San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, December 21, 2012

A List Of Lists

I have noticed that many blog authors will resort to using "top ten" lists in order to gain wider readership.  Today marks the entry into my second year of blogging.  I have seen a steady rate of increase in the number of page views over the course of the last year and I would like to try and increase my page views even more this year.  So, for no reason other than trying to increase my numbers, I present to you my list of twenty "top threes":

Top Three Books On Economics:
 1.  Man, Economy and State by Murray Rothbard.
 2.  Human Action by Ludwig von Mises.
 3.  Democracy, The God That Failed by Hans Hoppe.

Top Thee Colorado Fourteeners:
 1.  Capitol Peak.
 2.  North Maroon Peak.
 3.  Mt. Aeolus.

Top Three Colorado Thirteeners:
 1.  Teakettle Mountain.
 2.  Storm King Peak.
 3.  Ice Mountain.

Top Three Dumbest Congresswomen:
 1.  Nancy Pelosi
 2.  Diane Feinstein.
 3.  Diane DeGette

Top Three Worst Presidents:
 1.  Abraham Lincoln.
 2.  Franklin Roosevelt.
 3.  Woodrow Wilson.

Top Three States To Visit On Vacation:
 1.  Colorado.
 2.  Utah.
 3.  Arizona.

Top Three States To Avoid:
 1.  California.
 2.  New York.
 3.  Oregon.

Top Three Blues Songs:
 1.  Texas Flood by Stevie Ray Vaughn.
 2.  Have You Ever Loved A Woman by Eric Clapton and Duane Allman.
 3.  Red House by Jimi Hendrix

Top Three Vinyl Albums:
 1.  Layla and Assorted Love Songs by Derrick and the Dominos.
 2.  Exile on Main Street by the Rolling Stones.
 3.  Pronounced by Lynyrd Skynyrd.

Top Three Guitar Anthems:
 1.  Free Bird by Lynyrd Skynyrd.
 2.  Green Grass and High Tides by The Outlaws.
 3.  Boogie No More by Molly Hatchet.

Top Three Movie Westerns:
 1.  Pale Rider.
 2.  High Plains Drifter.
 3.  Shane.

Top Three Television Westerns:
 1.  High Chaparral.
 2.  The Rifleman.
 3.  The Virginian.

Top Three Television Comedies:
 1.  The Simpsons.
 2.  Get Smart.
 3.  Laugh In.

Top Three Overrated Baseball Players:
 1.  Alex Rodriguez.
 2.  Troy Tulowitzki.
 3.  Barry Bonds.

Top Three Pitching Staffs:
 1.  1971 Baltimore Orioles.
 2.  1993 Atlanta Braves.
 3.  1965 Los Angeles Dodgers.

Top Three Pitchers:
 1.  Walter Johnson.
 2.  Greg Maddux.
 3.  Sam McDowell.

Top Three Baseball Players:
 1.  Babe Ruth.
 2.  Willy Mays.
 3.  Larry Walker.

Top Three Theologians:
 1.  John Calvin.
 2.  Jonathan Edwards.
 3.  John Owen.

Top Three Places To Stand And Enjoy The View:
 1.  The "Narrows" on Long's Peak.
 2.  The "Knife Edge" on Capitol Peak.
 3.  The "Sidewalk in the Sky" on Mt. Aeolus and
      The "Highway" on Kit Carson (tie for third place).

Top Three Truths That Will Never Change:
 1.  Men will continue to sin against each other.
 2.  God will continue to forgive the sins of His elect.
 3.  Compared to eternity, our present lives are but a brief moment in time.

By the way, I will be taking a brief vacation from this blog.  I am off to tropical climes for the Christmas holiday.  If all goes well this blog will resume on Monday, January 7th.  Until then, have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.  And thanks for reading.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Ignore The Tears, Obama Hates Children

King Obama's recent appearances before the camera where he has been seen shedding tears of grief for the bereaved in the Connecticut grade school massacre are hypocritical at best.  It appears that the King has decided that now is the time to exploit recent events for the purpose of creating his "legacy" as a great and caring king.  With no additional terms of office available to him there is little political reason to get before a television camera and stage a fake emotional breakdown.  Career politicians, on the other hand, still have to manufacture an image that tells potential voters that they "care" and "relate" to their puny little lives.  As expected, politicians are falling all over themselves to come up with "solutions" to the problem of massacres.  They profess to believe (although I suspect none of them really do) that they can do something so that another school massacre will "never happen again".  What fools.  They care about one thing and one thing alone.  They care about the expansion of their power. Let me give you some examples to illustrate my point.
On April 19th, 1993 Janet Reno, appointed US Attorney General by President Bill Clinton, ordered the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to stage a violent assault upon a private residence in Waco, Texas.  The property was home to a group of private citizens who referred to themselves as the Branch Davidians who, besides teaching a wide variety of strange religious doctrines, were most famously known for simply wanting to be left alone.  Rumors circulated throughout the area that these folks had illegal guns.  Additional rumors circulated about alleged sexual abuse.  The rumors were never substantiated and even the government prosecutor eventually admitted that the charges were filed primarily to build a public relations case against the Branch Davidians in order to justify a military type assault upon them.  Ostensibly to protect the children in the home from abuse, Janet Reno ordered the assault on it and it was soon destroyed by tanks and gas attacks that resulted in a massive conflagration.  Seventy six people were killed.  Twenty one of those killed were children.  Based upon their behavior, and not their words, we can conclude that Clinton and Reno worked harmoniously together to protect the children in Waco by executing twenty one of them.  Clinton and Reno, as well as many of the ignorant citizens of the SDA, agreed that the deaths were necessary to protect the children and teach upstart citizens like David Koresh that the government is the supreme power in the land and will not be mocked by people who prefer to mind their own business.
Andrew Kehoe was Treasurer of his local school board in Bath, Michigan.  After losing an election for Township Clerk he became enraged by the fact that he was not advancing politically as he desired.  In retaliation against those who did not vote for him, he placed bombs all around an elementary school and, on May 18th, 1927, he blew them up.  Forty four people were killed, including thirty eight children.  The Bath bombing remains the country's greatest death count by a crazed killer.  This government agent did not care about the children he was supposed to serve.  He killed many of them because he was frustrated in his attempt to become more politically powerful.
Maybe you thought I was a bit harsh when I called King Obama a hypocrite.  I don't think so.  Since assuming the office of king, Obama has personally ordered 302 drone missile attacks in Pakistan alone.  Those drone missile attacks have killed approximately three thousand people.  Of the three thousand human beings that have been executed by US drone missiles, at least five hundred of them have been determined to be innocent bystanders.  Of greater significance for this blog post is the fact that 176 of those 500 people were children.  One hundred and seventy six innocent children have been executed by Obama's drones.  One famous drone attack was successful in blowing up a home where a birthday party was taking place, killing all the participants.   I know, I know....they are Pakistani children.  They don't really count.  They are not Americans!  The deaths of foreign children, even by our own bloody hands, is irrelevant.  So maybe I should modify my statement about Obama.  He appears to have some emotional response to the massacre of children when it is done by an unauthorized civilian and on our side of a geo-political boundary.  On the other hand, when 176 children are slaughtered by SDA government agents in a land on the other side of the geo-political boundary, they deserved to die and their murderers deserve medals for bravery.  No tears for them.  They probably would have grown up to be American-hating terrorists anyway.
Iraq was subject to economic sanctions from 1990 until the time the SDA invading forces annihilated the country in search of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist.  Bush Senior, Bill Clinton and King George II all conspired to starve Iraqi children under the thin veil of justification that doing so would cause them to rise up and revolt against the satanic Saddam Hussein.  Instead of rising up against their leader the Iraqi children starved.  Conservative estimates say 170,000 children died of starvation during those years.  More liberal estimates by the folks at UNICEF claim 500,000 died.  Secretary of State Albright, in an 1996 interview on 60 Minutes, was quoted in response to the allegation that 500,000 children had been starved to death by saying, "we think the price is worth it."  Who cares about foreign children?  They are enemy children.  They live in the wrong land.  They were in the way of our expansion efforts.  The Bush regime did not care about children.  It cared about expanding power.  The price was worth it.
Under Obama we have 22 nations presently subject to US imposed sanctions.  Probably the most serious economic sanctions are being imposed upon Iran.  Sanctions have been in place against Iran since 1979.  I was unable to find any estimates as to how many children have died as a direct result of the sanctions imposed against them.  I think it is fair to believe that if we were successful in killing 170,000 kids in about 14 years in Iraq, we should be successful in killing at least another 170,000 in Iran since 1979.  Of course those Iranian children are irrelevant.  They live in a foreign country.  They speak a foreign language.  They eat strange food.  They will probably grow up to be terrorists. For some inexplicable reason that nobody can understand, many of them will grow up hating the Untied States!  It is good for them to die.  After all, the SDA has a vital national security interest in Iran.  Those children must be killed.  No, the truth is this that state sanctioned executions of foreign children is really all about expanding state power.
Politicians have seized upon the grade school massacre as justification for expansion of state power and reduction of our personal liberty as well.  New gun laws will be enacted.  There will be press coverage of career politicians signing legislation to make sure it never happens again.  Then, of course, it will happen again.  Perhaps even more fearful than the collapse of the Second Amendment is the coming storm related to your right to be different.  Federal and state governments have already declared their intentions to dramatically expand the definition of "mental illness".  Coinciding with this expanded definition comes an expanding right for the state to involuntarily hold (incarcerate) anyone the state believes to be a threat.  Being a "threat", of course, is never defined.  If you walk down the street talking to yourself, as I often do, you can be picked up by the loonie-patrol and thrown into prison for a mandatory three day hold.  Comply!  Comply!  Comply!  Do not make the mistake of being different or you could find yourself under permanent psychiatric care in a mental hospital (prison).
Laws will be passed, personal liberties will be reduced, and children will be no more or less safe than they are today.  However, government will have significantly expanded in power and influence.  The career politicians will be successful in what they are really trying to do.  They are just  not willing to tell you what it is they are trying to do.  By the time you fine out, it will be too late.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Sex, Sex, Sex

The following post was written on April 16, 2012.  According to my page view tracker, only one person bothered to read it.  I thought it was a pretty good posting to this blog.  So, in order to try and get more people to read it, I decided to entitle this post "Sex, Sex, Sex".  Some folks have recently told me that I can get more page views of my blog if I use particular keywords that come up frequently in Google searches.  Consider today's post to be an experiment to see if that is true.  The following post was originally entitled "Feudal America".  Although it has nothing to do with sex, I still think you will enjoy reading it.

Feudal societies of the Middle Ages were characterized by three main things:  1) high rates of taxation, 2) compulsory military service, and 3) the frequent recitation of fealty oaths.  As I was sitting at the Colorado Rockies home opener last week it occurred to me that we have become a feudal society.
In the Middle Ages a vassal would be permitted to farm a parcel of land owned by a lord.  The vassal would work the land and then turn over the produce of the land to the lord at the time of harvest.  From what I could find in some quick Internet searches, it appeared that most agreements stipulated that the vassal would owe his lord somewhere around one third of what he produced.  As I was pondering this historical truth it occurred to me that tax liberation day falls on April 17th this year.  Tax liberation day is the day the average American has to work to in order to pay off his federal, state, and local tax burdens.  April 17th is roughly one third of the way through the year.  Interesting.  The average American has to turn over the same amount of his income to his government as a feudal vassal of the Middle ages turned over to his lord.
Things were tough during the Middle Ages.  The life of a peasant would be miserable, brutish, and short.  In exchange for their freedom most peasants were willing to pledge their lives to a lord who, in turn, promised to protect them from outsider invaders.  Able bodied males were expected to take part in the wars waged by the lord.  Women, children and the elderly were expected to support the lord and his warriors in some fashion.  When the lord declared war upon his many enemies, everybody was expected to be involved in the war effort..
The draft has been abolished for many years now.  Every once in a while some Congressman will resurrect the idea of reestablishing the draft but the proposal is usually shot down pretty quickly.  But, does it follow that simply because we no longer have a draft that we are not, somehow, subject to a form of compulsory military service?  As I was sitting at the home opener for the Colorado Rockies last week I noticed how militaristic the opening ceremonies had become.  It all began with a parade in which about a dozen ROTC groups marched around the field to the cheers of the fans.  That was followed by an honor guard that brought out the flag to great cheering.  That was followed by dozens of people spreading out a gigantic American flag that covered the entire outfield.  That was accompanied by great cheering.  That was followed by the singing of the "Star Spangled Banner", which was followed by raucous cheering.  As the national anthem was being completed a barrage of fireworks were set off just as a fighter plane "fly-over" roared over the stadium.  The people screamed in delight.  As I observed the ceremonies it occurred to me that, in many ways, we, as American citizens, are still compelled to serve the military.  I pondered how often I have seen the bumper stick exhorting me to "Support Our Troops".  I wondered, if one holds a particular military action to be morally unjustifiable,  just how is it possible to morally support the troops who are waging the war?  I realized, of course, that that was a stupid question.  I must, I must, I must support the troops, right or wrong.  I then realized how much we are like the feudal societies of the Middle Ages.
In the Middle Ages the lord would frequently ride out to visit his vassals.  A contact with a vassal usually contained the same order of events.  The lord would be identified as the vassal's supreme authority.  The lord would instruct the vassal on his duty to pay his taxes and support the military ventures of his fiefdom.  The lord would conclude the meeting by having the vassal swear an oath of loyalty to him. 
As I was sitting at the home opener of the Colorado Rockies last week a thought occurred to me.  It was during the seventh inning stretch.  Ever since 9/11 the seventh inning stretch has become "patriotized" (I realize that is not a word.  I just don't know how else to say it.).  In the old days most folks would stand up to stretch their legs and sing a refrain of "Take Me Out To The Ballgame".  We did so because we loved watching baseball.  At this game we were instructed by the public address announcer that we had a moral duty to stand, remove our hats, and sing "God Bless America".  We were then ordered to do so.  As I sat there I wondered.  Is it a safe thing to invoke the blessing of God upon a nation that murders millions of its own children?  Is it a safe thing to invoke the blessing of God upon a nation that steals from its citizens on a grand scale (through excessive taxation)?  Is it a safe thing to invoke the blessing of God upon a nation that has a political system that operates almost exclusively on envy?  I did not think it was a safe thing to do so I did not do it.  I expected to be doused in beer by an outraged fan for my lack of loyalty to my country.  Fortunately that did not happen.  I did, however, realize that I now live in feudal America.  It was not a pleasant realization.  The Rockies also lost.  What a sad day.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Rumors About Obama's Evil Plans Abound

I never cease to be amazed at what people are willing to believe.  I can struggle for hours trying to convince an otherwise rational person that he should buy stocks when they are low priced.  Stocks, of course, are always low priced when they are unpopular and nobody wants to buy them.  The usual reason nobody wants to buy them is due to the fact that a decline, or maybe even a bear market, would have been recently experienced in the stock market.  So, despite the fact that every single person in the course of human history believes and agrees that one of the best ways to make a financial profit is to buy stocks when they are low and sell them when they are high, almost nobody will make the decision to buy stocks when they are low priced.
The same person who is unwilling to make the difficult, but rational, decision to buy stocks when relatively few people want them is also most likely to be the person who will believe the most outlandish rumors.  It does not matter that the content of the rumor is utterly irrational.  It does not matter that it requires a gigantic leap of faith to assign credulity to even the smallest part of the rumor.  No, these people jump in with both feet with it comes to a wild rumor.  In fact, it almost seems as if the more ridiculous and absurd the rumor is, the more likely they are to believe it.  There are two rumors that are presently circulating about King Obama and Congress that fit into this category.  The first rumor is that Obama is going to issue an Executive Order allowing himself to run for a third term for president.  The second rumor is that Obama and Congress are going to pass legislation that will decree that all assets in tax qualified retirement plans (IRAs and 401ks) are to become the immediate property of the federal government and used to pay off the federal debt.  It is worth taking some time to consider these rumors.
Can King Obama issue an Executive Order decreeing that he can run for a third term as king?  Of course he can.  He can do anything he wants.  After all, he is a king.  Besides, the majority of the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of America believe that the King should be able to do anything he wants.   The more important question is what would happen if Obama did issue such an order?  Would it become the new law of the land?  Not likely.
The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America (you remember, that is the country we used to be prior to the adoption of the principle of rule by the majority) limits the president to two terms.  It was added to the Constitution in 1951.  For King Obama to issue an Executive Order that would directly change an amendment to the Constitution would be unprecedented.  It is one thing to issue an order telling a Christian employer that he has to pay for "health" insurance that pays for the abortions of his promiscuous employees.  It is another thing to unilaterally change the Constitution. 
The Constitution provides the means for its own amendment.  To amend the Constitution requires a bill that must be approved by a super-majority (67%) of both houses.  That bill must then be submitted to the fifty states.  75% of the states must ratify (by a simple majority) the amendment in order for it to become law.  People who are running around willy-nilly asserting that Obama is about to amend the Constitution have forgotten their history.  Since 1985, during the reign of King Reagan, there have been annual attempts to change the amendment.  For different reasons each year, somebody in Congress decides that a good way to make a political statement would be to introduce a law that would repeal the 22nd Amendment.  Without exception these proposals have failed to make it out of their various congressional committees.
2013 will be no different.  Folks who love Obama will find some Congressman willing to offer up such an amendment.  It will be sent to a committee which will then vote it down.  That is called "business as usual" in Congress.  The sponsors of the bill will claim they tried to help the nation and those who kill it will claim the same thing.  Each side will get what it wants and there will be no real threat to the 22nd amendment.  It is all political theater and only a crazy person would believe it has any correlation to real life.  Don't be a crazy person.
The second rumor is that King Obama and Congress are going to take a pen and write a law that all assets presently sequestered safely in 401k accounts are to immediately become the property of the Treasury.  Now let's think about this for a moment, shall we?  To shed some perspective on this rumor consider our present situation as we face falling off the imaginary "fiscal cliff" (see the November 9th posting to this blog for the fallacy associated with that erroneous belief).  Congress and the White House are battling one another over what amounts to about $100 billion in tax/revenue for 2013.  King Obama wants to raise taxes on the top 2% of taxpayers and the congressional Republicans want to cut spending.  These poor fools can't even come to a meeting of the minds over how to divvy up $100 billion and some folks are crazy enough to believe they will come to a meeting of the minds on how to confiscate $3 trillion in 401k assets?  Are you kidding me?
There are 50 million taxpayers who presently own 401k accounts.  That makes up 36% of the taxpayers in this country.  Do you honestly expect me to believe that Congress and the White House are going to agree to anger 36% of the voting public when are presently unable to agree on how to steal from a measly 2% of the voting population?  Preposterous.
Allow me to propose a far more realistic idea on how our ruling authorities might decide to creatively steal from us. The money supply in this country (M2) is presently at $10 trillion.  If the Fed simply decided to inflate the money supply by 10% in 2013 (the rate of inflation for 2012 is 7.3%), the government could create $1 trillion in new money (funny, that sounds exactly like QE infinity that Fed Chairman Bernanke just announced).  By following that simple policy for three years the Fed could create as much money as presently exists in all 401k accounts in the land.  Furthermore, they could accomplish their goal of $3 trillion in new money without angering any taxpayers.  Quite the opposite is the case.  Since most citizens of the SDA believe in the Keynesian principle of creating wealth by creating money, the career politicians would be praised for their efforts.  Why would a politician put his career and pension at jeopardy by passing a law to confiscate large amounts of money from 50 million people when the same goal can be accomplished by doing nothing but what is presently being done?  Of course, it makes no sense.  And that is why it will not happen.
I appreciate the motive behind the rumor-mongers. They believe all politicians are liars and thieves.  They want to warn us about their behavior.  That is all well and good.  But don't insult my intelligence with these ridiculous rumors. 

Monday, December 17, 2012

Why Do We Experience Massacres?

Another day, another massacre.  It is on everyone's mind.  It is on all the airwaves.  It is what everybody is talking about.  It seems as if everybody is asking the same two questions:  why did this happen and how do we prevent it from happening yet again?  Allow me to answer those two questions.
The answer to the "why" question that is being given to us by almost all of the popular media outlets is that we do not have sufficiently strict gun control laws in this country.  These people believe that a more strict regimen of gun control law is also the answer to the second question.  The grade school massacre took place because of easy access to guns and no more massacres will take place if guns are strictly regulated.  It is all so very simple.  It is all so very easy.  All it takes is a stroke of the pen and, presto-chango, no more massacres.  So they tell us.
The main argument against the popular media's assertion that gun control laws are the solution to our problem of mass murder is that guns don't kill people, people kill people.  Regulating guns will not solve the problem since the problem is the people who are shooting the guns.  As far as I am aware there have been no new laws proposed, and nobody calling for such a body of law, that would regulate people who are intent upon mass murder to prevent them from doing so.  Perhaps most folks have the common sense to realize that it is impossible to regulate what goes on in another man's brain.  Perhaps most folks realize that it is impossible to control the physical behavior of our neighbors.  So we are back to the old argument....since we can't control murderers, we must regulate the guns the murderers use.  Somehow, perhaps mystically or by some amazing power of moral suasion, new laws will control the thoughts and actions of men intent upon killing others.
We have an empirical example of the results of stricter gun control regulation.  In 1997 Australia passed a series of gun control measures designed to prevent the further occurrence of massacres.  In April of 1996 a man by the name of Martin Bryant shot 58 people, 35 of whom died, in the Australian city of Port Arthur.  Public outrage to the massacre was so strong the government of Australia passed a series of gun control laws that are today considered to be some of the most stringent in the world.  Fifteen years have passed since the laws were passed.  Is there any evidence that they have been effective in reducing gun related criminal activity?  Since 1997 the incidence of armed robberies in Australia has increased by 69%.  Assaults involving the use of a gun are up 29%.  Murders involving the use of a gun are up 19%.  Although the Australian authorities are still trying to define the term "home invasion", where an armed person invades a personal residence, they are up 21% in the last fifteen years.  (http://youtu.be/p8RDWltHxRc)
Now, we all know that correlation and causation are two different birds.  It is possible that these four categories of gun related crime have seen an increase in incidence due to factors not related to the gun control laws.  However, what does common sense tell us?  If some of the strictest gun control laws in the world are incapable of reducing violent crimes committed with guns, are we not forced to question their efficacy?  If crimes committed with guns actually increase after the passage of gun control laws, does it not make sense to question their value?  Does it not make common sense to believe the old maxim that "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"?  Is it not clear that the physical destruction of over 600,000 guns has not resulted in a decrease of gun related violence?  Australia is a fine example of an experiment with gun control regulation.  The conclusion we are forced to draw from the example of our neighbors down under is that gun control regulations do not reduce the incidence of gun related violence.
There is a very simple answer to the "why" question. It is, however, a very unpopular answer.  It is an answer nobody wants to hear.  It is an answer that, despite being abundantly obvious in all aspects of life, is continually denied.  It is a theological answer and that goes a long way toward explaining why it is also a hated answer.  Why do individuals make the decision to commit mass murder?  Men commit murder because they are depraved sinners.  Like it or not, men are not basically good.  Nobody wants to hear this truth despite the fact that its evidence is plastered on the front page of every newspaper every single day.  Men suppress this truth despite the fact they know it to be true about themselves.  Ever since the fall of man, all mankind is incapable of doing good.  Even worse, all mankind is bent upon doing evil.   The doctrine is called "total depravity" and it explains everything about the evil things men do. Not surprisingly, the doctrine of total depravity is one of the most hated of all Christian doctrines. Indeed, the majority of people who would call themselves Christians do not even believe it.  But it does answer the "why" question.
The grade school gunman murdered over two dozen people because he wanted to.  He did it because it was fun for him to do.  He enjoyed it.  He, like the rest of us, is guilty of both original and actual sin.  He, like the rest of us, is totally depraved.  Although he was an extreme example of homicidal rage, the shooter is in many ways no different than any of us.  If looks could kill, how many people would you have killed by now?   I mean it, how many?   How many people would you have killed on the roadway if you could do so with impunity?  If your middle finger was a loaded gun, how many dead would be in your wake?  How many enemies do you have that you would like to eliminate?  We are all built from the same stuff and that stuff is exceedingly depraved.  We hurt others because we want to hurt others.  It makes our depraved minds feel good.
The second question on so many minds is how do we keep this from happening again?  The answer to that question is simple....we can't.  Nobody can control what goes on in the minds of others.  Aside from having a personal guard physically assigned to every person who is alive, and erroneously assuming that that guard is himself not subject to total depravity, there is no way to prevent future occurrences of mass murder. Still, men and women want an answer to this question.  They want security.  They are not satisfied with the truth that nothing can be done to stop sinful men.  Last night King Obama delivered a speech in which he said that "we will have to change".  His tautological assertion is correct.  We do have to change.  Those who want to murder others need to stop wanting to murder others.  The question, however, is how do we bring about that change.  Obama continued when he said, "What choice do we have?  Are we really prepared to say that we are powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard?"  The answer to that question, Mr. King, is a resounding "Yes".  We are powerless.  There is nothing men, including politicians, can do to stop other men who are bent on killing from killing.  Only fools and politicians believe otherwise. 
In the face of our total inability to prevent such massacres, I am aware that many people turn to their gods and petition them for help.  One man, quoted in Saturday's Denver Post, petitioned his god when he asked, "When are you, Mr. President, going to do something?"  Others, prayerfully petitioning their various deities in Congress, are calling for the passage of new laws, as if the simple stroke of a pen can change the nature of man.  Career politicians are not gods.  Despite the fact that the majority of the citizens of this country believe that they have god-like powers, they are utterly incapable of preventing murder.  Turning to them at a time like this is utter folly.  Don't be a fool.
The only way to prevent future mass murders is to take away the depraved nature of man.  Taking away the depraved nature of man is a job for God.  Does such a God exist?  He does indeed.  We celebrate His birthday in a matter of days.