Wow, time flies! I love it!

As of today, it's been three months since I posted.  That's definitely not been my intent, but that's where life has taken me.

I've gotten quite a bit done on my house (pics may be forthcoming...), went to two (2) baseball games, posted too much political stuff on facebook, and continue to see just where this nation is going through those conversations and tweetersations.

It makes me incredibly sad when people put so little thought into their worldviews, or their lives in general.  Their decisions are based on 'now' not, any future hopes and desires.  I find myself far too often thinking the same way.

I believe that the most common definition of "love" in America today involves "feeling".  In my opinion, that's alright when you're talking about music, cars, pets, and sports, but there is a reason there were FOUR (4) greek words for love.

Philia love:
According to M-W, Philia is: "a strong feeling of love [affection] or admiration for something."  I think M-W has it wrong.  You can't use the word 'love' to define a type of love, unless the 'feeling of' love is an external descriptor of something you don't see and can't always understand.

Agape love:
According to M-W, it's 'love 4a'.
"unselfish loyal and benevolant[kind and generous] concern for the good of another:  as (1): the fatherly concern of God for humankind (2): brotherly concern for others
I believe they get close here.  The descriptors used "unselfish", "loyal", "benevolant" (which they have spelled wrong) imply that this word describes something that is NOT just a feeling, but a conscious choice.  Feelings today and actions do not matter in the long run, [agape] remains.

Eros love:
M-W def. 3
"love conceived by Plato as a fundamental creative impulse having a sensual element (erotic [sexual] love)"

Which definition of love do you want from people?  A feeling based on your emotional state that day and by how you treat others (and vice versa?)

As Christians, we are expected to Agape everyone.  They know we are Christians by our AGAPE.  Not our 'eros', not our 'philia',  but our 'agape' love.  The long-standing love that stays around and they know that no matter how much they have spit in your face, no matter how much they have wronged you, no matter how much they teased you, your love is stronger.

When is the last time you made sure your spouse knows that you AGAPE them?  When's the last you let them know that their actions, their feelings, your feelings, and all the crap that life can throw at you weren't enough to keep you from loving them?

If you are single, when is the last time that your family and close friends knew that your love was a conscious choice that would not be swayed by feelings and happenings of the day?

Life is short on this earth, we have but the blink of an eye to make an impact.  Anyone can practice Philia love, especially for short bursts of time.  Attractions change, people make mistakes, time changes people.  Build your marriage and friendships on a more solid foundation than feelings.

That's not to say that agape love does not include philia or eros, but that they complement agape and make it that much sweeter.  Agape isn't an emotionless love, far from it.  There is peace, comfort, and trust in agape love.

Liberalism, THE root of all kinds of evil.

We've all heard it, the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.  Well, what is the liberals solution to everything?
 How do you fix poor people?  Throw money at them.
How do you fix our economy?  Spend more money! (Exclamation mark for Joe Biden)
How do you fix our schools?  Spend more, we're obviously not spending enough!
How do you fix our society?  We have a great wealth disparity, once it's fixed, we're golden.


Why? Because liberals LOVE money.  They love it so much we're $16 trillion in debt with nearly $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and we're devaluing our currency by printing billions more.  Well, that is unless we're electronically creating it because we've gotten so lazy.
Their solution is more money, more money, more money.
Sometimes things are vastly underfunded, but on the other hand, sometimes the problem is how the funding is used, not much there is.  It isn't true that the more you spend on something the higher the quality it is, unions are a good example of that.



























Satire complete.






Now, I've had many discussions with people about greed.  Many people think the Bible is saying money itself is THE root of evil.  They often quote 1 Timothy 6:10, which says the following:
"ῥίζα γὰρ πάντων τῶν κακῶν ἐστιν ἡ φιλαργυρία ἧς τινες ὀρεγόμενοι ἀπεπλανήθησαν ἀπὸ τῆς πίστεως καὶ ἑαυτοὺς περιέπειραν ὀδύναις πολλαῖς"

Just kidding, since less than 1% of the people I know can read that, it says,
"For the love of money is [a]* root of all kinds of evil: which some reaching after have been led astray from the faith, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows." 
*(It's split almost down the middle among the translations whether the word is 'a' or 'the'.  I believe 'a' fits better than 'the'.)

People quote this verse and say that money is evil, and use it to attack anything from 'greedy athletes' who demand more money, to 'greedy corporations' who charge an arm and a leg for everything with no thought to customer support, to 'greedy capitalism', the bane of America.

Before I go further, I'll say that the Hebrew language does NOT use articles the way we do.  They don't put 'the' or 'a' or 'an' before every written word.  It allows for interpretation, a little, which can lead to a few issues such as this one.

Second, context is important.  The teachings of Christianity are NOT easy, and they're often confusing to us, or at the bare minimum, counter-cultural. Things like not complaining, being slow to get angry, owing a debt of love to everyone, honoring your parents.  The purpose of struggles is to bring you closer to Christ-likeness, not simply to cause you strife.  This passage isn't simply talking about having money, it's talking about loving money more than you love God.  People read the 1st half of the verse, but not the second, which talks about that. Money isn't evil, but loving money can lead to evil actions and consequences  Same thing for power, sex, or knowledge.  

I really don't think liberalism is the root to all kinds of evil, but I do think liberalism is a result of godlessness.

My quick take on George Zimmerman

While I do believe that the jury made a correct verdict, I am not happy.  Why, you ask?  Well, because this has not been about a trial, and it will not bring Trayvon Martin back.  As a 17-year old, he died far too young and I wish it hadn't happened.

The Lame Stream Media (LSM) helped prop this up from the start.  They concealed evidence, altered photographic evidence, and edited phone calls that they got their grubby hands on.  They saw it as a 'white' man killing a black teen, and since everyone knows that all whites are racist (or that it will get them ratings), they hammered Zimmerman for the last 18 months.

The police investigating the alleged murder did NOT arrest him.  The initial prosecutor didn't see enough evidence to arrest him and charge him.

Then POTUS got involved, in his 'post racial' 'transparent' manner.  "If I had a son..."  And, of course, I'm sure he was thinking that the police acted stupidly.  Ask him about any of the dozens of scandals his administration is involved in and it's, "We can't comment on an ongoing investigation", but he can sure speak up when race is involved.  He badgered the governor of Florida into bringing in a different prosecutor and rumor has it that DOJ under Holder has been propping up the agitators.

People this is NOT a failure of the Justice System.  This was not the case of a single person using bias to declare innocence or guilt.  This was a "trial by your peers" guaranteed by our Constitution.  Anyone who thinks this is a failure of the Justice System is slightly biased and did not look into any evidence and is taking skin color into too much account.  This entire charade of a trial was because of race and it provides a nice distraction while our country goes to [more] shit.

Stand your ground laws aren't applicable because he couldn't.  I don't know how many people can retreat when they're getting the crap kicked out of them.  In Florida, he is innocent of Murder and Manslaughter.  This wouldn't be the case in Chicago, or DC, or California;  These places, owning a gun is taboo enough, much less having the guts to use it.  In Florida, they care about the 2nd amendment.  They ARE also looking into modifying the law to make it a better law.  Maybe it needs more clarification, but on more minute issues that don't change the overall scope of the law:  You have the right to defend yourself.

Some want to portray Zimmerman as a racist.  That's pretty laughable and lacked any evidence.  Some people want to portray Trayvon as an angel.  That's equally laughable.  That wasn't the town his mother lives in, that's not the town he was supposed to be going to school in.  I don't think the kid was a monster, I think he didn't have his dad around.

Dad's are supposed to be the disciplinarians, to help keep you on the right path.  This will sound harsh, but here we go:  If the black community wants to stop senseless violence and killings, they need to leave the hip hop culture in the dust.  Drugs, hoes, fighting, and guns aren't messages you want to pass on to successful kids.  Even the government 'admits' that nuclear families consisting of a mother, and a father, along with any children they have, provide protection, financial security, and a better moral foundation.

Fatherlessness and abortion are annihilating the black community.  I don't think the two are unrelated.  The symptoms of fatherlessness are present in the most violent cities:  anger, hatred, lashing out.  Young boys join gangs to 'feel' like a man, to feel part of a family, to earn money and respect.  Wouldn't it be nice if those opportunities were available outside a violent life?

With any freedom comes responsibility.  The holy grail known as the 'pursuit of happiness', which could probably also have been said "Yes, you are your brother's keeper".  You see the pursuit of happiness has nothing to do with people's feelings.  It DOES, however, have to do with the framework we put in place as a society (through government regulations or self regulations) to not be so damn selfish.  To keep our freedom, we have to work at it, and that includes taking care of those around us.  Ya know, 1 bad apple ruins the whole bunch...

For everyone to pursue happiness (as most people interpret the Declaration of Independence), we need to uphold the law while respecting (loving) those around us.  For it to truly be a pursuit, respect needs to be received AND given.  For that, we need to be logical, moral people.  For that, we need to move past first impressions (otherwise known as judgments), move past our emotions relating to a subject, and sometimes sacrifice OUR fun and OUR time and OUR money for the sake of those around us.

That means when things don't go our way, we don't riot.  We educate ourselves, we educate others, and we make change of what needs to be changed.  The key is the foundation of Truth.

A gun owner holsters her weapon for no reason!

I found this story a few days ago, and immediately didn't like it.  A picture of a child with a shoulder-fired missile.  That was an immediate red flag that the article would be superfluous and full of nonsense.

" I can honestly tell you that I have not seen a gun sale that didn’t seem worthy of a short background check, nor have I seen a sale impeded by that process."

I'd hazard a guess that she's never seen a gun sale by a dealer WITHOUT a background check, either.  There is no 'loophole' for gun shows.  Any dealer MUST do a background check.  A private citizen selling to a private citizen does not have to do one.  If you think it's a 'loophole', then you won't like this article.  Whether at a gun show or at home selling to a friend, a private sale doesn't have to do a background check in many states.

"I have never seen any form of wild game hunted with one of the guns that was once banned under the previous assault weapons ban.I have never seen a sportsman with a magazine on his gun and I have never seen a competition shooter loaded down with more than a few bullets either."

And the Constitution mentions hunting as a reason for owning guns zero times.  Thanks for bringing up an irrelevant point.  Same with sportsman.  The Constitution says the following,

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nothing about hunting, nothing about target practice.  Maintaining freedom.  And let me add this; the weapons used by many colonists were superior to British muskets.  They were accurate long rifles that they had used to stay alive.  Even with a superior firearm, if you don't have a lifetime dedicated to combat that your adversary does, you're at a disadvantage.

"I have never seen a gun law that would impede any lawful or sane individual from any of the rational or common uses for guns  – and I come from a gun-toting Wyoming family."

Then my guess is you haven't seen the proposed laws or have a very limited view of 'rational' or 'common'.  What is considered rational and by whom?  What do you consider common?  Should we disregard the constitutional reason for guns just because it's not common or because someone doesn't see it as rational?

"Not one liberal gun control law would harm any of those people or their second amendment rights."

Really?  I own a gun that would be on the list.  Why should I get it taken away?



But NOW, she gets to her point.  She sucks people in with guns and switches to abortion.

"On the flip side, I can think of women I know, women I will never meet, women I’ve known and women I love dearly who are now and will be further impacted by the 694 new proposed laws infringing on our 14th amendment right to health and privacy which include a right to an abortion and other private health choices."

I'm assuming she's talking about section 1, which loosely fits... about as well as the 'good and welfare clause'

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I'm not sure how stopping abortions would deprive anyone of life.  Liberty?  Property?  Equal protection?  I'm really not sure how this fits.  If the mother's life is at risk, the people that make that decision are the family, plain and simple.  If I were in the situation, I'd choose my wife over the child because I make a commitment to her when I say "I do".  With the options we have for surgeries these days, I think this response, however, is based on emotions, not evidence.  I know a woman who was having serious issues with the birth of her child.  Were her life in danger, they would have performed a C-Section or induced, but it wasn't.
The question I have is this:  Is there another option?
If the baby can't be afforded, is there another option?  Adoption!
If the baby is a response to rape or incest, is there another option to keeping the baby?  Adoption!  Why should the baby be punished?
If the health of the mother is at risk, is there another option?  From my admittedly limited knowledge on the subject, I say yes.  The baby can be born early, not born 'naturally' (C-section), or killed.  Killing it should be the last option.

"Former VP wannabe, Paul Ryan, may dream of a country where abortion is never considered. I dream of one where the constitutionally protected right to life and the pursuit of happiness that the GOP is so concerned about when they think it applies to zygotes, is never threatened by a gun toting intruder in a first grade classroom.

I dream of an America where lock downs in elementary schools aren’t even considered.When living, breathing, first graders can learn to read, safe from lunatics and gunfire… Then I propose that we can stop and go out to the shooting range and blow some shit up just to let off steam in our oh so destructive patriotism."

Well, ma'am, it does exist.  If you look at mass shootings, they're held at 'soft targets' for a reason.  The person committing the atrocity is generally a coward who kills himself upon the cops' arrival (except for James Holmes who was not mentally stable) and wants as little interference as possible.  Many who commit these atrocities should have been put into insane asylums, not allowed to wander.  Many were on 'helpful drugs' which may not have been all that helpful.

What you're asking for, ma'am, is that law abiding citizens give up their rights for the minority who already isn't even allowed to own guns.  Lanza tried buying a gun and couldn't, he stole his mom's.  Loughner was pulled over before his killing spree and let go; he was also not allowed to buy ammunition.

What would the murder rate in this country be outside of a few cities?  What would the gun murder rate be without just 2 (Chicago and Washington DC)?  How come gun free cities like that have such high rates and how do you make criminals follow the laws passed by overzealous lawmakers?


I always laugh with a little sadness when people defend abortion and then demand strict gun control.  It's ok to kill a baby before birth, but after birth it has rights.  It's ok to choose to kill a baby before birth, but if a mother and unborn child are killed by a drunk driver, the driver of the vehicle can be charged with 2 homicides.  So why not just call any shooting from here on out a 'post birth abortion' and get on with life?  Far too many people don't see what Gosnell did wrong, killing babies born alive (among other terrible things).  Fortunately, he was actually charged with murder, as he should have been.

Until people can move past a petition such as this one, we're in sorry shape and are mislead more than we get any facts.  We're incredibly uninformed and it's on us to change it.  Make the Truth, not a political party, your agenda.  I'm wrong often, that's life.  But when I've found Truth, I'm never backing down.














For the record, yes, I know how offensive and hurtful it is to call any murder, especially that of a child by a gun, a 'post birth abortion'.  I'm sick of the hypocrisy.

I also can respect people who don't want guns, and I'm certainly ok with them abstaining.  It is THEIR choice.  We can live in peace right next to each other because that's what America is about.  Not agreeing about everything, but being able to get along for the greater good.

Resolute (Benghazi, Hillary)

What does it mean to be resolute?  What does it mean to tell the truth?

It would mean that you're against something no matter who promotes it, or for something regardless of who promotes it.  Most politicians are anything but resolute.  They toe the party line and make some really bad compromises on their supposed morals to 'help the party'; generally this is done to win elections.

To ponder more about what Hillary said, she gave 2 false answers.  What would it matter if there was a protest (there was not, and it was not reference with a video) or guys just out walking around deciding to kill people (this wasn't random, it was planned).  If one of those answers were indeed correct, maybe it might matter.  However, this was a pre-planned attack (similar to the attack in Egypt earlier in the day that was also blamed on a crappy video) and neither answer she gave was a correct one.

I was told today that Benghazi was not a scandal because under Bush, consulates/embassies were attacked several times.  While that's true, that's also irrelevant.  What makes this a scandal has nothing to do with the fact that this set of buildings (not a consulate) was attacked.  What makes this a scandal was the attempts by the POTUS and his administration to get the conversation started on limiting free speech by blaming a video. What makes it a scandal is how this administration believes they can hide the truth for a few weeks and then it doesn't matter because this country just isn't paying attention.

To know the truth, I believe it starts in Libya before Qaddafi was eliminated.  POTUS was eager to give the Libyan rebels weapons for some terrible reason.  No matter that they were at least partially tied to Al Qaeda, and some had been fighting against US forces in Iraq/Afghanistan.  What could go wrong?  With our military supplies, the rebels defeated Qaddafi's army and the country has since been run by various militias.  Not terribly long after, the uprising in Syria started.

Some time last year, POTUS wanted to help the rebels in Syria, except that it wasn't really legal.  Think Iran-Contra meets Fast and Furious, essentially Fast and Furious Global.  A few days before the 9/11/12 attacks, a Libyan ship docked in Turkey with 'humanitarian aid' and weapons.  There is reason to believe the Muslim Brotherhood and various AQ related groups were having a disagreement about who was to get what.  Perhaps even the same group not wanting to give up weapons in Libya for Syrian fighters.  Ambassador Stevens met with a Turkish leader (Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin).  About an hour after the meeting, the rebels attacked.

What makes this a scandal is the orders to not send in reinforcements in either attack.  First, the mission in Benghazi was attacked.  There were people ready to go at the CIA Annex not far ready to defend the 'consulate', but they were told not to.  They went anyway, and rescued a few people and were driven backwards into the CIA Annex.  Meanwhile, back at the mission, the 'mob' are looting and pull out Ambassador Stevens' dead body.  Some say that pretty terrible things were done to his body.

Several hours later (when reinforcements would have been there, aiding in clearing out the first compound's intelligence data), the annex came under attack.  Apparently, this was also denied any outside help, which lead to 2 more people dying.  The men that may have been moving assets into position to help were essentially fired.

So, Obama's administration came up with scenarios and false reports to cover it's backside from possibly breaking international law.  If you notice, it was said just about every time they mentioned a crappy YouTube video, they said "It had nothing to do with what the United States was doing".  Why would that need to be mentioned?  People caught in the act still plead not guilty, and the ones yelling the loudest that "I DIDN'T DO IT, I DIDN'T DO IT!" you can generally assume are lying.  Those who are innocent can put their trust in God, and the legal system.  Those who are guilty want as much public support as possible in hopes that the court of public opinion filters into the justice system.

Good morning

I'm finally off after 5 straight night shifts, so I'm going to bed.

However, with over 200 page views there's not a single comment.  If you have a comment or a question, please leave it.  If the page looks funky to you (since the #1 browser has been Safari) let me know and I'll try to adjust things.

What do you want for content?  Do you want me to sound less sarcastic?  Less like a "grumpy old man" (not that I've ever heard that before)?

And hence the title, I want to make you jump around in your seat a bit, it's Thursday for goodness' sake:

Hopefully this puts a smile on your face :)

What are our values?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

In a campaign event after the Benghazi attack, POTUS said this:  “We want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”
— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13

Firstly, Obama and his administration were still pinning this on a crappy youtube flick and seemingly hoping to reduce the first amendment to not include any criticism of Islam, because that would hurt their feelings.  Second, he and his administration were covering up 'Fast and Furious' on a more global scale.  Finally, the quote seems a bit arrogant as if the US were actually shining some light on the world with its values (while breaking international law selling guns the way they were).

I believe at one point, America may have been a shining city on a hill.  But at this point, the claim is laughable.

What are our values?

We kill babies and call it 'reproductive rights'.  We care more about securing the borders of foreign countries than our own.  We care more about taking care of special interests that support us than actually ensuring our children actually get an education.  We care more about being politically correct than actually correct.  We care far more about shitty tv than we do real life events that actually impact us.  We care more about feeling good and doing what feels 'natural' to us than remembering that our actions have consequences and doing the right thing.  No longer can we disagree or look for common ground, we must divide ourselves along economic, political, faith-based, location and age divides.

That's what happens when you abandon the Truth for a lie, I suppose.  We have no moral standing in the world, anymore.  Maybe instead of claiming to be the best (which 'is' in our grasp, I believe) we should actually attempt to better ourselves.  Let's work together, help the people around us.

The way we stop this is limiting the Federal government first.  By cutting spending, reforming the tax code (flat tax or Fairtax), securing our borders, and returning a majority of the government powers to the most local of governments, you return the power to the people.  Yes, We The People need to consolidate resources for things like a military, transportation, and the maintenance of the Republic.  However, the "Pursuit of Happiness" is about the framework for maintaining freedom.  The general welfare of the Republic is not about handouts, it's about doing what's best for the entire country and keeping it around to BE that shining city on a hill.  A shining city on a hill requires light, and I prefer a different Light to flames.

I don't like the character, and not even necessarily the show.  This speech is good.  It's got me thinking what makes us great, what makes us 'shine', what makes us mighty?  In the Old Testament, Israel got STEAMROLLED several times when they turned away from God.  Were there signs that it was about to occur?  If so, could we see them in America today?

Certainly not this.

How do we come up with so many stupid rules?

Well, it's a combination of things, and this will lead into a future post about what regulations are, and why/how they come about.

When people do NOT self regulate, when they can't make choices on their own, someone with the interest and power to control them steps up.

http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/05/29/new-jersey-town-regulates-baggy-pants/

Now, I have no 'butt'.  Pants do not stay up for me without cinching the belt down until I nearly cut off blood flow.  However, my butt doesn't hang out.  To some, that's a style.  I don't understand it, and I think it makes people look like fools.

However, I would hazard a guess that we have slightly bigger things to worry about than sagging pants.  Like sagging consumer confidence, sagging monetary value, sagging morals.

Kaveman Perspectives 4/2/2013

Maybe it's because I was sleeping most of the day (night shifts) or maybe it's because I have good friends, but I didn't have any April Fool's jokes.  So that was pretty sweet.  I'll be dealing with some unintended consequences of my actions, but it's something that shouldn't be too bad.

Now, for some headlines and [un]wanted commentary :)

Some of these United States have some pretty awesome surpluses.  It's the result of jobs and job creation in some instances, tough decisions that needed to be made in some, and good fiscal policy in all.  The common theme is that when states plan budgets, they're A. mandatory and B. not allowed to have a deficit.  For more than a few years, the US Senate failed to come up with a budget.  That's not due to lack of effort (by some, I should say), it's due to partisan bull crap and bad ideas.  Some come to the table with decent ideas and a desire to actually cut spending.  Others come with nonsense.  For the record, Obama's budgets haven't gotten more than a single vote. They make what actually happens seem sane (which is probably the only reason he puts out budgets, other than the Constitutional requirement).  But, you look, and there are several cities which are still struggling.  A common theme with them is long-term Democratic leadership, progressive taxes, and too much government control.  But why would we care about that?

Things are moving on the Korean Peninsula, and that's pun intended.  I'm thinking I may have been wrong about who was egging North Korea on.  I mean, China putting it's troops on the border isn't proof beyond reasonable doubt, but it's happened before, that's why we have 2 Koreas.  Plus, China is using their industrial might to coerce Australia to back them in getting away from the US Dollar.  Things like these make me less hopeful that it it would be a good idea to abandon large swaths of the world in our own interests of saving money.  What fills that vacuum?  Chinese and Russian interests, which I'm not a fan of.  We have a very weak POTUS, and Iran is smelling the blood from lack of resolve against North Korea.  Their rhetoric isn't anything new, either, I mean, they call us the Great Satan every other hour.  However, I think many people were foaming at the mouth when we re-elected Barack Obama because he's in favor of a limited US role in the world.

I can't keep up with all the reality shows, and I don't care to try.  However, some of you know what "Buckwild" is, and one of the stars is dead.  My prayers go to the family, as they've lost 3 members of the family.

Global WARMING is causing thicker ice.  Seriously.  It doesn't surprise me, really.  The idea comes from the same vein as the theory of Darwinian Evolution, which claims that evolution has improved creatures with time.  The only other thing that doesn't deteriorate with time is wine.  Things on this planet break down, deteriorate, get worse, with time.  What am I missing?  Darwinian evolution and creation are both accepted on faith.  Accept which one you believe answers the questions about the origins of the planet, but don't do it based on the truth of the matter that a God existing makes what you do on this earth relevant because of the possibility of after life or judgement.

We either have a problem classifying childhood as ADHD, or a problem with such a large increase in the numbers.  If we have an increase, I'm guessing it's something we're ingesting.  It's just a guess.  However, we're increasingly interested in classifying everything as a problem that people have no control over.  That leads to kids that don't believe their actions have consequences.  This happens every few months in Chicago, it seems, and is increasing across large cities.  Kids need a mother AND father, and kids need to be spanked (disciplined).  Can kids grow absent of those?  Sure.  Let's at least give them the best chance of success in the world, let's not make them learn everything without guidance.

Weird story of the day?  A story on behind the scenes stuff from the sex industry.  I don't know if sympathy is wanted, but the industry isn't one that I endorse, I wish it wasn't getting so much money.  I guess we need some moral assistance.

As a Chiefs fan

This video makes me really appreciate Alex Smith's character.
The Trailer, via youtube:

And this one makes me like him, as well:

The compensation tells me a few things as well.  They did not view any QB in the draft as a guy worth taking #1 overall that they thought would start right away.  They want to win now while they rebuild the culture and roster of the Kansas City Chiefs.  Either they will draft a guy later in the draft to be the 3rd backup, or keep Stanzi.  But, signing Smith and Chase Daniel, that pretty much tells me they're not drafting a QB this year.

They've franchised Branden Albert and are actively shopping him.  They think they can improve the position with the 1st overall pick, or they have every intention of trading down.  I don't see Albert getting traded before the 1st pick has been traded, but what do I know?

I'll be rooting for Alex in KC, and I know he can't be worse than the QBs that the Chiefs played with in 2012, so it's an upgrade!

What's really going on with missile defense?

I'll preface all of this by saying that I don't believe Russia is a friend.  They lost the Cold War, and they haven't forgotten.  Their plan was never to be able to attack us, but to defeat us through subversion and terrorism.  They couldn't spend near as much as us, but if they had nukes, they knew we couldn't afford to attack.  Sometimes the 'big stick' protects dirt bags.

Ok, I think we all remember Obama's hot mic comments, right?

"After my election, I have more flexibility."



Why is Russia not a friend?  The same people run the country as have run it for decades.  Life-long communists suddenly became capitalists?  Doubtful  Russia has long been run by oligarchs, thugs, and communists.  Just because they put up the facade of a democracy doesn't mean anything.  A wolf can put on sheepskin, but it's still a wolf.

They support Islamic theocracies around the world who support terrorism (though, so does the US via Saudi Arabia for oil).  They defend Iran and North Korea, and work with China to stop evil quasi-capitalist USA.  They're a big reason I think the UN is a joke.

Now, on to what I think is going on with missile defense in Europe.

The Russians have been opposed to this for a long time, without any real good reason as to why.  With how they treat former Soviet states, many Eastern European states have good reason to fear their hostility.  However, the missile defense shield has been more for the protection against a nuclear Iran than Russian hostility.  Despite what this Russian blogger has to say, you build the defense BEFORE they get the missiles; after is too late.

Obama is weak (politically speaking), and he doesn't appreciate (or necessarily even like) American exceptionalism.  He didn't like the missile defense, and needed a better reason than just cancelling it.  So, in my opinion (and it's just my opinion), once Obama won his re-election, a plan was set in place to cancel the final stages of missile defense in Eastern Europe under the guise of safety and finances.  We needed a good reason to cancel, and the North Koreans magically started their empty threats this year.

So, this has given our President's administration a good excuse to cancel in Europe and 'plan' to put them up closer to North Korea.  North Korea is actively testing Nuclear warheads, and they tested a launch for a satellite, that could potentially deliver a missile.  However, this is the same North Korea that can't feed it's own people, imprisons them and works with Iran on it's missiles.  Masters of propaganda and lies, but not good at following through on threats.

What won't come out is what is bringing this threatening attitude out in North Korea.  What is financing all of this testing?  How much is Russia helping? China?  Just Iran?  Are they getting aid to do this?  Because Russia got what it wants, Obama got an excuse to not complete missile defense, and we've left our allies in the wind against Iran and Russian aggression.

Democrats and Taxes? Like Fat Kids and Ice Cream (yep, I just looked in the mirror)

For one, Al Gore will just not go away.  First, he sells his company BEFORE taxes went up so that he wouldn't have to pay his fair share.  He sells it to 'real journalists' at Al Jazeera (a Muslim version of MSNBC) instead of Glenn Beck, who doesn't share his ideals.  I'm not heart broken that Beck didn't get to buy it, nor am I heartbroken that Beck's not back on TV on his own station despite his pandering.  But this article from Gore's 'blog', from the Financial Times, originally, is moon-bat crazy. Whoever wrote this article (which I can't see because I'm not subscribing to anything else) just won't look at facts.

Yes, taxes are a 'regrettable necessity' in a 'civilized' society, a Republic, if you will.  However, it never seems to amaze me that one party (Democrats) always wants more taxes, while the other party (Republicans) is trying to cut spending as a way to deal with our deficits.  Anyway, back to the article.  It wants  people to believe that carbon taxes won't lose people their jobs and will actually do something environmentally.


"Taxes are always a regrettable necessity, but some are less regrettable than others. A tax that strengthens energy security and cuts pollution, while minimising the damage done to employment and investment, is one of the least regrettable of all.""Yet a carbon tax, which has all those characteristics, is struggling to find support from the US administration or in Congress. It deserves much wider enthusiasm.""One of the few uncontroversial conclusions of economics is that it is better to tax “bads” than “goods”. Wages and profits are desirable objectives, and governments have no good excuse for obstructing them. They are taxed largely for reasons of convenience, at the cost of disincentives to wage-earning and profit[-]making that are a drag on the economy."

... 

"The claim made this week by more than 85 Republican members of Congress that carbon taxes would “kill millions more jobs” has no evidence to support it.""While the adjustment to higher energy costs would have some negative impact, it would be offset by the benefits of cuts in other taxes. ..."



Well, it depends on what you call evidence.  If you call history 'evidence', then this author doesn't know his bum from a hole in the ground.  Or if you have any economic sense whatsoever, you can see that taxes are an 'expense' for a business, and when expenses go up, a business goes out of business or raises rates.  If people are unwilling to buy more expensive products, people may lose jobs or the company can shut it's doors.  Oh, but they claim that by changing other taxes, it'll all even out.  If that's the case, what's the point?  If you're going to lower other taxes to create this tax out of thin air, there's no point, is there?  Or is the 'changing tax' idea really just bull crap to get people to go along with it while they take more of our money?

What about Europe?  The place where governments are taking money from people's accounts to pay for bailouts that the government caused?  Or where 'green energy' has proven to not be quite so 'green' and hopeful as the Left has promised?  Oh, that's right, a few people are getting rich off of it.  And politicians flip, then flop, then flip again to remain in power.  Sounds more like an oligarchy (Chicago style politics) than the democracy they claim.  And what of the jobs that Merkel killed?  All for renewable energy?  All to remain in power?  Wow, we have some pretty crappy politicians.

Career politicians are generally like hemorrhoids. Sometimes you just get them, and they suck.  I don't believe they have to stay, though.  Sometimes it's directly because of your diet choices that you get them (obesity, diet), sometimes it just happens.  But, if you pay as much attention to politicians and local/world issues as you do your favorite 'reality' shows, or awards shows, then you'll be reasonably informed enough to see through a politician's BS.  They say, for the most part, what they think we want to hear.  And that's on us.  We don't do near enough to hold them accountable for what they promise, what they do, and what deals they make.

We pick, far too often, the 'least of two evils'.  Sometimes that's because only career politicians run for office, sometimes it's because our standards are far too low.  We need good and moral people to run for office.  We need people more interested in our future than reminding us of our past failures.  We need people who are very smart, who are educated enough to know better than to attempt sound bites out of loaded questions.

And that's going to generally be my focus.  To inform people what's going on around them if they're not paying attention.  To attempt to make them realize what politicians are saying when they use certain terms.  Their definitions are sometimes different from ours.

Feeding the poor and a budget

Oh, where is that darn verse where Jesus talks about the government taking people's money and redistributing it?   Or the verse where it says pay to Caesar so that Caesar can give to the poor.Too bad socialist 'faith leaders' seem to attempt to push the blame of poverty onto our government, rather than taking a stand themselves.  But I digress, this is progressive (ie, socialist, ie, the new democrats) 'theology' and it's from the "Center For American Progress".  This is where the idea that stealing from people is more fair than people donating of their own accord.

Mark 12:13-17
Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren't swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn't we?”  But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.”  They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”“Caesar’s,” they replied.  Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”  And they were amazed at him.
41-44
Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts.  But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents. Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others.  They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

Mark 14:1-14
While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, “Why this waste of perfume?  It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages and the money given to the poor.” And they rebuked her harshly. “Leave her alone,” said Jesus. “Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me.  The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.  She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial.  Truly I tell you, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.” 

Mark 10:17-27
 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.  You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’”
 “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.” Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor,and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
 At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.Matthew 6:1-4“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.  “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.  But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,  so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Matthew 25: 31-46 
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.  For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,  I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?  When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?  When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

So, according to these liberal 'theologians', Jesus is ok with Caesar taking your money and redistributing it, and it covers all of us!  How cool is that??!?!?!?  Except, that totally misses the point.

The Bible says that every good and perfect gift is from above. (James 1:16, but 16-27 says a LOT about what the purpose of giving is)  Paying taxes isn't a gift, and it's not optional.  Paying taxes isn't spontaneous and it isn't a secret.  Paying taxes isn't DIRECT contact and intervention with the needy.

To be clear, I have absolutely no problem with a safety net.  I don't hate people on food stamps, not even the people who abuse it to the fullest.  My problem is where most of the funding comes from and what the government has turned the safety net into.  Our government seems to want to make poverty their way of life, not a temporary stop before people can build themselves back up.  When someone gets their bills paid by someone else, there is no incentive to work, outside of self respect.  Fortunately, they have the feminist movement to thank for chopping the balls off of men.  Many consider retirement the ultimate goal, or not working and still getting paid something to be chased.

How do people build themselves back up?  Capitalism.  Rush Limbaugh had an interesting caller and response.  

Why do some of our politicians tell us that to cut our taxes, that has to be 'paid for' by someone or something?  Now, in what universe does reducing the tax burden on people need to be 'paid' for?  The liberal universe of spending into oblivion.   They see all of your money as the government's money, and to let YOU keep more, someone else has to give more.  That would ONLY be true if they are spending more than they're taking in, which has become the fashionable thing in Washington.  They view 'Caesar' (the government) as their god.  The government giveth, and taketh away, and writeth the rules.  How different was our founding...  "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Just an FYI, the "Pursuit of Happiness" has absolutely nothing to do with people's feelings.  It has everything to do with the framework in place to maintain order in a civil society.  From the Massachusetts Constitution, as originally written:
"Article III. As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of the public instructions in piety, religion, and morality: Therefore, To promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."

What about the Separation of Church and state?  Well, 1. that's the Federal government and 2, it's not in the constitution.  Seriously.  How many people no longer support the 'pursuit of happiness'?  Don't worry, they changed it.  No longer public, no longer seen as important.  Also as an FYI, the Progressives' attempts to ban alcohol started 30 years before it actually happened (See the part of the Massachusetts Constitution not approved by the people).

What Feinstein's gun ban is really about

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/feinstein-purpose-dry-supply-these-weapons-over-time_697629.html

I do think it’s telling that legislation like this is coming from people like Senator Feinstein, who have probably never held a gun, and not even the pretty radical Senator Reid.  When I hold my semi-automatic rifle (it’s not an assault anything) by my shoulder and aim down the sights. If I 'spray' it's because I am pulling the trigger a lot, because it's semi-automatic. The hallmark of a semi-auto rifle is that 1 bullet leaves the barrel with 1 trigger pull (unless something's wrong and then nothing happens). What matters more than how many rounds my magazines can hold is my mental state.  If my head is filled with hate, the tool doesn't matter, I'll do damage.  The key is to ensure that I'm mentally and emotionally strong enough to NOT do things in anger. 

I’ll rant about things like this in the future, but part of being self-controlled is being able to think critically about things, to use logic.  Another aspect is ensuring that adults don’t set up kids for failure in the ‘real world’; that world is apparently different from the one we raise them in.

If you want to ban 'bump firing' then do that and leave semi-automatic rifles alone.  And what is a 'bullet button'?  Those of us who know a thing or two about firearms call a ‘bullet button’ a magazine release.  The magazine is what holds the bullets, a clip holds rounds together for easier insertion into a magazine.  Sometimes they’re referred to as ‘stripper clips’.  I could have a thousand-round clip and it wouldn't be able to hurt anyone.

The Constitution says nothing about hunting when it guarantees the right to bear arms. The 'defense' mentioned is against the government, and what you want is directly opposed to that.  No offense, but that seems like you need to read the Constitution and think about the oath that you and every other person in congress took when you were ‘sworn in’.

You've nearly let the cat out of the bag, when you say things like "dry up the supply".  Do you even know who you’re drying up the supply for?  [Or maybe you do, and that’s the real problem]  Criminals are not known for obeying the laws.  That may seem rather elementary, but it needs to be said.  Some people believe all that’s needed for an end to violence is just one more law, no matter how many were broken the last time something terrible happened.  A regulation is worth NOTHING, not even to wipe with the paper it’s written on, if the people who are supposed to follow it will not do so.  Nothing could be more harmful to the Republic than disarming all of its citizens.  Well, more harmful than what Congress has already done to destroy it and the Constitution.

Many people throw out the 'musket' theory when talking about banning black guns from the general populace, today.  They seem to think that we had ‘muskets’ back then, and that’s why it was written; certainly not for the ‘dangerous looking’ weapons we have today.  What they don't seem to remember, however, is that during the Revolutionary War, the colonists by and large had better weaponry.  That is, unless you think that an un-rifled musket is better than a rifled barrel.  That's why the British had to walk in lines and shoot together, the guns weren't accurate.  I’d say a bullet kills the same as it did 235 years ago, except for that the accuracy we have today, which is standard.

Another thing, the "shot heard 'round the world" was fired during the British attempt to confiscate weapons from the colonists at Lexington and Concord.  What reasoning was given then for them to not have the 'arms' they had?  Are we hearing the same reasons today?

Regulations during the colonial period.

The DHS wants you to fend off a shooter with scissors.  Not the 'assault scissors', with high-capacity cutting surfaces, or the ones that look scary (pointy, peace signs... *shivers*)... Make sure you use the new and improved, government issued 'safety scissors', which are safer... for the kids.  It'll almost be like bringing a knife to a gun fight, but with a cheap, blunt edge.

Finally, if we can ban guns for looking scary, I want to ban 'assault women', who assault my eyes.