Who Watches the iWatch-men?

13 Views

It was a battle of two heavyweights. In the blue corner, the United States government. In the, well, equally blue corner, Apple. And the tech world couldn’t microwave popcorn fast enough to keep up with the exciting twists and turns.

For those of you who haven’t heard, the FBI wanted Apple to break into an iPhone previously owned by one of the San Bernardino shooters, stating they wanted the information from the phone in case there was news about impending terrorist attacks. Geez, everyone knows that sort of thing gets sent into the Cloud these days…

Anyway, Apple refused, citing their belief the government would use whatever they created to hack into one iPhone as a “skeleton key” for other iPhones. As a result, the government sued Apple. Then, miracle of miracles, the government figured out a way to get into the iPhone (i.e. they got a 4 year old to do it) and suddenly dropped the suit against Apple. So, win-win, right?

Not so much. On the one hand, Apple still has the proprietary technology used in iPhones, but now they know the government has figured out a way to circumvent that technology. And, surprise surprise, the government isn’t going to let Apple have information on the security flaws with the iPhone.

On the other hand, the federal government attempted to force a major company to help them with a terrorism investigation. At first, it was a request, but once the government lawyered up, it turned into an attempt at forced compliance. But as long as it was for national security, it makes it okay, right?

Wellllll…that’s where the problem lies for me. After 9/11, government found a new excuse to take more tax dollars to fund pet projects by slapping a “national security issue” sticker on proposed spending. Want your local First Responders to have a Sherman Tank for weekends? It’s national security! Want to bail out the airline industry, which was already failing before 9/11? It’s national security! Heck, I’m surprised the National Endowment for the Arts didn’t try to get more funding for itself by claiming bad art is linked to national security.

Regardless, the Apple standoff showed us there is a fine line between freedom and security. I’m not a big fan of getting attacked by terrorists, but I’m also not a big fan of government using the threat of a terrorist attack to justify further overreach into our freedoms. Especially when it’s clear the government may not have needed Apple’s cooperation in the first place. So, why did the government go through the motions of this Kabuki theater?

Control.

Once you give the government a little bit of control, they aren’t too keen on giving it back. That’s why it’s important to use some critical thinking when a situation like what happened to Apple arises. What happens from here is dependent upon the morals and ethics of the government.

In other words, we’re screwed.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

25 Views

Greetings one and all, and welcome to the inaugural edition of the Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week!

If you’re like me (and if you are, I’m sorry), you go big or you go home. Or you go big and go home. Or maybe you go to Big’s home…oh, you get the idea! This week’s dip into the Leftist Lexicon is one of the Big Kahunas of the Leftist world.

The f-word. (No, not that f-word, you naughty little monkeys!) This f-word:

Feminism

What the Left says it means: economic, social, and political equality between men and women (Essentially, a definition so vanilla it is poisonous to humans in its pure form.)

What it really means: a movement that believes men suck, but should still have to pay for everything

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, current feminist dogma believes all men (including the men who support current feminist dogma) are scum. In fact, SCUM (the Society for Cutting Up Men) happens to be a real group that some feminists agree with! Wow. We’ve gone from burning bras to burning men over an open spit within a few decades.

But surely not all feminists are that extreme, right? Nah. The ones who want to cut up men are few and far between. Of course, there are feminists who want to kill, enslave, or put men in camps away from women. Whew! And I was afraid we wouldn’t find any reasonable feminists!

Granted, these are extreme examples. Most current feminists, especially those who believe in what is called “Third Wave Feminism”, don’t go as far as SCUM does. They do, however, find men to be as useful as Cliff’s Notes for a drug test. Oh, sure, they’ll use men to get ahead, but they don’t actually consider them to be equals or anything! That would be sexist because it would give in to the patriarchy!

Let that sink in for a moment. Considering men to be equals is sexist because it gives men power, which according to current feminist dogma they already have all of to start with. That’s like…oh, I don’t know…saying Black Lives Matter isn’t racist, but saying All Lives Matter is. Good thing we don’t have anybody who believes that, right?

(Don’t worry. I plan to tackle patriarchy in a future edition of the Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week.)

A facet of modern feminism is a desire to control everything so the truth doesn’t get out about just how screwed up feminism has become. Not to mention, if they control everything, they get to dictate how others should live their lives. Of course, they would need to get a handle on what they actually believe outside of “We want to control everything.”

Two great examples of just how screwed up current feminist dogma is can be found in two seemingly unrelated subjects: Slut Walks and video games. The former is a movement supported by feminists to take back “slut” and make it empowering instead of insulting. The latter has many of the same feminists who support Slut Walks howling in disgust at how women are portrayed in video games. Often this disgust is boiled down to video game women being scantily-dressed or without any real defining characteristics to make them seem real.

In other words, feminists love sluts marching in public, but not scrolling across television screens in video games (which, by the way, I’m sure they don’t really play that much). And nobody within the feminist movement today sees the contradiction. But that’s what feminism has become: one mass of man-disdaining contradictions.

Kinda reminds me of a couple of old girlfriends I had…

PACs Debunked

10 Views

Don’t be fooled by those in the media who state that their favored candidate doesn’t know or doesn’t have any control over what a supporting PAC does or says. This is a lie.

“Officially” they aren’t connected but in the reality of politics they most certainly are connected. And the candidate who is being supported by a PAC is kept in the loop and can and does make suggestions. They don’t have total control but they do have some control of the PAC.

Having been involved in the political workings for years. I have seen this first hand in action. Sometimes the PAC will go against the advice of the candidate and create an advert that harms rather than helps. Other times it’s just the opposite.

So those thinking that Ted Cruz knew nothing of the advert by it’s SuperPAC against Donald Trump’s wife. Think again. He knew full well what was going on. Or one of his senior staff members knew it.

The true question is did he or anyone in his staff object to that advert. That is the question one should ask of a Christian.

Time to Coalesce

10 Views

The evangelical insiders are calling for a third party alternative to run against the 2 potential nominees of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. According to reports it’s an 80% majority who would support such a move.

This is wrong. At the very beginning of this political campaign season the evangelicals were calling for a coalescing of GOP supporters to their favored candidate before a single vote was cast.

Now a good majority of the primary/caucus votes have been cast. Now is the time to coalesce. But not around the candidate who is constantly coming in 3rd or 4th place in these votes. It is time to coalesce around Donald Trump.

Love him or hate him. He is the only chance the GOP has of defeating Hillary Clinton in November.

If an evangelical third party were to get on the ballot who would be it’s nominee? It can’t be Ted Cruz. He made a promise to support the GOP nominee even if it was Donald Trump. He would be a liar if he were to be a 3rd party candidate.

No third party candidate has ever won the White House. In our system it is a wasted vote. And usually one that favors the liberal progressive Democrat who is running for President.

All a third party candidate has ever done is to take votes away from the primary parties. And in this case it would be taking votes away from Donald Trump. And allowing Hillary Clinton to win the White House.

And staying home and not voting has the same result of voting third party. Four years of Hillary Clinton. Four years of more failed progressive socialist doctrine. Four years of more pushing the country further left. Four years of more assaults on liberty and Christian beliefs.

It has been rumored that if Hillary Clinton is elected President. She will nominate Obama to the Supreme Court. Do you REALLY want that to happen?

So now is the time to coalesce unless your goal is to see Hillary Clinton elected as President of the United States. And if that happens it will be even harder four or eight years down the road to elect a conservative to any office again.

A New Feature!

19 Views

For those of you who enjoy my musings (and even for those of you who think I’m the worst hack since Lizzie Borden), I am happy to announce a new (hopefully) weekly feature.

Have you been confused by some of the new words coming from the Left? Do you wish there was a way to learn about these new words without having to delve into the world of microaggressions, white privilege, and gender fluidity? Well, now you can, thanks to your humble correspondent. Starting soon, you will see the Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week. Not only will you get the definition of the word, but you will also get what it really means as well as a brief commentary about the word.

Be watching this site, and as always, keep your feet on the ground and your head on top of your neck!

Mr. Obama Goes to Cuba

14 Views

As I write this, President Obama is in Cuba as a part of his Administration’s attempts to normalize relations with the island country. And with this Administration’s track record in dealing with foreign countries with a history of hating America, what could go wrong?

Well, plenty, actually.

Let’s not kid ourselves here. Our relationship with Cuba is Ike and Tina Turner level bad, and no amount of good will on our part will change that. Why? Because Cuba hasn’t changed yet. It’s still being ruled by a Castro, Raul to be precise. And Raul is just as reluctant to give up communism as his brother Fidel was. That means there is a natural tension between the US and Cuba. After all, we took down communism in the form of the USSR in the 80s, and some things don’t just fade away. There are still plenty of leaders willing to try to fill in the gaps left by the absence of the Soviet Union, including the current dictator…I’m sorry, leader of Russia, Vladimir Putin. You know, the guy who still thinks the Soviet Union was a good idea and refuses to be swayed by pesky things like facts and history?

And that’s not counting China, North Korea, and much of the Middle East, all of whom have not just a beef with us, but an entire cattle ranch.

On the other side of the equation, we have America, a country that has fallen pretty far down the world rankings in the past couple of decades. Our leader is a man who isn’t geopolitically savvy by any stretch of the imagination making the third worst foreign policy decision in his Presidency. (The first and second being making Hillary Clinton and John Kerry Secretary of State, although they flip-flop positions like…well, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.) The Iran Deal was bad. The Cuba trip has all the makings of Bay of Pigs II: Electric Boogaloo because there really is no logic behind it, just President Obama’s decision to make it so.

To put it another way, our enemies get a foothold 90 miles off our mainland, and we get…photo ops with Obama standing in front of a giant Che Guevara mural. With Photoshop and Twitter, we could have accomplished the same thing under Obama’s “hashtag diplomacy” strategy and without having to add to Obama’s carbon footprint. Then again, maybe he’s getting some cigars out of the deal and didn’t want the hassle of trying to go through Customs with illegal contraband.

Either way, normalizing relations with Cuba just doesn’t sit well with me because we’re not getting much out of the deal. Just like our attempts to normalize relations with China under George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton by ignoring their human rights violations and giving them Most Favored Nation status, I see Obama’s efforts with Cuba winding up as a big blunder that is quickly forgotten by both sides.

Social Media

16 Views

There are a ton of social media sites out on the internet now days. We have Pinterest, Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, Flickr, DeviantArt, Foursquare, Google+, Identi.ca, Instagram, and MySpace, just to name a few. There are many more than these.

Some are designed and targeted to specific interest groups while others are more generalized. Some have apps and file sharing while others are just text based. And everything in between.

I have accounts on several of the sites I listed above. Some are very inactive accounts as I haven’t looked at them or updated anything on them in years. And some social media sites I just visit without being a member and browse the postings without leaving any of my own.

The goal of social media is to have virtual interactions like we would have in real life. One-on-one or in groups settings. Be it games, general chit-chat, or business collaboration. Even blogs like this one are a form of social media as they encourage interaction between users and visitors.

The most common complaints against today’s social media sites are on the topics of privacy/security, censorship, and content ownership. And sometimes they are just a time suck. Facebook is hit quite often with these types of complaints.

But there are alternatives to these social media sites where the issues of privacy/security, censorship, and content ownership are greatly reduced. And these alternatives have been around far longer than the term “social media”. In fact social media has really been around since the infancy of the internet. And many of these ancient alternative social media forms are still in use today. Even by you right now.

E-mail (electronic mail) is the oldest form of social media. One-on-one and group conversations are all possible. Files can be shared, edited, and re-shared again. And it is generally very private. You don’t have to worry about another friend who wasn’t included accidentally seeing your e-mail post.

IRC (internet relay chat) is also an early form of social media. And like e-mail it’s still very much around. Even if you currently participate in some fancy web-based text chatroom it might be IRC driving it behind the scenes. With IRC you have a lot of control on who you let into your chat and who you do not.

Both IRC and e-mail predate webpages. There was no world wide web on the internet when people started with e-mail and they were chatting on IRC. The last early form of social media had it’s birth after the web came into being. It was the start of the internet as we know it today. These are online forums. With forums groups could interact with one another and individuals could also have private conversations as well. Pictures, documents, and other files could also be shared and downloaded just as they are today. And forum administrators could setup private boards that only it’s users could see.

So social media has been around for a long time. From the very birth of the internet. It’s outward forms have changed over the years but many of the oldest are still around. I am a member of a couple of online forums that date back more than 10 years. And they are still going on today. If you don’t care for the current incarnations of social media try the grandparents that started it all.

The President We Deserve

15 Views

If current events are any indication of future outcomes, we are looking at Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as the Presidential nominees for the Republican and Democrat Parties respectively. People on both sides of the aisle are salivating at this possibility of these two titans locking horns in November.

On the one hand, we have a man who isn’t known for his tact being the head of the diplomatic corps of the most powerful country in the world. On the other hand, we have a woman who isn’t known for her integrity having the ability to sic the power of the federal government on anyone who dares oppose her. And when these two forces clash, we could be seeing a bloody political war that will make Thunderdome look like a church picnic.

There was a time when Trump and Clinton wouldn’t even be elected assistant to the assistant to the dog catcher, let alone to the most powerful position in the country. But here we are on the verge of electing either one of them.

Is anyone else really scared right now? As we prepare for the first post-Obama Presidency, we have to be careful not to give in to our worst instincts and elect someone unprepared for the gravity of the position. With both Trump and Clinton, I’m not sure either one is ready to be President. After nearly 8 years of an unprepared and unwilling student as President, we can’t make a mistake this time.

Trump could turn out to be a Republican Obama, and Hillary could be Obama’s third term. Neither one appeals to me all that much. But unless something major happens to one or both campaigns, we’re looking at the possibility one or the other happening.

And then we’ll get the President we deserve.

Answer to The Blaze

12 Views

On Tuesday the Ides of March (interestingly enough) a blogger by the name of Matt Walsh wrote an anti-Trump post for “The Blaze”. An online publication site owned by Rafael Edward Cruz supporter Glen Beck.

In his post, Matt attacks not only Trump, those that generally support Trump, but those conservative leaders who also support Trump. Following the lines of other Cruz slappies Matt goes on to imply that if one supports Trump that you are anti-Christian, and not really a true conservative.

He also uses Holy Scripture to prove his point of view. Quoting Ephesians 5:6 and 11, and mentioning the Books of Colossians and 2nd Timothy.

But he forgets, conveniently, to quote Scripture that would have a lot to say about the end times of our day that would put Rafael Edward Cruz in a bad light.

Matthew 7:22-23
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

2nd Timothy 3:5
having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

Mark 13:21-23
At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.

2nd Peter 2:1-3
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them — bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. There condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction had not been sleeping.

The fabricated stories out of the Cruz leadership at the Iowa Caucus that resulted in the greed of a Cruz win. In Iowa, most people outside of politics just don’t understand just how easy that could have been avoided. All the Cruz leadership had to do was call the Carson leadership to confirm. They all have each others numbers here in Iowa. But it’s obvious it wasn’t done which indicates the deception towards Iowa voters was planned.

I could name names as Matt did in his post. But the Cruz leadership in Iowa know who they are and they know full well what they did was wrong.

Those of us Christian Conservatives who are supporting Donald Trump know he isn’t the ideal candidate. But he is an honest one. Our nation has drifted so far away from the original intent that someone who stands firmly in that spot is truly unelectable. Small steps are needed to bring us back. And we start with Trump.

Remember to check Holy Scripture into the character of the men that God himself chose to lead His people. Many of them are not at all godly and all of them had deep character faults. God qualifies the called. He does not call the qualified. This is all for God’s Glory not ours.

2 man race

10 Views

Looking over the numbers for delegates needed and available for the GOP nomination. This really is a two-man race between Trump and Cruz. The majority of the remaining delegates are in winner-take-all states.

Kasich has no chance at all in this race. Even if he wins his home state of Ohio. That’s only 66 more delegates. He would finally break over 100 at that point. But to win the nomination he needs 1,183 more delegates out of the 1,435 remaining delegates. Kasich would have to win all of the 17 winner-take-all states and the majority of the remaining states. So Kasich needs a miracle to win at this point.

Rubio is doing better than Kasich. But he too would need the 99 delegates from his home state of Florida and the rest of the winner-take-all states just like Kasich. Rubio has a better chance than Kasich but its still a long-shot. And not a bet I would take.

Cruz, the only contender to Trump, is going to have to sweep the winner-take-all states as well. He needs 878 delegates to get the nomination. 898 are available in the 17 winner-take-all states. Cruz will fall short if he doesn’t get all of these states. He just doesn’t have enough delegates at this point.

Trump on the other hand has the winning cards right now. He is ahead in delegates and by popular vote as well. But he still needs 779 more delegates to get the nomination. If Trump can get the majority of the proportional states and half of the winner-take-all states he can win the nomination. Given Trump’s current record this is very much a possibility.

With all four candidates in the race up to the GOP convention it is highly likely that Donald Trump will be that nominee.