Husbands love your wives

‎"Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." - Ephesians 5:25.

In modern marriage, the barometer of whether a husband loves his wife is dependent on how she feels about it. When the wife doesn't "feel" loved, she's not happy and when she's not happy, she makes the whole family miserable. Therefore, the husband must express his love for his wife by doing everything he can to make her happy. Got it? Right. So, what you just read is everything that is wrong with modern Christian marriages.

Wives should not be holding men hostage to the whims of their emotions. Men should not submit to the tyranny of their wives emotions in order to make them feel loved.

Look at the verse above again "...love your wives as Christ loved the church..." Jesus does not bend to the will of the church. He is not manipulated by our moods, nor does our bidding because we're being petulant or emotional. Jesus loves the church by doing what is best for the church regardless of how the church feels about it.

I cannot tell you how many Christian men I know that are divorced because their wives were "not happy" and didn't "feel loved" or whatever. These men didn't cheat on their wives, they were not drunks or drug addicts nor gamblers, pedophiles or criminals. They are all decent men that failed to do one particular thing in their marriage and that was to ignore what their wives were feeling in favor of what was best for them. I was one of those men too. Compromise after compromise. Go along to get along. Keep the peace. Don't rock the boat. She'll respect me more if I just listen to what she's feeling.

Remember, "as Christ loved the church." What women want can change from one moment to the next, their feelings go up and down and sway side to side. One moment, you're the best, the next moment you're the cause of everything wrong in her life. 

"As Christ loved the Church." Jesus doesn't try to appease the church, mollycoddle it, persuade it by begging it to calm down and listen to reason. No, Christ loved the church by giving himself up for it, and being a rock; steady and reliable; a strong tether in a storm.

Guys, we're not perfect but we can be that rock, that tether. Giving in to her emotional demands means you're floating on a stormy sea too and not anchored down. So get anchored. It's ok to stand up to her and not put up wild outbursts of emotion designed to drive you in to submission to her will. She'll try it but she won't respect you for it when you give in.

This of course does not mean you should never take in to account how she feels but you must be discerning and keep things in proportion. A wise man listens to his wife's counsel. That means he takes in to consideration what she says, not that he automatically has to do what she wants.

"As Christ loved the church."

A Path For Ron Paul

Scenario:

Let's say Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona succeeds in getting Obama off of the ballot in Arizona. This could have a snowball effect on other states.

This situation could potentially leave the Democrats without a candidate on the ballot for November if the timing is right because they might not have the time to submit a replacement. This would be true after the week of September 3, 2012. They might not be able to legally put someone else on the ballot.

This would give Ron Paul the perfect opportunity to run as a third party candidate because Democrats who are looking to make sure Romney doesn't get in the White House would prefer to vote for Ron Paul (in general). Also, Ron Paul would take a large chunk of Republican voters anyway.

I realize it would take a lot of events happening at the same time to make this happen but it is a possibility.

You Have Been Warned

Pay attention Republican voters.

I am a Ron Paul supporter. This election season, no candidate will get my vote for the Office of President of the United States of America except for Ron Paul. There will be no exceptions. If he does not win the nomination, I will write his name on the ballot.

No amount of slick talking, flip-flopping, wooing, cajoling, threatening, or condescending will persuade me to vote for any other contender for that office.

You don't want to admit it, but you know that the Republican Party cannot beat Obama without me, a Ron Paul supporter. It's long past time you admit it.

You and I have conflicting goals. I will only cast a vote for liberty, for peace, for small government, for fiscal sanity and respect for the Constitution of the United States and adherence to the oath of office of the Presidency. You however are content merely to vote for whatever Republican the GOP leadership and the media approve of.

I will not move. I cannot be persuaded. You cannot win without me.

I am not here to convince you that Ron Paul's positions are superior. I am not here to convince you that his foreign policy is in line with traditional conservatism. I am not here to convince you that his understanding of economics put everyone else in Washington to shame. I am not even here to convince you that the positions of the other candidates are not materially different than Obama.

No, I don't need to do any of that. I only need to tell you that without me, you have lost. If you do not vote for Ron Paul in your Primary or Caucus, you are already defeated. If you fail to nominate Ron Paul to be the Republican candidate for President, Barack Hussein Obama will serve a second term.

This is not blackmail. This is not a threat. This is a simple statement of fact.

I stand firm and I will not accept anything less. You have been warned.

A Password Strategy

Most people have a terrible password strategy; it consists of one password used for every type of account. It's usually either something easy to remember or uses one of those crazy letter substitution schemes.

If you follow this advice, it will keep your stuff more secure.

1. Wherever possible, use a "pass phrase" rather than a password. A long pass phrase such as "we wish you a merry christmas" is much harder for a computer to crack than, "p@ssw0rd1" for example. The theory behind this is that machines can easily crack words using letter substitution so using symbols in place of letters is no help. However, a pass phrase with a minimum of 12 characters takes a LOT longer for computer to crack. In my example of a pass phrase above, it's a 28 letter password (including spaces). Do you have any idea what kind of resources would have to be thrown to decrypt a password that length? Also, a pass phrase is easier to remember than a cryptic, but shorter password.

2. Use a different pass phrase for each banking or financial account. Even if there are only slight differences, protect your most important asset. Databases can get cracked. Sometimes when this happens, the passwords are also discovered. You don't want one database being cracked to result in all of your accounts being drained. If you use one of those RSA tokens to access your account you probably don't have to worry about this so much, but still use a good pass phrase.

3. Account levels. You don't need a million different passwords, but having a couple of account levels is definitely appropriate. The levels should resemble the following:
*Financial - we already discussed this
*Communications - social networking, email
*Shopping and memberships - Amazon, iTunes, Netflix.
*Casual - Pretty much everything else that is non-critical

So we're talking about 4 different pass phrases to remember. The don't need to be totally different but don't make the difference obvious. Remember, 12 characters MINIMUM.

One other point of note, some stupid sites require you to use capitalization and at least one number and one symbol. In that case, come up with a standard combination and stick to a pass phrase. "we wish you a merry christmas D8$" would take care of most requirements. And if any site that is not in the "casual" category restricts you to using less than 12 characters, you should consider using some other service.

Will Lady Liberty Stand?

Welcome CopBlockers!

CopBlock.org readers. Welcome to my blog. You probably got here through my latest article.

Feel free to poke around the archives and leave comments.

Another New CopBlock.org Article

Here's the new article.

My CopBlock.org Article

Here's my first article on copblock.org. There will be more to follow.

Why I am anti-cop.

#OCCUPYMOM

#OCCUPYROME

#OCTOPUSSWALLSTREET

Ode To The Unemployed

A few years ago

Home prices were soarin'

I re-fi'd thrice

My cash was flowin'

I bought lots of toys

And two SUVs

My neighbor named Jones

Ain't got nuthin' on me

He paid off his house

Bah! What a fool

He lived like a pauper

I ruled the school

Now I'm flat broke

I done lost my job

I can't pay my bills

I feel I've been robbed

I need some help

Gov, send me a check

You owe me that much

My life is a wreck

I want to know what happened

Man, give me the facts,

Aw never mind

Just hit Jones with a tax

Economic Poetry

Debtardians flee
But there's nowhere to hide
There will be no default
Obama has lied

John Keynes was wrong
When he told us to spend
It eventually forces
The nation to rend

Return to sound money
Read Mises and Hayak
Or head up the creek
Bound and gagged in your kayak

Libertania

This post is mainly for those that support our expansionist wars, but all comments are welcome.

Let's say there is a country called Libertania. They have built a prosperous society based on deregulation, sound money, great private health care, no welfare, and a very limited central government who is there to defend its borders and settle disputes between citizens who believe that another citizen has violated his rights. Essentially, we're talking about the libertarian utopia.

After a while, the people of this country come to two conclusions:

The first conclusion is that it is so wildly successful that other countries must implement this sort of government in order to escape tyranny and oppression from their rulers.

The second conclusion is that it sees that some of the larger countries in the world are a threat to this country because they depend on these countries for resources that they don't have.

So in the interest of spreading liberty and protecting the supply of foreign resources that they need, Libertania forms a massive military machine and decides its first target is The United States of America. Based on the potential military threat, they try to get the US Government to stand down and offer Libertanian style freedoms to its people. The US Government refuses to budge.

Let's lay aside the apparent contradiction of a libertarian nation using force against another nation for a moment, after all, it takes flawed people to run a government.

So, Libertania decides to invade America. They start by executing a bombing campaign on Washington, DC. They expand that by taking out state capitals as well in order to cripple the government and get them to give up their oppressive regulatory and tax schemes and unjust imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of people who are locked up as political prisoners in war on drugs.

The goal of the Libertanian invasion is primarily to secure the best interests of the American people which is a life free from burdensome and intrusive government with the secondary goal, if the invasion is successful, to have a resource rich, liberty minded trading partner by which it can secure vital national resources.

Now we get to the question: Would you support such an invasion of America based on those goals?

Secondary question: Would you be willing to dismiss the collateral damage of friends, family and colleagues killed in the bombing since it was for your own good in the name of liberty?

Dos Cosas (Two Things)

First, Obama is trying to tell us that "If we're fighting to reform the tax code and increase exports, the benefits cannot just translate into greater profits and bonuses for those at the top. They have to be shared by American workers, who need to know that opening markets will lift their standard of living as well as your bottom line." Clearly, this is a redistribution scheme. He didn't say it should be done through legislation but isn't that was he's really all about? Years ago, he expressed the opinion that the Supreme Court should have ruled, as part of the civil rights hearings that they should have taken a bigger role in the redistribution of wealth. The government has been redistributing wealth for years. They take it from the middle class and give it to the poor (or seemingly poor) through social programs and to the rich through bailouts, loans, tax favors, regulations, etc. The middle class gets screwed and is stuck paying the bills for both sides.

Secondly, the mayor of Detroit is peddling a program to get cops and firefighters to move back to the city by offering them refurbished houses for $1000. Detroit has turned in to a wasteland. Using the scarce funds they have available to subsidize housing for government employees is a horrible waste. Also, the 47% of police and firefighters who are living in the city and paying rent or mortgages have to keep doing what they're doing. How many of these police and firefighters are going to buy these houses, rent them to friends and relatives, but list it as their home address while maintaining their actual residence outside the city? There will be a lot of that. The city is dying, they should just let it die. Entire neighborhoods are being abandoned. The median home price in the city of Detroit is $5700 (no, that's not missing a zero). Formerly multi-million dollar homes are up for sale at 10% of their original cost. Skyscrapers downtown are completely abandoned. I think at some point in the near future, they need to just plow the city under and leave the ground fallow for 7 years and then homestead it again. Leftist policies destroyed the city. Let's remake the city as a new experiment in libertarian ideals, free from most government restraint. A group of billionaires could form a coalition to buy the entire city and privatize it.

License? We Don't Need No Stinking License!

Kevin Lacy, a stupid bureaucrat who is the chief traffic engineer for the state of North Carolina, lodged a complaint with the N.C. Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors because a computer scientist sent him a justification for installing traffic lights in his neighborhood.

Lacy claims the presentation was so well put together it rises to the level of engineering and it was done without a license. Keep in mind here that the guy who put together the report does not even claim to be an engineer. David Cox, who wrote the proposal is claiming that Lacy is just trying to stifle dissent (which seems evident).

The licensing board has promised to look in to the allegation but said that the worst likely outcome for Mr. Cox would be a letter telling him not to do it again. Practicing engineering without a license is a misdemeanor in North Carolina. Cox is not employed by anyone as an engineer and had no power to implement his plan on his own; how could he possibly be guilty of anything?

This brings up the larger question of why the state should require professional licenses. Is it necessary? Switching to California, there are 44 different categories of licensing with different types of licenses in some of those categories just by the Department of Consumer Affairs. Other agencies handle other types of licenses ranging from real estate to to legal stuff. Potentially there are several hundred professions that require licensing (including their specialties) in California.

Why, for example are hair dressers required to have a license by the state? The answer is simple. It limits competition. There can be no other reason for it. Anyone can cut hair. I've even cut my own hair. Sure, it takes some training, practice and skill but so does any profession. Simply put, because only licensed cosmetologists can cut hair, it drives up the price by limiting competition because not everyone who can cut hair has the resources or desire to spend 1600 hours (200 days of 8 hours each) in the classroom just so they can cut hair for a living (or a hobby). Let's say you really like the idea of cutting hair part time to supplement your income. Are you going to spend about a year of your life in class to do it? Probably not.

So let's say we can agree that hair dressers don't really need licenses. What about doctors? I don't think they need a state license either. WHAT?! If doctors don't have licenses, we're going to have a bunch of quacks out there practicing medicine and people will DIE! I can hear the arguments already. Personally, I would not go see a doctor who did not have medical training. But I would much rather rely on a private certification agency to determine that my doctor is well trained and does not have too many complaints against him. There could even be several competing private certification boards. These boards could publish their qualification criteria as well as complaints lodged against their members. The public, via the web, could also have a place to complain about doctors that was independent of those agencies.

I see no advantage the state could possibly have over one or more private certification boards. Hospitals could (and would) refuse to hire people who were not certified by one of the boards. In fact, they might be inclined to only hire doctors certified by one board over the other because they might have different standards in different areas. Specialists could have their own boards as well if they liked.

So what happens if someone wants to practice medicine without belonging to one of these boards? I've probably violated rules against practicing medicine. I've taken out stitches, I've pulled out slivers, I've treated colds, flu, etc. I've even performed what could be termed minor surgeries. And if I messed up? Well, I suppose there is always the risk of infections or other complications. But I wasn't taking out a spleen or anything like that. But so what if I did? If someone trusted me enough to take out a spleen and I represented that I could perform that action then it's just like any other economic transaction between two parties. If I lie about being certified or it turns out I misrepresented my qualifications there are already legal remedies for that. No state licensing board is necessary.

Anyway, it's not as if state licensing has even come close to eliminating misconduct, malpractice, fraud, stupidity or even simple mistakes from the medical or other professions.

The only reason for government based licenses is that governments like to have control and other people in various professions want to artificially limit competition.

Non Action Is Action? HUH?

A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by four Michigan residents who claim that the Federal government has no power to compel them by law to purchase anything. In particular, this suit related to the primary tenant of Obama Care that will require every individual to purchase health insurance or face penalties.

The government argued in essence that someone refusing to purchase health insurance is actively involved in commerce (and therefore can be regulated by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution) by the act of refusal.

So let's get this straight. If I decline or refuse to act economically, I'm acting economically and can therefore be regulated.

There is NO Constitutional authority that allows the government to force you to purchase something. But the government wants to use the commerce clause to turn that on its head.

Using the same logic, if you do not actively support gay rights, minority rights, attend gay pride parades, and perform other activities that support protected classes of people, you are obviously guilty of a hate crime. Your refusal to act in those matters is therefore construed to be active opposition.

Lessons From Mexico

There's little doubt that the current economic crisis in the U.S. is going to get worse. Even Paul Krugman has admitted we're probably heading for another depression (although it's for the wrong reasons).

Americans are all crying about unemployment benefits being cut off (after 99 weeks!!!) and additional layoffs, etc. States, counties and cities are laying off workers including teachers. The situation is bleak.

Mexico doesn't have much in the way of welfare or unemployment insurance. When people are out of work or need to supplement their income, they hit the streets.

I can drive around Culiacan (the capital city of the Mexican state of Sinaloa) and buy flowers, oranges, nopales (cactus), toys, tomatoes, bread, newspapers, a jillion different trinkets, watch silver painted fire jugglers (in the evening) etc. without ever getting out of my car.

Aside from that, you'll see pickup trucks full of produce at the side of the road selling everything from DVD's (pirated of course) to produce, to toys and so on.

The salient point is, they don't sit around waiting for someone to hand them a check, they get out on the street and do something. They might not make much, but they do it.

Oh, and lets not forget the window washers. And these guys won't vandalize your car if you tell them no. Every parking lot has a parking attendant who makes tips by helping people back out (apparently most Mexicans are incapable of this on their own) or load their purchases. Lots and lots of little micro-entrepreneurs.

Sure, in the US we have laws that say you can't sell food without a health permit and all this other stuff without business licenses and you can't do it on public roads, blah, blah, freaking blah. If massive amounts of people just started DOING IT, it would be impossible to enforce.

But no, Americans just have to sit around and collect unemployment and wait for the non-existent recovery to really take off so they can go back to work.

You know you're an Austrian economist...

10. when you realize that America is not really a capitalist country.

9. when you find yourself disgusted that an econ student doesn't know who von Mises is.

8. when people hate you for saying the minimum wage is bad and pricing gouging serves a purpose.

7. if you think about the marginal utility of the second bite of delicious steak.

6. when you get blank stares after telling people artificially low interest rates rob wealth through inflation.

5. when you're sort of excited about the dollar collapse and the chance to start over.

4. when your modern day heroes are Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and Peter Schiff.

3. when you can explain to someone why Keynsian and moneterist policies have failed us.

2. when you're thankful every day that Krugman isn't in charge of the economy.

1. when you hear the name Hayek, you think of Friedrich instead of Selma.

Refinance Now!

There's seriously no reason NOT to refinance if you have more than 15 years to pay and an interest rate above 6%. But you have to do it right or you get screwed.

In no particular order of importance:
1. Make sure you get a 15 year fixed loan. Nothing adjustable.
2. Make extra principal payments early if you can. Your total payment should be lower if you have more than 15 years left to pay and have a higher interest rate. So you can make the same payment you're making now and come out way ahead. Of course more is better. But you have to really commit to it.
3. Do NOT pull cash out except to pay off higher interest debt and then cut up those credit cards and stop buying crap.
4. WATCH your closing costs. The mortgage guys are all starving and they'll squeeze every nickel out of you they can. Read the Estimated HUD-1 very carefully and don't be afraid to walk away from it if they try to screw you at signing.
5. Know what your house is worth before you pay for an appraisal.
6. SHOP AROUND but DO NOT let a bunch of brokers run your credit. Tell the your score, it's good enough for a quote no matter what they tell you. Don't give them your SSN until you're ready to go forward with a full application.
7. Don't let a broker charge you points. They make money from the lender too. They'll say you can buy down the rate with points but if you're committed to making extra principal payments, it's probably not beneficial to buy down the rate. But go play with an amortization table. If they tell you one point gets you 1% rate cut, play each one out on the table and include the extra principal payments you will make.