The Campaign For DA

5.22.2015

Random Friday Morning Thoughts




  • Lake Bridgeport this morning is only 4.72 feet low.  I predicted at 6:00 a.m. this morning to a faithful reader that it would be full by Thursday. I would like to revise that prediction to Tuesday. And you might want to take the under. 
  • Being a past Lake Bridgeport homeowner with a boat dock (not a bad life, by the way), I can safely say that we have Boat Dock Chaos going on out there. Floating docks have old cables now breaking, and stationary docks have motors and cables that are malfunctioning. 
  • Never doubt the Liberally Lean Storm Center. The following was a Random Thought from nine days ago (Hey, Delkus, I'm gunning for your job.): 
  • "Waco, Texas (CNN) Texas law enforcement officials are investigating what they say are new threats against officers from biker gangs in the wake of a recent shootout in Waco. Members of the Bandidos biker gang who are in the military 'are supplying the gang with grenades and C4 explosives,' according to a bulletin issued Thursday by the Texas Department of Public Safety and reviewed by CNN. The bulletin warns of plots targeting high-ranking law enforcement officials and their families with car bombs."  The Bandidos have disputed this. In light of how t DPS has recently had its credibility severally damaged under the leadership of Steve McCraw and seems to be operating based upon the Politics of Fear, I think I'll believe the Bandidos on this one. 
  • Nothing stuns me more than conservatives, in connection with the Waco shootings, saying "Lock 'em all up and figure it out later." 
  • The Texas House has tentatively approved a bill to protect ministers from lawsuits if they refuse to preside over a same sex marriage. I had heard that was a major problem in Texas much like the invasion of chupacabras.  Side note: This bill, as we spiral towards Idiocracy, was offer by Wise County representative Sen. Craig Estes.
  • In March of 2010 Texas Monthly published a story encouraging people to complete our “Bucket List”— “63 Things That All Texans Should Do Before They Die”. A Baylor law student did them all in one year.  As much as admire the guy, I'm worried Baylor Law School isn't as tough as it used to be. 
  • David Letterman has been doing his show since 1982, and his finale had 13.9 million viewers. The finale of TV's Breaking Bad, which had only 62 episodes on a cable channel you had to search for, had 10.3 million. 
  • Back in my DA days in the 1990s, the Wise County Sheriff and I drove past the entrance to Wise County Park. There was a sign for the park which read, "By order of Sheriff: No alcohol allowed."  I looked at him and asked, "Can you that?" He said, "I don't know, can I?" I replied, "I have no idea."  Those were the good old days. 
  • MADD and some Texas legislators will soon be holding a news conference announcing that a bill has been sent to the governor requiring Ignition Interlock devices for all people convicted of first time DWIs. And then I'll explain how they are completely wrong.


66 comments:

wordkyle said...

Nothing stuns me more than conservatives, in connection with the Waco shootings, saying "Lock 'em all up and figure it out later." - Any specific names associated with that statement? Or is it just your general impression?

Ernest T said...

Surprisingly, I do kind of agree with you about the DWIs. MADD is making plenty of money off of DWIs.

Someone who gets a DWI must attend the Victim Impact Panel put on by MADD. They charge them money to go to this, even though they are required to attend.

It would not surprise me at all to find that MADD had a financial stake in the companies who build ignition interlock devices. They either own stock in them or the companies are huge donors to MADD.

Anonymous said...

I would get down on my knees and thank the Lord if the worse thing my pastor was doing was presiding over a gay wedding.

Legislators pandoring to the IQ challenged!!! not to mention the bigoted.

Anonymous said...

Today's RTG is a huge improvement over yesterday's.

At least your page has variety, I suppose.

Anonymous said...

MADD, Goodwill, Al Sharpton, PLO, Boy Scouts, AA, UN - no matter what they say or what their cause is - it's always about the money.

Anonymous said...

RTG very awesome.
If you give us more pics of her day, you will have redeeeeemed yourself.


DF Sister Mary Stigmata

Anonymous said...

I didn't see visit Twin Peaks in Waco on that Bucket List

Anonymous said...

Is the minister protection bill necessary? Who would choose to be married by a minister who is opposed to the marriage?

DF John Wesley said...

From the Update: BIKE BLESSING – Following the 10:50 worship service Sunday at the First United Methodist Church in Decatur, Pastor Brian Bosworth will lead a “Blessing of the Bikes” for anyone who rides their motorcycle to church that day. A lunch ride, including a time of cruising local highways, will follow. Bikers are invited to wear their biker gear to worship.

And I thought the Baptists were goofy. WHEW

Anonymous said...

We absolutely need to allow drunks to drive and kill, I guess. It's their right...I guess. Fine until they kill one of yours, I guess.

Anonymous said...

I'm thinking many of us have had the following experience at least once, most likely during our foggy college days:

Go to bed with today's RTG, wake up with yesterday's RTG.

But hey, any port in a storm is a good one when you need to dock your dinghy.

Anonymous said...

If the supreme Court rules same sex is legal bases on being a civil right, I can see ministers being sued for refusing to marry same sex couples. If I can have gay friends but disagree with their life style based on my religious beliefs, that does not make me a bigot or a moron! Changing the definition of marriage is a big mistake as our creator designed a perfect family so children could be born. Nature has the answers on this controversial and devise issue. I hope the court considers if marrying who we love is equality, do we want laws to allow to marry two, a close relative or someone under age. It will be interesting next month to see how the court rules and the impact on the church.

Anonymous said...

Can you that?

Anonymous said...

Some of the guys in Waco did nothing wrong but put on a jacket and attend an event. They are normal guys with normal jobs. If they still have jobs. That is a big if.

Anonymous said...

I don't think biker blessing Sunday in light of recent biker news is a good idea now. Maybe later.

Anonymous said...

Funny how our moderator thinks that ONLY republicans want to see all the bikers in jail.

Stay Classy

Anonymous said...

Nothing stuns me more than liberals saying that the courts or congress should force the Church to perform, and therefore recognize, and therefore change their definition of, marriage. The Church has been unwavering in its definition of marriage for centuries. You may believe that the Church has taken the absolutely wrong position on that subject - I have no problem with you believing that. I have no problem with the state issuing a "license" to establish a legal union between adults that is legally identical to the current "marriage license". I said "the state".

To force the Church to perform and recognize that union and change its definition is wrong. No one has any right or claim to a Church-sanctioned wedding/marriage.

Anonymous said...

Getting together for a political meeting can get out of control, especially when weapons are brought to the committee meeting! All of this will be sorted out and those who were at the wrong place at the wrong time should be thankful the police were there when the fight broke out!

Anonymous said...

Some of the guys in Waco did nothing wrong but put on a jacket and attend an event. They are normal guys with normal jobs. If they still have jobs. That is a big if.


But the had to have known what they were getting in to.

Anonymous said...

If nature has the final say in what a "proper" marriage is, shouldn't it also have the final say in the "proper" way for each person to die? Let's cancel medicine, folks, and let nature run its course, since it is in charge.

Anonymous said...

Why can't ignition interlock devices just be made standard on all vehicles? How bad would it really be for all of us to have to use one every day if it meant that drunk drivers were now non-existent???

BTW...RTG AWESOME!!!

Anonymous said...

Marriage, in the Church, is not the same thing as the legal entity of marriage created by the state. It's unfortunate that the state chose to use the same word that the Church had been using for centuries. The state recognizes "common law" marriage that doesn't fit the Church definition, either, but I assume common law marriage has the same legal status as a marriage performed by licensed clergy or a judge. I personally agree that the legal entity should include same gender couples.

Again, wrong as you may believe the Church is on its position, the state should leave the Church alone.

Anonymous said...

9:09 says "Today's RTG is a huge improvement over yesterday's". I was in Walmart this morning and thought how attractive yesterdays posting was compared to the women of Wise County (your wives and girlfriends). 95% of them were ugly or fat or both. Few of them had all their teeth and most had tattoos.

Anonymous said...

9:58

These "normal" guys joined or wanted to join a known criminal organization.

Sam Brows said...

9:07, I get your point. There are some bad actors out there who pretend to be good shepherds. I suspect that there is going to be a special little corner of the hot spot reserved for them.

9:25, I do not get your point. There have already been lawsuits filed in multiple states against caterers and florists for refusing to provide services for gay weddings, so I guess I need to ask, who would want a florist or a caterer who opposes the wedding to provide services?

i'm kinda surprised we haven't seen Katy weigh in on this topic...maybe it just gives her the tired head at this point, but I suspect she has a unique perspective that would make her comments worth reading. For my money, the bill makes sense, though pastors could just as easily avoid the litigation by getting out of the wedding business altogether and referring everyone to the JP's office. I will ask this question though: many churches offer pre-wedding marriage counseling classes, some even requiring them as a prerequisite to the Pastor performing the service. So when a homosexual couple decides to go to one of these classes, and a church lets them because it doesn't want to be sued for discrimination, and the elephant in the room is discussed and the couple leaves feeling like they've been told their marriage can never succeed because it contravenes what the Bible has to say about marriage...and they sue the church, is it ok for Believers to then be upset if a Court tells the church it cannot offer that guidance because it discriminates? What are we, like maybe five years away from that lawsuit getting filed? Three?

Anonymous said...

@10:02
The blessing of the bikes and the fellowship ride was planned weeks ago, and announced in our church well prior to the event in Waco. This is the first time the WC Messenger has announced it. As far as I know no one involved in planning our event had any knowledge of the rally that the thugs had planned in Waco. Springtime is a popular time among bikers to get out and ride, sometimes in groups.
As it works out, this event at our church is perfectly timed. About the only similarity between them and those of us who will participate in this event on Sunday is that we sometimes ride 2-wheelers, and we all sin.

Anonymous said...

I want to see what shit hits the fan when an Imam is forced to marry a gay couple in a mosque.

Anonymous said...

I agree the state could allow the same legal rights to gay couples but I think gay right activists are pushing for the church to be forced to accept same sex marriage. I see ministers truly concerned about being able to follow their belief while showing love and compassion toward the gay community. The state has no right to interfere with the traditional biblical church sacrament of marriage.

Anonymous said...

" I think I'll believe the Bandidos on this one.

WHAT A SHOCKER!!!

Anonymous said...

Have there been any instances where a church has been forced to perform a gay wedding? Any attempts made? Nope, and they're not going to be successful if there are.

The religious-freedom protections in the Bill of Rights and their corresponding religious exemptions from certain anti-discrimination laws already allow churches to discriminate based on their beliefs - why would gay marriage be any different? The SBC doesn't have to allow female pastors, and I've yet to hear of a successful discrimination lawsuit brought because of that.

In reality, the only thing this legislation does is pander to the voter base. But at this point, it seems like 80% of the legislation proposed is for that purpose.

As for why go to a caterer/florist that doesn't "support" gays? Why sit at a lunch counter in 1960 where the owner doesn't like blacks? Because offering goods and services to the public means you have to do just that - serve the public. Those bakers/florists were not asked to do anything they don't already do, which is serve the public.

Anonymous said...

Nothing disturbs me more than liberals. We will have to pass the bill first in order to read it. The stupid hasty generalizations are another trademark that is disturbing.

Silence Dogood

Anonymous said...

I and waiting for the first rump ranger wedding to occur at a mosque.

Anonymous said...

Some of the guys in Waco did nothing wrong but put on a jacket and attend an event. They are normal guys with normal jobs. - 9:58

Just a bunch of normal guys that hang out with felons and terrorists.

Anonymous said...

When are they going to shut down the biker gangs in Chico? You ever look who/what is going in and out of that "church"?

whisky O said...

First they came for the bikers, and I did not speak out -
Because I was not a biker.

Anonymous said...

Nothing stuns me more than liberals saying that the courts or congress should force the Church to perform, and therefore recognize, and therefore change their definition of, marriage.

Nobody is saying this. They want the state to recognize it, not the church.


The Church has been unwavering in its definition of marriage for centuries.

So? At some point they changed it, why not again? And again, nobody is talking about the church but tea partiers. The STATE defines marriage. When it is no longer a state-defined and recognized institution, and when the government stops giving benefits for being married while prohibiting certain citizens from marrying, maybe you'll have an argument. Until then, you don't. Not one that makes sense, anyway.

You may believe that the Church has taken the absolutely wrong position on that subject - I have no problem with you believing that.

I personally feel the church should be able to refuse to marry anyone they want to refuse to marry. And guess what--they already can!

I have no problem with the state issuing a "license" to establish a legal union between adults that is legally identical to the current "marriage license". I said "the state".

Did you get your marriage license from the "church"? Do you even know what you;re talking about here?

To force the Church to perform and recognize that union and change its definition is wrong. No one has any right or claim to a Church-sanctioned wedding/marriage.

Nobody, anywhere, is doing this. Nobody. Get off FOX news.

Rage

Anonymous said...

Conservatives are disturbed human beings.

Anonymous said...

The church was unwavering that the Earth was flat for centuries.

Anonymous said...

12:39 - couldn't agree more. Just look at the ridiculous number of folks running for the Republican nomination for President.

It is sick.

Anonymous said...

Georgetown Police trash 81 year old man's home, break his hip, find nothing and leave him to crap his pants overnight.

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/crime-law/elderly-man-sues-williamson-county-georgetown-over/nmLxJ/

Anonymous said...

[Never one to miss an opportunity to ridicule LE or authority], I think I'll believe the Bandidos on this one. [No matter how nonsensical I may appear.]

Anonymous said...

Whitehouse PD chief made sexual advances on officer's wife, touched off scandal that got five suspended

http://www.cbs19.tv/story/29119397/sources-whitehouse-pd-chief-made-sexual-advances-on-officers-wife-touched-off-scandal-that-got-five-suspended-at-city-hall

Anonymous said...

Sam @ 10:45 -

9:25 here. (I already responded once, but it didn't post.)

You have a point. My comment/question reveals my own bias. If I was gay, I wouldn't care if the baker making the wedding cake opposed gay marriage. However, I would care about the officiant's view on marriage. I wouldn't want someone to preside over the ceremony who is opposed to the marriage.

That's just my opinion, though. I realize some people put the baker, florist, minister, etc. all in the same category.

Anonymous said...

1:29, oh please enlighten us, the great unwashed, as to how many Republicans should be allowed to try for the Presidency.

And who do you propose enforces this 'rule'?

Anonymous said...

Don't know of a single case of a pastor being coerced to perform a a gay wedding...........

Yet, they regularly perform weddings for couples already living together,(fornicating) or divored ones they once said they would never marry.

The pastor's first gay wedding will be for the grandson of a member with the right last name or a very wealthy member's son.

Anonymous said...

Why didn't the police just keep shooting until everyone at the scene was dead, and everyone in that general shopping area was dead, and then go shoot everyone passing along the highway? Isn't that how they operate per blog fans?

Upstairs said...

Just drove from Marlin to Waco on Hwy 6. Now heading north on 35. Every single motorcycle -- including the ones on trailers -- heading into Eaco is being stopped by DPS.

Anonymous said...

More Motorcycle Gang Shootout Info


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3093225/Executed-point-blank-shots-head-one-killed-son-eight-Cossacks-died-Waco-breastaurant-bloodbath-months-bitter-gang-rivalry.html

Anonymous said...

"In light of how t DPS has recently had its credibility severally damaged under the leadership of Steve McCraw and seems to be operating based upon the Politics of Fear, I think I'll believe the Bandidos on this one."

So we're going to take the word of the Bandidos, a group of dress-up street gang man-children who commit crimes because they thought that it would be cool, over the DPS, because you heard maybe a politician department head stretched the truth once to increase his budget?

Good plan, Sparky.

Anonymous said...

The black savage nigs are at it again.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3093358/CEO-wife-housekeeper-died-blunt-force-trauma-10-year-old-son-burned-death-court-documents-reveal-emerges-suspect-did-not-act-alone.html

wordkyle said...

Universities have already tried to force Christian organizations on college campuses to abandon the practice of requiring their leaders to sign a statement of adherence to Christian principles. Not all members, just the leadership.

Why would atheists or gay activists want to push these boundaries? To disrupt and destroy institutions whose members believe differently from them.

Anonymous said...

"MADD and some Texas legislators will soon be holding a news conference announcing that a bill has been sent to the governor requiring Ignition Interlock devices for all people convicted of first time DWIs. And then I'll explain how they are completely wrong."

Of course you will. Because you're a professional DWI apologist. This is a completely knee-jerk response for you.
Frankly, you'd have a better case arguing against the Ignition Interlock orders by arraigning magistrates at the time they set bail on DWI 2nds.

Anonymous said...

We need a law because the preachers are afraid of having to officiate a gay wedding? Come on! You can't even get them to marry all the heteros that knock on the church door. No judge has ever stepped in and ordered them to do so.

Reasons Preachers Use to NOT Marry Heteros:
1. Not an ACTIVE member of church.
2. Did not make appointment two years out from ceremony.
3. Haven't attended church marriage workshop.
4. Lived in Sin before considering marriage.
5. One of the heteros is divorced from a previous marriage.
6. Want to use secular music as part of ceremony.
7. Prospective groom and bride are different races (though the church will not publicly admit this)

Churches have have always been given free reign to do what their idea of religion dictates. Otherwise, why would we permit snake handlers, chicken killers, and flagellators?

Trust me, Katy is not chartering buses to haul endless streams of gays to First Baptist to get hitched. Big to-do about nothing!

DF Martin Luther

Anonymous said...

Well, if a university is doing that, of course we need more laws to prevent it from happening everywhere, all over Texas.

And what, exactly, does "tried to force" mean?

Get a grip, wordturd

Anonymous said...

Why would atheists or gay activists want to push these boundaries?

Maybe t make sure that organizations on campuses that receive Title IX and other ]state and federal funds aren't, you know, violating Title IX or other state or federal laws?

That's just a guess.

There's not a liberal/atheist/gay agenda under every rock and behind every tree, Wordkyle. Try to keep that paranoia in check. Maybe ask for some different meds.

Rage

Anonymous said...

You forgot one, Martin:

8. Prospective groom and bride are different denominations. (My wife and I hit that brick wall. We just found a different minister. No big deal.)

Anonymous said...

Me thinks wordkyle doth protest too much.

wordkyle said...

404 - The Cal State University chancellor issued an executive order doing exactly what I said. This isn't a hypothetical.

Militant Liberal activists have already proved that there's no lengths to which they won't go to silence those who disagree with them.

Anonymous said...

And so, Wordkyle, what would militant conservative activists do to silence the liberal ones?

Your resources, please!

Anonymous said...

"Militant Liberal activists" (WK at 452) and "atheists or gay activists" (WK at 342) trying to "disrupt and destroy institutions whose members believe differently from them" (WK 342) and "silence those who disagree with them" (WK 452).

Has it been a rough week, buddy? You seem more ridiculous than normal today.

As to the content of your moronic ramblings, where is the cite, specifically, that "atheists or gay activists" are behind this? Or that they are "Militant?" Or that their intent is to "silence those who disagree with them?"

Anonymous said...

Katy this, Katy that... If Katy was here...
Whassa matter, you turd-burglars can't thspeak for yourthelves?

Buncha pussies

Anonymous said...

@Rage at 12:35
You take issue with statements I made at 10:07, I also posted at 10:30 but did not identify myself as the same person.

"Nobody is saying this. They want the state to recognize it, not the church."
There may not be a majority, and they may not gain traction, but yes, there are people saying this. Research it yourself.

"So? At some point they changed it, why not again?"
I am not aware that the Church ever changed it, please share details.

"The STATE defines marriage."
The Church defined marriage many years before the STATE did, and my point is that it is unfortunate that the state used the same word to define and establish a legal entity that was first a Church institution.

"When it is no longer a state-defined and recognized institution, and when the government stops giving benefits for being married while prohibiting certain citizens from marrying, maybe you'll have an argument. Until then, you don't. Not one that makes sense, anyway."
All of what you state there concerns the state-defined legal entity of a marriage. None of what you state has anything to do with the institution of Holy Matrimony in the Church. None that makes sense, anyway.

"I personally feel the church should be able to refuse to marry anyone they want to refuse to marry. And guess what--they already can!"
So we agree on that one. I know that the Church has been able to do so up to now, and I simply take the position that the Church should be able to continue to do so.

"I have no problem with the state issuing a "license" to establish a legal union between adults that is legally identical to the current "marriage license". I said "the state". (My statement that you quote and to which you respond below)

"Did you get your marriage license from the "church"? Do you even know what you;re talking about here?"
I referred to the state issuing a license, and then I emphasize in another sentence that I am talking about "the state" because I wanted to not feel compelled to respond to just such a question. But here I am doing so. Where did I say anything about a "church" issued marriage license? Do you even know what you are talking about here?

"Nobody, anywhere, is doing this. Nobody. Get off FOX news."
If that is true, then the statement I made stands without opposition. No big deal. So, what is your issue?

Anonymous said...

Dead on, WK!

Anonymous said...

We got a murder/barbecue in Chico and you post nothing? Your "Hardest Working Man in Blogging" award has been revoked!

BOLO for Teresa Jan Rose, 41, of Chico. She’s 5'2", 135, blonde/blue and completely cray.

Anonymous said...

I thought every bbq in Chico ended in murder?

Anonymous said...

11:58 -- Anybody who regularly peruses this blog knows that the poster who identifies himself as Rage has multiple issues. I'm not saying this to be snarky. This person needs help.

On the gay marriage thing? Another example of the deep-seated corruption in our country. It is a surrender to hedonism and a perversion.