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).