leaked into our food in the United Kingdom and they lived. Probably didn't even taste a real difference. So it's not that odd to think about adding horses as an extra meat source. Again, I think if people accept it, that it could lighten up the demand for beef and possibly pork. Chicken, on the other hand is different. I would think that they would have an equal amount of turkey as they do chicken to lighten up the demand of it but they don't seem to. Lamb is another one I would like to go out and buy but it's special ordered here where I live.

So that's my opinion, what are yours? Do you think horse meat should be introduced into our diets? Why or why not?

Catholic Youth Organization bans girls from Football

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/14/us/philadelphia-archdiocese-boys-only-football/index.html?hpt=us_r1

Football, a sport that in the past was only meant for boys and men, has now evolved into letting girls and women play it as well. Apparently the Catholic Youth Organization of Philadelphia hasn't caught up with the times. An 11-year old girl, Caroline has been playing football sense she was in kindergarten. Inspired by her older brother who also plays football, she started playing and loves it. She claims that she has never been hurt while playing and that she has a lot of fun playing the sport but is hurt that she now can't play due to the Catholic Church's rules.

Hearing this girl talking in the video interview for news lets you see that she knows what she is doing and that she knows this is wrong. Personally she seems very smart for her age to! This girl has a very bright and optional future ahead of her if she is able to keep playing sports. Her mother and father disagree with the Youth Organizations rules and putting their daughter on the bench. Her mother even went and made a petition for not just her daughter but for all girls who want to but can't, play football on Change.org that currently has 108,728 signatures and is now closed.

The young 11 year old also made some awesome points when she was told it was a safety issue to allow girls to play, she points out that it's not just a safety issue for her because she is a girl but also a safety issue for anyone that goes out onto the field. This is truly an unjust and uncalled for ruling.

I personally feel that all girls should have the right to play whatever sport they want to! I mean we have male cheerleaders and that was another huge issue that society had at first but now it's more acceptable. What are your thoughts on girls playing football and other sports? Do you think it was right or wrong for the Church to have such a sexist ruling? Post a comment below and explain your opinions.

Transgender Options Limited?

Link to the article covered here: http://www.newschannel5.com/story/16511164/proposed-state-bathroom-bill-would-limit-transgender-options

Transgender definition: a person appearing or attempting to be a member of the opposite sex, as a transsexual or habitual cross-dresser.

I'm going to start this blog off with my opinion on Transgender people. I just so happen to have a very close friend who is Transgender, he understands the struggle that they have and knows all too well of the misguided and misunderstandings surrounding the term Transgender. Relationships can be very stressful and complicated as can finding a job and finding open-minded friends and family to come out to. Transgender is someone who's gender identity doesn't match with the physical gender. A male body might have a female mind and that person would feel trapped and hopeless in a body that is not their own. Same for a female body with a male mind. Some transgenders are also known as cross-dressers because they feel they are a female with a males body they may dress in female clothing to make themselves feel better, and females may do the same in male clothing. Although society seems to have accepted a female dressing as a male a Hell of a lot more then a male dressing as a female. The double standard of this is crazy and I for one do not believe it is right. Woman have the right to wear suits, ties, pants, boxers ect and people are fine with it yet if a man is seen wearing dresses, skirts, panties it's seen as weird and abnormal. Why? 

Now as for this new law that a Mr. Floyd is trying to pass I have a double sided opinion on this. As I pull some quotes from the article I will explain more. The MAIN idea of this new bill is "A bill that would limit who could enter public restrooms"  I can see why they would want to put this bill into action but at the same time I can't. I understand how it can be alarming to see a male in a females bathroom and for me, it would be alarming to see a female in a mens bathroom but seriously trying to pass a LAW for it? This article explains that the State Rep Richard Floyd is trying to make this law because he is against Transgenders going into the 'wrong' dressing rooms and bathrooms. He claims that he wanted to propose this law due to an employee in a Macy's store getting fired because she stopped a transgender teenager from using the 'wrong' dressing room. He didn't want an incident like this happening again and couldn't' understand why she got fired. I can see where this could get messy. We don't know the full extent of WHY this person got fired however, we don't know how they handled the situation, what the teen was wearing or trying on, how the teen reacted or anything about it. So I won't go into that.  

This is one quote I have a problem with though from Mr. Floyd:

"I don't care for what reason, how depraved their mind is, how perverted their mind is, or for what reason they think a man has a right to go into a women's bathroom, or dressing room to try on clothes,"  

This quote irks me for more then one reason. One, he is addressing the perverts of the male gender who go into bathrooms and womens dressing rooms for sick reasons... not Transgenders. Two, he thinks Transgenders have depraved minds and I personally don't think he sees them as Equals. Another quote from him was:

"I'm just sick and tired of society having to adjust to every little alternate life style, or little whim or someone who thinks they're different," said Floyd. 

 So you are complaining about how society has to change to adjust to every LITTLE life style? What are you doing then by making a law that says people have to have birth certificates to use a fucking public bathroom? Who are you to say this when you are making a huge change for the so called "Normal" lifestyle? Transgender is not a little alternate life style, many people suffer from this every day! Many people who haven't or don't want to come out to their friends and family are suffering in the wrong body because they are scared of the criticism and hate. I hate it when people assume that something is meaningless and insignificant just because not a lot of people open up and say they are apart of something.

My other side of this is that yes, I do see where he is coming from and I do slightly agree. I just don't agree with his attitude towards the matter. Dressing rooms, I don't see why it's an issue. Many dressing rooms are in the same area the only thing separating the 'sexes' is a fucking sign. Not every store even has a separate dressing room for males and females so again, I really don't see why this would be an issue. Public restrooms however I can see why people would be upset. Restrooms are where people do what they need to and sometimes need to change clothing such as undergarments and if a male walks into a female restroom I can see why people would get a bit suspicious. I don't even like seeing a woman walk into a male bathroom but it happens! But you gotta think of it this way also, how awkward would it be to see a man dressed in womens clothing and possibly a wig walking into a mens restroom? If they walked into a womens restroom nobody would probably notice. Restrooms are a bit of an issue as it is though because men and women seem to like to share restrooms anyway. My husband had to accompany me into a public restroom before after a long road-trip because my ponytail had become entangled and I needed help getting it out. Nobody seemed to notice though and nobody said anything. I believe we should probably have cameras OUTSIDE the bathroom doors so if anything does happen we can look and see if any suspicious looking people came and went from the bathrooms. 

All in all, I feel that this law that is attempting to pass is ridiculous and would have no other purpose then to harass Transgender people. After all, they are human to! They just feel like they are not in the right body. Dressing rooms should be universal if anything because they always have people monitoring those areas for shoplifters so if they see a man trying to sneak a peek at a woman or a woman trying to sneak a peek at a man they can stop it. Restrooms I feel are a bit more of an iffy subject. It does worry me a little when men go into female restrooms and when females go into male restrooms. I have seen a guy in drag in a womans restroom before, found it odd but not threatening in any way. He was quite polite actually.  *Yes it was in a Walmart bathroom* I have also gone into a male restroom before but that was only because the womens was out of order. Laws should not be passed to try to control situations like this, supervision in stores and other areas should be placed so situations don't happen. 

What are your thoughts on this matter? Feel free to comment, I will comment back!

Corrupt Government is trying to control us with GUN LAWS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAlrMQTx5k4
Our Government in the United States of America was created to support and protect the people, as was the Constitutional Rights. Today, however the Government is trying to take away those Constitutional Rights. This video helped me open my mind to what exactly this Government is trying to do, what Obama is trying to do. For years now, America has had background organizations working to try and take away our rights and our protection from the Government themselves. In the beginning, these rights were made to protect the people from the Government. The people have the right to protect and arm themselves against intruders, crime, criminals, AND the Government. It was created FOR the people, not to CONTROL the people. A lot of conspiracy theories have been proven right in the past dealing with presidents, assassinations, and disasters. Today however, when people try to claim a conspiracy theory the world claims they used Photoshop, computer editing and so on, but what if that isn't the case? what if these theories are right but they are so farfetched that nobody believes them?

Lets take Gun Control and take it apart and look at it. Gun Control wasn't too much of an issue until all of these shootings started to occur. Take the last massacre for instance, the tragic incident at the Sandy Hooks Elementary shooting. LINK HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrngdgUixYg&bpctr=1363806178 A LOT of people who normally wouldn't look too much into it for a coverup noticed things that didn't make a lot of sense. A lot of the 'witness testimony' was false, or had no real evidence to back it up. Not a lot of true honest emotion was seen by the parents of the victims that where interviewed. The damn medical examiner laughed and scoffed so many times, and he didn't seem to know what the Hell he was talking about. He said um, uh... and well uh... so many times it's like he was trying to remember what he was supposed to say. Not only did he look confused and non emotional, but he claimed that the wounds were created by the "Long one" referring to the 'long gun' that was found in the trunk of the car, not anywhere close to the dead shooter. So how could a gun that was still locked in a trunk, be the primary weapon when the shooter had handguns on him?

Another issue people had was that they claimed there was only ONE shooter that killed himself and was mentally unstable, then they said in the earlier news stories that there could have been at least 3 gunmen, and that one of them was caught trying to runaway through the woods! So many things about this don't make sense. However this is not the main topic of this blog, and if you would like to learn more about the Sandy Hood shooting conspiracy please click the link I have provided above.

Now then, back on to what I was talking about. Gun control laws... the government and Obama want to take away our rights to carry guns but luckily the second Amendment stopped them from doing that, (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ) so instead they tried to find a loophole around it by taking away certain guns they find to be particularly powerful and 'dangerous' because they claim this will help protect the civilians. How can they possibly think that taking away our guns will help protect us? Only LAW ABIDING CITIZENS obey the law, Criminals and Killers DON'T! If someone wants a gun, they will find a way to get one, simple as that. Besides, I don't really believe that taking away our rights is supposed to protect us, I think it's a cover for their true intentions.

But if it's not to protect us, then what does the Government gain to take away our rights to carry guns? Well, they want to be able to control us. Yes that's right, I said it! I'm one of those people who believes the Government is trying to control us and wants to be able to do so, so that they can get away with whatever they want. Why do I believe this? Because the government happens to be stockpiling ammunition and guns. A quote from NaturalNews.com-

Remember, until this piece was published, the entire leftist media (NPR, MSNBC, CNN and countless leftist websites) all pretended these 1.6 billion bullets were imaginary and didn't exist. It was all a grand "conspiracy theory," we were told, and anyone who reported the truth on the government's ammo purchases was labeled a fringe lunatic.

http://www.naturalnews.com/039458_US_government_arms_race_stockpiling_ammunition.html
Funny how people though this was a conspiracy theory to, and it turn out to be true. When you think about what you just read, and the fact that Obama and the Government DID try to take away all our guns (then covered their ass's by claiming they only wanted to take away certain kinds of guns) then you think about all the mistakes made by the people in the Sandy Hooks shooting and you might just change your mind. You might just become one of the people who have opened their eyes and minds to the ideas of these "Conspiracy Theories".

Another point I would like to make is that it's not just GUNS that kill a lot of people. Intruders and murderers like to use knives as well as other blunt objects. Not only that but police shoot and kill innocent people also. Although they usually get covered up because they know that if the community or citizens knew that the police officers who are supposed to protect them were hurting them then we would have no faith in them. I myself already don't trust the police and would only call them if I absolutely needed to. Here are a few names and events where the police hurt and killed innocent people:

~

Chavis Carter http://www.chaviscarterdeath.com/index.html

Oscar Grant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant

People where protesting and asking WHY the cops shot Oscar Grant in the back and demanding answers for it.  (NOT A LINK! BLOG IS BEING STUPID!) 

http://wtvr.com/2012/07/23/police-dog-attacks-as-protesters-demand-answers/

You will notice if you try to Google anything on police murdering innocent or raping women or brutality you don't get a lot of results. Why is this? Because they are able to cover up these stories most of the time. Police cover up stories are hard to uncover but I know (as well as many others) that these things happen a lot more then we would like to think.

So if the government where to somehow be able to take away our guns, and they have stockpiles of ammunition and reinforced police then you know where we would be? In a police controlled America. A police state, if you will. The whole freaking out over guns and gun laws didn't start till all those shootings started to happen, and even though at first I thought those shootings happened due to it supposedly being the end of the world I now know it's probably just a ploy/hoax from the government to scare the civilians into obeying Obama and agreeing with him when he says we should hand over our guns. But if we have no guns, then we will be unprotected and he will 'have to' reinforce the police and give them more ammo and guns and such then the police will have even more control over the states and cities that they work to 'protect'. 

I personally believe it's all one bit ploy to gain control over the citizens of the USA so we don't ask questions and so we have to do as we are told. 

What do you think about all of this? Do you agree, disagree? Leave a comment below. 

The Bible Gods word or fairytale?

The bible has been the #1 book of topic with all kinds of controversy. It is a holy book and has several versions and a lot of verses that have become outdated over time. In my own personal opinion this book is nothing holy or pure. I like to suggest that some crazed man who could hear voices in his head wrote a book and called it the voice of a higher power. We still have people like this now, they claim they can hear the voice of God telling them to do things, well how do we know that the man who wrote the bible didn’t have the same thing happening to him? The bible says a lot of things that don’t make sense and are a bit crazy if you truly think about it. People only believed in this book and supported God because they needed something to believe in and hold onto. In this Blog linked here: http://ezinearticles.com/?Discover-How-to-Prove-the-Bible-False&id=1598924 the author makes some good points to prove the bible false and unreliable. These are some quotes:

“I would point to the certain wordings that would imply that Mary the mother of Jesus was unfaithful to Joseph to whom she was betrothed,…” “the author of Matthew, saying that the Holy Ghost impregnated her, and the writer of the book of Luke thought a ghost was too unbelievable, so he said that "an angel came in unto her" by the name of Gabriel (who was really some man staying overnight).”

“If I wanted to demonstrate to you that the Bible cannot be a reliable book because it is full of immorality, all I would have to do is quote the many socially degrading stories of injustice, genocide, war crimes, assassination, murder, hatred, deceit, lust, incest, drunkenness, and a host of other crimes that would be unacceptable to society today, and point to how those who committed such things were accepted by God and found favor in his eyes.”

On the other hand, you could argue that back then those views in the bible where relevant and made sense. That the man who wrote the bible couldn’t possibly have just made it up all on his own. They say that the holy book is just and righteous, and that it could only have been the word of God speaking to a prophet. They would claim too many coincidences have happened from the book and reality. The link here has a lot of reasons why so many people believe in the bible and that it’s the Word of God. http://www.allabouttruth.org/who-wrote-the-bible.htm

Some of the quotes are:

“The Bible is God’s letter to humanity collected into 66 books written by 40 divinely inspired writers. These writers come from all walks of life and spans over a period of 1,500 years or more.”

“Written over more than 1,500 years by vastly different writers, yet every book in the Bible is consistent in its message. These 66 books talk about history, prophecy, poetry, and theology.”

“The Bible also validates its divine authorship through fulfilled prophecies. An astonishing 668 prophecies have been fulfilled and none have ever been proven false (three are unconfirmed).”

 Both sides have good points and a strong passion for why they believe what they do. Now if this truly is the word of God, then according to the bible, women would be nothing but slaves to their husbands, and if we had sex with anyone before marriage or other then our CHOSEN husband we would be considered whores. Here are some verses from the bible itself that today’s society would find horribly wrong.

“1 Timothy 2:12, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."”

“1 Samuel 15:3: "This is what the Lord Almighty says ... 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' 

Promoting Genocide in the bible for those who oppose your views. … maybe Hitler was just doing as God told him to?

“Exodus 22:18: "Do not allow a sorceress to live." 

Sorry, according to the bible, anyone who practices Witchcraft must die.

“Romans 1:27 "In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

 Here is the infamous verse that condemns gays.

“Ephesians 5:22, "Wives, submit to you husbands as to the Lord"; and similar advice for slaves in 1 Peter 2:18: "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel." 

And here is the bible saying Women should be slaves to their husbands, and that slavery is a normal thing and that the slaves should respect the ones who beat them.

So these are from the Holy book that speaks Gods word? This is the almighty, forgiving and loving God that Religions speak of? He says to murder anyone who opposes him, that wives must be slaves to their husbands, Witches are evil and must die, a man cannot love another man, and that slavery is ok. Yeah, that’s the kind of God I want to love and obey….. yeah no.  In today’s society most of these and many other verses in the Bible have been seen as awful and not just. However, there are a few verses that seem to have stuck with us over the years. These verses are the ones that claim a man cannot lay with another man and that getting tattoos is a sin, also that a woman who has sex before marriage is a whore? The last one isn’t as enforced as the other two, but why is it that the Church seems to think its ok to pick and choose what verses stay and what don’t? Why is it that it’s not ok to be gay but it’s now ok to masturbate? Why is it now ok for women to be in the workplace and to not be a house slave to their husbands? Why is slavery looked down upon now when the bible says it’s fine to have slaves? Who gave us the right to pick and choose what verses of Gods teaching where relevant? This is what makes me question these religions. I don’t think they truly believe in the entire bible, I think they just use it as a weapon for their own fears, to be able to say “Look! It says it’s against Gods laws!” Even though they themselves could and probably are breaking other laws of God.  Priestesses are not supposed to be allowed in churches, and how about the whole killing anyone who opposes God or killing for vengeance?

I will admit some of the good verses of the bible are more common sense than anything but these ones are not fully enforced by the church either. Have you noticed that the only verses they share or try to make known are the bad ones? The bible is full of lust, drinking, killing (murder) revenge, slavery and ignorance.  The people who have figured this out are now known as Realists or Atheists and are shunned by the church and are supposedly going to Hell. I don’t believe there is a true one and only GOD but I do think there is a higher power at work. I don’t believe this higher power would want us to kill in its name or be unhappy with our lives just to go to a magical place called Heaven.

I’m going to end this blog with that, and post some links to sources I used below. Please comment and tell me your thoughts on the Bible and Gods Word. Do you think its ok for us to pick and choose what verses we listen to and what we don’t? Do you think the bible is just a sham or a holy book?

Sources: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6120373/Top-10-worst-Bible-passages.html

 http://www.allabouttruth.org/who-wrote-the-bible.htm

http://ezinearticles.com/?Discover-How-to-Prove-the-Bible-False&id=1598924