Thursday, November 12, 2015
Saturday, October 17, 2015
God-the-Doctor and the Church of All Life is Sacred
 |
| See Video |
Often, the parents feel they must flee the jurisdiction to seek the medical care they believe is best for their child. We see this played out frequently in child cancer cases. Parents who seek less toxic, possibly more effective alternative treatments for their child's cancer diagnosis--often with good result--have their children seized and the toxic treatment forced upon them to the child's detriment. At the very least, the child's quality of life is severely reduced. There is no dispute that some medical treatments are toxic, the results questionable, and even diagnoses are faulty. So careful research and prudent decision making is eminently reasonable. Yet, we are expected to put our full blind faith in God-the-Doctor, because the state has decreed it so, if we hope to keep our children.
These reports making the news tend to demonize the parents for daring to question God-the-Doctor, or even demand proof that his predictions and treatment do more good than harm, never mind being infallible. I have seen relatives die from chemotherapy, and other medical treatment, largely because doctors practice disease management using Ouija board science rather than providing sound health care practices. Granted, they are responding to patient demands for a perfect pill to address symptoms because the patient is often willing to accept treatments that usually involve lifestyle changes to correct the source of the problem. Until this dynamic changes on the part of the doctor, the social problems arising out of disease management practices will persist.
The practice of removing children for non-existent medical neglect is institutionalized in our country. It is dangerous to seek medical care for children due to the risk of God-the-Doctor deciding what is best for the child and using state force to compel treatment. Parents need to do their research before taking their child to the doctor, and choose medical providers who do not believe themselves to be God-the-Doctor. They need to know what to expect when seeking medical care for their child and how to mitigate the risk of seizure when taking their child for medical care. Steps to reduce this risk are included in Profane Justice: A Comprehensive Guide to Asserting Your Parental Rights, available on Amazon Kindle.
Saturday, September 26, 2015
Dog People Suck
I really don't like dog people. And since there are certain jerks out there who will erroneously conclude I don't like dogs, this isn't about whether or not I like dogs. I've had dogs; I am a dog owner, but I am not a "dog person."
An incident on the Rock Island Trail that runs along Highway 24 between Peyton and Falcon, Colorado, prompted this missive. A woman had her medium-small dog on the trail, without having him in a leash as required by the law. The dog charged directly at me while I was riding my mountain bike, forcing me to stop suddenly to avoid hitting the dog. The look on her face while she debated what to do as her dog ignored her commands and kept coming at me was priceless in what it revealed. She was more concerned for the safety of her stupid, uncontrollable dog than she was that I might be injured if her stupid, untrained dog ran in front of my bike.
Yes, I'm concerned about being injured by somebody's dog on a public trail. I'm not a young person. I'm only a few months shy of entering my seventh decade. My balance is not as sure as it was in my youth, and my bones and muscles are not as strong. I fall more easily, and preventing a fall is far more precarious than it used to be, partly because I am overweight. I injure more easily, and the injuries are less likely to heal. Yet, I work at maintaining my fitness, and I have a right to the safe use of the public trails. But dog people prevent my safe use of the trails in El Paso County, Colorado over and over.
I yelled at her that her dog belonged on a leash. She ignored me and was unable to catch her dog until after I had stopped. I met her again on our respective return trips on this trail. Her dog was now on a leash, but her dog slipped the collar. The leash was only for show. My exercise companion told me he had also had to yell at her to leash her dog when it ran in front of his bike further up the trail. This woman was obviously a selfish, rude "dog person."
This brings to mind when I lived in Germany for three years. There were a lot of dogs in public. Dogs in stores staying close to their owners and not bothering anyone, dogs sitting quietly outside restaurants, dogs on all the hiking trails and sidewalks. All these dogs were well-behaved. None of those dogs ever intruded into anyone's space, or even paid any attention to others. Obviously, the problem isn't the dogs. It's their owners. A dog is a problem when its owner is a "dog person."
dogs than they like people. That's probably because they are such jerks to people that the people they invariably offend point it out when they are being jerks, often by calling them an asshole. So they blame the people they offend rather than looking at what they did to make everyone think they were such a jerk. By claiming they like dogs better than people, they can excuse their disdain and disrespect for their fellow man by elevating their rudeness to a virtue.
But liking dogs better than people is just a shitty excuse for bad behavior. Dogs don't point it out when their person is being a jerk. They're not smart enough to know better. It's safer for unrepentant jerks to like dogs better than the assholes who think you're a jerk, because, naturally, the dog person isn't a jerk in his or her own mind and they don't see any reason to reform their jerkhood. It's everyone else who is a jerk. Except, of course, other dog people. Other dog people think it's cute that dog people are jerks to other people.
It's dog people who let their dogs bark and annoy everyone around, or run loose and intrude upon the space of others who are minding their own business, or poop in parks and on sidewalks, or worry and kill wildlife and livestock, or engage in other dog-specific unsocial behaviors that can and should be controlled by the owner. Dog people even move into the country specifically so their dogs can run free all over all the neighboring properties. So laws and rules had to be passed to ensure dog people suffer unpleasant consequences when their dogs infringe on the rights and property of others who are also members of society. Predictably, the rules don't work, because -- big surprise -- dog people don't think the rules apply to them and their wonderful dog.
Take our local trails in El Paso County, Colorado. All of them are clearly posted that dogs must be on a leash, a requirement which is universally ignored by the privileged dog people. Disregarding the obvious fact that everyone has the right to the safe and unmolested use of those trails, dog people have exercised a tyranny over those trails and parts by not leashing their dogs. This tyranny forces others to either forgo using the trails or to confront the dog people who defy the rules and law. Gone is the peaceful right to use public lands, unless you are a dog person, because use of those trails is fraught with conflict and risk of injury due to the selfish conduct of dog people.
One man on the Section 16 Trail in Black Forest constantly brings his huge, placid yellow lab on his walks. This dog is never on a leash, and never under the voice control of his master. This is a difficult trail, with steep inclines, tree roots across the trail and other obstacles that must be navigated. There are often young children on this trail, as well as elderly people. Adding a dog as an obstacle endangers the public safety, besides being an unwelcome annoyance. I've seen this dog meander through a pack of high school students running on this difficult trail, nearly tripping several of the running youths.
On this occasion, I was running, too, not nearly as fast or sure-footed as these young people, and in the opposite direction. This damned dog meandered right in front of me and nearly tripped me, too. The old man did nothing; in fact, the old fart was oblivious to the danger his dog presented to a late-middle-aged woman on a public trail. I had to alter my pace and direction to avoid being tripped by this dog, but I'm not nimble enough to do it effectively. I stopped and yelled at him to put his dog on a leash. He said, "Look at him, he's not going to hurt anyone!" The dumb ass couldn't even see that his big, dumb dog had already almost hurt me. Or, more likely, this dumb ass didn't give a damn that his big, dumb dog had almost hurt me.
The dog kept approaching me, even when I backed away. The man called him back, and the dog ignored him. He argued with me about how friendly his dog was, couldn't I see that? It soon became clear that this dog was not under voice control, besides not being on a leash, and was not going to be prevented from continuing to come right up to me. The man made no move to retrieve his advancing dog. So I took out my pepper spray and sprayed the dog's eyes, who finally backed away.
The old fart dog owner called me a "fucking bitch." I'm the f-bitch? Like a typical dog person, if the dog is not under control of the owner and you have to use some force to repel the unwanted advances of their dog, a dog person will claim you are the bad guy for resolving the matter according to your needs because he failed to. You are supposed to joyfully endure the unwanted attention of their uncontrolled dog. Too bad if you don't want and never encouraged the dog's advances. I never want or encourage a dog to approach me or get friendly with me, but they always do.
You see, I don't know anything about other people's dogs. I cannot assume their dog is safe, or won't bite, or won't jump on me or knock me over, or do anything else untoward. They have teeth, they can run and jump, and they exert their own will. Besides the obvious biting risk, they can knock me over or trip me, injuring me. Oh, and for the record, I have history with a so-called safe dog.
My son was mauled by a dog whom the owners assured everyone was safe, and my son's eye was scarred for life. This was the second time that dog attacked my son, the first time was in my own yard -- the dog was running loose and out of control of his owner -- and the dog tore my son's shirt while attempting to bite him. The dog owner's kids later enticed my son back to their yard to prove the dog was safe and, despite my prohibition, my son approached the dog. The owner's kids then provoked the dog who responded by biting my son in the face. The mother -- a dog person who cared more about her dog than her dog's vicious bite to my child's face -- detained my 10-year-old son for over 45 minutes, placed an unsanitary wet washcloth on the dog bites, and tried to convince my son tell a lie about which dog bit him, delaying needed emergency medical treatment and plastic surgery. Naturally, I don't believe it when someone says their dog won't hurt anyone. No prudent person would.
Like one dog person tried to convince me on the trail that starts at the intersection of Hodgen and Woodlake Roads. This woman entered the trail at a midpoint, from the 16210 region of Northlake Road, with her black dog not on a leash. When she got close to me -- big surprise -- the damned dog turned and approached me, as dogs will do. She called him back and, as is typical with a dog person's dog, the dog ignored her. I told her to get her dog on a leash. She assured me he wouldn't hurt me, but did nothing to stop the dog's approach. Yeah, right. I had to stop walking toward her and yelled at her to get her dog on a leash. She called the dog, who continued to ignore her and approach me. She assured me he never hurt anyone, just as the dog started barking aggressively at me and took an aggressive stance. On a public trail. Where the dogs were supposed to be leashed. I pointed out that obviously, this dog was threatening me, at which point she finally went to the dog and pulled him away, blaming ME for her uncontrolled dog's aggressive behavior. She removed the leash from the dog while still in my sight. The rules don't apply to her!
But for those who think violating the rules pertaining to dogs is essentially harmless, consider this: A passenger on a commercial airline had previously checked and been assured that there were no dogs in the cabin on this flight. Another passenger, a dog person, smuggled her dog into the cabin of that flight, obviously to avoid paying for the fare (lying, cheating and stealing from the airline). Shortly after taking off, the first passenger began having a life-threatening allergic reaction to the dog. A search uncovered the dog in the cabin. Is it harmless that a flight must be diverted because a dog person acted on the belief that the rules did not apply to her and another passenger's life was endangered? There are legitimate reasons for rules and laws pertaining to dogs, and any reasonable and responsible person will voluntarily cooperate with those rules because its best for everyone, even if it inconveniences them a bit. After all, the privilege of dog ownership comes with responsibilities.
This dog barks aggressively and jumps on me when I enter the family member's apartment. She gently suggests to him to stop, but he ignores her. He isn't trained not to bark at me in my own house, much less not to jump up on me. And she doesn't care that I don't want her damned dog jumping up on me, but she does care that I yell at him when he does. I really don't this dog, and I really don't like being forced to change my conduct in my home and on my property to accommodate this untrained, spoiled dog, but this dog person is my family member's guest. So, I can only conclude that she is just a rude, uncaring dog person and decline to associate with her.
I was riding my mountain bike on Section 16 Trail, and a dog who was not on a leash chased me, crossed in front of my bike and made me crash. At my age! And broke my bike. And then the dog person wanted to make it right. She had tried calling him off to no avail and felt bad about my accident. I was pissed and bleeding and trying to fix my bike. I just yelled at her. Put your damned dog on a leash, asshole! That would have prevented the accident. The accident was unnecessary and preventable, but leashing her dog was too inconvenient for the dog person.
One man's large dog charged me and jumped on me at Section 16 trail. Dog people think
it's cute when their dog jumps on them or others. I filed a police report against him. They found him at home based on his license plate number and my photo. But getting law enforcement assistance is nearly useless. To have an effective remedy against dog people and their dogs, one must resort to self-help.
It doesn't matter whose dog it is, they all do what dogs do, they want to investigate everyone and try to assert dominance over anyone they encounter. But that unrestrained proclivity seriously interferes with what I'm doing on these trails and is a danger. I'm working here, exercising on a public trail, and you rude dog people and your dogs are ruining it because you insist your dogs should not be leashed and you won't train them to be under your voice control. They won't even stop and hold their unleashed dog as I approach. Dog people selfishly believe I should adapt my conduct to their dog rather than obeying the rules and putting their dog on a leash. I don't want to stop my walk, or run, or cycling to deal with dogs who charge at me, and I shouldn't have to. Trust me, if I have to stop my workout to deal with it, the dog people won't like how I deal with it.
Look, it's just better if dog people were to assume that others don't want to be friends with your dog, and don't want to pet your dog, and don't want your dog licking them or jumping on them. That they don't want your dogs to interrupt their workout, because, frankly, I don't want any of this. I'm not interfering with your use of that trail, why do you think it's okay of you interfere with my workout by letting your dog run into me, jump on me or trip me? I don't let my dogs do it, why should I let your stupid dog do it?
My dogs are always trained and follow my commands. Immediately. That takes consistent work and patience, something that most dog people are too lazy to employ. I don't like untrained dogs, but I don't blame the dog. I blame the selfish, lazy owner. They don't care enough about their dogs to ensure they are behaved in society and don't encroach on the personal space of others or infringe the rights of others, and then irrationally blame the victim of their dog's unwanted attention when their dog gets pepper sprayed on a public trail or get shot for killing chickens. Yes, the inference is I shoot dogs, and I admit it. If your dog is on my property chasing my poultry, I shoot it. If you don't like that idea, keep your dog on your property. The sheriff has fully supported every shooting, because we report every shooting of someone's dog.
One mentally disabled homeless man named Billy in the Los Angeles area defiantly takes
his dog, Brownie, into stores and restaurants. Since there are health code laws against taking dogs into public places -- especially those with food -- he will falsely claim she's a service dog. When he's asked to remove the dog, he takes out his smartphone and films the employee or manager telling him to remove the dog and posts it on his Facebook page, complete with comments about discriminating against the disabled and threatens to sue them. He even claims his dog has a lawyer and sends these films to the lawyer. This kind of intimidation, which is invoked because an employee is enforcing the law, is abusive. He incites confrontation and disruption and disturbs the public peace with his self-admitted in-your-face conduct.
His dog is a companion pet, not trained to perform any service as required under the ADA. But other dog people have told him his dog is a service dog -- for emotional support -- just to exploit him and laugh at his public antics behind his back. He is not only a nuisance, he is endangering the public. Unfortunately, his dog is his only companion, which is tragic, but that doesn't exclude him from following the law. He's going to lose his only companion one day, after pushing too far for his non-existent rights. He's already
been beaten, how much longer will it be before he loses Brownie just because his so-called friends incite him to disobey the law? He doesn't understand what he's doing, he's just doing what others tell him to do.
But non-disabled people do the same thing. While you have to endure dogs in the big-box pet stores that welcome pets, grocery stores, department stores, libraries and other other public places exclude dogs. Yet, you see people there with the dogs, especially little dogs. These dog people treat their dogs as if they were their children, placing them in the child seat in the cart. Or their dog is a fashion accessory; obvious because they flaunt flamboyant outfits, makeup and accessories, complete with their adorned dog. They say he's a little dog, he's not hurting anyone. They disregard the fact that besides breaking the law, they are intruding on the rights of all other patrons of that store. Not everyone likes your stupid little dog and he makes some people very uncomfortable or poses a risk to their health.
Many people try to cheat the public by claiming their dog is an emotional support animal. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) expressly excludes emotional support animals from the classification of service dogs. To these dog people, I say it's time to get a grip, grow up and leave the security blankie at home. Emotional support, sheesh. If these dog people didn't create conflict and confrontation wherever they go by breaking the rules that the rest of society agrees to live by, they would have less need for an emotional support crutch. Some people wrap themselves up on their trauma like a cocoon and refuse
to get well. They like the sympathy and the social permission to be treated like a child. Be a grownup already. Your perpetual infancy is getting old and not engendering any sympathy, just disgust. Stop expecting society to treat you with kid gloves and stop engaging in infantile attention-seeking behavior to garner sympathy. Everyone has had bad things happen, deal with it -- if you caused it,
stop doing whatever causes it -- and move on like an adult. Sheesh.
If you visit a dog person, they force you to endure their dog jumping on you, licking you,
putting its head in your crotch, barking at you,
slobbering on you and your belongings, pawing you, and tripping you,
blah blah blah. They even post memes about it, like "My dog lives here, you don't. If you don't like it, you can leave." I'll accept that invitation, because a dog person's priorities are screwed up.
They think dogs are more important than people, which is one of the things that makes dog people such jerks. They won't let you punish their dog for jumping on you or anything else when they won't stop the dog themselves. They let the dog bark and annoy the neighbors. They treat other people like their dog is more important than the person. It's a dog, an animal, property. When dog people treat other people as less important than property, it's no wonder reasonable people think dog people are such jerks.
I have a friend who has a big dog. Her dog is friendly and eager to engage me when I visit. I don't want to engage with the dog. I want to visit with my friend. She doesn't have that asinine "love me, love my dog" mentality. She puts him outside and we have a nice visit without me having to fawn over her dog. I love her, I don't love her dog and won't love her dog in order to be her friend. And, not being a dog person, she won't force me to love her dog in order to love her and be her friend. That's one of the qualities that makes her a likable person, she cares about her friend's comfort in her home.
The dog is causing a problem whenever anyone's rights are infringed by this flagrant and selfish violation of the law or rules. Never mind the disgusting habit of your dog pooping where I live, the mere act of trespassing to any degree is a violation of my rights. Why should I have to endure it or be forced to sue the owner? Why can't I just peacefully enjoy my property?
Why can't I use the public trails and parks without suffering the intrusion of a dog into my space and interfering with my business, without being molested by a dog jumping on me, or tripping me, or getting aggressive toward me? My right to the peaceful and safe use of public lands supersedes the dog's right to jump on me, or the dog person's rights to take his dog into public. That's not just the law, that's common courtesy, something that every dog person lacks.
Why are there rules and laws about taking dogs in public places? Because dogs are unpredictable, especially dogs owned by dog people. Because many dogs are untrained, because their owners are irresponsible and selfish. People who often insist the dog rules don't apply to them are the very ones who cannot control their dog and will not put in the effort to train them.
It's a public safety issue, not only because of the risk of attacks against people or animals, but because uncontrolled dogs can cause other accidents and injury and damage. What happens when the dog gets aggressive or disruptive in a public place? Can anyone guarantee that their pet dog will not attack anyone, especially someone who won't back down and confronts the dog owner verbally? It's easy to make a dog person's dog get aggressive, just argue with the dog owner and see what the dog does. The dog's aggression is a natural response to a perceived threat, especially in an untrained, uncontrolled dog. This is a serious risk to public safety. Even tripping an elderly person, or harming a child by knocking him over is enough of a risk to warrant compliance with the dog laws and rules.
It's obviously a health issue, especially in places with food. Maybe dog people don't care if their dog begs at the table or messes with stuff in their kitchen, but I do. I won't accept dinner invitations to their homes, I find it disgusting, even revolting. Dog people don't have a right to impose their bad dog practices on the public, especially where there is a real health issue. They may let their
dog lick their faces and prowl their kitchens, but I don't, not at home, and I shouldn't have to endure it in public places where there is food. Ewww. Dogs and kitchens or food do not mix. The law agrees with me.
But more than that, it's an issue of respect for others and respect for the law and the rules. Nobody knows about another person's dog experiences, yet dog people impose their dogs on everyone else, even those who have had bad experiences with dogs, including mauling. They don't know about allergies, and frankly, they don't care. They don't respect anyone's dog boundaries. This disrespects the rights and needs of everyone else. What kind of jerk forces a traumatized person to endure their dog just because the dog person likes dogs better than people and takes their dogs in prohibited public places or without a leash? Or induces allergic reactions in allergic bystanders by taking their dog to prohibited public places? Or makes a patron so disgusted by the presence of a dog around food that he or she cannot buy or eat where the dog was? To put it mildly, only an uncaring, selfish jerk would impose this on others.
I can only conclude that dog people who don't follow leash laws in our parks and trails know they offend others and intend to make others uncomfortable, or intend to endanger their safety, or to intimidate them. They intend to force other users of the public parks and trails to stop using the trails or to put up with the free-ranging dogs that trip them or charge at them. That makes the dog person a selfish jerk.
Those who take their companion dog into public places citing that it is a service dog are daring others to say something, knowing you won't, that you'll endure their rudeness and disrespect in silence. But if you do speak out, they thrive on the conflict. This provocation is not fair to the others who frequent those places desiring peaceful society in public. But they don't care about fair, they only care about themselves. They don't voluntarily cooperate with the rules and laws established, causing disruption in the orderly and peaceful functioning of society. They provoke their favor for disorder by their defiance of the laws and the rules. This infringes the rights of others to peaceful participation in all aspects of society. I've had enough.
I won't stop using the trails. I can't rely on law enforcement, so I will resort to self-help. I am now armed with pepper spray and a heavy stick. I use them whenever any dog is close enough. Not once has the dog owner filed charges against me. They cannot. Their dog was aggressive, not under the voice control or any other control of the dog owner, and was not on a leash. But their dogs generally end up requiring veterinary treatment, which is a shame for the dumb dog but a legitimately expensive consequence for the self-absorbed dog person.
I have other remedies in mind depending on the situation. But I am no longer going to be intimidated into silence or into forgoing my rightful and peaceful use of the public trails or other public places. I will be free from the intimidation and intrusions of dog people and their dogs. I changed the practice in my neighborhood of dogs running free by shooting the dogs that came onto my property to kill my poultry, and by suing the dog people for trespass and winning. Now, dogs no longer run free anywhere near my property. I can similarly change the practice of unleashed dogs on the public trails that I want to use.
Here's my notice to you dog people. If you love your dog as much as you claim, you will make sure your dog does not infringe on my rights, my personal space, or my property, or my peaceful use of the public trails and parks. If you do infringe, don't think I will waste my time trying to reason with you, because none of you have proven to be reasonable. I will communicate in the only language you seem to understand, and I'm quite sure you won't like it any more than I like you forcing your dog's intrusions on me.
An incident on the Rock Island Trail that runs along Highway 24 between Peyton and Falcon, Colorado, prompted this missive. A woman had her medium-small dog on the trail, without having him in a leash as required by the law. The dog charged directly at me while I was riding my mountain bike, forcing me to stop suddenly to avoid hitting the dog. The look on her face while she debated what to do as her dog ignored her commands and kept coming at me was priceless in what it revealed. She was more concerned for the safety of her stupid, uncontrollable dog than she was that I might be injured if her stupid, untrained dog ran in front of my bike.
Yes, I'm concerned about being injured by somebody's dog on a public trail. I'm not a young person. I'm only a few months shy of entering my seventh decade. My balance is not as sure as it was in my youth, and my bones and muscles are not as strong. I fall more easily, and preventing a fall is far more precarious than it used to be, partly because I am overweight. I injure more easily, and the injuries are less likely to heal. Yet, I work at maintaining my fitness, and I have a right to the safe use of the public trails. But dog people prevent my safe use of the trails in El Paso County, Colorado over and over.
I yelled at her that her dog belonged on a leash. She ignored me and was unable to catch her dog until after I had stopped. I met her again on our respective return trips on this trail. Her dog was now on a leash, but her dog slipped the collar. The leash was only for show. My exercise companion told me he had also had to yell at her to leash her dog when it ran in front of his bike further up the trail. This woman was obviously a selfish, rude "dog person."
This brings to mind when I lived in Germany for three years. There were a lot of dogs in public. Dogs in stores staying close to their owners and not bothering anyone, dogs sitting quietly outside restaurants, dogs on all the hiking trails and sidewalks. All these dogs were well-behaved. None of those dogs ever intruded into anyone's space, or even paid any attention to others. Obviously, the problem isn't the dogs. It's their owners. A dog is a problem when its owner is a "dog person."
A Dog Person Likes Dogs Better Than People
A dog owner is not necessarily a dog person, but a dog person is easy to spot. They are usually very vocal about how much more they like
dogs than they like people. That's probably because they are such jerks to people that the people they invariably offend point it out when they are being jerks, often by calling them an asshole. So they blame the people they offend rather than looking at what they did to make everyone think they were such a jerk. By claiming they like dogs better than people, they can excuse their disdain and disrespect for their fellow man by elevating their rudeness to a virtue.But liking dogs better than people is just a shitty excuse for bad behavior. Dogs don't point it out when their person is being a jerk. They're not smart enough to know better. It's safer for unrepentant jerks to like dogs better than the assholes who think you're a jerk, because, naturally, the dog person isn't a jerk in his or her own mind and they don't see any reason to reform their jerkhood. It's everyone else who is a jerk. Except, of course, other dog people. Other dog people think it's cute that dog people are jerks to other people.
The Rules and Laws Don't Apply to a Dog Person
A dog person doesn't believe the rules about dogs apply to them. Actually, they are probably jerks who don't think any rules apply to them, but they especially flaunt the rules about dogs. They remain oblivious to the fact that the only reason parks, municipalities and other organizations had to make rules about dogs is because of the rudeness of dog people and their collective refusal to be a responsible dog owner.It's dog people who let their dogs bark and annoy everyone around, or run loose and intrude upon the space of others who are minding their own business, or poop in parks and on sidewalks, or worry and kill wildlife and livestock, or engage in other dog-specific unsocial behaviors that can and should be controlled by the owner. Dog people even move into the country specifically so their dogs can run free all over all the neighboring properties. So laws and rules had to be passed to ensure dog people suffer unpleasant consequences when their dogs infringe on the rights and property of others who are also members of society. Predictably, the rules don't work, because -- big surprise -- dog people don't think the rules apply to them and their wonderful dog.
Take our local trails in El Paso County, Colorado. All of them are clearly posted that dogs must be on a leash, a requirement which is universally ignored by the privileged dog people. Disregarding the obvious fact that everyone has the right to the safe and unmolested use of those trails, dog people have exercised a tyranny over those trails and parts by not leashing their dogs. This tyranny forces others to either forgo using the trails or to confront the dog people who defy the rules and law. Gone is the peaceful right to use public lands, unless you are a dog person, because use of those trails is fraught with conflict and risk of injury due to the selfish conduct of dog people.
One man on the Section 16 Trail in Black Forest constantly brings his huge, placid yellow lab on his walks. This dog is never on a leash, and never under the voice control of his master. This is a difficult trail, with steep inclines, tree roots across the trail and other obstacles that must be navigated. There are often young children on this trail, as well as elderly people. Adding a dog as an obstacle endangers the public safety, besides being an unwelcome annoyance. I've seen this dog meander through a pack of high school students running on this difficult trail, nearly tripping several of the running youths.
On this occasion, I was running, too, not nearly as fast or sure-footed as these young people, and in the opposite direction. This damned dog meandered right in front of me and nearly tripped me, too. The old man did nothing; in fact, the old fart was oblivious to the danger his dog presented to a late-middle-aged woman on a public trail. I had to alter my pace and direction to avoid being tripped by this dog, but I'm not nimble enough to do it effectively. I stopped and yelled at him to put his dog on a leash. He said, "Look at him, he's not going to hurt anyone!" The dumb ass couldn't even see that his big, dumb dog had already almost hurt me. Or, more likely, this dumb ass didn't give a damn that his big, dumb dog had almost hurt me.
The dog kept approaching me, even when I backed away. The man called him back, and the dog ignored him. He argued with me about how friendly his dog was, couldn't I see that? It soon became clear that this dog was not under voice control, besides not being on a leash, and was not going to be prevented from continuing to come right up to me. The man made no move to retrieve his advancing dog. So I took out my pepper spray and sprayed the dog's eyes, who finally backed away.
The old fart dog owner called me a "fucking bitch." I'm the f-bitch? Like a typical dog person, if the dog is not under control of the owner and you have to use some force to repel the unwanted advances of their dog, a dog person will claim you are the bad guy for resolving the matter according to your needs because he failed to. You are supposed to joyfully endure the unwanted attention of their uncontrolled dog. Too bad if you don't want and never encouraged the dog's advances. I never want or encourage a dog to approach me or get friendly with me, but they always do.
You see, I don't know anything about other people's dogs. I cannot assume their dog is safe, or won't bite, or won't jump on me or knock me over, or do anything else untoward. They have teeth, they can run and jump, and they exert their own will. Besides the obvious biting risk, they can knock me over or trip me, injuring me. Oh, and for the record, I have history with a so-called safe dog.
My son was mauled by a dog whom the owners assured everyone was safe, and my son's eye was scarred for life. This was the second time that dog attacked my son, the first time was in my own yard -- the dog was running loose and out of control of his owner -- and the dog tore my son's shirt while attempting to bite him. The dog owner's kids later enticed my son back to their yard to prove the dog was safe and, despite my prohibition, my son approached the dog. The owner's kids then provoked the dog who responded by biting my son in the face. The mother -- a dog person who cared more about her dog than her dog's vicious bite to my child's face -- detained my 10-year-old son for over 45 minutes, placed an unsanitary wet washcloth on the dog bites, and tried to convince my son tell a lie about which dog bit him, delaying needed emergency medical treatment and plastic surgery. Naturally, I don't believe it when someone says their dog won't hurt anyone. No prudent person would.
 |
| Leashing dog AFTER it got aggressive |
But for those who think violating the rules pertaining to dogs is essentially harmless, consider this: A passenger on a commercial airline had previously checked and been assured that there were no dogs in the cabin on this flight. Another passenger, a dog person, smuggled her dog into the cabin of that flight, obviously to avoid paying for the fare (lying, cheating and stealing from the airline). Shortly after taking off, the first passenger began having a life-threatening allergic reaction to the dog. A search uncovered the dog in the cabin. Is it harmless that a flight must be diverted because a dog person acted on the belief that the rules did not apply to her and another passenger's life was endangered? There are legitimate reasons for rules and laws pertaining to dogs, and any reasonable and responsible person will voluntarily cooperate with those rules because its best for everyone, even if it inconveniences them a bit. After all, the privilege of dog ownership comes with responsibilities.
Dog People Don't Train Their Dogs
A dog person does not train their dog to behave. Their dogs will not obey any commands. But usually, dog people don't issue commands, they converse with their dog and expect the dog to understand. One friend of a family member brings her dog over to my property when she visits my family member. The first time she did, she let her dog out of the car to run loose. WTF? The dog promptly charged my young turkeys and chased my free-range chickens. I was screaming at her that she cannot bring her damned dog over to my property and let him run loose like that. Turkeys are expensive, fragile and easily injured, and this dog was in attack mode. She called him ever so nicely, but he ignored her. Ultimately, she was upset that I yelled at her. She didn't care what her dog had done to MY turkeys and chickens on MY property. She didn't care that she had no control over her own dog who was only doing what an untrained dog does. I was the bad guy because I expected her to control her dog on my property and got mad when she didn't. I was wrong for screaming at her. She doesn't even realize how close I came to shooting her dog, and that she should consider herself lucky I only yelled at her. |
| Source: http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/articles/jumpingdogs.htm |
I was riding my mountain bike on Section 16 Trail, and a dog who was not on a leash chased me, crossed in front of my bike and made me crash. At my age! And broke my bike. And then the dog person wanted to make it right. She had tried calling him off to no avail and felt bad about my accident. I was pissed and bleeding and trying to fix my bike. I just yelled at her. Put your damned dog on a leash, asshole! That would have prevented the accident. The accident was unnecessary and preventable, but leashing her dog was too inconvenient for the dog person.
One man's large dog charged me and jumped on me at Section 16 trail. Dog people think
 |
| Source: http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/articles/jumpingdogs.htm |
It doesn't matter whose dog it is, they all do what dogs do, they want to investigate everyone and try to assert dominance over anyone they encounter. But that unrestrained proclivity seriously interferes with what I'm doing on these trails and is a danger. I'm working here, exercising on a public trail, and you rude dog people and your dogs are ruining it because you insist your dogs should not be leashed and you won't train them to be under your voice control. They won't even stop and hold their unleashed dog as I approach. Dog people selfishly believe I should adapt my conduct to their dog rather than obeying the rules and putting their dog on a leash. I don't want to stop my walk, or run, or cycling to deal with dogs who charge at me, and I shouldn't have to. Trust me, if I have to stop my workout to deal with it, the dog people won't like how I deal with it.
A Dog Person Doesn't Care That Their Failure to Control Their Dog Adversely Affects Others
A dog person doesn't care that they are causing you stress or upsetting you or causing property damage with their thoughtless, rude, and irresponsible dog behavior. They LOVE their dog, and they think their dog is cute, or their best friend or wonderful. Good for them. But they expect everyone else to think the same thing about their dog, and if you don't, you're a jerk. What a remarkably self-absorbed attitude! Why would any reasonable person think an untrained, undisciplined dog is anything but annoying, if not dangerous? And let's face it, victims of a dog person's self-absorbed rudeness are likely to project their anger toward you onto their stupid dog, too. And it's really not the dog's fault, it's the owner's fault.Look, it's just better if dog people were to assume that others don't want to be friends with your dog, and don't want to pet your dog, and don't want your dog licking them or jumping on them. That they don't want your dogs to interrupt their workout, because, frankly, I don't want any of this. I'm not interfering with your use of that trail, why do you think it's okay of you interfere with my workout by letting your dog run into me, jump on me or trip me? I don't let my dogs do it, why should I let your stupid dog do it?
My dogs are always trained and follow my commands. Immediately. That takes consistent work and patience, something that most dog people are too lazy to employ. I don't like untrained dogs, but I don't blame the dog. I blame the selfish, lazy owner. They don't care enough about their dogs to ensure they are behaved in society and don't encroach on the personal space of others or infringe the rights of others, and then irrationally blame the victim of their dog's unwanted attention when their dog gets pepper sprayed on a public trail or get shot for killing chickens. Yes, the inference is I shoot dogs, and I admit it. If your dog is on my property chasing my poultry, I shoot it. If you don't like that idea, keep your dog on your property. The sheriff has fully supported every shooting, because we report every shooting of someone's dog.
A Dog Person Forces Their Dog on Everyone Else
A dog person will take their dog with them wherever they go, and forces the public to embrace their dog. Little dogs, medium dogs, big dogs, they expect everyone to treat them like they had the same rights as a person, without the responsibilities.One mentally disabled homeless man named Billy in the Los Angeles area defiantly takes
 |
| Sample of Billy's Facebook posts |
 |
| Billy and Brownie |
been beaten, how much longer will it be before he loses Brownie just because his so-called friends incite him to disobey the law? He doesn't understand what he's doing, he's just doing what others tell him to do.
But non-disabled people do the same thing. While you have to endure dogs in the big-box pet stores that welcome pets, grocery stores, department stores, libraries and other other public places exclude dogs. Yet, you see people there with the dogs, especially little dogs. These dog people treat their dogs as if they were their children, placing them in the child seat in the cart. Or their dog is a fashion accessory; obvious because they flaunt flamboyant outfits, makeup and accessories, complete with their adorned dog. They say he's a little dog, he's not hurting anyone. They disregard the fact that besides breaking the law, they are intruding on the rights of all other patrons of that store. Not everyone likes your stupid little dog and he makes some people very uncomfortable or poses a risk to their health.
 |
| Fake service dog card offered online for a fee |
If you visit a dog person, they force you to endure their dog jumping on you, licking you,
They think dogs are more important than people, which is one of the things that makes dog people such jerks. They won't let you punish their dog for jumping on you or anything else when they won't stop the dog themselves. They let the dog bark and annoy the neighbors. They treat other people like their dog is more important than the person. It's a dog, an animal, property. When dog people treat other people as less important than property, it's no wonder reasonable people think dog people are such jerks.
I have a friend who has a big dog. Her dog is friendly and eager to engage me when I visit. I don't want to engage with the dog. I want to visit with my friend. She doesn't have that asinine "love me, love my dog" mentality. She puts him outside and we have a nice visit without me having to fawn over her dog. I love her, I don't love her dog and won't love her dog in order to be her friend. And, not being a dog person, she won't force me to love her dog in order to love her and be her friend. That's one of the qualities that makes her a likable person, she cares about her friend's comfort in her home.
What's the Big Deal?
Dog people and others ask, "The dog isn't causing a problem. Why does this --not being on a leash or taking it into public places, etc. -- upset you?" This is a false premise.The dog is causing a problem whenever anyone's rights are infringed by this flagrant and selfish violation of the law or rules. Never mind the disgusting habit of your dog pooping where I live, the mere act of trespassing to any degree is a violation of my rights. Why should I have to endure it or be forced to sue the owner? Why can't I just peacefully enjoy my property?
Why can't I use the public trails and parks without suffering the intrusion of a dog into my space and interfering with my business, without being molested by a dog jumping on me, or tripping me, or getting aggressive toward me? My right to the peaceful and safe use of public lands supersedes the dog's right to jump on me, or the dog person's rights to take his dog into public. That's not just the law, that's common courtesy, something that every dog person lacks.
Why are there rules and laws about taking dogs in public places? Because dogs are unpredictable, especially dogs owned by dog people. Because many dogs are untrained, because their owners are irresponsible and selfish. People who often insist the dog rules don't apply to them are the very ones who cannot control their dog and will not put in the effort to train them.
It's a public safety issue, not only because of the risk of attacks against people or animals, but because uncontrolled dogs can cause other accidents and injury and damage. What happens when the dog gets aggressive or disruptive in a public place? Can anyone guarantee that their pet dog will not attack anyone, especially someone who won't back down and confronts the dog owner verbally? It's easy to make a dog person's dog get aggressive, just argue with the dog owner and see what the dog does. The dog's aggression is a natural response to a perceived threat, especially in an untrained, uncontrolled dog. This is a serious risk to public safety. Even tripping an elderly person, or harming a child by knocking him over is enough of a risk to warrant compliance with the dog laws and rules.
It's obviously a health issue, especially in places with food. Maybe dog people don't care if their dog begs at the table or messes with stuff in their kitchen, but I do. I won't accept dinner invitations to their homes, I find it disgusting, even revolting. Dog people don't have a right to impose their bad dog practices on the public, especially where there is a real health issue. They may let their
But more than that, it's an issue of respect for others and respect for the law and the rules. Nobody knows about another person's dog experiences, yet dog people impose their dogs on everyone else, even those who have had bad experiences with dogs, including mauling. They don't know about allergies, and frankly, they don't care. They don't respect anyone's dog boundaries. This disrespects the rights and needs of everyone else. What kind of jerk forces a traumatized person to endure their dog just because the dog person likes dogs better than people and takes their dogs in prohibited public places or without a leash? Or induces allergic reactions in allergic bystanders by taking their dog to prohibited public places? Or makes a patron so disgusted by the presence of a dog around food that he or she cannot buy or eat where the dog was? To put it mildly, only an uncaring, selfish jerk would impose this on others.
I can only conclude that dog people who don't follow leash laws in our parks and trails know they offend others and intend to make others uncomfortable, or intend to endanger their safety, or to intimidate them. They intend to force other users of the public parks and trails to stop using the trails or to put up with the free-ranging dogs that trip them or charge at them. That makes the dog person a selfish jerk.
Those who take their companion dog into public places citing that it is a service dog are daring others to say something, knowing you won't, that you'll endure their rudeness and disrespect in silence. But if you do speak out, they thrive on the conflict. This provocation is not fair to the others who frequent those places desiring peaceful society in public. But they don't care about fair, they only care about themselves. They don't voluntarily cooperate with the rules and laws established, causing disruption in the orderly and peaceful functioning of society. They provoke their favor for disorder by their defiance of the laws and the rules. This infringes the rights of others to peaceful participation in all aspects of society. I've had enough.
I won't stop using the trails. I can't rely on law enforcement, so I will resort to self-help. I am now armed with pepper spray and a heavy stick. I use them whenever any dog is close enough. Not once has the dog owner filed charges against me. They cannot. Their dog was aggressive, not under the voice control or any other control of the dog owner, and was not on a leash. But their dogs generally end up requiring veterinary treatment, which is a shame for the dumb dog but a legitimately expensive consequence for the self-absorbed dog person.
I have other remedies in mind depending on the situation. But I am no longer going to be intimidated into silence or into forgoing my rightful and peaceful use of the public trails or other public places. I will be free from the intimidation and intrusions of dog people and their dogs. I changed the practice in my neighborhood of dogs running free by shooting the dogs that came onto my property to kill my poultry, and by suing the dog people for trespass and winning. Now, dogs no longer run free anywhere near my property. I can similarly change the practice of unleashed dogs on the public trails that I want to use.
Here's my notice to you dog people. If you love your dog as much as you claim, you will make sure your dog does not infringe on my rights, my personal space, or my property, or my peaceful use of the public trails and parks. If you do infringe, don't think I will waste my time trying to reason with you, because none of you have proven to be reasonable. I will communicate in the only language you seem to understand, and I'm quite sure you won't like it any more than I like you forcing your dog's intrusions on me.
Sunday, September 6, 2015
The Fallout From Obergefell
People cannot hide who they really are, especially with the anonymity inherent in the Internet.
And we see the true character of the homosexual agenda coming out into our homes and public places.
The
Rainbow People--meaning those who identify with or support the
homosexual and same-sex marriage movement--present as a gang of hateful
hoodlums bent upon bullying anyone who disagrees with them, using
messages of hate, threats and a sincere desire to see the worst happen
to anyone who doesn't consent to be bullied. They project their own
hateful motives upon those whose only sin is to disagree with them without vitriol or imposing their will. The mere refusal to play the game is enough to set the Rainbow People off. These horrible people who
disagree with the Rainbow People are often Christians, whose only desire
is to live their lives according to their faith, while leaving the
Rainbow People to live their lives.
Granted,
certain Christians do not condone the sins of the Rainbow People, which
is likely the impetus for the Rainbow People's own vicious attacks upon
Christians who act according to their faith. The Rainbow People must
have universal acceptance of their sins in order to feel like they
aren't sinning. Their own guilty conscience condemns them when anyone
refuses to accept their sins. It's like a gang, who must initiate
members into the gang by compelling them to commit crimes and murders so
that the initiates are bound to the gang members by their crimes and
will not betray their gang members without risking their own freedom.
Christians are a threat, because they will not accept the sins that the
Rainbow People approve of.
Some
few Rainbow People have actually tried to understand what compels a
Christian to take this stand, to refuse to bake a cake or take
photographs for a same-sex wedding, to refuse to marry same-sex couples.
For those who genuinely try to understand, here is the reason:
To
a Christian, this passage requires that they neither bless nor condone
another who remains in sin, nor partake of that sin. Baking a cake,
taking a wedding photo, issuing a marriage license or marrying a
same-sex couple is to partake of that sin. It is not bigotry, it is
keeping themselves pure according to their faith.
Nobody
gets to tell anyone how to practice their faith, whether it is the
unfaithful telling the faithful how to express their faith and visa versa. . .that is
between the individual and God. It is wrong to tell someone else how to practice their faith.
It
is important to note--excuse me for injecting facts that undermine the
rhetoric--Kim Davis simply does not want her name on same-sex marriage
licenses. As county clerk, she requested the state legislature to change
the law requiring her name be on the license. They did not. It was a
simple accommodation, yet a judge is forcing her to violate her
conscience by putting her name on an official document that violates her
deeply held religious beliefs. She did not do this to prevent anyone's
marriage, or even condemn same-sex marriage, she only stood against endorsing this sin
with her name. This was not an act of hate, it was an act to keep
herself pure, as Scripture requires. She chose God's law over man. This
is the definition of acting according to one's conscience.
But
the question remains, is same-sex marriage the law? Many state laws
defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. That's law.
Five unelected justices of the Supreme Court found the Constitution said
that same-sex couples have the right to marry, without that concept
being expressly stated in the Constitution. Is that law? If it is, then
we have lost our right to representative government, which is a concept
that should be a concern to everyone, including the Rainbow people.
However, in contrast, it is expressly stated in the Bill of Rights, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". This is the law, the written law.
Yet,
we see that the highly subjective and fabricated edict of five justices
is overriding the letter of the Constitution. Consequently, Christians
are being punished for exercising their religious beliefs.
Even
if I concede for the sake of argument, that same-sex marriage is the law, then the law is in conflict
with Scripture. For a faithful Christian it's a no-brainer; this
conflict is resolved in favor of God, even knowing the consequences that might ensue.
If the law can be used to persecute the practice of Christian faith, it can happen to the Rainbow People.
Exhibiting stunning shortsightedness -- instead of being concerned for the
future of the rule of law, they rejoice that officially recognized
oppression is implemented on their behalf, and that the rule of law can be
so easily subverted for their own personal gain.
The law is not supposed
to serve an agenda, it is supposed to serve the greater good, a concept that
escapes the Rainbow People. For them, circumventing the rule of law
serves their malignant narcissistic desires at the expense of the
greater good. The rule of law is dead, killed by the Rule of Five
Justices and a deception by the homosexual agenda.
Christians
are being targeted for exercising their faith, and the Rainbow People
rejoice and spread deception in support of their victory over the rule
of law.
Casual
Christians, non-Christians and Rainbow People don't have any right to
tell faithful Christians how to believe or practice their faith, yet
they presume to. They try to demand that faithful Christians restrict
their faith the the four walls of the Church or the home, failing to
understand that their faith is encompassed by their hearts and minds.
Their faith and the practice of their faith is part of their business,
their daily activities, their job as employees. It cannot be confined to
a physical place. And the Constitution protects that practice, as do
the state Constitutions. I show the three state constitutions that are the subject of this discussion:
I cite as an example, this decision by the Ohio Supreme Court Board of Professional Conduct:
Last month, the Ohio Supreme Court's Board of Professional Conduct said judges can't refuse to marry same-sex couples on personal, moral or religious grounds.Judges who stop performing all marriages to avoid marrying same-sex couples may be interpreted as biased and could be disqualified from any case where sexual orientation is an issue, the Ohio board ruled.
It
would appear that judges in Ohio are now subject to a religious test to
determine their qualification for office, in violation of the Ohio
Constitution. In violation of the law. Great for the Rainbow People, not good for the people of Ohio who cannot rely on the law meaning what it says it means.
In Oregon, a judge is being investigated for refusing to perform same-sex marriages because it violates his religious beliefs.
The Rainbow People rejoice:
Yet, even the Obergefell court stated that certain rights are above the reach of government:
This
expressly applies to freedom of religion. So why is an Oregon judge
being subjected to a professional fitness investigation? Why is Kim
Davis in jail? Why can Ohio judges be held in askance for refusing to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies? It can only be because the law doesn't mean what it says
it means, at least if you are a Christian. It can only be because the
law means what it doesn't say it means but means it anyway and will
be enforced against a Christian.
The
Rainbow People say Christians should not hold public office, have a
job, or run a business if they have a faith-based objection to providing
services that endorse same-sex marriages. Seriously? Ban Christians
from the same rights afforded to non-Christians; the right to work, to
hold public office, to have a job or own a business? The outrageousness of this
position defies belief in a country that was built upon principles of
religious freedom and equal opportunity. What's next, relocation of
Christians to designated ghettos?
According to the Rainbow People,
Christians should not be allowed to work or be elected officials which
means Christians cannot be represented in our representative government.
And the Christian-haters don't see anything wrong with a segment of our
population being told not to work at the job of their choice, not to
sell or run a business, and not to run for office because they refuse to
burn a pinch of incense to Caesar and declare him to be god. This is
appalling intolerance being practiced in the name of tolerance. Any
critical-thinking, tolerant person is highly offended by this
hypocritical posture.
A
Christian refusing to participate in same-sex marriage is not bigotry,
it is a devoutly held religious belief based on Scripture. Just because Christian-haters
don't have faith or believe in God means nobody else should? Seriously?
In America?
History
teaches that Christian persecution and martyrdom serves to overthrow
the machine that persecutes them. The Supreme Court opened the door to
Christian persecution in the name of same-sex marriage, and are responsible for the outcomes.
This is shameful
in a country whose founding arose out of those escaping religious
persecution. Now we have a Christian in jail for exercising her
religious beliefs, because the state refused the reasonable
accommodation of removing her name from the marriage licenses.
Businesses are fined out of existence for refusing to bake same-sex
wedding cakes. Will judges be removed from the bench for refusing to
partake of another's sin even when another judge would be willing to
perform the ceremony? Are we really prepared to imprison people for their faith? How long before we feed the faithful to the lions?
This
is a witch-hunt, with Rainbow People driving the hysteria of hate and
evil. . .wishing the worst on those who simply cannot compromise their
faith to save their job. Poking fun and making nasty comments. A gang
reinforced by other gang members, thinking they are clever, when they
are just mean-spirited, ugly and intolerant, projecting their own
hatefulness on their enemy. I leave you with their own words proving their ill-will
and malevolence toward anyone who defies their demands for acceptance, punctuating their guilt
and shame by simply refusing to participate in or approve of their sin.
You
just can't make people agree with you against their will, no matter
what you do. Just like many will not agree with this post. So what? I
don't need anyone else's agreement. That's what separates Christians
from the Rainbow People.
Alleged Letter Penned By Kim Davis Contains Hilariously Inaccurate Bible Quote
By Liz Lee on September 5, 2015
Please let this be real. Please don’t let this be an awesome attempt at trolling the notorious Kim Davis. A letter has started making the rounds on the Internet that is said to be written by Davis from her jail cell. Sounds a little too much like a reference to Martin Luther King Jr.’s letters doesn’t it?. . .OMG? Seriously? Please let this be real. Please. It can be my birthday present and Christmas present.
--
Suzanne Shell
dsshell@gmail.com
dsshell@gmail.com
Friday, May 1, 2015
When You Want to be a Parent
"I want to be a dad to my kids," says my son at the end of his second year of medical school in response to questions about what medical specialty he wants to pursue. He observes that some medical specialties don't work well be being a dad.
Funny how our priorities drive the decisions we make.
I wanted to be a mom to my sons, I chose to be a mom. I chose carefully and thoughtfully. I enjoyed my time as a mom, I enjoyed my children.
Obviously, my being a mom was not to be. This was not because of my career, but because of a series of actions by others who felt it was their right to interfere with my right to be a mom. They judged me to be. . .what. . .a bad mother? According to the caseworker in Elbert County, I was a good mother, a very good mother. But what do caseworkers know? She was likely shining me on. As for what anyone else thought. . . one must consider the source.
When that choice, that right, was taken from me, I grieved. For years. Frankly, I still grieve. Because the effects of what happened when we were investigated-but-not-taken-to-court by the child welfare agency have rippled out over the years. Excuse me, over the decades. As many know, I fought for the fundamental right to family association for decades. Since I couldn't finish raising my children, I tried to ensure that that right was not infringed for other parents, even the imperfect parents. After all, we are all imperfect parents.
So, to my son, I say:
I hope you get to be a dad to your kids until they are adults and beyond.
I hope you don't find your rights to determine how to raise your children held hostage to a threat of child abuse by your child because your child chafes against your rules or your methods of discipline and they learned from someone else that they can turn you in for that.
I hope you don't have anyone else second-guessing your parenting decisions, and condemning you for doing it differently than they think it should be done, and deciding that you don't have the right to raise your kids until you conform to their so-called expert advice and recommendations.
I hope that nobody expects you to be a perfect parent and takes your kids away just because you were imperfect.
I hope you are free from the devastating influences of bitter ex-spouses who want to control you and use your kids to do so (this is the generic ex-spouse, not any ex-spouse specific to you);
or insecure ex-spouses who use emotional manipulation to undermine your child's loving relationship with their step-mother when they become too attached to their step-mother, rather than rejoicing that your children are loved and happy when they are with you and your (generic) wife;
or an ex-spouse who thinks its a good idea to exploit your child's rebellion and use that take the kids away from you and then allow the children to do all the things you tried to prohibit such as drug use, gang associations, dropping out of school, robbery, commit violence and more when they win custody;
or vindictive (generic) step-fathers who love their own children better than their step-children and use that as an excuse to abuse your children in their mother's home and you can do nothing to protect them (because, believe me, the authorities will not believe it when you report your children are being abused by their step-parent in the other parents home, especially if the other parent is a cop);
or control-freak family members who use your children to triangulate their relationships with you, using emotional manipulation to control you, causing emotional damage to your children and you and undermining your relationship with your children;
or having your ex and/or step-parent badmouth you over and over to your children until your children believe the lies, even into adulthood;
or having your ex-spouse move, and take the children, and not tell you where they are;
or having your ex-spouse and/or her husband refuse your phone calls to the children and return the mail and packages that you send to the children and tell the children that you don't call or send them anything, and you don't love them;
or after having all your rights trashed and being unable to win the battle, having your children hold you responsible for not protecting them, or for not rescuing them from that bad situation others put them into, and blaming you for all the bad that happened to them;
or never being able to restore the emotional intimacy that exists in a healthy parent-child relationship because of the mean, petty, selfish and abusive actions of others who didn't care about hurting your children to accomplish their own agenda against you, just so long as they won and that you were hurt.
There are some things that you cannot fight and hope to win. You can't control what others do to to you, and sometimes you're damned if you stand up to it and damned if you don't.
If love were enough, it probably wouldn't matter as much, because then love would overcome all those influences that want to interfere with or destroy what you have with your children. But the selfless love of a parent for a child isn't enough to overcome those influences, not always. The existence of that love can be perverted by others until the child questions the existence or the character of that love. Kids don't know any better, but the adults exploiting them do know better.
But the child still needs. That need cannot be perverted, or stolen, or erased, or lied out of existence. When the child needs but doubts the love, the intimacy is gone. As a parent, you will grieve for that loss, even though you had no control over what your child feels and no way to help them understand as long as they do not want to understand.
I hope your relationship with your children will be as long-lasting, as intimate and as fulfilling as Papi's was with his son. It was a rare and beautiful thing to behold, a blessing, a joy. It lasted to the day Papi died, and endures in his son's heart. It is was a comfort that sustained him through his grief, that he never missed an opportunity to partake of that loving father-son bond of intimacy that never diminished, even into adulthood and middle age.
I hope you get to be a father to your children, just like you want.
Funny how our priorities drive the decisions we make.
I wanted to be a mom to my sons, I chose to be a mom. I chose carefully and thoughtfully. I enjoyed my time as a mom, I enjoyed my children.
Obviously, my being a mom was not to be. This was not because of my career, but because of a series of actions by others who felt it was their right to interfere with my right to be a mom. They judged me to be. . .what. . .a bad mother? According to the caseworker in Elbert County, I was a good mother, a very good mother. But what do caseworkers know? She was likely shining me on. As for what anyone else thought. . . one must consider the source.
When that choice, that right, was taken from me, I grieved. For years. Frankly, I still grieve. Because the effects of what happened when we were investigated-but-not-taken-to-court by the child welfare agency have rippled out over the years. Excuse me, over the decades. As many know, I fought for the fundamental right to family association for decades. Since I couldn't finish raising my children, I tried to ensure that that right was not infringed for other parents, even the imperfect parents. After all, we are all imperfect parents.
So, to my son, I say:
I hope you get to be a dad to your kids until they are adults and beyond.
I hope you don't find your rights to determine how to raise your children held hostage to a threat of child abuse by your child because your child chafes against your rules or your methods of discipline and they learned from someone else that they can turn you in for that.
I hope you don't have anyone else second-guessing your parenting decisions, and condemning you for doing it differently than they think it should be done, and deciding that you don't have the right to raise your kids until you conform to their so-called expert advice and recommendations.
I hope that nobody expects you to be a perfect parent and takes your kids away just because you were imperfect.
I hope you are free from the devastating influences of bitter ex-spouses who want to control you and use your kids to do so (this is the generic ex-spouse, not any ex-spouse specific to you);
or insecure ex-spouses who use emotional manipulation to undermine your child's loving relationship with their step-mother when they become too attached to their step-mother, rather than rejoicing that your children are loved and happy when they are with you and your (generic) wife;
or an ex-spouse who thinks its a good idea to exploit your child's rebellion and use that take the kids away from you and then allow the children to do all the things you tried to prohibit such as drug use, gang associations, dropping out of school, robbery, commit violence and more when they win custody;
or vindictive (generic) step-fathers who love their own children better than their step-children and use that as an excuse to abuse your children in their mother's home and you can do nothing to protect them (because, believe me, the authorities will not believe it when you report your children are being abused by their step-parent in the other parents home, especially if the other parent is a cop);
or control-freak family members who use your children to triangulate their relationships with you, using emotional manipulation to control you, causing emotional damage to your children and you and undermining your relationship with your children;
or having your ex and/or step-parent badmouth you over and over to your children until your children believe the lies, even into adulthood;
or having your ex-spouse move, and take the children, and not tell you where they are;
or having your ex-spouse and/or her husband refuse your phone calls to the children and return the mail and packages that you send to the children and tell the children that you don't call or send them anything, and you don't love them;
or after having all your rights trashed and being unable to win the battle, having your children hold you responsible for not protecting them, or for not rescuing them from that bad situation others put them into, and blaming you for all the bad that happened to them;
or never being able to restore the emotional intimacy that exists in a healthy parent-child relationship because of the mean, petty, selfish and abusive actions of others who didn't care about hurting your children to accomplish their own agenda against you, just so long as they won and that you were hurt.
There are some things that you cannot fight and hope to win. You can't control what others do to to you, and sometimes you're damned if you stand up to it and damned if you don't.
If love were enough, it probably wouldn't matter as much, because then love would overcome all those influences that want to interfere with or destroy what you have with your children. But the selfless love of a parent for a child isn't enough to overcome those influences, not always. The existence of that love can be perverted by others until the child questions the existence or the character of that love. Kids don't know any better, but the adults exploiting them do know better.
But the child still needs. That need cannot be perverted, or stolen, or erased, or lied out of existence. When the child needs but doubts the love, the intimacy is gone. As a parent, you will grieve for that loss, even though you had no control over what your child feels and no way to help them understand as long as they do not want to understand.
I hope your relationship with your children will be as long-lasting, as intimate and as fulfilling as Papi's was with his son. It was a rare and beautiful thing to behold, a blessing, a joy. It lasted to the day Papi died, and endures in his son's heart. It is was a comfort that sustained him through his grief, that he never missed an opportunity to partake of that loving father-son bond of intimacy that never diminished, even into adulthood and middle age.
I hope you get to be a father to your children, just like you want.
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Do You Have Rights?
It's time to bust the myth of our rights.
As long as the masses believe they have rights, they can be controlled. Yet, it is not hard to find accounts of people whose rights are casually violated, especially by those institutions that are charged with protecting our rights. So how can we claim to have rights when those rights can be so easily violated?
Our rights are subject to government interpretation and are defined and redefined by the government based on inconstant prevailing wisdom. Any right that can be interpreted or defined by anyone else can be interpreted or defined out of existence.
Our rights are subject to government enforcement. Any government body that can enforce a right has the discretion to refuse to enforce a right.
Our rights are subject to government discretion regarding the nature, quality and scope of our rights. Any government that is not mandated to enforce a right can exercise its discretion to deny a right.
The government uses its authority to retaliate against anyone who exercises their rights, and is immune from liability for that retaliation. Any government that is immune from liability for violating your rights will violate your rights.
We are not permitted to enforce our own rights, we are required to seek redress in the government courts, who have the discretion to deny our rights and who have absolute immunity from liability for denying our rights. Government retains control over what our rights are by controlling who can enforce those rights.
We are punished for enforcing our own rights, even if personal enforcement is the only way to preserve our rights to life, liberty and property. Any person who is denied the right to enforce his rights has no rights.
We must have government permission in order to exercise our rights, via permits, licenses and other regulatory or taxation requirements, and that curtailment of rights has been determined by the government to be necessary. Government that can regulate our rights, can deny the exercise of those rights.
Our rights are an illusion that serve to protect the status quo and the powers-that-be, but do not protect the hard-working individual who plays by the rules.
The emperor is parading the streets naked, yet everyone praises him for his magnificent princely robes. I say the emperor is naked, and ugly.
We have privileges, granted by the government and subject to government withdrawal when our exercise of those privileges causes problems for the government.
We have no rights, unless we take them back for ourselves.
As long as the masses believe they have rights, they can be controlled. Yet, it is not hard to find accounts of people whose rights are casually violated, especially by those institutions that are charged with protecting our rights. So how can we claim to have rights when those rights can be so easily violated?
We have no rights
Our rights are all subject to government approval. Any right subject to outside approval can be disapproved.Our rights are subject to government interpretation and are defined and redefined by the government based on inconstant prevailing wisdom. Any right that can be interpreted or defined by anyone else can be interpreted or defined out of existence.
Our rights are subject to government enforcement. Any government body that can enforce a right has the discretion to refuse to enforce a right.
Our rights are subject to government discretion regarding the nature, quality and scope of our rights. Any government that is not mandated to enforce a right can exercise its discretion to deny a right.
The government uses its authority to retaliate against anyone who exercises their rights, and is immune from liability for that retaliation. Any government that is immune from liability for violating your rights will violate your rights.
We are not permitted to enforce our own rights, we are required to seek redress in the government courts, who have the discretion to deny our rights and who have absolute immunity from liability for denying our rights. Government retains control over what our rights are by controlling who can enforce those rights.
We are punished for enforcing our own rights, even if personal enforcement is the only way to preserve our rights to life, liberty and property. Any person who is denied the right to enforce his rights has no rights.
We must have government permission in order to exercise our rights, via permits, licenses and other regulatory or taxation requirements, and that curtailment of rights has been determined by the government to be necessary. Government that can regulate our rights, can deny the exercise of those rights.
Our rights are an illusion that serve to protect the status quo and the powers-that-be, but do not protect the hard-working individual who plays by the rules.
The emperor is parading the streets naked, yet everyone praises him for his magnificent princely robes. I say the emperor is naked, and ugly.
We have privileges, granted by the government and subject to government withdrawal when our exercise of those privileges causes problems for the government.
We have no rights, unless we take them back for ourselves.
Guaranteed Health Care. NOT.
I was right about Obamacare. Before our
representatives voted on the Affordable Care Act, I published that
this wasn't a healthcare bill, that it was an IRS bill. The Supreme
Court later agreed with me.
I also observed that this law does not
guarantee health care for all. It only guarantees health insurance
coverage for all. Whether one wants it or not.
I was not aware that Medicaid could be
forced upon an unwilling citizen. But it can, or you can be denied
health care. I have seen someone's health care held hostage to
applying for Medicaid. Yep. Treatment denied unless they applied.
Even when they were willing to pay for their medical care.
Now, this person has gotten ill with
that nasty cough that has characterized this year's cold season. Two
weeks into the illness, complications arose resulting in repeated,
sudden airway obstruction during inhalation. After a doctor visit and two ER visits, a
referral was made to a specialist. This patient got a diagnosis, and
treatment was prescribed: treatment by a speech pathologist is
required to correct the airway problems and loss of voice. But, alas,
the treatment is not available right away.
Yep. This person cannot be treated for
at least two weeks, until the speech pathologist calls and sets up an
appointment. Meanwhile, this patient's airway locks shut several
times a day. This patient cannot speak. For three weeks now. And the obstruction is getting worse, it is now happening during exhale and inhale. Watching someone choke for air is not a pretty sight. Pat the
head, go home, don't call us, we'll call you.
This patient has health coverage now,
but no guarantee of health care. Why am I not surprised? And why do the proponents of this law find nothing wrong with this? Can it be because this is the desired outcome?
This was foreseeable. I foresaw it. Didn't you?
This was foreseeable. I foresaw it. Didn't you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
