San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, August 30, 2013

Attorney General Displays Gross Hypocrisy About Marijuana In Colorado

The citizens of Washington and Colorado breathed a collective sigh of relief yesterday as the federal government of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika agreed not to declare war on them for their rebellious stances taken with the legalization of marijuana in their states.  As most of you are no doubt aware, voters in Washington and Colorado decided, by majority vote, to legalize the private use of marijuana.  I believe the new law came into effect on July 1st for those of us who live in Colorado.  Pity the poor fellow who was arrested for possession of marijuana on June 30th.  At least he will be able to legally smoke marijuana while serving his prison sentence.  But that is another story.
One of the big questions about the decision to make marijuana legal was how the federal government would respond to our alleged transgressions of federal law. We know how the federal government responds to most things.  First, a series of threats are issued.  We are told we must comply with the wishes of King Obama or face the consequences.  Then a series of moral justifications for why intervention is necessary are given.  These justifications usually revolve around how some group of people are being oppressed and need to be liberated from the oppressive actions of another group of people.  Then a few drones are sent in to kill a couple of SDA citizens who did not agree with the federal position on the issue. Finally the jack-booted thugs in armored vehicles arrive and the real killing begins.  We call these boys "heroes" and incessantly extol the virtue of their actions. Oh wait....I am thinking about Syria.....let me get back to the topic of the day.
Here is how my Denver Post described the federal decision, "In a decision with historic implications, the federal government announced Thursday that it will not stand in the way of marijuana legalization in Colorado or Washington state."  Seeing as how it is none of the federal government's business what the free citizens of Colorado want to do with marijuana, I don't understand how a decision to do nothing is "historic".  But who am I to quibble with history?  The story goes on by reporting that the federales "will be watching closely."  Well that is certainly comforting.  A government by the people and for the people is informing this group of people that it will be watching for any transgression of the arbitrary rules so it can immediately sweep in and arrest and incarcerate those it does not like.  What country do we live in again?  It sure would be nice if somebody would come and liberate us, wouldn't it?
The story went on to report that "Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole wrote in a memo sent Thursday to federal prosecutors that it will not be a priority to block landmark marijuana legalization laws in the two states."  Why it is the business of the U.S. Attorney General in the first place is not described.  Does anybody besides me remember that sentence near the end of the Constitution of the United States (you remember that truly historic was designed to be the foundational document for our federal government) which states that all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states?  The last time I checked, the Constitution did not delegate the power to criminalize hemp to the federal government.  In fact, the last time I checked the federal government of our founding fathers was encouraging the folks in this land to plant as much hemp as they possibly could.  But that is another story as well.
When Deputy AG Cole said he was going to be "watching us closely", he wasn't kidding.  Here is what he said he is going to be looking for in our behavior.  "If the two states are unable to keep pot away from kids, keep criminal gangs out of the marijuana industry or keep marijuana from being trafficked into neighboring states, the federal government would intervene."  I find Cole's threats to be most interesting.  In fact, I find his threats to be a perfect example of the gross hypocrisy that routinely spews forth from the wretched mouths of career politicians and bureaucrats in Washington DC.  Look carefully at what he threatens.  Do you notice anything?
There are three things that will bring about federal intervention in Colorado to prevent a free market in marijuana.  The first possible event would be if the Colorado career politicians, bureaucrats and rules enforcement personnel are unable to keep marijuana out of the hands of minors. If a minor stumbles across a marijuana cigarette the feds will sweep in to arrest us all.  Now, I ask you, how have the federales being doing with enforcing that law in their own jurisdiction?  Under federal law and federal law enforcement, how have the federal authorities been doing in keeping marijuana out of the hands of minors?  Do you know of any minors who have ever smoked marijuana? seems to me that the Attorney General of the SDA might be expecting the state of Colorado do be able to do something he has never shown the ability to do himself.  Maybe he should perform a self-intervention.  I would really like to see that.
The second thing that must not happen is for criminal gangs to get involved in the distribution of marijuana.  How have the federal authorities been doing on that one?  Are any gangs involved in the sale of marijuana in any of the states that have not legalized marijuana?  It seems to me as if criminal gangs are one of the primary distribution arms for marijuana in all the remaining states that have not legalized it.  Why does the AG not focus his attention upon his own massive failure at policing the distribution of marijuana by criminal gangs in neighboring states that still declare it to be illegal?  If anything is likely to be the result of legalizing marijuana, it will be that the free market will take the production, distribution and sale of marijuana entirely out of the hands of the criminal gangs.  And that will be accomplished without any intervention by any government agent whatsoever.
The third thing the AG will be watching me to see is if any marijuana happens to cross an arbitrary geo-political border.  The last time I checked marijuana did not care if it was on this side or that side of the Colorado-Wyoming border.  In fact, since it is legal to possess marijuana in Colorado, it is pretty likely that some of it is going to cross a state border.  Now, I wonder, how has the federal government done at keeping marijuana from crossing state lines?  It seems to me that the AG has failed miserably at keeping marijuana from crossing state borders.  That being the case, how can he possibly accuse the good folks of Colorado for wrongdoing when he is incapable of accomplishing that goal himself?
I am amazed that nobody else has apparently seen the gross hypocrisy in the threats of the Deputy Attorney General of the SDA against Colorado and Washington.  Everything he threatens to use as justification for military action against Colorado are the very same things he is utterly incapable of doing, despite spending billions of taxpayer dollars on his "war on drugs", in his own expansive jurisdiction.   If I didn't know better I would say we are being set up.  It looks as if the AG has established a series of conditions that are impossible to comply with as justification for future intervention into the sovereign affairs of the people of Colorado.  I don't know about you but I don't like that one bit.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Another Class Of Royalty In The SDA

I learned something earlier this week.  That is not unusual.  I learn something just about every week.  Sometimes the things I learn make me a better person, or so I hope.  Other times the things I learn make me really mad.  In fact, most of the time the things I learn make me mad.  I am really mad today.  Let me tell you why.
Any regular reader of this blog knows that I despise career politicians.  They are all liars.  In fact, they lie all the time.  They are also very stupid.  They showcase their stupidity every time they get in front of a crowd with a microphone.  They are extremely privileged and they expect the populace to treat them with deference and, oftentimes, worship.  Perhaps most of all they are hypocrites.  They are all pretending to be something ("public servants") that they are not.  They exploit the public for their own means and then have the audacity to tell us that they are serving us.  They tell us they are doing good things for us when they are actually destroying our wealth on a daily basis.  I could go on and on but these things are not the point of today's post to this blog.
An article in the Monday (August 26th) issue of the Denver Post caught my eye.  The headline stated, "Lobbyists in 20 States Get Perk of a Public Pension."  The article began with this catchy story, "As a lobbyist in New York's statehouse, Stephen Acquario is doing pretty well.  He pulls down $204,000 a year, gets a Ford Explorer as his company car and is afforded another special perk:  Even though he is not a government employee, he is entitled to a full state pension."  At this point I was starting to get mad.  I kept reading and here is what I learned, "Acquario is among hundreds of lobbyists in at least 20 states, including Colorado, who get public pensions because they represent associations of counties, cities and school boards....Legislatures granted them access decades ago on the premise that they serve governments and the public.  In many cases, such access also includes state health care benefits."  By now my offense had become personal.  I was not just mad, I was hopping mad.
Do you see what is going on here?  Career politicians have passed laws giving career lobbyists the right to feed at the public trough by providing them with retirement benefits and health insurance at taxpayer expense.  What possible justification can there be for this allowance?  What could the politicians possibly have been thinking when they passed the laws that allow private lobbyists to receive public benefits?
We can read their alleged justification for this travesty.  According to the career politicians who voted to pay private lobbyists taxpayer dollars for their services, the lobbyists should be entitled to receive government pensions because they sometimes represent other governmental bodies in their lobbying efforts.  What?!  So because I am a lobbyist for the local union 549 (piano tuners, monkey trainers and highway flagmen) I should be entitled to a six figure government pension simply because I am trying to get higher wages and prettier blaze orange vests for highway flagmen at the Colorado Department of Transportation?
Maybe you are not aware of how state pension benefits are calculated and paid.  The program is called Public Employee Retirement Association, PERA for short, and most states follow similar procedures to determine payouts from these heavily taxpayer subsidized plans.  Government employees will make contributions to PERA, in lieu of Social Security, while they work.  When they retire they will receive a monthly check from the plan.  Although they have made contributions to the PERA, the plan is not a 401k type plan.  What they get back is not determined solely by what they have contributed to the plan.  It is a defined benefit plan.  As a defined benefit plan the participants receive a specified monthly benefit, regardless of the amount they have contributed.  Their monthly benefit is determined by how many years they have worked for the government and what their salary was at the time they retired.  The shortfall, generally a very large one, between their contributions and what they receive in benefits is covered by the taxpayers.  In the example given in the Post article, it is very likely that Mr. Acquario will receive an annual retirement pension well over $100k, perhaps even as much as $200k. 
We need to ask why the politicians would grant lobbyists such largess.  The reason they have given us must be a lie since all politicians ever do is lie.  What is the real reason?  Allow me to suggest one.  Never forget that everything a politician does is to get reelected.  Becoming a career politician is the goal of every first time politician.  A career politician, in addition to becoming fabulously wealthy, is able to control the daily lives and activities of millions of people.  He is able to convince himself that he is a god.  And then, when he finally does retire, he is lauded by the public and given numerous plaques for his service.  Simply put, politicians feed on the praise of men like I feed on cake and ice cream.
In order to get reelected it is very important to carve out a niche of voters that he knows will always vote for him, no matter what.  He can have multiple affairs and be a serial bottom pincher.  None of that matters as long as he can deliver the goods to this niche of voters.  The middle-man between the voting bloc the career politician covets and the envy-ridden voters who want him to give them stuff is the lobbyist.  The lobbyist serves an extremely important function in the life of the career politician.  From the perspective of the career politician his lobbyist should be generously rewarded for his services. This is true despite the fact that both the career politician and the lobbyist are working against the best interests of the citizens of the land. 
I am just a little bit  more angry today as I realize that my state income tax dollars are going to pay career lobbyists who work to keep dangerous and harmful career politicians in Colorado in office forever.  Excuse me, I need to go outside and break something.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

WSJ And Al Lewis Are Economically Clueless

Al Lewis is a financial columnist with Dow Jones Newswires who lives in Denver and who frequently writes a column for the Wall Street Journal, Sunday edition.  My Sunday copy of the Denver Post includes a section entitled "Wall Street Journal Sunday" that often has "Al's Emporium" within it.  I have commented on Al's drivel in a previous post to this blog.  Today I will once again focus upon the bad teaching that he presents as economic gospel.  In particular, today's post is about an article Al wrote entitled, "Shop or Else We Drop".  Astute readers can already see where this post is going.
Al begins his article by asserting that, "The economy will never recover if Americans do not shop."  Al is presupposing two things in this very first sentence.  First, he presupposes that the economy of the Socialist Democracy of American has not "recovered", whatever that means.  Second he presupposes that economic prosperity is the direct result of consumer spending.  Both presuppositions are in error.
Here is a graph showing the real gross domestic product of the SDA for the past ten years:

FRED Graph
Please note that real (that is, inflation adjusted) gross domestic product is at an all time high.  The economy of the SDA is producing more goods and services today than at any other time in our history.  Also note that we are well above the level of production seen just prior to the Great Recession.  How can anyone with half a brain look at this graph and come to the conclusion that the economy of the SDA has not "recovered" from the Great Recession?  Al must have some other axe to grind or he would not be making such gigantic mistakes in reasoning.
Al's second presupposition, that economic growth is the direct result of consumer spending, is what is driving this entire article.  You see, Al is a Keynesian.  I still can't get over the shock of realizing that a financial columnist who publishes in the Wall Street Journal can be a Keynesian and still get published.  What has happened to the WSJ?  When did the WSJ abandon free market economics?  I don't know but it is quite obvious that it has.  The good folks at the WSJ are now telling us that Keynes was right and government is the solution to all of our economic woes.  When animal spirits possess consumers and they refuse to buy, thus creating a recession according to Keynesian theory, it is up to government to step in and go on a buying spree.  Deficit financing and huge government budgets are the order of the day.  Printing money at the Federal Reserve and spending it like there is no tomorrow is the solution to all economic downturns, or so says Keynes and Lewis. 
Al has one sentence that condenses his entire article down to one line.  He wrote, "Our economy runs on spending and consumption, not savings and production."  Has everyone gone insane?  Please explain for me, if you can Mr. Lewis, how it is that consumers have anything to purchase if there has not first been savings and production of goods to buy?  Al, please listen to me, this is Economics 101 type stuff, the study of economics is the study of production, not the study of consumption.  Economics describes how it is that we end up with stuff to buy.  Remember Adam Smith?  Remember his book entitled, "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations"?  The father of modern economics did not write a treatise on the importance of buying stuff.  He was concerned about describing how it is that some nations, notably free ones, were producing so much more capital goods and services than other nations.  Smith would roll over in his grave if he could be told of the belief that economics is entirely about consumption.
I can't tell from the drawing of his face that accompanies his column but Al appears to be around my age.  If so, he should remember the tales of Cold War Russia.  In Cold War Russia the citizens of that economy had sufficient rubles to buy whatever they needed.  What they didn't have were the things they needed to buy.  We all remember photographs and news stories about Russian citizens standing in line for hours for their weekly ration of a couple of rolls of toilet paper.  Nobody was complaining that they could not afford the toilet paper.  The problem was that there was no toilet paper to buy.  This is the inevitable result of a command economy.  When bureaucrats and career politicians attempt to "manage" the economy, it is inevitable that horrible distortions and drastic shortages will occur.  The problem for these folks is never that they do not have money to buy things.  The problem is always that there is nothing for their money to buy.
Without savings there could be no production.  People must save money.  Saved money can be loaned to banks or used to purchase stocks and bonds.  In all three cases that saved money is going into the hands of some entrepreneur who wants to do something creative with it.  Through a commercial loan from a bank, or a bond offering, or a stock offering, the entrepreneur is able to garner sufficient funds to launch his project.  If successful he will produce something that someone else wants to buy and he will make a profit doing so.  Until this production takes place there is nothing for anyone to buy.  Until this production takes place people would not have the ability to earn the money to buy those things that are being produced.  As the entrepreneur grows he hires people to aid him in his profit seeking enterprise.  These people are paid wages.  The wages they are paid can either be saved, for future production, or spent on present goods and services.  Without the prior wages earned from the work he performed as a part of the production process, the consumer would have no money with which to purchase those goods he is partially responsible for producing.  Production drives everything in an economy. 
This concept is so simple it is impossible for me to understand how so many can miss it.  One cannot buy something unless it is first produced.  An economy cannot exist without savings and production.  How can Al make such a huge mistake in his reasoning?  I don't know.  Perhaps he is also weighed down with very wrong-headed ideas about foreign production as well.  Maybe, if I asked him, Al would tell me that our economy can run on spending and consumption because foreign country's economies run on savings and production, thus producing the goods and services we want to buy.  That would be a very strange thing for Al to say because, I believe, he is in that camp of folks who believe that the Chinese are evil because they produce things we want to buy.  But he can't have it both ways.  If he believes that we do not need to save and produce goods because the Chinese will do that for us, he can hardly turn around and criticize SDA businesses for exporting their work overseas and SDA consumers for buying Chinese produced goods at Wal-Mart.  On the other hand, if Al is not saying this; if he is simply asserting that it is possible for an economy to function that does nothing but consume, he is really off the deep economic end.
It is impossible to tell what Al means from his article.  There is insufficient information to draw a conclusion about the questions I have asked from this one article.  However there is one conclusion I have more than enough information to draw....anybody, including Al Lewis and the WSJ, who believes that economies can function entirely on consumption is economically clueless.

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Keep The SDA Out Of Syria

Keep the Socialist Democracy of Amerika out of Syria.  I really did not want to write this post today.  I am forced to do this against my will and better judgment.  The stock market was flying along yesterday, in positive territory, and preparing to close with nice gains.  Then, in the last hour, career politician and Secretary of State John Kerry took to the podium to announced that King Obama was planning on attacking Syria.  The stock market went into a tailspin, fell into the red zone, and closed at the low point for the day.  Millions of investors lost billions of dollars yesterday because King Obama can't mind his own business.  It is never good policy to kill your customers.  That is always bad for business.  What a travesty.
The front page of my Denver Post today had an article entitled "President Weighing a Limited US Strike".  Here is some of what the report had to say, "President Barak Obama is weighing a military strike against Syria that would be of limited scope and duration, designed to serve as punishment for Syria's use of chemical weapons and as a deterrent, while keeping the United States out of deeper involvement in that country's civil war...The timing of such an attack, which would probably last no more than two days and involve sea-launched cruise missiles striking military targets not directly related to Syria's chemical weapons arsenal, is dependent upon three factors:  completion of an intelligence report assessing Syrian government culpability in last week's alleged chemical attack; ongoing consultation with allies and Congress; and determination of a justification under international law."  There is so much wrong with what is said in that report I scarcely know where to start my critique.  Still, I will make an attempt.
Why is it the responsibility of the taxpayers in the Socialist Democracy of America to pay for our King's attack upon another sovereign nation?  Why is it the King's responsibility to "punish" the Syrian government for its actions, whatever they may have been?  I have scoured news sources in a vain attempt to find an answer to those two questions.  In fact, I have not even been able to find anyone, other than me, who is asking those two questions.  Everyone simply assumes that it is somehow the responsibility of the SDA taxpayer to pay the bill for our King's attack upon another sovereign nation that has done absolutely nothing to us and poses no threat to us at all.  How did we ever get to this point?
Most people apparently believe that it is the responsibility of the SDA taxpayer and the SDA King to police the actions of governments and peoples around the world.  Why is this so?  Even if I grant that it is so, and I don't, how is it determined which nation should be attacked and punished?  How is it determined which actions are punishable?  As I write this post there are acts of genocide being committed all around the world that the King Obama is ignoring.  Massive genocide is taking place right now in Sudan, Myanmar, North Korea, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Ethiopia.  In addition, more limited acts of genocide are taking place right now in Nigeria, Yemen, China, Chad, Central African Republic, Libya, Kenya, Haiti and Colombia.  Why is the King of the SDA not considering military action against these countries as well?  If it is the responsibility of the SDA King to protect all of the peoples of the world, he is doing a terrible job of it. Indeed, it appears to me, and to most of the rest of the citizens of the world outside the SDA, that he has a hidden agenda that he is pursuing.  That hidden agenda looks a whole lot like the expansion of an imperialistic empire.  If a nation is strategically important for the building of the empire, the King suddenly becomes concerned about the welfare of the oppressed citizens of that nation.  Hypocrisy!
Of course, it is not the job of the SDA King to protect the citizens of the world.  The Constitution of the United States of America (no longer read, known or understood by any career politician) clearly forbids the King's wishes to wage foreign wars of protection for foreign citizens.   His job is to protect the citizens of the SDA.  So, does Syria pose a threat to the national security of the SDA?  Syria has no nuclear capability.  The SDA has a massive nuclear capability.  Syria has Scud missiles with limited range and no aircraft carriers from which to launch them.  The SDA has Cruise missiles with tremendous range equipped with nuclear warheads and many aircraft carriers from which to launch them.  Syria has a military budget of the equivalent of $2.5 billion.  The SDA military budget is $600 billion.  The Syrian navy has 41 ships, most of limited range and capability.  The SDA navy has 285 ships, more than the next 13 largest navies combined, stationed all over the world.  Syrian military forces constitute 300,000 active and 300,000 reserve personnel.  SDA military forces constitute 1.4 million active and 850,000 reserve personnel.  There is no way any reasonable person could possibly argue that Syria is a threat to the national security of the SDA.  Anyone who would try to do so is an idiot and a liar.
The news report said that King Obama would attack Syria as a means to keep "the United States out of deeper involvement in Syria's civil war."  Since when does getting more involved in the sovereign affairs of a foreign nation constitute becoming less involved in the sovereign affairs of a foreign nation?  How does attacking Syria in any way accomplish the goal of becoming less involved in the Syrian civil war?  How could any person in his right mind believe that the best way to avoid becoming more involved in the internal affairs of a sovereign foreign nation is to stage a military attack against that nation?  The entire concept that the King will attack to lessen the presence of the SDA in Syria is abject lunacy.  Only a lunatic would believe it.
If King Obama is going to stage an attack against the Syrian government for allegedly using chemical weapons upon its own citizens, why does he not conduct a surgical strike against the places where the chemical weapons are manufactured and stored?  That would seem to be the common sense thing to do.  After all, we would not even be having this conversation if Syrian government leaders had not allegedly used chemical weapons against their own citizens.  But no, Kerry announced that the SDA goal would be to "strike military targets not directly related to Syria's chemical weapons arsenal."  That being the case, is it not necessary to seriously question the motives of King Obama?  It sure appears as if he is simply using the alleged chemical weapons issue as an excuse to attack the Syrian military, disable it, and expand the SDA empire.  Why is this admission not an example of gross hypocrisy?  Nobody is explaining the situation to me.
Did you notice how the report carefully said that King Obama is waiting for three things prior to attacking the Syrian military?  The last thing he is waiting for is "a determination of a justification (for the attack) under international law."  In other words, King Obama knows full well that he is behaving immorally if/when he attacks the Syrian military.  To assuage his tortured conscience he is waiting until the court lawyers can give him some legal justification for what he has already decided to do.  This is eerily similar to how King George waited for his court lawyers to give him legal justification to invade Iraq.  As we all know, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Saddam's bunker with him, were there?   There is no doubt that the court lawyers will find some legal justification for Obama's immoral act.  There is also no doubt that their justification will be both unconstitutional and immoral.
There is also no doubt that innocents will be killed when computer guided missiles rain down upon Syria.  Kerry will brush off the brutal murder of innocents as "collateral damage" that needed to be done for the greater good of  protecting those who are innocent.  Nobody will see the contradiction.  The blood lust is running strong through the veins of most citizens in the SDA today.  It is time to go to war again!  It is time to kill some foreigners.  It is time to tune into the nightly news and watch images of glorious SDA bombs blowing up crazy diaper-headed foreigners.  It is time to get behind the troops. Yea, the SDA is going to go kill some people and teach the whole world that we are the best.  And don't forget, everyone we kill is bad....they all have it coming.  USA!  USA!  USA!

Monday, August 26, 2013

USAid Is Another Immoral Federal Give-Away

A reader of this blog sent me a photograph last week.  The photograph was of a government school building being constructed in the country of Jordan.  In front of the construction site was a prominent sign that had a logo on top announcing that the school was being built with funds from a program known as USAid.  The reader wrote, "Wow!  I did not know you were so generous.  I knew you paid for other people's kids' schools back in the States, but you also pay for other people's kid's schools in foreign lands."   His photo and comment came as a revelation to me.  So I decided to look into this government program called "USAid".
USAid stands for the United States Agency for International Development.  The bureau was created by Executive Order in 1961 when JFK was president.  Apparently JFK thought it was a good idea to take American dollars and give them to foreigners.  Here is what Kennedy said when he created this new bureau without Congressional approval, "There is no escaping our obligations; our moral obligations as a wise leader and good neighbor in the interdependent community of free nations -- our economic obligations as the wealthiest people in a world of largely poor people, as a nation no longer dependent upon the loans from abroad that once helped us develop our own economy -- and our political obligations as the single largest counter to the adversaries of freedom."    Now that is a mouthful.  I wonder if anybody ever challenged his belief about the need for this federal bureau?
According to Kennedy, the government of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika has a moral obligation to take some of the wealth of the citizens of this country and give it to foreign governments to do with it what they please.  This moral obligation exists because the SDA allegedly has, or had, the highest standard of living in the world.  This moral obligation also exists because Kennedy believed that giving foreign governments some of our money would make them like us.  My belief that it is wrong for my government to take my money and give it to foreign governments is wrong and sinful.  I am guilty of greed, selfishness and avarice simply because I believe I should be allowed to keep what is mine.  What have we become?
Recently King Obama proudly delivered a speech in which he announced that this year's budget for the USAid program would be slightly over $20 billion.  I realize that is a very small amount of money from the perspective of the federal government.  But, $20 billion is a very large amount of money to me, a citizen of the SDA.  I suspect that $20 billion would be a large amount of money to most folks.  In fact, even giving $1 of my money to a foreign government seems like a monumental imposition upon my freedom.  Why should my government have the right, simply as the result of an Executive Order, to take money from me and give it to foreign governments? Why should some of my money be forcibly extracted from me, under penalty of law for non-compliance, and given to the Jordanian government to construct a government school for the people who live there?  And why am I immoral for believing that USAid is morally wrong?
It is bad enough that if I refuse to hand over some of my money to my local government, via the property tax, to pay the educational expenses of my neighbor's children I will be evicted from my home and it will be confiscated by my local government and sold to the highest bidder.  Now some of the federal tax dollars that are being taken from me are being used to pay for the educational expenses of some fellow's children in the foreign country of Jordan.  And I am supposed to be proud of this?  I am supposed to be glad that my money is being spent this way?  I am supposed to joyfully concur with my tyrannical oppressors that their program of wealth redistribution is a good thing?  I don't think so.
I noticed on the television news last night that both Democrats and Republicans are now calling for King Obama to send SDA military personnel into Syria to attack and kill people who are doing things to some of the citizens who live there that these career politicians do not like.  They call it compassionate "precision strikes" that will liberate men from their oppressive and tyrannical rulers.  Nobody bothered to ask why what is going on in Syria is any of our business.  Nobody bothered to explain how it is that the SDA government and military has the right and the responsibility to liberate the citizens of sovereign foreign nations.  It was simply assumed that there is a moral principle that declares this sort of behavior to be so.  It was simply assumed that one sovereign nation has the moral right and duty to attack another sovereign nation if that sovereign nation is doing something to its citizens the first sovereign nation does not like.   If that is true, I have a request.
Could some foreign nation please come and deliver a precision strike against the government of the SDA in order to deliver us from our captors?  Our plight is certainly as bad as those suffering in other lands.  We are not free.  Our property is taken from us against our will and given to others who serve the government.  Our people are incarcerated by our government at the highest rate of all of the countries in the world.  More of us are in prison than any other country in the world.  Most of the folks who are in prison are there for doing things that are illegal, but not immoral.  We are subject to more laws, rules and regulations that tell us what we can and can't do than any other group of people in the world.  We are not free to start a business without government approval.  We are not free to keep what we earn in our businesses.  We are not free to hire and fire whomever we want.  We are forced to pay for health insurance for our employees that is then used to pay for our employee's daughters abortions.  Even worse, we are killing over 1 million of our citizens every year in abortion mills.  We are not free to assemble and we are not free to address our government with our grievances.  We need to be liberated.  Is there any country out there willing to exercise its moral obligation and free us from our oppressors?