San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, January 10, 2014

Governor Christie's Actions Were Just "Sanctions"

As I am typing this post I am also watching a press conference in which New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is addressing questions about the behavior of some of his staff members who allegedly caused a partial shutdown of a highway bridge for political purposes.  You have probably heard about the story.  Some mayor in a New Jersey town did not endorse Christie for governor.  The mayor is a Democrat and Christie is a Republican, although it is generally almost impossible to discern a difference between the two parties these days.  A series of incriminating emails indicate that a couple of high-up staffers in Christie's entourage engaged in a purposeful and successful attempt to shut down several lanes of traffic on a highway bridge in the town of the recalcitrant mayor.  The content of the emails makes it pretty clear that no legitimate highway construction was being performed and the shutdowns were a ploy to anger commuters in the mayor's town.  The hope, as you have probably figured out, was that citizens of that town would become angry with the mayor and refuse to reelect him.  In other words, the Christie staffers were attempting to put a little political hurt on a mayor who did not toe the political line for them.
I believe Christie when he asserts that he did not know about what was happening.  He is too important and too aware of his lofty status to commit such a fledgling political mistake.  It is not difficult to imagine a couple of staffers, high on their own sense of power and importance, deciding to throw their weight around for the sake of their boss.  No doubt they thought they were doing a good thing by trying to anger the citizens of the town by causing them to get caught up in massive traffic jams.  Their thinking is illustrative of what passes for political thought and strategy these days.  The fact that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of commuters were seriously and unnecessarily hindered as they merely tried to drive to their destinations means nothing in comparison to the potential outcome of a mayoral election.  The plebeians who drive and populate the town are totally insignificant when it comes to the importance of the career politicians who rule over them.  Manipulating the masses for the sake of a potential political outcome is just business as usual in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.
As expected, the press is making a big deal out of this.  If Christie were just a run-of-the-mill politician from a small town in Nebraska this story would probably not have been reported.  But Christie is not a small fish.  He is considered to be a top candidate for King of the SDA in the next coronation cycle.  As such, his every action will be scrutinized by the lap-dog press corps.  Any story about him is a big story and could be a career maker for any ambitious journalist lucky enough to get the scoop. 
Meanwhile, Democrats are expressing their collective outrage at the ploy and telling anyone who will listen that they are morally superior and never would engage in such underhanded political tactics.  "Vote Democrat" is the obvious message.  Republicans, on the other hand,  are quietly slinking away to the dark corners of the universe to try and avoid any taint from whatever negative political slime might ooze after them.  Surprisingly, nobody is talking about the tactic itself.  I am amazed.  OK, really I am not amazed.  Nobody ever talks about the real issue.  It is all about posturing, positioning and political careers.  But I am interested about the issue and that is why I am writing this blog post today.  Let's consider what happened for a second.
Christie's staffers wanted to punish a fellow career politician for his non-support of the Christie campaign.  In other words, they wanted a regime change.  This particular town obviously needs a regime change.  The mayor who is ruling over it is clearly unfit to manage the affairs of the town.  The mayor's unwillingness to endorse the superior candidate must be punished.  How can politicians be expected to work together when a rogue mayor like this fellow is running around, willy-nilly, doing whatever he wants to do?   The mayor's reluctance to play ball properly needs to be punished.  He is clearly some sort of petty dictator who must be removed from office.  The fact that the local citizens of the town may not have wanted a regime change is irrelevant.  What matters is that those who know better, Christie's staffers, determined that a regime change was in order. 
Now, I ask you, what do the rulers of the SDA do when they want a regime change?  Sometimes they send in the military and kill the offending person.  That would be difficult to do in this situation.  Sending the Marines to execute the mayor would have had negative political consequences.  When military action is deemed inadvisable the second option is always the same.....sanctions.  The SDA specializes in issuing sanctions to effect regime change.  A sanction, as you are probably aware, is designed to make the lives of the common citizens so miserable they will rise up in rebellion against the rogue ruler and cast him out on his proverbial head.  What better way to remove the offensive mayor than instilling a collective outrage in the motorists of his town by closing down multiple lanes of a highly traveled highway?  The anger would be palpable.  As those motorists sit steaming in their automobiles, looking out at the road and correctly perceiving that absolutely no work was being done, they would inevitably get angry with city hall and the mayor.  In the next election cycle the Republican candidate for mayor can exploit that anger and toss the Democratic bum out.  This is a strategy used by the SDA around the world.  Why not use it here?
What I find so amusing is that sanctions are almost universally praised when they are enforced against dirty foreigners.  Rarely is a voice of protest raised when the most draconian sanctions are imposed on people who look, talk and smell differently than we do.  Most citizens of the SDA, and almost all career politicians, speak of sanctions in glowing terms.  Somehow they believe that economic warfare against another sovereign nation is somehow morally superior to actual warfare.  Somehow they can justify the pain and anguish caused by their sanctions as being more compassionate than dropping bombs.  I don't know how they do that, but they do.  Now, to the surprise of everyone, a program of sanctions has been used by one career politician against another career politician and everyone is hot and bothered about it!  Why?  If sanctions are such a humane way to bring about a desired regime change why should anyone be upset with the sanctions that were enforced by the Christie camp against the mayor?
Of course, the answer is that they should not be upset.  This is just business as usual.  The fact that they are upset indicates a serious case of hypocrisy.  Why is it that what is good for the goose is not good for the gander?   Why are sanctions moral when imposed on foreigners who do not support us and immoral when imposed on locals who do not support us?  It all seems the same to me.  I conclude that the actions of Governor Christie's staffers were nothing more than the imposition of sanctions against a political opponent and should be celebrated at least as much as we celebrate the imposition of sanctions on Iran.  To believe anything less is to be a hypocrite.  I have to go now.  I am going to open a bottle of champagne to celebrate the imposition of  sanctions upon a domestic tyrant who needs to be removed from his reign of terror.  Viva la regime change!  SDA!  SDA!  SDA!

Thursday, January 9, 2014

Capitalism Is Nothing More Than Freedom

I am constantly amazed at how many people hate freedom.  It took me a long time to understand but the great majority of the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika prefer to voluntarily enslave themselves to the State.  I can almost see their point. They believe the lies that come out of the mouths of career politicians that the State can protect them from cradle to grave and remove all risk from their lives.  However, in exchange for the promise to remove all risk from their lives, they must be enslaved.  That seems like a very high price to pay to me, especially when I consider the fact that the promise to remove all risk from our lives is never delivered.
The combination of looking to the State as a god who can protect us from all of life's risks and the natural, and quite sinful, human practice of envy is what solidifies the deal.  Those who look to the State as a god and voluntarily enslave themselves to it invariably do so because they are filled with envy for those who don't.  Those who make the decision, as far as it is possible to do so today, to live free lives tend to be those who prosper financially.  Because they are not afraid of risk they will engage in business transactions that have the potential to deliver great rewards.  This entrepreneurial class makes up the upper cohorts of the income population in the SDA.  As such they are envied by those who are enslaved and living in the lower income cohorts.  To make matters worse, career politicians pander to the envy of the lower income classes as a means to ensure their continual reelection and to foster the type of class warfare that our present political system needs to exist.
Most of you probably know George Will.  He writes a syndicated column.  He wrote a column a week or so ago that Keith Ruckhaus of Littleton took great offense to.  George's argument was typical of his writing.  He argued against big government, sprawling regulations and the negative impact of both upon capitalism.  Keith did not like what George wrote.  In a letter to the editor of the Denver Post last week Keith complained that, "George Will parades the endless ideological prattle of the righteous upon us ignorant masses....I don't suppose we would need sprawling regulation if it were not for the sprawling greed, corruption, environmental degradation and gross injustices that perpetually follow in the wake of free markets.  Not once has the fantasy of self-regulation ever proven profitable or effective for anyone except the wealthy.  If only all of us ignorant types would just abrogate our voting rights to unbridled capitalism, I am sure the consequences, complexity, centralization and intrusiveness of government will be eliminated by bigger, socially sensitive corporation."  Wow!  Keith is filled with enormous amounts of anger and envy.  Let's consider his argument for a moment.
Keith begins with the presupposition that free markets necessarily create "greed, corruption and environmental degradation."  Keith is wrong.  Free markets do nothing of the sort.  A free market is a market in which everyone is free to buy, sell and produce as he sees fit.  Why would those activities necessarily create a culture of greed, corruption and environmental degradation, whatever that is?  Keith does not say.  He just asserts it to be true.  In reality, it is characteristic of a free market that the person or corporation that best satisfies the wants and needs of the consumer is the one that will make the most profit.  Greedy people, defined as those who just want to make money without producing anything, will never succeed in the free market.  Greedy people are best suited to work in government jobs and as career politicians.  The same is true for corrupt people.  A corrupt businessman will not remain in business, if the market is truly free, for very long.  Word of mouth will spread and he will be driven out of business by the very consumers he is failing to serve.  At that point he can find ample opportunity as a government employee or a politician.  Keith's problem is that he has no idea what a free market is.
Keith believes that the free market is incapable of "self-regulation".  Although he does not say so explicitly, we are left to believe that Keith expects government bureaucrats to regulate all functions of the marketplace.  Keith, quite preposterously, believes that government bureaucrats are free from greed and corruption.  That is why he entrusts them with the task of regulation.  But is the free market truly not self-regulated?  Of course not.  In fact, the "regulation" of the free market is brought to bear by every single participant in it.  Apparently Keith is unfamiliar with the concept of the "invisible hand".  As Adam Smith explained so many years ago, the market is self-regulating.  It is regulated by every participant in it as each one of them seeks his own self interest.  If Keith believes the free market is not self-regulatory then he believes that he is incapable of making a decision to either buy or not buy a particular good or service.  The free market is regulated every single time any participant in the free market makes a decision to do something, or not do something, as the case may be.  Free people, behaving freely, regulate the free market infinitely better than any government bureau ever could.
Keith mocks George by saying that "if only all of us ignorant types would just abrogate our voting rights to unbridled capitalism..."  Here Keith shows his true colors.  Keith is just like every other member of the 51%.  He believes that voting, not free trade, is the means to prosperity.  Those greedy, immoral people who actually serve others and make money need to be punished by the electorate.  The lower 51% needs to elect career politicians who will create a tax structure that causes the upper 49% to pay all federal taxes.  Success!  After that is accomplished the members of the upper income cohorts still need to be castigated as evil, greedy monsters by a steady stream of statist propaganda coming forth from the hallowed throne of their god and his representatives.  Success!
There is no such thing as "bridled capitalism".  The only capitalism that exists is unbridled.  Keith does not want capitalism if it is unbridled.  We could just as easily say that Keith does not believe in unbridled freedom.  There is only one type of freedom and that is unbridled freedom and Keith wants no part of that.  Freedom terrifies him.  In the same way there is only one type of capitalism and that is unbridled capitalism and Keith also wants no part of that.  Bridled capitalism is not capitalism, it is interventionism where the state intervenes in the market place and attempts to manipulate it for its own evil, greedy and corrupt ends.  Meanwhile, Keith does not believe he should give up his voting rights to unbridled freedom.  He wants people to be enslaved.  He wants to be on the receiving end of the largess that will come from the master to him as payment for his complicity in the system of slavery he so joyously exalts. 
I live in a nation of slaves.  There was a time when the opposite was the case.  There was a time when the only slaves were legally recognized as such and the rest of he citizens of the SDA were free.  Those times are gone.  Today I am told that we are all free when, in reality, we are all enslaved to the state.  To make matters worse, almost nobody seems to care that we are enslaved.  As a result, capitalism is decried as evil and the sad citizens of this land cry out for more economic intervention.  When men are free, capitalism is the result.  It does not have to be created, it just happens.  Capitalism is not an economic system.  It is just free men living freely. And, strangely, everyone seems to hate it.

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Censorship Advocates Know They Are Wrong

What I am going to write here today has probably already been figured out by the three or four people who read this blog on a regular basis.  I have been thinking about several of the blog postings over the past couple of weeks and a familiar theme has started to emerge.  Homosexuals want to take away the First Amendment rights of all people who believe their behavior is sinful.  Homosexuals want to be free to exercise their First Amendment rights and call those who disagree with their behavior "homophobes" but they are unwilling to allow their opponents to speak to them at all.  They want those who oppose homosexual behavior to be classified as criminals who are guilty of hate speech. They want all anti-homosexual speech permanently banned.
Any white person who believes that blacks are more likely to be guilty of racially motivated behaviors is also not permitted to speak.  The converse is also true.  Any white that is not constantly professing that he is guilty of racism is not permitted to speak.  Additionally, any white who does not constantly admit that blacks are morally pure when it comes to racism is not permitted to speak.  Police officers investigating obviously racially motivated crimes committed by black men on white victims are required to assert that no racial bias is involved.  Quite obviously, when it comes to discussions about racism, the First Amendment right to speak the truth about black on white racist behavior must be suppressed.
Those who disagree with the doctrines of global warming (aka "climate change") are not permitted to speak.  There were two letters to the editor of the Denver Post advancing the position that global warming opponents do not have any First Amendment rights last week.  Martin Allen of Centennial said this about those who would dare disagree with the doctrines of his religion, "these same self-proclaimed experts most likely believe the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, overhead power lines cause cancer, vaccinations cause autism, bottled water is safer than tap water, and more.  The First Amendment guarantees free speech -- and also an individual's right to profess their ignorance of the world."  Wow!  That is a powerful intellectual argument against the opponents of global warming.  The more nasty things he said about me the more I felt the globe heating up.  Now I know what passes for logical and rational arguments from the global warming camp.
Jennifer Siegal of Wheat Ridge was even more pointed.  She wrote, "Why is the Denver Post continuing to give space to people who deny science?  People with scientific knowledge now state that the debate on climate change isn't whether or not its happening, its what to do about it.  The Denver Post needs to side with science and stop publishing letters from people who have no expertise...by denying climate change, you are giving space to junk science."   Wow!  That is another powerful argument in favor of the religious theory of global warming/climate change.  Apparently Jennifer is not aware of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.  You can find their website here.  This group, unlike the United Nations sponsored International Panel on Climate Change, does not get paid by the government.  They have no incentive to discover man-made climate change that will ensure they receive large government grants, and government retirement pensions, to study climate change.  Not surprisingly, they discover that government does not need to get involved in the climate change debate.  Check out the website for yourself.  They are at least as "scholarly" as the group Jennifer is in love with.
My point isn't to debate global warming.  My point is that Martin and Jennifer believe that speech coming out of the mouths of those who oppose the current theory of global warming should be censored.  They, along with many others, believe that those who oppose them have no First Amendment rights.  Looking back at what I have written in recent weeks caused me to think. What do homosexuals, race baiters and global warming alarmists all have in common?  In addition to demanding that any who oppose them be stripped of their First Amendment rights, they also share three things in common. First, they all see a problem that does not exist.  Second, they all are asking for a hegemonic governmental solution to the non-existent problem that will give them special privileges, power and government pensions.  Third, and most significantly from my perspective, they all know they are wrong.
If I came up to you on the street and told you that the sky is pink, would you write your congressman and demand he sponsor a bill declaring the sky is blue and forbidding all people from saying that the sky is pink?  Of course not.  That would be ridiculous.  You know the sky is blue.  My assertion that the sky is pink does you no harm.  Your most likely reaction to me would be to ignore me entirely.  If you did think about me you would probably pity me for being so stupid.  But one thing you would absolutely not do is ask for a law to forbid me from speaking about the color of the sky.  Your awareness that what you believe is true is the ultimate defense against that which is not.  It would never even occur to you to attempt to censor my speech because I disagree with you because you know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that you are right.
It is a universal human behavior to not be threatened by alleged assertions of "fact" when they contradict what we know, unequivocally, to be true.  If you tell me the earth is flat I am not threatened by that because I know the earth is a sphere.  I do not need to censor your speech.  I do not consider you to be a threat to me, my friends, my children, my community or my church.  You are free to say whatever you want because I know I can prove you wrong in the presence of those who matter to me.  If you tell me that the religious doctrines of evolution are true since they are accepted by every scientist worth his salt I am not threatened by that.  I know you are wrong.  I know you are spouting ignorant religious beliefs that cannot possibly harm me, my friends, my children, my community or my church.  I would never ask the government to take away your First Amendment right to tell others that you believe in the doctrines of evolution.  Good for you.  I hope that works out for you.
I think you can see the point.  The truth is not threatened by that which is not true.  It is only untruth that is threatened by the truth.  It is only untruth that needs the protection of censorship.   The moment your opponent at debate begins to call for censorship of your ideas you know you have accomplished your goal of exposing him as a fraud.  Those who truly know they are correct are secure in their knowledge and utterly unfazed by erroneous arguments against them and their position.  They never seek to muzzle the voice of those who oppose them because those who oppose them can easily be exposed for the frauds they are.  It is only those who know they are wrong and who want to protect themselves from logical and scientific scrutiny who run screaming, like little children, to the government for the protection of censorship.  This aspect of human nature is so consistent I do not even have to know or understand the debate that is raging in front of me. I know for a fact that the first person to run to a powerful authority and ask for the protection of  censorship of the words of his opponent is wrong and he knows that he is wrong.  His cries for censorship are all I need to hear. 

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Black Racist Hypocrisy Abounds In Denver

Have you read Ann Coulter's book Mugged:  Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama?  If you haven't, you should.  Thomas Sowell, a black man, says “Few things are as rare as an honest book about race. This is one of the very few, and one of the very best.”  Since writing the book Coulter has been castigated as a racist.  All of the politically correct people in this disgusting land have gathered together to agree that the central thesis of her book is wrong and she is a racist.  The central thesis of her book is that the only form of racism that still exists on a wide scale in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika today is black on white racism.  It exists in two primary forms:  violence by marauding gangs of black youths against white people and the institutional racism machine of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. 
I was watching the local television news last night when a report about an assault in downtown Denver came on.  The lady reporter told me that a gang of young men viciously assaulted a lone young man, knocking him unconscious and breaking five bones in his face in the process.  She went on to report that three such assaults had taken place on New Year's Eve in downtown Denver.   All three assaults were of the same type.  A gang of young men attacked a lone man in a surprise assault that quickly knocked the victim out.  These reports have been coming out of downtown Denver for a couple of years now.  I do not know what the incidence of the assaults happens to be but it seems to me that I hear of such assaults at least once per month.
I sat down with my Denver Post and a bowl of oatmeal this morning.  On page 4 of the paper I saw a headline that said, "LoDo attacks may have been 'knockout game'".  LoDo is the local term for lower downtown Denver.  The report went on to inform me that, "Denver police are investigating whether a string of New Year's Day attacks downtown are linked and whether they are among the random beatings that nationwide have become known as "the knockout game."  The report went on to describe how in all cases a group of young men attacked a lone man and quickly rendered him unconscious with a series of vicious blows to his head.  The report also went on to describe the knockout game.  It said, "Detectives do not know if the attacks are a part of a nationwide phenomenon known as the knockout game, in which an assailant assaults a random stranger to knock him out in one punch." 
What is missing from all of these reports?  Try and guess.  There is something that is materially important about all of these assaults that is being skipped over.  Do you have any idea what it is?  I will tell you the missing link in all of these assaults even though I will end up being labeled a racist for doing so.  All of the gangs have been made up of black men and all of the victims have been white males.  All of them.  No exceptions.  When the Denver detective quoted above stated that "an assailant assaults a random stranger to knock him out in one punch" he failed to mention that the victim is not selected randomly.  The victim must be a white male.  Furthermore, it is crystal clear to anyone who has seen or investigated any of these assaults that the primary motivation for the assaults is black racism.  Gangs of black youths are roaming lower downtown Denver intent upon violently assaulting and knocking out individual white males.  It is as racist an action as could possibly be done.
I was outraged by the television and newspaper reports on the recent assaults.  Video of the attacks clearly shows that it was perpetrated by a gang of black males.  No one in his right mind can deny that the motivation for the attacks is to whup up on a white boy.  And yet, the black criminals are given a free pass in regards to their hate crime for, you see, hate crimes can only go one way when it comes to race.  Only a white person can commit a hate crime.  Blacks, by definition, are incapable of being racist as they brutally attack single white males.  A strange conspiracy of total silence has fallen over the discussion of the assaults because nobody wants to admit that hypocritical blacks are engaging in racially motivated hate crimes against whites in Denver. 
If the three assaults that took place on New Year's Eve had been captured on camera as having been perpetrated by a gang of white males upon lone black males and if it was a well known cultural phenomena that white gangs have been singling out black males for violent assault, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would have been here the next day.  They would have delivered speeches about racism and evil white people.  They would have shouted at the top of their lungs about institutional racism and how the black man has no chance in the white man society.  They would have screamed for charges of "hate crimes" to be filed against the perpetrators. They also would have been followed by hoards of reporters dutifully recording their every word. Their words would have been on the front page of the newspapers and the lead story on the nightly news.  We all know this is true but we keep our heads firmly buried in the sand to avoid having to discuss it.  White folks are terrified of being labeled racists and black folks with a vested interest in perpetuating this immoral and exploitative system have the upper hand.
Ann Coulter's book describes the nature of these attacks in detail.  I am not going to repeat her arguments here.  You can get the book and read it for yourself.  Indeed, if you want to be informed on the current state of racial politics in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika you must get the book and read it.  It is sufficient for me to say that today, in Denver, the hypocritical black racism machine is operating at full strength.  Blacks are immune from accusations of racism, no matter what they do.  White are being pummeled on the streets and the police, politicians and reporters are scratching their heads as if they do not understand what is happening.  Denver has become the white equivalent of Selma.  (Now, go ahead, start calling me a racist.)

Update:  January 8, 2014

The Denver Post followed up on the story about the three racially motivated attacks in downtown Denver by acknowledging that "the victims of the latest assaults all were white men....all of the suspects are listed as black."  Then, quite predictably given today's politically correct requirement that black men be incapable of racist behavior,  the article went on to say that "detectives wrote in the police reports that there was no bias in any of the incidents."  By "bias" they mean racial bias.  Are they insane?  I also learned that there have been 29 reported incidents of black gangs beating white males since 2009.  And still the Denver police say that this is not racially motivated.  I only have one question.  If the races were switched and this was white gangs beating lone black males, do you think everyone would be saying there is no racial bias?  I rest my case.  Racist behavior apparently can only go one way. 

Monday, January 6, 2014

SDA Threatens World Peace

Some folks over at the Gallup organization decided to conduct a poll to determine who the world's biggest bully happens to be.  They teamed up with another group called the Worldwide Independent Network and distributed a poll that asked the citizens in 68 different sovereign nations around the world which country they believed was the greatest threat to world peace.  Here is a quote about the poll and its results:
"The US has been voted as the most significant threat to world peace in a survey across 68 different countries. Anti-American sentiment was not only recorded in antagonistic countries, but also in many allied NATO partners like Turkey and Greece.  A global survey conducted by the Worldwide Independent Network and Gallup at the end of 2013 revealed strong animosity towards the US’s role as the world’s policeman. Citizens across over 60 nations were asked: “Which country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?”
The US topped the list, with 24 percent of people believing America to be the biggest danger to peace. Pakistan came second, with 8 percent of the vote and was closely followed by China with 6 percent. Afghanistan, Iran, Israel and North Korea came in joint fourth place with 5 percent of the vote. The threat from the US was rated most highly in the Middle East and North Africa, those areas most recently affected by American military intervention. Moreover, the survey showed that even Americans regard their country as a potential threat with 13 percent of them voting the US could disrupt global status quo. Latin America expressed mixed feelings towards its northerly neighbor, with Peru, Brazil and Argentina all flagging the US as the most dangerous country."
When the career politicians and military leaders of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika discovered that they had been labeled the world's biggest bully they immediately threatened to "nuke those dirty foreigners off the face of the earth."  Actually, I just made that up.  But it is not hard to imagine that response coming from our rulers.  What they really said was, "Don't those stinkin' foreigners understand that we are killing them for their own good?  What is wrong with them?"  Actually, I just made that up too.  But it is not hard to imagine that response also coming from our rulers.
SDA citizens were aghast to discover that people around the world consider the SDA to be the biggest bully on the block.  How can we be so hated when everything we do around the world is good?  How can we be considered to be a bully when we are so sincere?  I actually heard a couple of air-headed commentators over on Fox News discussing the poll who said they believe it is a good thing to be the most hated nation in the world because it means those other nations have a nice, healthy fear of us.  No bully could have put it any better than that.  The fact that most citizens of the SDA cannot begin to fathom how it could be that other sovereign nations would not like us amazes me.  Have these folks been living with their heads buried deeply in the ground their entire lives?  Let's consider some potential reasons why the SDA is perceived to be the most dangerous country in the world.
The SDA has military personnel in 148 countries around the world.  In addition, the SDA has 662 military bases in 38 of those countries.  For comparison purposes Russia has 14 military bases in 11 countries.  Ten of those eleven countries are former Soviet Republics.  The lone exception is Syria.  China, whom we all know has designs on world conquest and the utter annihilation of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika has a grand total of zero military bases on foreign soil.  The two most imperialistic military forces after the SDA and the Russians are the French (11 bases) and the British (10 bases).  Do you think the fact that the SDA has a military presence in almost every country in the world could have anything to do with the fact that the SDA is the most hated country in the world?  Hummm....makes one think.
Of course we know that the SDA military presence around the world is not to wage war on other sovereign nations. We are there to be peacekeepers.  Why can't the other countries of the world understand that we are in their countries to make peace, not war?  Maybe they have a problem believing us because of our history.  Maybe they see us as a threat because the SDA has been in perpetual war from its very founding in 1776.  Here is a question for you.  How many years, of the 237 years since the SDA was founded, has the SDA been at war with another sovereign nation?  The answer will probably surprise you, especially if you believe the SDA is essentially a peaceful country.  Since 1776 the SDA has been waging war against somebody in 216 of the 237 years of its existence.  Over 90% of the years this sad land has been in existence have been defined by the fact that we were waging war against some other sovereign nation.  Do you think that could be a reason why we are deemed to be the world's biggest bully?
Which is the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon against another sovereign nation?  Right, the SDA.  Which country has the biggest nuclear weapons stash?  Right, the SDA.  Which country insists it has the right to prevent other countries from developing nuclear weapons? Right, the SDA.  Which country threatens military action against any country that even thinks about developing nuclear weapons? Right, the SDA.  Does anybody see a pattern here?
Do you ever think about "sanctions"?  Do you even know what sanctions are?  Sanctions is a fancy term for starving people you don't like.  The SDA engages in sanctions against other foreign nations all the time.  The goal of sanctions is always the same.  Career politicians in the SDA don't like some country's political leaders.  Believing that the best way to overthrow that political leader is by fomenting rebellion from within, the SDA declares and enforces economic sanctions against that country.  Food and medical supplies are cut off.  The goal is to make the daily lives of the rank and file citizenry of that country so miserable they will rise up in rebellion against their own leaders and install an SDA friendly government.  Of course, that is never what happens.  The more the people are starved the more they rally around their own government.  Somehow the career politicians in the SDA never figure this out.  They just call for more sanctions. 
Are you aware of the fact that the SDA is presently conducting sanctions operations against 23 countries around the world?  Do you know that many of these programs have been going on for years?  Do you know that the SDA forces its allies to honor its sanctions programs?  This is especially true in the case of Iran, presently the SDA's most sanctioned country.  Now what do you think?  Is it possible that watching your child die of disease or starve to death as a result of SDA enforced sanctions could possibly cause a citizen of a foreign land to believe the SDA is the world's greatest threat to world peace?  It does not take much of a brain, even for a pea-brained SDA citizen, to figure out that sanctions do not make us popular around the world.
As is usually the case, I have only scratched the surface of the things the SDA does to sovereign foreign nations and the poor citizens within them.  Do you think the fact that the SDA has forced Latin American countries to enforce SDA drug laws upon their citizens, thus creating the hugely powerful Latin American drug cartels, could have anything to do with their mistrust of our motives?  Do you think the fact that SDA career politicians believe they have the right to stick their big noses into everything that happens in every single country in the world could have something to do with our perception as the world's biggest bully?  I know, I know.  Those stupid foreigners are too dumb to recognize that we are exceptional.  They need to stop their complaining and whining.  They need to just relax and trust us.  They need to realize that everything we do is good because we are basically a good people.  So, my fellow SDA citizens, let's all give a collective pat on the head to the foreign nations who believe we are a threat, give them a glass of water and send them off to bed like the insignificant little children they are.  Pity them, they are too stupid to know that we are the great and beneficent SDA.