The Nerve She Struck

There's a person out there who feels entitled to the resources, including but not limited to, the vehicles, the homes, the time, and the food, of everyone she sees who has those things and has them honestly. She refuses to use her resources to establish residence anywhere, and by default, her lack of permanence becomes an unnecessary and huge expense. It is her personal opinion that Uncle Sam owes her an hotel room every night of the week. It is also her opinion that every driver who passes her on the road, when she hitchhikes, has a moral obligation to pick her up. What she does not see is that sometimes these drivers are en route to places such as........employment (!) and do not have time to stop and dick around with her. Or, some drivers have children, and if all of those children are in the car, there may not be enough seat belts for another passenger, especially a morbidly obese passenger.

When people send angry comments to this woman via the internet, she does not appear to understand that those people who have happy marriages have them because they actively, are, happily married people, and they repeat the act of being happily married each and every day. Those who have children have them because they either bore them, adopted them, or agreed to bring them up via other auspices of guardianship; or in some cases, all three! The Gods did not simply award certain lucky people with love; those people actively participate. The notion that this woman is entitled to the relationships and resources of others, to whom she has contributed nothing.....except to take, sorta like a parasite......is insane. Yet she feels that people send angry comments to her out of guilt. It's not out of guilt; it's out of rage. Indeed, this woman strikes a nerve, but not the one she thinks.

 

Stop depending on the general public, Ruthie. You get a check every month; use it for something sensible, like housing. Why should emergency shelters and long term shelters house you, when their purpose is to house those who have emergencies or no resources at all? Is it the government's fault that you spend all your money on enough food for three or four people, instead of on a place to live? Which brings me to another thingy about you: you eat enough for three or four people. The reason my kids did not get enough to eat while you stayed in my home was that you were eating, literally, ALMOST ALL the food I bought. Hundreds of dollars worth a week. We still have not recovered.

 

You may think you shouldn't have to work, but you quit working, and quit trying, at a much earlier age than most people. You literally have not paid enough into the "system" to expect everything from the system that you expect. If you get a job, that will go a long way to remedy the problem of not having a place to live. It will require that you put your laptop down and show up for work when they need you, but such is life. Deal with it. All the people of whom you take advantage deal with it, why would you be special?

 

Something else that is helpful, when staying in the homes of others, is leaving their wallets and other personal property alone. Stealing simply isn't cool. Especially when the aforementioned wallets belong to children.

 

Speaking of children, at least half a dozen children in my personal acquaintance will testify that YOU eat like a PIG! Specifically, food bought for children! You take a lot more than your share of anything and everything. Bulletins about you have gone out in certain areas, advising well-meaning citizens to avoid you and drive past you while you hitchhike, because of the way you take advantage of others. Your table manners are also disgusting!

 

You've struck a nerve? Probably not. You've got some nerve, though!

 

 

☼Thankyou for indulging me, everyone who read this. The one for whom the message is intended knows exactly who she is.☼

 

 

Christians Keep Crying The Blues

I looked at comments and emails for today, after coming home, and discovered a comment from a very angry person. The post that got the person so angry was written in July, and I almost deleted the comment without looking at it, assuming it was spam. But....lo and behold.....my opinion that Christian churches are too liberal with their trust of good conformists and other con artists, even those of the criminal element, expressed almost eight months ago, garnered an angry reaction today. The commenter was not terribly specific about the anger and enragement point, other than offering general criticism of my perspective on Christianity. The post deals with a Christian church employee with a criminal record, whose criminal record was not checked upon hire, and who took the opportunity to murder another church employee while both were in the building alone. I decried the lack of background checks across the Christian board, wishing that Christians would stop making all kinds of crime opportune within their ranks. I also hinted at the type of soul who might be attracted by such lenient practices. I also think that I am well in the right to question such things, and to protect my family. Here's the comment: "Juli you have some kind of abhorrent, twisted view of Christianity. Your blog is absolute trash. Unfortunately, I stumbled upon it and I am appalled. You are abusing free speech. This could have happened anywhere and you know it. How intolerant you are of Christianity. Hypocrite."

If you find my view of Christianity abhorrent, so be it. I will not be the one to get murdered or raped because I was inside of a church by myself with a Christian. Writing about these people, making others aware of certain things.....such as profiles on national sex offender registries.......and guilty pleas in court to crimes that put others on sex offender registries, just not Catholic Bishops, (see Bishop Robert Finn) is not an abuse of free speech. If it was, sex offender registries would not exist.

You are also incorrect about the notion that this could have happened anywhere. This could only happen in an environment where a person's past is unimportant, or where background checks are not done on employees. The notion that "Jesus saves", and that a criminal no longer has criminal tendencies is in error, especially in cases of sex offenders. There is no "initiation process" involved in becoming a Protestant Christian, and as a result, Goddess only knows who and what is running amuck within their churches. You're darned tootin' I'm "intolerant" of Christian churches; everyone should be!

Here's another reason I think Christians are rather stupid about persons with criminal pasts: last year, a local church was asked to help a friend of mine who is homeless. She is a woman, and has no criminal record. For whatever reason, this particular local Baptist church turned her away. But then, they actually helped a violent sex offender pay his legal fines! They expose their children to him, and by enabling him, they give him the chance to re-offend and maintain the level of danger he poses to the rest of his community. It would be nice if they would use common sense about who they decide to help and who they turn away, but they don't. Both of these people were from other areas; the church simply chooses to help better conformists who are good at saying the stuff they want to hear. Between driving down property values to exposing unsuspecting victims to serious danger, I do not think I can find a reason to respect many Christian churches today. I know that does not describe all Christian churches, but it describes too many.

 

Response To Person Who's Upset Because Neil Boyd Is On The Sex Offender Registry

I still have a few people from various places who look for information on this site concerning Robert Neil Boyd, who recently served time in Tennessee and in Maryland because his computer was found to have lots of child pornography downloaded onto it's hard drive. Most of the people who write to me and discuss Mr. Boyd with me are horrified that his slimy presence was ever close to their homes, and that he gets away with this sort of thing. I feel the same way about him. Sometimes, however; I will get trolled by some of this man's yuppie friends, most of whom do not have children of their own; and those yuppie friends cry the blues at yours truly about how unfair the judicial system was with Mr. Boyd, and how, since he is not a producer, or even a big time dealer, in this filthy business, he should not have been prosecuted or sanctioned at all!

Here's an example of one of the protests, which got published several weeks ago, and to which I responded, pared down to the last statement in the comment, which goes to heart of the denial maintained by misguided friends of creeps like Mr. Boyd: "You talk of human trafficking as though your efforts are doing something, but you imprison less than pawns in the game and waste vast resources for them; so the real criminals are making tons of money and that certainly helps smuggle a human being." Obviously, the denial of the criminal behavior, which in turn, allows enabling of same, runs very deep.

First of all, none of those "real criminals" to whom my commenter referred, would be making the "tons of money" my commenter referenced if said real criminals did not have a client base. We all do what we get paid to do, and those real criminals are certainly getting paid by someone to do what they do. Without the actions and demands of those who are, as my commenter said, "less than pawns", the "game" would be over! So yes; the blame rests upon the pawns, just as much as it rests upon the major players. Second, dealing with some of the so-called pawns is often helpful in locating the major players, and sometimes, if the stars are favorable, a missing child can even be found through such efforts! It does not happen anywhere near often enough, but every time a missing or abused child is located and rescued, it is certainly worth any effort or resources spent. Third, never discount a tip, or tell the person who gives a tip that his efforts are without value. I know that Neil's friends would like everyone who loves children and cares about morals to feel that efforts to rescue abused children are meaningless, and I also know that Neil's friends belittle anyone who loves children, but, my commenter, have you heard of Operation Sunflower? Operation Sunflower is a sting that started about a year and a half ago, when someone drove on a highway in Kansas with a child he had kidnapped. He snapped a few pictures of her, while driving, and a sign with a picture of a sunflower appeared in the background of the picture which was posted online by the creep. It was seen by someone in Denmark, who reported it to the FBI in America, and officers spent two weeks driving the highways in Kansas, matching up scenery to sunflower signs, until they had the right spot. They then followed the electronic trail, found the perpetrator, and the child, (!), and decided to keep the operation in force. The sting was subsequently named Operation Sunflower, after Kansas, the Sunflower State.

Hey Neil! How do you like Operation Sunflower?
 

 

They never seem to think about how they harm the rest of the population.

 

 

The Face Behind

"Oh Miss Juli! Once again you just crack me up :) If Mitt doesn't win this election you can pretty much kiss the USA goodbye, but then, you would really like that, wouldn't you? You are the type that doesn't really give two shits about the flag, thinks God doesn't belong....ANYWHERE, and is in love with those wonderful goverment handouts! Of course you love Obama!"

As promised, here is the face behind the IP number from which the above comment was sent to me. The person whose computer electronically contacts veterans to tell them that they do not give "two shits" about the flag! The person who preaches Christianity and the evils of reproductive freedom for women to sixth graders out of one side of her mouth and uses the other for......well.....never mind. Lets just say the Christianity I read about in the story books favors less sexaully active lifestyles prior to marriage. As for God belonging anywhere, he, she, or it only belongs in your home, church, and possibly your car. Not in a public school. And if you don't like the fact that Kansas allows children with disabilities to get medical care, and allows people such as yours truly to care for such children when their parents are not present or able to do so, go suck Romney's balls. Seriously. In this country, we may vote for whichever candidate we happen to like. No one is obligated to vote for your personal favorite. Show more respect for the Constitution, and show more respect for veterans.