San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, October 26, 2012

Does God Intend For Rape Victims To Get Pregnant?

Richard Mourdock is a Republican candidate for the United States Senate from Indiana.  While engaged in  a "debate" (press conference and photo opportunity) with his opponent on Tuesday night he made the assertion that "if pregnancy occurs after a rape it is something that God intended to happen."  His comments were immediately picked up by feminists and other abortion advocates and broadcast across the nation.  Several entirely predictable events followed.
First, feminists and abortion advocates blamed Romney for Mourdock's comments.  They alleged that Romney holds the same position as Mourdock and that a vote for Romney will take away their right to have a taxpayer financed surgical procedure to remove excess tissue from their bodies.  Romney campaign spokeswoman (no spokesman could have been utilized to respond to the charges of the abortion advocates without incurring the wrath of the feminists) Andrea Saul immediately countered with, "Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock and Mr. Mourdock's comments do not reflect Gov. Romney's views."  Damage control activities are in full swing at the Romney camp.
Second, other Indiana Republicans distanced themselves from Mourdock.  Mike Pence, the Republican nominee for governor told Mourdock to apologize.  What he was to apologize for was not explained.  Who he was to apologize to was not explained.  How his constitutionally protected theological and moral opinions about rape, pregnancy and abortion had constituted a personal offense that required an apology to be issued to some particular group of people was not described.  Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire piled on by cancelling a scheduled public appearance and campaign speech on behalf of Mourdock.
Third, Mourdock issued the modern version of a public apology (see "Public Apologies" 9/6/12).  He said, "If in any way people came away with the wrong meaning, I apologize.  But for speaking from my heart,  for speaking from the deepest level of my faith, I cannot apologize."  In other words, if someone took offense because of what he said, that person simply did not understand what he said, even though he meant what he said, and for all of that he apologizes, whatever all of that means. 
All of these political games are mildly interesting but that is not the reason I bring them up.  I am more interested in the theology involved in the assertion made by Mourdock.  Mourdock made a theological assertion that is consistent with the historic theology of the Christian church.  For that he is deemed a devil.  My how things have changed.
Throughout most of the history of Christianity the majority of theologians have held and defended a belief in the doctrine of God's sovereignty.  It all began with the Apostle Paul in the book of Romans.  There he described the activities of a God who was sovereign over all of man's endeavors.  God's sovereignty was elegantly described by St. Augustine in the fifth century.  St. Anselm defended the same belief in the eleventh century.  Thomas Aquinas defended the belief in the thirteenth century.  John Calvin further expanded and defended the doctrine in the sixteenth century.  The Puritans who came to this country all believed in the doctrine of God's sovereignty.   Simply put, most orthodox theologians in the history of the Christian church have  professed to believe in the doctrine of foreordination.
The doctrine of foreordination asserts that God is in control of everything that takes place in this world.  This doctrine applies to both the "good" and the "bad" things that happen to men.  It follows quite necessarily that if God is in control of everything that comes to pass, He is in control of the behavior of a rapist and the physiological outcome of a rape.  If therefore also necessarily follows that if a woman becomes pregnant as a result of a rape, it is because God's sovereign will decreed that it would be so.  In other words, God "intended" for that woman to become pregnant as a result of the rape.  He also intended for the woman to be raped in the first place.  Mourdock's belief would have been upheld as orthodox Christian doctrine throughout most of the history of Christianity.
Today, of course, most theologians and practically everyone who would describe himself as a Christian have abandoned the belief in the sovereignty of God.  The belief that God foreordains whatsoever shall come to pass (a quotation from the Westminster Confession of Faith from the 17th century) has been replaced with the belief that God is either unwilling or unable to override the free will actions of men.  Instead, God is relegated to the role of cheerleader as He does everything He can to encourage and support the humans that He weeps tears of sympathy for every day.  But get this quite clear, according to the beliefs of new Christianity, God would never intend for a woman to get pregnant as a result of a rape.  Furthermore, He would never intend for the woman to be raped in the first place.  If a woman does get raped and become pregnant it has to be because the devil made it happen.  Or, at the very least, it happened because God holds the free will of men to be so sacred that He will not overrule it even to prevent a rape and unwanted pregnancy.
Mourdock's comments are despised by Democrats and Republicans alike for precisely the same reason the God of historic Christianity has come to be despised by modern Christians.  Men do not want a God who foreordains whatsoever comes to pass.  Furthermore, men do not want a God who has opinions about their behavior and beliefs, especially their political beliefs.  Men want to believe that they are masters of their own destiny and commanders of their own souls.  A Santa Claus God who brings the occasional Christmas gift but otherwise stays out of their lives and has no opinion about how they behave is exactly what men want and exactly how they have fashioned their modern deity to be.  For some politician to bring up a historic Christian doctrine is unacceptable to all.  The next thing we know some politician might actually start talking about the Bible.  The next thing we know some crazed politician might start talking about God's law and judgment.  Things would get completely out of control if an insane politician ever went so far as to assert that God might actually have propositional revelation that declares His sovereign will about the activities and beliefs of politicians.  Heaven forbid that any man would ever assert that God actually has an opinion about the opinions of politicians!
So the game goes on.  Mourdock has been properly chastised for his abusive speech.  All other politicians have been warned that any public statement they might make that is derived from doctrines of historic Christianity are forbidden.  Meanwhile, the atheistic and irreligious belief systems of abortion advocates, feminists and socialists are affirmed.  All of this is done under the guise of the myth of moral neutrality in public political discourse.  We have all agreed that all closely held religious beliefs of political candidates may be publicly expressed except for those based upon the doctrines of historic, orthodox Christianity. 
Ignored in all of this, of course, is whether God really does ordain whatsoever comes to pass.  If He does not, no harm is done and everybody needs to calm down.  If He does, Mourdock is right and the moral outrage at his theological position is unjustified.  Under a rational political system where all public policy positions are openly debated and discussed we would actually have a debate that addresses theological issues such as the sovereignty of God.  Ha!  Ha! Ha!  Still, I find it quite striking that a majority of the citizens in the Socialist Democracy of America profess to believe in God.  A majority of those same citizens profess to believe that the Bible contains God's revealed will for mankind.  Yet when it comes down to debates about public policy the key things everybody in the universe, except Mourdock, agree upon are that the God of the Bible does not have an opinion about political issues, is not sovereign and most certainly does not foreordain whatsoever comes to pass. 

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Pneumatic Psychosis

A reader of this blog sent me the following comments about his recent experience with a local tire company.  He made a trip to the tire store to put on his snow tires for the winter.  He writes:
"All cars built in and after 2008 have tire pressure sensors installed on the tires. If a tire is low on air, a warning light on the dash turns on. When I bought snow tires for the 2010 Elantra two years ago, I opted not to have them installed because each sensor cost about the same amount as the tire, thus doubling the total cost. The result was that I lived with the warning light on during the winter. I took the car to Discount Tire today to have the snow tires put on. The sales clerk informed us that the feds have mandated that any car built since 2008 must have functioning tire pressure sensors. For Discount to put my snow tires on, I would either have to purchase sensors and have them install them, or they could take the sensors off my summer tires and move them to the snows without charge. If I did did neither, Discount wouldn't change the tires because they would be fined by the feds. I had them use the existing sensors. When I asked him, he honestly admitted tire companies were simply adding the cost of the labor involved moving sensors to the cost of their new tires."
I like Discount Tire.  I have recommended Discount Tire to my friends.  Every time I visit a Discount Tire store I stand in amazement at what free market capitalism can accomplish. With the possible exception of the Wendy's drive up window, I believe the folks who work at Discount Tire are the most hard working and efficient employees I have ever seen.  This post has nothing to do with the pickle that Discount Tire has been put into because of government regulations.  I was intrigued by the message I received.  What is this new law/rule that, up until now, I had never heard of?  Naturally I consulted the source of all internet truth...Wikipedia.  Here is what I learned:
"In the United States, the Firestone recall in the late 1990s (which was linked to more than 100 deaths from rollovers following  tire tread-separation), pushed the Clinton Administration to legislate the Tread Act.  The Act mandated the use of a suitable TPMS (Tire Pressure Monitoring System) technology in all light motor vehicles (under 10,000 pounds), to help alert drivers of severe under-inflation events. This act affects all light motor vehicles sold after September 1, 2007. Phase-in started in October 2005 at 20%, and reached 100% for models produced after September 2007. In the United States, as of 2008 and the European Union, as of November 1, 2012, all new passenger car models (M1) released must be equipped with a TPMS."
So there it is.  According to the federal government I suffer from pneumatic psychosis!  I am too stupid to know when my tires do not have enough air.  When I walk up to my car and observe that the tires appear to be flat or low on air, something in my brain does not allow that observation to be processed and I find myself requiring the services of a government mandated idiot light on my car dashboard to enlighten me.  How have I survived this long?  How have I avoided the inevitable crashes that would have been the necessary result of my driving around with under-inflated tires?  Most important, how have I managed to live without the protective rules of government?  
The controversy between Firestone and Ford had primarily to do with the Ford Explorer.  It was poorly designed and tended to rollover when executing sharp turns at highway speeds.  The Ford engineers "solved" that problem by recommending reduced tire pressures.  Tire pressures were reduced from 32 to 26 psi.  The unexpected consequence of that decision was that the tires manufactured by Firestone tended to experience tread separation when operated at lower pressures. As described in the Wikipedia article, the deaths that were caused as a result of accidents related to tread separation got the attention of Congress.  We can just hear the crescendo as congressmen from all states lined up to chant the mantra, "if this legislation saves just one life, it will be worth it."  Ignored in all of the discussion about new laws/rules for tires was just how much it would cost and who would end up paying for the new gizmos.
Besides the fact that I seriously resent that Congress believes I am too stupid to maintain my own tire pressure, I also seriously resent the fact that I have to pay more for tires because of an unnecessary government rule/regulation.  Where in the Constitution of the United States of America does it say that Congress has the right and the responsibility to legislate that car and tire manufactures install technology within tires that allows the driver to remotely detect the pressure within the tire?  Have we all gone crazy?  Since when is this a function of federal government?  Clearly this is simply another example of the nanny-state gone haywire.  This, sadly, is what we have come to expect in the Socialist Democray of America.  We do not even blink an eye when our betters make laws to protect us from our own inherent stupidity.  Praised be their names.  They must really love us very much.
I appreciate that the employee at Discount Tire was honest enough to admit that the cost of his tires and tire services had gone up as a result of this new law/rule/regulation.  According to my blog reader, the cost of the sensor effectively doubles the cost of a tire.  Additional costs would also be required to install the computer components necessary to cause the idiot light on the car's dashboard to function.  Why should I be required, under penalty of law, to pay twice as much for a tire that has a remote pressure sensor when I am perfectly capable of monitoring my own tire pressure?  Why should the pressure in my tires be a concern of the federal government?  Answer:  Because we all live in the Socialist Democracy of America and according to our rulers we all suffer from Pneumatic Psychosis.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Bike Wars

A week or so ago a lady was riding her bicycle along a bike path near my home.  It was a Saturday evening, around 6:00pm and it was beginning to get dark.  She did not see the barbed wire stretched across the path until it was too late.  Her front wheel made contact with the barbed wire in such a way that it caused her and her bike to flip over forwards.  She landed hard, breaking several ribs and crushing her helmet as her head was driven into the ground.  I can only imagine the joy that was experienced by the person who had stretched the wire across the path.  The perpetrator had to be somewhere nearby, gleefully watching the crash that he so carefully orchestrated.  When interviewed in the newspaper the next day the lady who had been sabotaged was thankful that she was the one who had crashed.  She recounted how a man she had just passed was riding along with his young child closely following in a Burley.  She hated to think what might have happened if he had come upon the wire first.
There is a steep mountain road near where I live that serves as an excellent test piece for cyclists who like to climb the big hills.  There is a steady stream of cyclists going up and down the road on the weekends.  The few folks who live in the area generally do not attempt to kill the cyclists, although they do like to complain about the rude behavior evidenced by many of the cyclists as they ride two abreast and force motorists to wait behind them.  Last year some person who likely lived in the area decided that it would be fun to see one of the cyclists crash while going downhill at 40 to 50 miles per hour.  He took a container of carpet tacks and scattered them along the road in the hope that a cyclist would hit one, suffer a blow out and experience a high speed crash.  I am not aware if his dreams were fulfilled.
(Note:  This paragraph was added on November 5, 2012:  Today the Denver Post reported that a professional cyclist was intentionally run over by a car on this same mountain road last Sunday.  According to witnesses, a 71 year old male driving a pick up truck decided to continuously honk his horn while following closely behind the cyclist for a period of about 30 seconds.  The driver then ceased honking his horn and proceeded to run into the cyclist, launching him into the air.  According to reports, the cyclist was riding "on or near the shoulder of the road" at the time he was hit.  The cyclist was briefly hospitalized with a series of painful but non-life threatening injuries.)
By now I suspect everyone has seen the YouTube video of the enraged motorist who followed behind two cyclists wildly honking his horn and refusing to pass.  The two cyclists were far to the right of the road.  In fact, they were riding on the narrow strip of shoulder between the white stripe and the gravel.  This did not ameliorate the rage of the man driving the truck. He created a significant traffic hazard as he refused to pass the cyclists thus forcing other motorists behind him to pass him prior to passing the cyclists.  Thanks to the fact that the two men riding their bikes used their phones to record the entire event the driver was ticketed.  I read a letter to the editor shortly thereafter in which a lady, who clearly hates cyclists, expressed her opinion that the cyclists should also have been ticketed because they displayed reckless behavior by riding their bikes with one hand on the handlebars and the other hand on their phones. 
I was riding on a week long bike tour in the Colorado mountains several years ago.  It was the first day of the tour and we were crossing over Berthoud Pass.  The long line of cyclists stretched out for several miles as we climbed up the east side of the pass.  In case you have never had the pleasure of driving in the middle of a bike tour you need to know that traffic situations can get fairly intense.  Cars that are going in the same direction as the tour have to routinely pass the bikes as they pedal along.  If the road is heavily trafficked and there are lots of cars coming in the other direction it can get kind of crazy.  Those cars that are going in the opposite direction frequently get as angry as those driving along with the tour due to the fact that they are constantly facing cars coming towards them in their lane.  As I neared the top of the pass I pulled over to the opposite side of the road to snap a picture.  I was straddling my bike about three feet off the road when a large pickup truck with huge side mirrors, traveling in the direction opposite of the tour, came careening off the road in a wild attempt to hit me with its mirror.  The driver missed me by inches.
I have been riding my bike for forty years.  I almost always ride alone and I make a concerted effort to stay to the far right of the road.  Some have accused me of being overly cautious as I attempt to avoid conflict with motorists.  During my times on the road I have been cursed, yelled at and slapped on the back by a person who was hanging out of the window of the car as it went by.  I have had bottles thrown at me as motorists passed by.  I have had both cars and motorcycles pass by me at high rates of speed and so closely that I could literally reach out and touch them as they went by.  On one day I was cursed by one man for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign and, shortly thereafter, cursed by another man driving a big pickup truck because I did come to a complete stop at a stop sign.  I have had the police yell at me via their bullhorns for both stopping and not stopping at a crosswalk.  I have been called every imaginable name by people who speed by me on the road.  None of those names have been complimentary.  I have been threatened with a wide variety of physical assaults, many of which could bring about the end of my life if they had actually happened. 
To a small degree I can understand the rage of motorists against cyclists.  Many cyclists are rude.  Many cyclists do not follow the rules of the road.  Many cyclists unnecessarily delay passing motorists.  I make no defense for my fellow cyclists.  I am not responsible for their behavior.  The fact that many cyclists are also arrogant jerks is one of the reasons I ride alone.  I have no desire to be associated with them and their anti-social behavior.
The bike wars seem to be escalating.  There seem to be more violent confrontations between cyclists and motorists.  Although I do not consider that to be a positive development, it will not change my behavior as a cyclist.  I realize that in any battle with an automobile I am going to lose.  Most of the motorists who rage me are men in large pickup trucks.  My guess is that most of them have wives who nag them incessantly and their acts of rage against cyclists allow them some modicum of dignity.  At any rate, any confrontation with them is going to result in physical harm to me and no damage at all to them.  A twenty five pound bike is no match for a vehicle that weighs more than a ton and travels at 60 mph.  So my goal remains as it has always been.  I try to stay out of your way.  My goal is to do everything I can to avoid any contact with you at all.  In situations where I consider you to be a threat to my life I will continue to pull off the road and stop while you go by.  I will continue to endure your verbal abuse.  I will continue to duck when you throw things my way.  I will continue to keep my eyes down, avoiding eye contact at all costs, with those who assail me.  I will continue to be as passive as I possibly can so as not to incite you to aggressive behavior.  I will do everything I humanly can to stay out of your way.
Rodney King once asked, "Why can't we all just get along?"  Mr. King was not a theologian.  He did not know the answer to his question.  There is a reason why we cannot get along.   It is called sin.  Sin includes both original sin and actual sins.  Both original sin and actual sin guarantee that human relationships will be filled with anger, hatred and violence.  I strive mightily to not behave with anger, hatred and violence towards you but, at the same time,  that is what I expect from you dear motorists. 

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Government Lies--Good, Citizen Lies--Bad

Yesterday I wrote about how the presidential debate conducted last night would be filled with nothing but lies.  I trust that if you had the misfortune of watching the event you were able to see how everything said by both candidates was twisted and distorted to convey no meaning other than "vote for me because I am great and my opponent is an idiot."  Today I address another issue related to the topic of lying.  This is something that I believe most of us are fully aware of but that we have also made the conscious decision to ignore.  My mama taught me that it is wrong to lie.  She also taught me that nobody has the right to lie to someone else, no matter who they might be or how important they might think they are.  That lesson has been lost on government officials.
In the Socialist Democracy of America it is a foregone conclusion that government officials and employees are not only permitted to lie but also encouraged to do so in the pursuit of their duties.  Conversely, citizens of the SDA can be incarcerated and fined for a crime no more serious than lying to a petty government official.  Allow me to give you some examples.
  • Congressmen lie all the time.  They lie when they make campaign promises that they never fulfill.  Every Republican candidate for Congress since 1973 has promised to attempt to end abortion. To date not one single Republican congressman has introduced legislation to overturn Roe vs Wade.  They did not even introduce such legislation when they controlled both houses of congress and the White House.  They all lied.  The Republicans who were swept into office in the past mid-term elections did so, in part, based upon their promise to only enact legislation that could be directly connected to the Constitution.  Within a week of their appointment to Congress that promise was broken.  They all lied. There has been no attempt to be explicitly constitutional with any of the legislation that has come out of Congress.  On the other hand, one of the most grievous sins a citizen can commit is to lie to Congress.  Perjury before a congressional committee is deemed to be one of the most egregious of crimes that can be committed by a citizen of the SDA.  Prison sentences and large fines always follow.  Quite obviously, when it comes to Congress, the moral necessity of truth telling only goes one way.
  • Several years ago a lady by the name of Martha Stewart was investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission for "insider trading".  We all know Ms. Stewart as the creator of a home management business that has been very successful.  One day her broker called and told her that "insiders" holding one of the stocks in her portfolio were selling.  An "insider", according to SEC rules, is a person who owns more than a certain percentage of the stock.  Following a fairly common theory of stock trading that dictates one should sell stock when the "insiders" were selling, Martha made the decision to sell her stock.  The information about "insider selling" is available on the website of the Securities and Exchange Commission for all members of the public to see.  It is updated quarterly and anyone is free to use that information in any fashion.  Martha did nothing illegal when she sold her stock.  In total disregard for the legality of her actions, the SEC decided to persecute and prosecute her for violating the insider trading rules.  Despite their best efforts, the government prosecutors were unable to make a case against Stewart.  So, they decided to change their course of action.  When asked how she had come to find out that insiders were selling their shares Stewart failed to mention that her broker had told her.  The government prosecutors then dropped the insider trading charges and charged her with lying to government officials.  She ended up serving six months in prison for the offense.
  • If you ever have the misfortune of being arrested for violating any of the hundreds of thousands of laws that are presently enforced against the citizens of the SDA you will discover a startling truth about telling the truth.  Police, detectives, prosecutors and any other person associated with the government are permitted, by law, to tell any lie they want to in order to obtain a confession of guilt and a conviction for a violation of the rules (they call it a "crime").  When you are being interrogated by the police you must be aware that they can say anything they want, with total disregard for the truth, in an attempt to entrap you into a confession of guilt.  All government lies are protected behavior.  In fact, lying to the public to get a conviction is considered good policy.  You, on the other hand, can be thrown into jail and fined thousands of dollars if you do not tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  The presumption here, of course, is that citizens of the SDA are evil people that need to be imprisoned by any means, whereas government officials are saints who must be permitted to do whatever is necessary to incarcerate the evil ones.  The fact that this is the exact opposite of what the Bill of Rights allegedly guarantees the citizens of the SDA does not matter.
  • Under J. Edgar Hoover the FBI was prohibited from using undercover or sting operations to catch law breakers.  After Hoover the practice of entrapping citizens of the SDA in FBI stings has become commonplace.  The entire concept of undercover work is predicated upon the practice of continual lying.  All law enforcement sting operations are based upon the prior weaving of a complex web of lies all designed to entrap some hapless person and obtain a high profile conviction that will enhance the political careers of the prosecutors.  Every alleged "terrorist" plot on US soil since 9/11 has been of the entrapment variety.  There is no case where the FBI actually came upon an independent plan for terrorist activity.  In every single arrest so far the actual facts of the matter tell us that the FBI constructed the terrorist activity plan and then suckered some poor fool into agreeing to participate in it.  That is why the FBI continually informs us that "nobody was ever in danger from a real terrorist attack as a result of this person's activities".  Of course we weren't.  The folks who have been arrested were not terrorists until the FBI turned them into terrorists.  After the arrests are made we are told how great government is and how we would all be dead at the hands of filthy terrorists were it not for the selflessly dedicated activities of our government protectors.  
The lesson is a simple one.  As is the case in so many of these blog postings, I could go on with a seemingly endless list of examples of government lies.  Government is in the business of lying,  but pity the poor soul who is found guilty of lying to the government.  Under the form of government constructed by the founding fathers it was assumed that government officials were not to be trusted.  A carefully crafted system of checks and balances was put into place in what has turned out to be a vain attempt to prevent government corruption and oppression.  The system of our fathers has been abandoned and today the presumption of government is that the people are not to be trusted.  My how things have changed.  In the SDA governmental lying is considered to be good.   In the SDA all citizens are deemed to be liars and worthy of fines and imprisonment at the hands of the beneficent and ever protective government.  Whatever happened to government by and for the people?

Monday, October 22, 2012

A Night Full Of Lies

The third press conference and photo opportunity for the two main candidates for king of the Socialist Democracy of American takes place tonight.  If it is anything like the last two press conferences it will reveal very little about the candidates except for the fact that they are both accomplished liars.  Questions will be dodged and answers will be given that have been carefully crafted to appeal to the vanity and envy of the electorate.  Many of the answers will include promises to do something for one group of politically connected people at the expense of another smaller group of citizens in the SDA.  Each candidate will attempt to dress up his promise as something that is allegedly good for America.  If the promise involves anything other than protecting our rights to life, freedom and our own property it will really be nothing more than a promise to steal from one group and give to another.  That, as well all know, is called theft and it is very immoral.  Still, the immorality of the stealing that each candidate promises to do is ignored by those who are on the receiving end of the largess.  In most cases being on the receiving end is sufficient reason to pretend that everything is completely moral and above board. 
One of the things both candidates for king excel at doing is describing government spending programs as something other than what they are.  I was watching the television the other night when I was assaulted by consecutive commercials, one from each candidate.  Both Romney and Obama approved of these commercials in which a long list of promises were given to potential voters.  It was fascinating for me to listen as each candidate began by asserting that he was strongly in favor of reducing the federal deficit and cutting the national debt.  In other words, each candidate made the promise that he would attempt to cut government spending if elected king.  Then, immediately following the promise to cut government spending, both commercials went on to describe the other things each was in favor of giving to the electorate.  None of the promises that followed had anything to do with protecting our lives, freedom and property.  In fact, each promise that followed specifically required intrusions into our lives, reductions in our freedom, and theft of our property.
You will hear a lot of promises tonight from two men who steadfastly assert that they want to reduce the national debt.  Allow me to translate what you are likely to hear into terms that we can all understand.  Each candidate will likely say (or has already said in a previous press conference or in one of his commercials):
  • "I support Social Security."  Social security is an income transfer program and a Ponzi scheme. Anyone who supports social security supports a governmental program of income transfer.  Anyone who does not support social security will not be elected king.  There are too many people counting on social security to retire.  Nevertheless, anyone who supports social security as it presently exists is actually increasing government spending.
  • "I support Medicare."  Medicare is an income transfer program and a Ponzi scheme. Anyone who supports Medicare supports a governmental program of income transfer. Anyone who does not support Medicare will not be elected king.  There are too many people using Medicare to pay their medical bills.  Nevertheless, anyone who supports Medicare as it presently exits is actually increasing government spending.
  • "We need to invest in education."  Government programs that transfer the income of a defenseless minority to another group who want their college tuition bills paid for them is not an investment.  It is theft.  All talk about investing in education necessarily results in increased costs.  All government programs that transfer money to education increase government spending.
  • "We need to invest in infrastructure."  Infrastructure is not an investment.  Building roads and bridges that allow people to get to the businesses that they did not create is not an investment.  Investments at least have the potential of increasing in value.  Capital improvements of roads and bridges immediately depreciate.  Taxing the citizens of the SDA to build roads and bridges is not investment.  It is government spending.
  • "We need to become energy independent by supporting alternative energy."  Energy independence is a pipe dream.  Energy independence is impossible given the interconnected nature of the modern energy industry.  Besides being impossible to accomplish energy independence, the idea of supporting alternative sources of energy means nothing more than taking money from one group and giving it to another, less ten percent for handling by the government.  Supporting alternative energy sources that the free market does not want always involves tax subsidies and government grants.  In other words, it is a new program of government spending.
  • "We need to get tough with China and stop them from cheating."  These assertions all basically boil down to attempting to justify tariffs and taxes on imported goods.  Those tariffs are put there to protect domestic producers from more efficient foreign competitors.  They buy a lot of votes.  They also raise prices for citizens of the SDA.  An objective analysis of the tariff  policies found in all the other countries of the world will quickly reveal the fact that the SDA is by far the biggest "cheater".  No country even comes close to having the large number and wide range of tariffs that the SDA has.  All talk about trade wars really end up being nothing more than promises to raise prices for consumers and expand the size of the bureaucracy.  It increases government spending.
  • "We need to be safe from domestic terrorism."  Notice to both candidates:  There is no domestic terrorism and there are no domestic terrorists.  The war on domestic terror has been going on now for over eleven years and we are yet to see one member of the enemy on our soil.  Maybe it is time to admit they are not here?  No, neither candidate for king is willing to do that.  There are too many advantages to keeping up the war on terror.  It helps keep the citizenry afraid and a frightened citizenry is much more likely to look to government for security.  It also allows for massive expansions of government bureaus associated with the war on terror.  Homeland security has expanded enormously and is expected to continue to grow.  This is nothing more than an excuse to increase government spending.
Like political speeches, this list could go on forever.   My point is a simple one.  Both candidates will tell you that they want to cut government spending and then spend the rest of the night making promises to you, all of which will increase government spending.  In a country in which the majority of the voters want something for nothing it is impossible for a candidate to get elected without promising to increase government spending.  Yet no politician is honest enough to admit that he will increase government spending. The net result is that each candidate will first pay lip service to the concept of cutting spending and then proceed to making his promises.  Listen to the promises and promised programs described by Romney and Obama tonight.  Each one will involve more government spending.  Each one will make the SDA worse off economically.  Each one is bad for the country.  But each one will buy the votes of a specific group of greedy, envy-filled voters and so those promises will be made.
Tonight will be a night full of lies.  No truth will be told by either candidate.  Telling the truth is political suicide and no candidate for king would ever do it.  I believe it is fair to say that nothing said tonight will be true.  There is one sure test to determine if the candidates are lying.  Just check to see if their lips are moving.  If they are, they are lying.