San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, December 13, 2013

Connect For Health Colorado Puts People Before Profits

Connect For Health Colorado is Colorado's version of Obamacare.  It is the health insurance "exchange" that the state has created to be in compliance with the Obamacare rules and regulations.  As is the case with health insurance exchanges all around the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, it is dangerously under funded as Colorado citizens have avoided it in droves. Those who have signed up are undoubtedly those who are looking for a free lunch as they apply for federal subsidies that reduce their monthly premiums to near zero.  There will be precious little money going into policies purchased by healthy people that are targeted to be used to pay those subsidies, as those who can afford to do so avoid the exchange like the plague. In other words, the Colorado version of Obamacare is as big a disaster as the federal version is.
Notwithstanding the fact that the program is already awash in red ink, the Colorado version of Obamacare is paying for television commercials to tell us how great the program is.  There are a couple of commercials that are presently being aired.  They all have the same general theme and they all say basically the same thing.  They begin by pandering to the pride of the citizens of the state.  Phrases like "Coloradoans are unique" and "Coloradoans are hearty, hard working people" are used to pander to the pride of people in this state who, for some unknown reason, think they are better than people living in other random geo-political zones.  I have never understood such pandering.  I do not see how living in one particular area makes a person more unique, or hearty, or hard working than people living somewhere else.  Still, everybody does it.  I suspect the folks who make television commercials for the citizens of Nebraska do the same thing.  They probably hear how they are the heartland of Amerika and how their corn is the best in the universe.
Once we have been properly buttered up we are told something about the Colorado insurance exchange.  One phrase that appears in all of the ads informs us that "Health Colorado puts people before profits."  I have no idea what that means but it sure sounds good.  Who could oppose putting people before anything, especially when health insurance policies are involved?  Shouldn't people always be put first?  Even notoriously evil profit seeking businesses like banks, insurance companies and car dealers recognize that if they do not serve the people they will not make a profit.  So I think it is fair to say that everyone believes people should be put first. 
The problem occurs when the copy writers for the ad assert that Colorado's health insurance exchange puts people before "profits".  That, as we shall see, is impossible.  I think we all know what is being said here.  The socialistic Obamacare plan for Colorado is taking a cheap shot at profit seeking health insurance companies.  We all know that profit seeking health insurance companies care about nothing but their profits.  They would sell out their own grandmothers if they could make a profit doing so.  There is probably nothing that is more evil, more morally reprehensible and more despicable than a corporation that is seeking to make a profit off of the pain and suffering of sick people.  Truly altruist health insurance companies would give all their money away. They would charge extremely low monthly premiums, if they assessed a premium at all, and they would quickly pay the hard working doctors without any fuss.  They would be there to serve the people, just like Health Colorado.
The ignoramuses who produced these commercials have no concept of how the real world runs.  Most certainly they know nothing about the nature of profit.  Profit, as I have written many times, is the most pure economic signal that consumer desires are being served.  The more profit a company makes, the more that company can be sure it is serving the desires of the consumers.  Conversely, the less profits the company makes, the more it has to question whether it is serving the consumers or not.  Companies that make no profits at all go out of business because they are not serving anyone. And, once they are out of business, they will never serve anyone again.
No company can continue to sell what it sells without making a profit.  When losses mount it is only a matter of time before that company goes out of business.  It is therefore quite accurate to say that, without profits, no consumer demands will ever be served.  That being the case, how could a company (Health Colorado) designed to serve the health insurance demands of hundreds of thousands of consumers make the audacious claim that it is not in search of a profit?  That is the same thing as admitting that it has no intention of serving the consumers.  That is probably true and probably the way things will work out in the end, but to say so in advance seems to me the height of folly.
I suspect if I could talk to the folks who made the commercials they would say that they never intended to say that they hope Health Colorado shows losses until it goes out of business.  I am sure they would say that the phrase "putting people before profits" is just a catchy slogan designed to emphasize how much they care about people.  I am sure they would say a lot of things....and all of them would be economically ignorant.  There is one thing, however, on which they are absolutely correct.  Health Colorado will never show a profit.  Unlike a for profit corporation, however, Health Colorado will never go out of business.  You see, Health Colorado is the unique position of being taxpayer subsidized.  Just like the Post Office and Amtrak they never have to show a profit.  No matter how much they lose, they will always be bailed out by the taxpayers.  I propose that Health Colorado should change its slogan to make it more economically accurate.  How about this:  Health Colorado puts people who do not pay taxes before people who do.  Or this:  Health Colorado puts poor sick people before rich people of any sort.  Or this:  Health Colorado believes that the upper 49% of taxpayers should pay the medical bills of the bottom 51%.  Or this:  Health Colorado now gives you an incentive to become a ward of the state.  Or this:  Health Colorado offers you health insurance policies and forces your neighbor to pay the premiums.  Or just simply this:  Health Colorado believes rich people are evil and will legally steal their money to purchase an inferior health insurance policy for you.  Now those are slogans I can sink my teeth into.
To make matters worse, Health Colorado is already embroiled in a scandal.  After a year or two on the job, the top three executives at Health Colorado (I believe they are all women, I know the CEO is for sure) want a raise.  The CEO makes $190k/year.  The other two executives each make $160k/year.  They think they are underpaid.  They want raises for the new year and they want bonuses in recognition of the sterling work they have performed so far this year.  Could you dream up a more absurd scenario than this one?  Is there any better indication of the disconnection from reality experienced by all government employees than this one?  Government employees have no clue how the economy really works.  In the minds of these ladies they have been working hard and they deserve a raise.  In the minds of these ladies they have put in extra hours this year so they deserve a bonus.  The fact that their program is a disastrous failure that is bleeding the taxpayers dry never enters their minds as they ponder how much they are worth.  What a farce.
Of course their demand for a bonus and a raise was met with derision from many taxpayers.  Career politicians, smelling blood, quickly swept in.  I don't recall the name of the politician but I believe it was one of Colorado's representatives to the SDA House.  Rather than just telling these ladies to go fly a kite, which would have quickly solved the problem, this politician saw an opportunity to make a little political hay.  He has introduced a bill into Congress to make it illegal for a health insurance exchange CEOs to ask for a raise or a bonus.  Isn't that grand?  Talk about squashing a fly with a howitzer.  This is just what we need.  We are suffering from a dangerous under supply of laws in this country  I think we all recognize that we desperately need more laws regulating the day to day activities of people in government jobs.  Of course that is not on the mind of the career politician who sponsored this bill.  All he is thinking about is getting reelected.  He believes his proposed bill will play well to his constituency and guarantee his reelection.  What a chump.

Thursday, December 12, 2013

The Freedom Charter Of Nelson Mandela

I must confess that I get a little bit nervous when George Bush, Bill Clinton, Barak Obama and Raul Castro all agree on something.  What do these men possibly share in common that would cause them to all praise the same thing?  By now everyone is aware of the fact that Nelson Mandela is dead.  Whether you believe he was the greatest liberator, patriot and man of peace who ever lived (as Bush, Clinton, Obama, Castro and Bill O'Reily all profess to believe) or you believe he was a terrorist, criminal and a communist (as Bill O'Reily also professes to believe), you have to admit that his death is causing quite a stir.  Worldwide coverage of his funeral and a veritable "parade of stars" delivering praise filled eulogies have graced our television sets this past week.  Just what was Nelson Mandela?
Bill O'Reily dedicated a large segment of his show to Mandela last night.  He accurately described him as a communist.  He accurately said that he was responsible for many acts of terrorism and brutal violence against the existing government of South Africa in the 1950s and 1960s.  But then Bill changed tone and praised him.  Bill told me that Nelson needed to break a few eggs in order to make the utopian socialist omelet that is today's South Africa.  And then, in one of the greatest acts of historical revisionism ever done by good, old Bill, he compared Mandela to the patriots who founded what is now the Socialist Democracy of Amerika!  Has Bill read anything written by our founding fathers?  Has he compared what they believed with what Mandela believed?  I rather doubt it.  Bill went on to say that what made Mandela great was the fact that he did not kill all of his enemies after he rose to power.  Wow!  It does not take much to be considered great these days, does it?
I am not going to cite legions of references to prove that the founding fathers of this land believed that its citizens had a right to life, freedom and their own property.  Fundamentally they believed that all citizens had the right to be left alone and they envisioned a form of government that radically restricted the ability of government to grow and intervene in their affairs.  They diametrically opposed all socialism.  They strongly opposed all government intervention into their economic affairs.  They radically opposed the idea that government should ever be involved in transferring the wealth of one "privileged" group to another group they classified as "underprivileged".   They would have flown into a collective rage at the mere thought of wealth distribution by government coercion.
What did Nelson Mandela believe in?  That question is not hard to answer.  He affixed his signature to a document that was penned in 1955 and called the "Freedom Charter".  He lived by the principles of this charter his entire life.  He fervently believed in and supported the doctrines taught in the Freedom Charter.  It would be worth our time to see what the Freedom Charter teaches.
You can read the charter in its entirety here.  It is too long to reproduce here.  I will just hit the highlights, or more accurately, the low lights.
The Preamble declares that "South Africa belongs to all who live in it..."  Here we have a problem right away.  It is called the tragedy of the commons.  When something belongs to everyone it belongs to no one.  When something belongs to everyone, everyone will exploit it as quickly and efficiently as possible, knowing that if he does not, someone else will come along who will.  Declaring that something belongs to everyone is a prescription for disaster.  At the time this preamble was written the land in South Africa belonged to someone.  There was clear legal title to most of the land in South Africa.  It could be determined who owned the land by going to the local government office and looking it up.  This declaration, therefore, is a declaration of expropriation.  It is a clear assertion that someone's land is about to be taken from him.
A section heading called "The people shall share in the country's wealth!" has this to say:  "The national wealth of our country, the heritage of South Africans, shall be restored to the people; the mineral wealth beneath the soil, the banks and monopoly industry shall be transferred to the ownership of the people as a whole."  Now that is a mouthful.  How do "the people" own anything?  Who are "the people"?  How shall the national wealth, whatever that is, be lawfully transferred from whoever owns it now to "the people"?  What if the people who presently own the national wealth also happen to be a part of "the people"?  Does the wealth get transferred to them? Of course this is nothing more than the mantra we also heard from Lenin, Stalin and Mao.  There is nothing new here.  It is just good old communism.
It is very interesting the way the above sentence was crafted.  Where did the capital that existed at the time of the Charter come from?  Which entrepreneurs produced it?  Which banks financed it?  Many of the businessmen who owned the wealth in question had lived in South Africa for generations.  How did the fruits of their efforts suddenly become the property of "the people", whoever they are?  As most folks are aware, there are a lot of diamonds and gold in South Africa.  The communists who wrote this charter wanted those diamonds and that gold.  Did they offer to buy them from the companies that mined them?  No. Did they offer to buy the companies themselves?  No.  Did they start competing mining operations to get some gold and diamonds for themselves?  No.  They simply declared that what belonged to others now belongs to them.  Nice trick, if you can get away with it.   And, as we all know, in 1994 they did get away with it.
To bring about this socialist utopia the charter had to describe the conditions by which work would be performed.  Here is what it said, "The state shall recognize the right and duty of all to work, and to draw full unemployment benefits; men and women of all races shall receive equal pay for equal work; there shall be a forty hour work week, a national minimum wage, paid annual leave, and sick leave for all workers, and maternity leave on full pay for all working mothers."  Now those are conditions I would like to be under!  What a deal.  The state will tell me that I have a "responsibility" to work and when I say I don't want to I can receive "full unemployment benefits".  No one may work overtime.  Everyone will make a minimum wage.  Women will be paid for getting pregnant.  Everyone will have paid vacations.  This is truly a socialist utopia.  I wonder who is going to pay for all these freebies?  Socialists and communists are good about drawing up the ideal conditions they wish to live under.  Actually describing how these conditions will come to be in the real world is a different story.  In order to pay for all of these benefits for the working man the wealth and income of the productive property and business owners of South Africa is going to have to be taken from them.  That is, of course, precisely what happened.  It is interesting that the charter nowhere mentions that all of the rights being elucidated within it do not apply to then existing property and business owners.  They probably should have mentioned that inconvenient fact.
All totalitarian regimes need to control the dissemination of propaganda.  The charter recognized that fact when it wrote, "Education shall be free, compulsory, universal and equal for all children."  The up and coming generations must be indoctrinated in the falsehoods of socialism.  They must be taught to worship the state.  Therefore, education must be compulsory.  I find it fascinating that the decree states that education shall be "free" and, at the same time it shall be "compulsory".  How can something be both free and compulsory at the same time?  Of course, the education was not free.  It was, and continues to be, paid for by those who happened to be unfortunately enough to own property and have wealth at the time Mandela took over in 1994.
In an amazingly prescient moment, the charter foresaw Obamacare.  It says, "Free medical care and hospitalization shall be provided for all, with special care for mothers and young children."  Of course nothing comes for free.  Who pays for the medical care these people are to receive?  It was, and continues to be, paid for by those who were unfortunate enough to have income at the time the law was enacted.  The income of the productive is being extracted by force from them and given to those who have made the voluntary and legal decision to become wards of the state, praised be its name.
The charter concludes with one of the most ironically hypocritical statements ever seen in a governing document.  Under the section entitled "There shall be peace and friendship" it is asserted that, "Peace and friendship amongst all our people shall be secured by upholding the equal rights, opportunities and status of all."  That statement, of course, is simply not true.  Anyone who owns land at the time the socialists take over is going to lose that land. Anyone who has income at the time the socialists take over is going to see it stolen from him to pay for all of the things that have been promised to those who are declared to be members of "the people."  Property owners and businessmen have no rights, unless you consider having what you own taken from you by force to be a right.  How can that be a peaceful state of affairs?  How can there be friendship between two people when one of them is robbing the other? 
Apartheid was abolished in 1994.  Mandela was elected Prime Minister in 1994.  He set out to enact the provisions of the Freedom Charter.  Productive entrepreneurs and capital fled the country like rats leaving a sinking ship.  The goal for many property owners was to get out and take as much with them as they could.  Those who stayed were robbed to pay for all the shiny new government programs.
All of this, of course, had an impact upon the economy of South Africa.   In 1995, immediately after the government takeover by Nelson Mandela, the gross domestic product per capita for South Africa was $3,860.  Seven years later, after these socialist dreams were enacted, the per capital GDP had fallen to $2,440.  South Africa is the 24th most populous country in the world.  Despite its large population, strategic location and abundance of mineral wealth, the GDP for South Africa ranks 77th in the world, sandwiched in between Iran and Serbia.  Last time I checked, neither Iran nor Serbia was considered to be an economic powerhouse.  As of the writing of this blog post the unemployment rate in South Africa is 25.5%, equal to the rates of unemployment found in Spain and Greece.  I guess paying people to not work causes a lot of people to not work.  Who would or could  have predicted that?
Why do Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barak Obama, Bill O'Reily and Raul Castro all consider Nelson Mandela to be a heroic figure?  Because they are all socialists.  They all believe in the religion of big government.  They are all committed to the worship of the state.  They all despise the free market and individual freedom.  They are all statists of the first degree.  If the news reports are true, everyone in the world is mourning the death of Nelson Mandela.  That would mean everyone in the world is a socialist.  I think that is pretty close to the truth.

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

I Broke The Law Again This Week, But Not With Marijuana

I ought to be arrested.  I broke the law again this past week.  It seems as if no matter what I try to do, I cannot help but break the law.  I don't like being called a law-breaker.  I don't take any peculiar pleasure in violating the myriad rules and regulations my moral superiors have imposed upon me.  I do not really want to be a law breaker but I can't help it.  Yes, just like everyone who appears on Dr. Phil eventually confesses, "I can't help it, I am a victim and it is not my fault," so now I too am forced to plead that it is not my fault.  I too am a victim.
Unlike those who appear on Dr. Phil (which, by the way, I do not watch....I am just guessing about what goes on during the show) I really am a victim.  I am a victim of my own lack of omniscience.  It is extraordinarily difficult for a non-omniscient being like myself to live in a country where the government is omniscient, as well as omnipresent and omnipotent. Being ever present and all knowing, as well as interested in my every movement, the government creates so many laws for me to follow I cannot possibly keep up with them, no matter how hard I try.  There are just too many laws.  My mind is too small to comprehend them all.  Let me give you an example.
Marijuana becomes legal in Colorado on January 1st.  You would think that having an agricultural product become legal would not be a big deal.  One day you go to jail if you grow, sell or ingest the product; the next day you are legally permitted to do all of those things.  But things are never that simple when career politicians and bureaucrats are involved.  If I were King I would simply declare that marijuana is legal and people can do anything they want in regards to it.  If you want to grow some, grow some.  If you want to smoke some, smoke some.  If you want to harvest thousands of bales of it and ship it out of state, go for it.  It is legal.  Do anything you want with it.  Marijuana should be no more subject to regulation than the grass you grow in your yard.  Do whatever you want with the legal substance.  Sadly, I am not King.
The Denver City Council has been striving mightily to come up with the rules and regulations that will determine how marijuana can be legally used in Denver.  They have been meeting, almost non-stop, for months as they seek to hammer out the various rules.  The last I heard they had made some progress in regulating the legal substance.  As the rules presently declare,  no one who was not first operating as a medical marijuana dispensary shall be permitted to sell the legal substance called marijuana on January 1st.  Those who want to sell marijuana who were not part of the state approved medical marijuana apparatus prior to the legalization of marijuana will have to wait a couple of years before they can sell this legal product.  Why a business owner should have to wait years to sell a product that is totally legal was not explained by the councilmen.
Anyone who wishes to purchase some marijuana, which is totally legal in this state, may only purchase one ounce at a time.  You may purchase another ounce at another time, or from a different vendor, but you must be careful.  The new rules state that you may only be in possession of one ounce of marijuana.  So if you go to two stores and buy one ounce each you could be arrested as you drive home for illegally possessing two ounces of a completely legal substance.  To make it even more complicated, if you are not from Colorado you may only purchase 1/4 ounce of marijuana.  I don't know but that sounds like a terribly small amount of marijuana to me.   I also do not know what the rule is in regards to its possession.  I suspect non-residents may only possess 1/4 ounce as well.  Why the fact that you come from the other side of an arbitrary geo-political boundary should cause you to only be permitted to purchase 1/4 of an ounce of a perfectly legal substance is not explained by my superiors. 
Once you get your marijuana home, being very careful to not go within 100 feet of any government school building lest you once again run afoul of the law, you are restricted in the way you can use your legal substance.  The rules in regards to consuming marijuana in a fashion other than smoking have not yet been written.  Stand by to find out if you can put it into brownies or cookies.   If you rent your home you have to get the permission of the owner prior to using the legal substance.  I find that confusing.  Why should I have to get prior permission from my landlord to do something that is legal?  I wonder why a lesbian couple does not need to get the permission of their landlord prior to engaging in lesbian activity in his apartment?  Lesbianism, just like marijuana, is perfectly legal.  Why is it not regulated like marijuana?  Oh right....it is regulated....only the regulations go the other direction.  Unlike marijuana, lesbianism is a legal arrangement that is approved by the bureaucrats.  If the landlord refuses to rent his apartment to a lesbian couple he is in violation of the law!  Now I understand.  It all depends on whether the government approves or disapproves of your legal activity when it comes down to the regulations that surround it. 
Anyway, back to the marijuana.  The esteemed city fathers are still trying to work out how and when you can smoke or ingest your marijuana.  Some of them want you to be forced to stay indoors.  Others will allow you to go outdoors but not in the front yard.  The wildly liberal members among them will allow you to smoke marijuana anywhere you want, as long as it is on your own property. You are forbidden from using a completely legal substance in a public place or on government owned property.  All of this would drive me crazy if I was a user of the totally legal substance called marijuana.  For good or for bad, I am not a user and none of this hodge-podge of wildly contradictory rules will apply to me.  So allow me to tell  you how I did managed to break the law last week.
I live in a community that has a Homeowners Association.  I have lived most of my adult life in communities that are regulated by Homeowners Associations.  I like the voluntary association of individuals who agree to live together under a per-agreed upon body of rules and regulations that will govern how we related to each other.  I like the fact that if I have a dispute with my neighbor over something like smoking marijuana, we have already agreed in advance how the dispute will be resolved.  I like the fact that the Association will fine my neighbor if he does not keep his lawn mowed in the summer months.  I am happy to live under the rules and regulations that I have voluntarily agreed to submit to because I believe they make my life better and more prosperous.  If you disagree, go live somewhere else.  Nobody is forcing you to live here.
It snowed last week.  I measured 7 inches of snow on my driveway.  I assumed that the HOA regulations required me to remove the snow from my driveway and sidewalk.  I must confess that I have not read the entire body of HOA rules and regulations.  Because of my unjustifiable and inexcusable ignorance I was unaware of the fact that the HOA does not require me to shovel my driveway and sidewalk.  I wondered why several of my neighbors had made the habit of leaving their long sidewalks clogged with snow.  Now I had the answer.  Despite the fact that I do not have to keep my sidewalk clear of snow, I shoveled my sidewalk anyway.  I like a sidewalk clear of snow and ice and I think my neighbors appreciate it to.  I did not need a rule telling me to clear it. 
That is when it happened.  When I shovel the snow off my sidewalk I will usually shovel it into the street.  Little did I know I was committing an offense against Jefferson County.  I am a lawbreaker.  I shoveled probably 80% of the snow that was on my sidewalk into the street that runs outside my home.  Each flake of snow that I deposited into the street was a violation of some county code that I was unaware of.  I have shoveled the snow into the street my entire adult life without ever being aware that I was becoming some sort of heinous criminal.  After I read in the local paper that it was a violation of the law to shovel snow from my sidewalk to the street I was not sure what I should do.  Should I turn myself into the police and cast myself upon the mercy of the court?  Should I plead ignorance of the law?  As I considered that possible option I recalled my late father's thundering words as he announced that "there is no ignorance in the sight of the law".  I rejected that option.  I finally decided to do nothing.  I can't turn myself in every time I do something that breaks one of the tens of thousands of laws I am unknowingly subject to and violating every single day.  If I did I would spend all of my time at the police station or in prison.  So I decided that next time it snows, I will shovel my sidewalk snow into my yard rather than the street, unless the snow is really heavy and the police are not watching.  Then, all bets are off.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Government Is God, Part II

Yesterday I argued that a majority of the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika worship the government.  In particular I believe most citizens worship the federal government.  The federal government has and exercises the most power over the citizens of this land.  It is quite natural that people, who need to worship something greater than themselves, would eventually turn to government as their god.  In the day to day lives of most people, they encounter the greatness and majesty of the federal government with regularity.  As a result, the federal government becomes God.
Today I would like to provide more evidence of this truth.  I realize there are skeptics out there.  I realize that many of you think the word 'worship' is too strong.  You do not believe you worship the government.  You believe you are a patriot (today a patriot is defined as someone who worships state power, especially military power).  You think there is a difference between a patriot and one who worships the omnipotent State.  Sadly, you are wrong.  
Particularly disturbing about this modern form of idolatry is how many professing Christians also have abandoned the Christian faith in favor of State idolatry.  Indeed, in many churches it is considered to be a doctrinal necessity to be a Republican and to support all of the SDA wars of imperial expansion.  To not do so gets you labeled a "liberal" and puts you outside the pale of the church.  The SDA flag is proudly displayed on the podium where the Word of God is ostensibly preached every Sunday.  This mixing of religions will bring about its inevitable result; Christianity will disappear and State idolatry will reign supreme.
There was a serious flood in northeastern Colorado this past September.  Hundreds of homes were destroyed.  Many people had foolishly built their homes in flood plains thinking that a flood would never happen to them.  Having built in flood plains they were unable to obtain insurance against flooding.  After the flooding subsided there were hundreds of media reports that centered upon a common theme.  What was that theme?  It was the resilience and rugged individualism of those Colorado residents who chose to live in the mountains.  I was subjected to a constant litany of news reports in which the toughness of the mountains dwellers was extolled.  One report told me how these hearty folks had rebuilt their own roadway, thus allowing access to the nearby town.  Another talked about how their children were walking several miles each day just to get to school.  Good for them.
Reported right along side all of these reputed acts of rugged individualism were the reports about FEMA money being distributed.  To date almost $200 million of federal taxpayer dollars has been dolled out to various lower branches of government, designated for distribution to those who will sell their souls in exchange for a dollar.  There are tens of thousands of takers.  All of these rugged individuals immediately bowed down before the throne of State power the instant taxpayer dollars were available to them.  They want to rebuild their homes in the very same flood plains that their previous residences were washed away from.  This is how the State God operates.  He is irresistible.  He comes to you in your time of greatest need and promises to give you exactly what you want, in exchange for your soul, of course.
What good is a god who only shows up once in a while?  Not much.  To be a really good god, a god has to guarantee you cradle to grave protection.  That is what most people are looking for in a god.  So the State is quick to step in and, at a significant taxpayer expense, provide those personal guarantees most people so dearly treasure.  When you are born, at taxpayer expense, in an emergency room that is forbidden by law from sending your single mother a bill for the services, you were immediately tested for the presence of drugs in your system.  All unfit parents are immediately weeded out.  If you were lucky, and your mother was a crack-head, you immediately became a ward of the State.  If you were not lucky, you will soon be given State provided care from about age 2 onward and you will become what is essentially a ward of the State.  It will not be long before there will be a federal law mandating child care/education in government "schools" (really nothing more than baby-sitting centers).  This is so your parents will not be required to actually deal with you and you can become indoctrinated in the tenets of State worship more effectively.  What working single-parent will be able to turn down the offer of "free" (read "taxpayer financed") preschool services?
After 20 or 30 years of government school, and a significant amount of student loan debt that ensures you are eternally beholding to God for His bounty, you are turned loose into the job market.  Here you will find that God has established a series of rules that allow you to dictate the terms of your employment to your employer.  He must pay you a certain wage.  He must provide you particular benefits.  If your employer does not meet those conditions you can sue him and be awarded a huge cash settlement.  There are dozens of different legal technicalities that will get the cash for you,all from the hands of State approved attorneys.  Maybe you tire of working very quickly.  Not to worry.  God will provide.  Apply for "unemployment benefits" and take two years off to clear your head and serve Him more seriously.
Throughout your life  you will be provided free medical care. God wants you to be healthy.  God has just recently declared that all members of His church (read: citizens of the SDA) now have free and unrestricted access to lifetime medical care.  Praise God!  Although you might get sick, you will never have to be sick alone.  He will walk along beside you in the valley of the shadow of death.  His rod and His staff will comfort you.  
As your life winds down you will become a recipient of one of the largest, if not the largest, wealth transfer scams ever invented....Social Security.  If you have lived entirely dependent upon the daily bread provided by your State God, you will be entitled to full benefits.  If you have foolishly attempted to provide for yourself and accumulated a financial nest egg to live upon, thus exercising some financial independence and wandering from the fold of the faithful, you will be excluded from receiving benefits.  It is called "means testing" and it is coming.  God will not tolerate competition.  He is a jealous God.  You must serve Him and Him alone.  Anyone who attempts to live an independent lifestyle will be severely punished.  You must love Him with all your heart, mind and soul.
Throughout your life you will be attended to by God's priests/ministers.  These dedicated men and women, also known as career politicians and bureaucrats, are selflessly dedicated to preaching the gospel of State superiority.  They will teach you that the State can solve all your problems.  They will instruct you that you must always and only look to the State for all of your needs.  And guess what?  Everyone will.  Just look around us today.  Who is the first person almost everyone turns to when they perceive they have a need?  That's right!  It is our God, the beneficent State.
God promises us lots of circuses to go along with the daily bread He provides.  Christians love having revival meetings.  Full-time charlatans like Benny Hinn make a luxurious living out of conducting revival meetings.  You can watch them on the television.  Thousands of people crowd a huge auditorium.  There is singing.  There is fellowship.  The preacher mounts the podium and extols the virtues of God.  He tells the people that God is there to serve their every need, if only they would hand over a good portion of their cash to the preacher.  He tells them that God will minister to them insofar as they continue to see him, the preacher, as the lightning rod through which God speaks.  And they do.  It works.  And these men and women are very, very rich.
The same thing takes place in the religion of State worship.  God's representatives gather every four years at a thing called a convention.  There is singing.  There is fellowship.  God's representatives mount the podium and promise that God will provide for every need of the people provided two things are accomplished:  1) the right representative is elected and 2) lots of other people's cash is used to pay for the program.  It is fascinating to watch these religious services.  By the time the Chief Priest (the man or woman running for the office of King of the SDA) takes the stage, hundreds of people are adoring him, with hands raised exultantly into the air and tears streaming down their radiant faces.  Surely, the minister is so close to God, the feeling of God's presence is palpable.  What joy!
God promises to conqueror all our enemies.  He tells us that if we don't give up 30% of our income we will soon be overrun by marauding hoards of foreign invaders intent upon our destruction.  He continually wages wars on our behalf to ensure that everyone outside of our religion fears both us and our God.  We praise Him for His protection.  We praise His ministers for protecting us as well.
I could go on and on, but I won't.  I am getting a bit ill writing all of this.  I hate false gods.  I hate the worship of the idol of the State.  I hate those who serve him and call upon me to do so as well.  I hate those who call me a "hate America first" person because I do not share their religion.  I want my country back. But I am enough of a realist to know that is never going to happen.  We are too far down the road of State worship.  But don't ask me to worship the State.  I won't do it.  Government is not God. 

Monday, December 9, 2013

Government Is God

A comment posted to this blog a week or so ago set my puny mind a thinking.  The commentator, Mr. Boltjason, took me to task for several of the many errors that I commit on a daily basis in this blog.  In this particular case he said that I continually create a false image of political reality when I write about the 51% and the 49% of the income population.  He explained, in terms I could understand, that we really live in a system in which there are three groups.  According to him, the top 10% are striving mightily to protect their property from the depredations of the masses.  The bottom 10% believe they have a moral claim on the wealth of everyone above them and are using the political system to plunder their neighbors.  The huge group in the middle, making up 80% of the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of America, do not even think about the issues of wealth redistribution and moral claims upon the property of others.  According to Mr. Boltjason these folks are linked together by their common belief that government owns everything and can do with it what it pleases.  That concept is what set my noggin to work.
I think he is right.  I believe most people do not think. Most people emote.  They go from one life event to the next, experiencing emotions about the events, and creating their opinions about the various events based upon how each one made them feel.  So I will not dispute his central claim that there is no actual 51/49 percent in our society.
It was his assertion that the great majority of people simply presuppose that government owns everything that interested me.  Once again, I believe he is right.  If he is not, it is only because the percentage of the population that believes government owns everything is higher than the 80% he postulates.  What I found interesting was the question "why?"  Why do so many citizens in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika simply presuppose that government owns all things?  Why do so many citizens in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika presuppose that government is the source of all things?  Then, like a flash of lightning, it occurred to me.  People believe government is omniscient, people believe government is omnipresent (I believe that as well), people believe government is omnipotent and people believe government is beneficent.  In other words, people believe government is God.  Not a god, but the God.  The Bible says that God claims to own the "cattle on a thousand hills."  In the SDA the government owns not only the cattle but the hills upon which they graze.
Lest you consider my assertion to be absurd, I offer up the following arguments in proof of my assertion that the majority of the citizens of the SDA believe the SDA government is God:
  1. Religious people are infamous for turning to God when their lives are difficult.  It has been stated, fairly I believe, that there are no atheists in foxholes.  I believe it is also true that those who profess to believe in God will generally address Him, petition Him, if you will, more often when their lives are difficult than when they are easy.  So, I ask you, what happens in this country when unemployment rises?  What happens when personal income declines?  What happens when people believe they are not getting their "fair share", whatever that is?  What happens when various special interest groups do not get to exercise their "civil rights" as they see fit?  You know the answer to all these questions.  They march down to the local government building and protest.  They yell and scream at government, emotionally petitioning it to give them everything they want to make the pain and hurt go away.  Government officials quickly appear and promise to deliver all the things the petitioners desire to them, just like a good god should.  I believe we can clearly see that most SDA citizens regularly pray to the government to give them what they want.
  2. I am amazed at how Christians steadfastly refuse to tithe.   For those of you who do not know, tithing is the practice whereby a Christian gives 10% of his annual income to his local church.  It is commanded in the Bible but it is rarely practiced, or enforced, in Christian churches.  When a pastor exhorts his membership to give more money to the church the reaction is completely predictable.  Everyone will complain that he spends all of his time preaching about money and threaten to go to the church down the street if he does not cease and desist.  Now, consider this truth.  Although most practicing Christians give around 3% of their annual income to the church (and complain vociferously about that), most citizens of the SDA give around 30% of their annual incomes to the State, and almost nobody utters a word of complaint!  In fact, many of those who worship government cry out for higher taxes.  They want the State to have more of their annual income.  They want the State to take more of the annual income of their neighbors.  One lesson I learned early in life was to follow the money.  When the great majority of the citizens of the SDA pay 10 times more of their money to the State than they do to any Church, we have a clear example of government worship taking place.
  3. What is the physical center of the community?  In many, if not most, of the historic old towns in the SDA, there would be a church building at the center of the community.  The Church, historically speaking, was the center of the community.  The very way their towns were platted shows that the Church was the center of the society that lived there.  That, of course, changed long ago.  Today, where does one go when he wants to be a part of the larger group?  I am not speaking of bars and other places for people to simply meet other people.  I am talking about when people want to discuss the issues they consider to be important for life and prosperity.  They gather on the steps of the local government building, of course!  Practically every nightly news report in Denver has at least one segment dedicated to some special interest group that "gathered on the steps of the capitol building today" to protest or assert their rights to other people's property.  SDA citizens do not go to church any longer.  They go to State.  
  4. Churches seek to grow through evangelism.  I do not think I need to say anything more about that truth.  We are all tired of seeing "John 3:16" banners hanging in end-zones.  We are all tired of hearing Tim Tebow thank Jesus for his life.  On the other hand, we never grow tired of the evangelistic efforts coming forth from the proponents of the State religion.  You need to be more involved in the community, they will say.  How dare you be an isolationist, they will argue.  If you do not participate you will have no say in what happens, they will warn.  We are begged, ordered and cajoled to become more involved in the political process.  Those who do not are singled out for special scorn.  I must say, the State evangelists have been far more successful than the Church evangelists have.  They have made many more political converts and their converts are much more fervent in the practice of Statism.
  5. Churches have priests or ministers.   These are the people who are responsible for conducting the religious services that the members are expected to attend.  The SDA has so many State priests we hardly know what to do with them.  They are the politicians of all stripes.  Local, state and federal politicians all serve as priests to the State religion.  The legions of bureaucrats and assistants to the politicians serve roles similar to co-pastors and administrative assistants in the Church.  In the State they are charged with administering the holy bureaucracy that we are all required to bow down before.  Priests who have died and who were considered to have been especially pious are canonized and turned into Saints.  In the same way Presidents who have died who were deemed to have been especially imperialist are canonized as well.  Their portraits are prominently displayed in State buildings (government schools, capitol buildings and Post Offices) all around the country. 
  6. Churches have sacraments.  The sacraments performed in churches are sensible signs that denote spiritual realities.  Protestant churches have two sacraments.  Baptism is the initiatory rite into the church and Communion is the rite of continuation in the church.  The State does exactly the same thing.  The initiatory rite for the State is the citizenship oath.  It is impute to all who are born here and sworn by all who are nationalized.  Have you ever read it?  You should.  I have copied it for you below.  Read it and ask yourself if it does not sound familiar to an oath of allegiance to God you might have heard or taken yourself.  It is monotheistic....there is only one State that you shall worship.  It is all encompassing....you shall serve the State with all your mind, heart and soul.  The second sacrament in the State is the sacrament of continuation, better known as the Vote.  Millions of SDA citizens repeatedly and unabashedly refer to the Vote as their "sacred rite".   This is not something I am making up.  It is something they believe.  Every election cycle I am informed by those around me who know much better than I do how I should behave, that I should exercise my sacred right to vote or be deemed an apostate of the State.  When I do not vote I am told that I am now excluded from the fellowship.  In the Church this is known as excommunication.  In the State it is known as disenfranchisement. 
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

I cannot come to any conclusion other than the assertion with which I began today's post.  In the Socialist Democracy of Amerika the government, in all its forms, is God.  Not a god, but the God.  Everything faithful believers do in the presence of the Living and True God is performed by the tens of millions of faithful believers in the State deity every single day.  In fact, and I write this most sadly, believers in the State God generally are far more faithful at supporting their God with prayers, offerings and evangelistic efforts than believers in the true God ever are.  Too bad it is all for naught.