San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, August 24, 2012

All We Need Are More Republicans In Office, NOT!

As a teenager I knew nothing about politics.  I did not know what the differences between the political parties were supposed to be.  I could not tell you what defined a Democrat or a Republican.  So, one day, I asked the son of a Republican state senator that I went to school with to explain to me the difference between Democrats and Republicans.  He informed me that Democrats are people who believe in "big government".  They believe in lots of government spending and lots of government programs.  They generally believe that taxes should be raised, especially on the rich, to pay for these helpful programs.  They believe that government is the premier institution in society and should be the central focus of human behavior.  Republicans, on the other hand, were defined as those who believe in free market capitalism.  They wanted to reduce government spending and taxes.  They wanted to reduce the size of government and cut back on government regulations.  They believed that government should be limited and have a limited impact upon society.  Based upon what my fellow student had told me I made the decision, several years later when I was eligible to vote, to register as a Republican.  I liked what the Republicans stood for.  I wanted freedom and limited government. 
Jump forward to today.  I believe it is fair to assert that most conservatives believe that if the Republicans could gain control of the House, Senate and Presidency, the United States would become a much better place.  With total control of the executive and legislative branches of government we would see a return to the Republican principles of reduced government, lower taxes, lower spending, fewer regulations, and encouragement for free market capitalism.  The problem with this belief is that the situation desired by conservatives so strenuously today existed just a few short years ago. What happened then?  Republican control of the House, Senate and Presidency did not bring about the political heaven that it was supposed to.  Republican control of federal politics was an unmitigated disaster. Why would this time be any different?
The years were 2002 through 2005.   The Republicans had control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency.  They could do anything they wanted to and no Democrat could stop them.  So, what did they do?  They grossly expanded the size of government.  They grossly expanded government spending.  They grossly expanded federal regulatory control over business.  They grossly expanded welfare programs.  They did essentially everything I was told was characteristic of the Democrats.  Everything they did was the exact opposite of what I was told Republicans should do.  Let's take a minute to consider just four legislative actions taken by the Republicans when they exercised total control over the legislative process.
  1. In 2002 the Republican controlled political apparatus enacted Sarbanes/Oxley.  This extensive package of financial regulations was designed to buy the votes of disgruntled shareholders by blaming and punishing companies for the 2001 stock market crash.  The fact that there was precious little corporate fraud leading up to the crash had no impact upon the Republican legislators.  The fact that the crash was not the result of corporate malfeasance was irrelevant to the legislators.  The fact that the crash was a result of a speculative bubble fed by Federal Reserve inflation did not matter to the legislators.  What mattered to the legislators was that millions of people had lost billions of dollars because they foolishly purchased shares of "dot com" companies with inflated goodwill and no earnings.  When the entire house of cards came predictably falling down somebody had to be blamed.  The allegedly pro-business Republican majorities decided to crucify businesses in order to procure votes.  The impact of Sarbanes/Oxley continues down to this day.  Corporate CEOs can easily be arrested for securities fraud simply because they have an optimistic public opinion about the future of their companies and their stock goes down.  The depressing effect that Sarbanes/Oxley has had upon capital and wealth creation is impossible to measure.   But I am sure it is immense.  It became rather obvious to me that, when votes are at stake, Republicans are not pro-business. Thanks, Republicans.
  2. In 2003 the Republican controlled political apparatus enacted the Medicare Prescription Drug Act.  This act was larger and more far reaching than the "Hillary-Care" proposals which had been shot down by Congress a decade earlier.  Although more limited in scope than Obamacare, this expansion of federal entitlements was the single largest expansion of the welfare system until that time.  It was estimated that it would cost US taxpayers $1.2 trillion dollars for the period from 2006-2015.  Now that we are nearing the end of that time period it is obvious that that cost estimate was too low.  It became rather obvious to me that, when votes are at stake, Republicans are not opposed to socialized medicine.  Thanks, Republicans.
  3. The Homeland Security Act immediately created the third largest bureau in the history of the United States federal government.  Overnight, 200,000 government jobs were created.  Over $66 billion of taxpayers dollars were funneled into this department in 2011.  What has the act given us?  It has given us the TSA where you have a wonderful choice between being subject to nude photography or being groped in a secluded room prior to taking any airplane flight.  Recently the TSA has expanded into railroad, bus and automobile travel.  New VIPR teams of TSA agents patrol the nation's highways looking for terrorists.  In April of this year the TSA authorized the purchase of 450 million rounds of hollow point bullets.  For an agency that is assigned to make the homeland secure, what possible reason could there be for the ammunition purchase?  They now have about 1.5 rounds of ammo per American citizen.  It seems rather obvious that leaving citizens alone to pursue their own interests in no longer a plank in the Republican platform.  Thanks, Republicans.
  4. Not to be forgotten is the Energy Policy Act of 2005.  Despite all of the Republican criticism of Obama for his energy policies, it seems to have been forgotten that when the Republicans had total control of the political apparatus in Washington they passed this dreadful bill.  This act mandated the use of biofuels and has cost the US taxpayer over $1.5 billion.  The harmful repercussions of this bill are being felt today as reduced supplies of corn (because of the nationwide drought) are being used to produce useless biofuels rather than feeding US citizens.  Farmers have no choice.  The law mandates particular percentages of biofuel creation and they must be met in order to avoid serious financial penalties.  This bill also has the dubious distinction of initiating the practice of subsidizing wind energy, thus bringing about the proliferation of wind towers across the land.   Despite their official stance against government interference in the free market, when there were votes to be purchased the Republicans dramatically expanded federal control over the energy business in this land.  Thanks, Republicans.
Although it was a relatively insignificant expenditure, in the grand scheme of federal government spending, the "bridge to nowhere" act was also created during this time.  You may recall how Republicans authorized money to be spent in Alaska to build a very expensive bridge that went nowhere.  Although not financially devastating, it does prove that the Republicans are at least as capable as the Democrats when it comes to dolling out the pork.  I was told that pork was not a plank in the Republican platform.  Apparently that was not true.
The Patriot Act was passed in 2001, prior to Republican control.  The Patriot Act is the worst piece of legislation to be passed in this country since the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) in 1933.  Under the terms of the NIRA the federal government effectively socialized all of American industry.  It was a part of FDR's New Deal.  The Supreme Court had the constitutional courage to nullify the entire thing in 1935.  Republican control of the House, Senate and Presidency provided the perfect opportunity to nullify the Patriot Act.  The Patriot Act is patently unconstitutional.  It eviscerates due process.  It suspends habeus corpus.  It grants police state powers to the government in actions taken against its own citizens.  It provides for secret searches, secret evidence, secret hearings and secret trials against US citizens accused of terrorist activities.  In a word, it destroys the Constitution.  What did the Republicans do to stop this egregious expansion of government power?  Nothing.  In fact, they renewed it.  Thanks, Republicans.
This brief glance at recent political history leads me to the conclusion that there is no practical difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.  Both of them want bigger government.  Both of them increase spending.  Both of them increase taxes.  Both of them increase government regulations. Both of them oppose free market capitalism.  And, perhaps most importantly, both of them desperately crave power.  They will do anything they have to do to obtain and retain political power.  If that means selling their political souls to an envy filled electorate, so be it.  If that means doing the exact opposite of what they have promised to do, so be it.  No, we do not need more Republicans in office.  We need uncompromising men of stringent moral integrity who are dedicated to limited government in office.  We need men who really mean it when they swear the oath of office to "Uphold the Constitution of the United States."   It is too bad there are no men like that around today.

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Meddling In The Aurora Movie Massacre Aftermath

It was only a matter of time.  I was waiting for it. It has been about a month since the Aurora movie massacre transpired and the local government is now on the move.  The front page of yesterday's Denver Post featured a story with this headline:  "Aurora seeks ideas on theater's future".  How an inanimate and impersonal entity like "Aurora" could "seek ideas" was not explained.  The story was written by Kurtis Lee and begins with a rhetorical question.  Lee asks, "When is the time right to have a discussion about what should be done with the Century Aurora 16 theater?"  Despite the rather obvious truth that the correct answer to the question is "Never", he (or she?) answers the question by saying, "For leaders in the city of Aurora, now is the appropriate time to begin talking about the future of the building, where 12 people were killed and 58 injured in an early-morning attack..."  So, after about a month, city leaders in Aurora have decided it is time to stick their noses into something that is not even remotely their business.  How like a group of politicians!  There must be an election approaching.  
The Century Aurora 16 theater is owned by a company called Cinemark.  Cinemark (CNK) is a publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange.  Cinemark is the sole owner of Century Aurora 16 theater.  Nobody else owns any portion of the theater.  No city leader in Aurora, unless he happens to own some shares of Cinemark stock, has any ownership interest in the theater.  So why, please tell me, do the city leaders of Aurora believe it is time for them to determine the future of the building?  Suppose for a moment that your dog died.  Also suppose that many of your neighbors were very fond of your dog and every time they look at your house they feel some grief.   How would you feel if your neighbors got together to vote on the future of your house?  What would you think if your neighbors told you that because they are grieving the death of your dog they now have the right to tell you what to do with your house?  What if they voted to tear your house down in order to attempt to reduce their grief?   I think we all know the answer to those questions.  But, somehow, when career politicians do the exact same thing to the citizenry, it is considered decent, proper and normal.  What a distorted world we live in.
The City of Aurora has set up a website, at taxpayer expense, to conduct an online survey asking people to give their opinions about what should be done with the building.  Nobody, apparently, has stopped to ask the rather obvious question as to why this is anybody's business but Cinemark's.  It seems as if we all have become conditioned to believe that government can pretty much do anything it wants, anytime it wants, in any fashion it wants.  If the City of Aurora wants to tell a private company what to do with its building, so be it.  This is a gross overstepping of governmental authority and should be stopped.  This is a grievous waste of taxpayer dollars and should be terminated. 
To further support their attempt to control a situation they have no business being involved with, the city leaders have called in a High Priestess of the State to aid them.  Her expenses are being paid by the taxpayers.  Tara Galovski is a professor of psychology at the University of Missouri-St. Louis.  Galovski specializes in post traumatic stress disorder and has been called in to help with the Internet survey.  Her job is described as trying to "determine how people feel about the structure."  She says, "It's quite variable and there is no wrong or right way to feel about the situation."  The Post reports that "Galovski said that out of respect for people directly affected by the Aurora shooting -- those who lost a loved one or were injured -- a thorough debate should be undertaken in the coming months, if not years, about what should happen to the theater."  Well, there you have it. A taxpayer financed psychologist believes it could take years for the city leaders of Aurora to decided what to do with a building they do not own.  Business minders, do gooders and other types of busybodies should all have a vigorous debate that goes on for years about what to do with the building.  The debate should center around how people feel about an inanimate structure.  I am sure Galovski will be needed to moderate the debate and will continue drawing a consulting paycheck throughout those years. 
Does anybody think this is crazy besides me?  Taxpayer dollars are being spent to conduct a survey to see how people "feel about a structure"?  We are told that because this is such a delicate situation there is no right or wrong way to feel about the structure. Why are taxpayer dollars being spent on a discussion about feelings for wooden boards, cement, and stadium chairs?   And to add insult to injury, this process of assessing the feelings of respondents to the survey could go on for years.   Then, after all of the relevant feelings have been assessed, the city leaders will approach Cinemark and tell them what to do with their property.  Meanwhile, what is Cinemark supposed to do?  Should they wait around for years to see what the survey tells them about how people feel about their property?  If they try to do something prior to the completion of the survey do you think the city leaders of Aurora will seek legal injunctions to stop them?  The whole thing is a mess and a terrible waste of time.  Government should get out of the way and let the free market solve the problem, if there even is a problem. 
If enough people have bad feelings about the building where the massacre took place it is possible it could result in less profits, or even losses, if it continues to operate as a movie theater.  We are all aware of how a home that had a murder take place in it can be harder to sell (although I had no trouble selling my place after a murder took place in it....but that is another story).   The relative risks of reopening the theater are best assessed by Cinemark.  Profits or losses will accrue to Cinemark as they make decisions that are either supported or opposed by the customers in the area.  Based upon their profits or losses they can make future decisions about what to do with the property.  As is always the case, the consumer will be king.  Customers will determine what happens to the building,  just like customers determine what happens to every commercial building in the world.  There is absolute no need whatsoever for a government financed survey to aid in this process.  Cinemark is perfectly qualified to determine what to do with their property as they interact in the marketplace with their customers.  There is no need to keep a psychologist on a taxpayer financed retainer for years to help the ignorant city leaders plan a course of action for a piece of property they do not own.  The Aurora city leaders need to stop meddling in the business of others.  Come to think of it, it is a generally good practice for all of us to mind our own business.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Hate Filled Envy Spewers Are Entirely Predictable

Regular readers of this blog (I think there are two, including my Mom) might be growing tired of my constant postings related to the sin of envy.  Bear with me one more time.  I believe it is very important to point out this sinful behavior in the activities and writings of my fellow man.  Envy is the elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about.  It permeates our society and is at least partially responsible for the enormous amount of class warfare the exists in our country today.  It has become the philosophical foundation for most of our political systems.  Indeed, take envy out of political speech making and there would be very little left to be said.  It is highly destructive of social and personal relationships as well as being extraordinarily harmful to the soul of the individual practicing it.  It needs to be exposed.  We do ourselves no favors by pretending that it does not exist.  If we have any chance at overcoming the harmful effects of envy we must speak speak of it openly and frankly.  So, once again, let me point out a dramatic example of envy.
The Denver Post had a story yesterday about a man named Bill Koch who owns some property near Gunnison, Colorado.  Bill is a bit of a fan of the old west so he has decided to dedicate himself to recreating an authentic old west town on his property.  Bill procured all of the proper building permits and jumped through all of the government hoops required to build on his property.  He promised the governing authorities that he would not turn his old west town into a commercial enterprise.  He assured the zoning commissioners that the old west town he was building was just for his own personal enjoyment.  Bill purchased all of the memorabilia that is displayed in his town with his own money and on the open market.  None of the goods found in his town were stolen, fenced, or obtained on the black market.  Bill has employed several local construction workers to help him in the project.  So far, so good, right?  Certainly nobody can object to an old man pursuing a childhood dream and recreating an old west town on his own land, right?  This is exactly the type of story that local television news stations love to pick up and report.  It is called a "human interest" story and is designed to make viewers feel good at the end of the other news.  Under normal circumstances this would be a feel good story.  But, these are not normal circumstances.  Maybe I forgot to mention it, but Bill Koch, in addition to being a little bit eccentric and a lover of the old west,  is also a billionaire. Enter the hate filled envy spewers.
Christel Detsch of Lafayette, writing to the Post about the western memorabilia that will be scattered around Bills' town, said this, "Our national heritage does not find a worthy place in a museum where it can be viewed by the American public; rather our national heritage has become a toy for the super rich.  It will be just for him, his friends, and the occasional historian."  Christel is an envy filled, wanna-be thief.  Did you see what she wrote?  She refers to the property that belongs to Bill as "our national heritage"!  Since when did Bill's personal property become ours?  Christel is so filled with rage and hatred for the financial success of Bill that she has convinced herself that the things Bill owns do not really belong to him.  They belong to us, whoever "us" is.  I wonder how Christel would feel if I came by her house and informed her that all of the items in her backyard really belong to "society" and that I was there to pick them up.  Do you think she would be angry?  Do you think she would call the police?  Yet, when she attempts to do the same thing to Bill, she considers it to be a moral action of the highest type.  Then, to top it all off, Christel takes violent exception to the fact that Bill will use his private property for his own personal enjoyment.  How horrible of him.  Off with his head.  How dare him use his own property as he wants to?  How dare him mind his own business?  Christel Detsch has lost touch with reality and is destroying herself because of the sinful emotion of envy.  She needs to repent.
Tom Carberry of Denver is even more hate filled than Christel.  I have to quote his letter in full.  He says, "Billions of people face hunger and starvation in the world today, but billionaire Bill Koch created his own little fantasy Western town where he can shoot 'em up to please the little child within.  Koch earned his money the old fashioned way -- he inherited it.  Americans worship billionaires and can't recognize their true nature -- parasites on society.  Men like Bill Koch use vast amounts of the planet's resources for their own pleasure, while the planet suffers from environmental destruction brought on by the predatory class.  The time has come to tax the rich to the hilt and bring society back into balance."  Wow!
Tom holds Bill the billionaire personally responsible for world hunger.  Tom holds Bill the billionaire personally responsible for environmental degradation, whatever that is. Tom calls Bill the billionaire a predator and a parasite.  Tom believes Bill the billionaire is an evil man because he inherited money from his parents.  I wonder if Tom has ever inherited any money?  No, I am sure Tom is totally consistent in his beliefs and practice.  If anyone ever attempted to bequeath him money he would refuse to take it.  Tom believes Bill the billionaire needs to be "taxed to the hilt" and that somehow, magically, by taxing away all of Bills money society will be brought back into balance, whatever that means.  Tom really hates Bill.  What did Bill ever do to Tom?  Bill is minding his own business and all of a sudden, out of nowhere, Tom hits him with this vicious personal attack.  Tom is destroying himself because of his envy.  Tom needs to see that he is an extreme hypocrite.  Tom needs to repent of his envy before it ruins him more than it already has.
Stuart Rogers of Highlands Ranch is a bit more philosophical in his hate filled envy spewing.  Stuart writes that "Bill Koch's private town...offers proof that the dream of trickle-down economics benefiting all Americans has proved in practice instead to be a pool-up exploitation of the majority.  To extend this philosophy, as currently proposed by several of our political aspirants, promises to result in a society in which a favored few...reign over a multitude of impoverished individuals."  Wow!  Stuart is a full blown Marxist.  He believes that Bill's decision to use his money to build an old west town on his property for his own enjoyment is going to result in the "exploitation of the majority" and the impoverishment of a "multitude" of individuals.  How this is going to take place Stuart does not say.  But rest assured, whenever billionaire Bill does anything it will result in impoverishment and exploitation.  Stuart is so filled with envy he cannot see straight.  Stuart needs to repent of his envy.
These three letters to the editor of the Denver Post were entirely predictable.  When I read the story of Bill Koch yesterday I had a pretty good idea I would be writing this post today.  I wasn't sure how the readers of the newspaper would specifically respond to Bill's old west town but I knew one thing; their responses would be filled with envy and hatred for Bill Koch.  I was not disappointed.  After reading these three letters it would seem reasonable to conclude that Bill Koch is public enemy number one.  He must, at least, be one of the most evil men who has ever walked the earth.  All of this has come upon poor Bill simply because he decided to use his money to build an old west town on his property for his enjoyment.  Christel, Tom and Stuart desperately need to mind their own business and leave Bill alone.

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Envy-filled Michael Homiak Is Profoundly Troubled By Mike Rosen

Mike Rosen is a local radio personality famous for his acerbic personality and right-wing stance on political and economic issues.  He also writes a regular column for the Denver Post.  A couple of weeks ago Rosen wrote a piece in which he referred to Ayn Rand and her doctrine of individualism versus community.  For those of you who do not know, Rand was a pure individualist, seeing no place for community activism whatsoever.  For political purposes that would make her an anarchist.  Although it is impossible for me to defend Rand's anarchy (there is a very small and limited role for government that is legitimate and necessary), her defense of the individual against the depredations of the community (read "majority who have the right to vote to make laws to take away your property" here) were well written and persuasive.  Enter Michael Homiak.
Michael Homiak is a resident of Denver who wrote the Denver Post to complain that he was "profoundly troubled" by the things Mike Rosen had written.  What got my attention was this part of his letter when he said, "The American ideal has always balanced community with the individual.  When community overtakes the individual, we get oppressive government.  But when the individual wholly supersedes the community, we get what we have now:  a society in which the ultra-rich win and everyone else loses, where the US economy is held hostage to the whims of an unregulated few, and where infrastructure we need to keep this country great (education, manufacturing) is allowed to rot."  I am profoundly troubled by what Homiak has just written.  He displays an amazing lack of knowledge with respect to economics, politics, history and morality.  Since I suspect that Homiak speaks for thousands of other envy-filled citizens of Denver, I think it would be worth the time to critique what he has written.
Homiak asserts that "the American ideal has always balanced community with the individual."  Since he does not give any specific examples of this American ideal it is difficult to know precisely what he means.  Up to a point, he is correct.  As citizens of the United States we recognize that the government has the right to collect taxes to pay for essential government services.  Those services were limited by the Constitution to those directly related to protecting the life, freedom and property of US citizens, and nothing more.  In that sense there is some degree of "balance" between the community and the individual.  I pay taxes that are used to pay for services to protect the life, freedom and property of my neighbor that I might not use individually.  In that sense I have been a part of the community that paid the bill of an individual.  So far, so good.
Homiak next asserts that when the "community over takes the individual, we get oppressive government."  This is also a correct assertion.  Since it is the voters who elect the politicians who make the laws that create oppressive government, the "community" must be defined as the majority of voters.  He accurately perceives that when the majority of the voters begin to use the power of their majority to expropriate the life, freedom, and property of their neighbors (who are in the minority and unable to protect themselves from the whims of the majority), we "get oppressive government".  Although Homiak is writing things that are true, his next statement betrays him.  His application of the truth about oppressive government is grossly flawed for, you see, Homiak believes that we live in a country in which government is far too small!
According to Homiak, the citizens of the US suffer from a serious lack of government interference in their lives.  According to Homiak, the citizens of the US desperately need a huge expansion of government rules and regulations.  According to Homiak, because of the lack of government regulation we now live in a society "in which the ultra-rich win and everyone else loses."  Ah yes, here comes the envy.
The top 49% of the income earning taxpayers in this country now pay almost 100% of the federal taxes.  Those "ultra-rich", with adjusted gross incomes in excess of $1 million pay, on average, 30% of their income in federal taxes.  According to an envy-filled Mr. Homiak, that is not enough.  Somehow these economic facts are distorted into the belief that "the US economy is held hostage to the whims of the unregulated few."  Now that is an interesting admission in and of itself.  Who are the "unregulated few"?  Is Homiak asserting that everyone in the country except the top 1% of the income population is heavily regulated?  Would he go so far as to say that the poor are burdened by excessive regulation?  He does not say.  He simply asserts that some unspecified group of "ultra-rich" are not regulated.  Given what has been in the news in the past couple of years, and given the context of his statements,  I believe it is fair to assert that Homiak is probably talking about bankers.  This is where Homiak departs from reality.
The financial industry in general, and banking in particular, is one of the single most heavily regulated businesses in the history of the world.  Entire Congressional bills, including hundreds of rules and regulations, have been written and enforced upon the banking industry.  Government has tentacles into all aspects of the banking business. There is nothing that a banker can do that does not either require prior government approval or some sort of after-the-fact reporting to some government bureaucrat.  Interest rates, reserve requirements, capital requirements, and loan terms are just a few of the banking activities that are vigorously regulated and controlled by the government.  The wildly absurd notion that bankers are holding the US economy "hostage" is the by-product of a mind so filled with hatred and envy for the financial success of bankers that it is incapable of seeing reality.
Homiak concludes his diatribe by asserting that "education and manufacturing" are examples of US "infrastructure" that are being "allowed to rot".  Homiak believes that the rich should be forced to pay more in order to subsidize education and manufacturing.  The call for more taxes to pay for government schools is a common one.  Still, it ignores the fact that government schools are not authorized by the Constitution.  It also ignores the fact that taxpayers who do not have children or who elect to not use the government schools are having their money forcible extracted from them, under penalty of eviction from their homes for non-compliance, to pay for the education costs of their neighbor's children.  Under any other set of circumstances that would be called theft, not infrastructure, and it would be considered immoral.  Parents should be responsible for the education of their children, including the payment of their teachers.  Homiak does not get it. For him, "community" means the specious moral claim my neighbor has over my money to pay for his children's educational expenses.  He considers one person being forced to pay the bills of another to be a positive aspect of community and he wants more of it.
Furthermore, his belief that "manufacturing" is a part of government "infrastructure" is wildly off the mark.  No economist, even the most Keynesian of them, would ever make the statement that the business of manufacturing is a part of the infrastructure of the US.  Clearly Homiak is calling for government subsidizing of the manufacturing industries (see my posting for 2-3-12 for why manufacturing is not a sacred calling).  He wants to take the money of taxpayers who make more than him and give it to businesses that manufacture things.  This is a sure way to bring about the unintended consequence of creating goods nobody wants and creating jobs that will soon disappear.  I wrote about envy yesterday.  Today's post to this blog is a perfect example of what happens when a man makes no attempt whatsoever to control the sinful emotion of envy.  He loses all ability to think and reason and rapidly detaches from reality.

Monday, August 20, 2012

Obama Wants You To Sin

"Sin".  It is such an unpopular word.  It is outdated, archaic and old-fashioned.  It means nothing in the modern world where everyone is encouraged and rewarded for doing whatever seems right in their own eyes.  But it is still a great word that communicates a great truth.  If you don't like it, substitute "immoral act" for it.  Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, there are still eternal moral standards by which we all will be judged.  Sin will be punished, one way or another.   Sadly, it is also crystal clear that President Obama and his handlers want you to commit sin.  They want to endanger your immortal soul for the sake of his reelection.  With a cavalier disregard for your personal integrity and moral standards, not to mention your eternal soul, the Obama camp has launched a campaign to entice you into destructive sinful behavior.  How can I make such an outrageous claim?  The answer is simple.  Take a moment to consider the Romney tax return issue with me.
The Obama campaign has been highly public about issuing strident demands to the Romney camp about his tax returns.  In particular they want him to release his previous five years of tax returns.  The Denver Post recently reported that "Obama reelection campaign manager Jim Messina pledged that if Romney released five years of tax returns filed from 2007 to 2012, the Obama campaign in turn would stop criticizing the Republican candidate about them."  Am I the only person who sees this as abject lunacy?  First of all, how can the Obama campaign criticize Romney over tax returns they do not have and that they admittedly know nothing about?  Don't you have to know something about something to criticize that something?  The Messina threat makes no sense whatsoever.  Secondly, what possible difference can the release of Romney's tax returns make in a political campaign?  Why in the world would the Obama handlers be interested in the tax returns of Mitt Romney?  Do they believe that he has committed tax fraud?  Do they believe that he is guilty of tax evasion?  Do they believe that they can rework his returns, as a random act of kindness, and get him larger refunds?  If the Obama camp is convinced that Romney has broken the law, they should report him to the IRS.  If they do not believe he has broken the law, they should mind their own business and leave him alone.  But they will not leave him alone.  Something strange is going on here.
The Merriam Webster dictionary defines envy as follows: "Painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage."  Although that is a sufficient definition, it is not a complete one.  To complete the definition of envy, allow me to tell you an old Russian proverb.  A genie appeared to a poor Russian farmer one day and promised him that he would grant him one wish.  The farmer could obtain anything he wanted, provided he understood that whatever he received would be granted to his neighbor in double.  The farmer took a long time as he considered what he wanted to receive from the genie.  After much deliberation he informed the genie that he desired to be blind in one eye.  That, my friends, is envy.  And that, my friends, is what the Obama campaign wants you to do.
There is one, and only one, reason why the Obama campaign wants access to Romney's tax returns.  Envy.  The information contained in Romney's tax returns will be used to conduct a massive campaign of envy against him.  Obama, who must be in full agreement with what his campaign managers are doing, wants to publish Romney's tax returns because it will allow Americans to see just how much money Romney has made the past five years.  Romney is rich.  He has made more money than anybody I know.  He has probably made more money than anybody you know.  He has made more money, in the past five years, than most people in the world.  Obama is smart.  He knows that if he can publish how much money Romney has made, tens of millions of Americans will rise up in hate filled envy against Romney.  Filled with envy and hatred for Romney, they will flee to the Obama camp where they will find active pandering to their envy and pseudo-solace for their sin.  When tens of millions of Americans see how rich Romney is, they will experience a strong temptation to have a painful or resentful awareness of how much money Romney has made and, by comparison, how little they have made.  Those painful and resentful emotions will be directed towards Romney.  Through the miracle of envy, tens of millions of Americans will come to hate him because of his fortune.  Tens of millions of Americans will want to deprive him of his wealth and status and will therefore do anything they can to keep him from becoming President.  At the very least these envy-filled Americans will vote for Obama.  Many of them will join the Obama campaign as they seek to destroy the man they have come to hate so vociferously.  That is what envy does.  
Envy is a sin.  Envious behavior is immoral behavior.  Envy accomplishes no good thing. Envy destroys the person who practices it.  Envy, when practiced on a grand scale, destroys a society.  Envy, however, is also the primary basis and structure for our modern political system.  The entire political process is built upon a strong faith in the consistent and predictable immoral behavior of American voters in regard to their envy.  Politicians pander to and exploit envy daily.  Practically every promised that comes out of every politicians mouth is founded upon the great principle of envy.  "Some rich guy somewhere has something he does not deserve that should be, in all fairness, transferred to you.  Vote for me and I will make a law authorizing the transfer.  The law will be designed to punish him and reward you. After all, that is only fair." That is how envy operates and it operates very well in our land.
Obama does not care about your moral character.  If he did, he would not incite you to sin.  Obama does not care about the moral quality of American citizens in general.  If he did, he would not incite Americans to commit envy.  Obama does not care about our cooperative social structures.  If he did, he would not seek to destroy them by means of envy. Obama cares about Obama.  He loves power and wants four more years of it.  Obama and his handlers have determined that one of the best ways for him to retain his power is to entice you to sin. 
Don't be a pawn.  Don't be a fence.  Don't be a fool.  Don't fall for this pander to envy scheme.  Open your eyes and see the political process in this land for what it is.  Maintain your integrity.  Don't join the mob that is intent upon stealing the property of your neighbor.  Most of all, don't commit the sin of envy, even if President Obama wants you to. If you love your country and your neighbor, resist envy and the politicians who pander to it will flee.