San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, April 11, 2014

Al Lewis Never Tires Of Being Wrong

Al Lewis is a strange bird.  He is a financial columnist based in Denver.  His column frequently shows up in the Sunday edition of the Wall Street Journal.  This is noteworthy only for the fact that he is much more of a socialist than a free marketeer.  It is also noteworthy because he is decidedly anti-stock market.  He oftentimes writes about how all the participants on Wall Street are greedy monsters out to feather their own nests at the expense of Main Street.  He wrote a column two Sundays ago that dramatically illustrates my point.  It was entitled "The Next Landslide" and it was Al's most recent prediction of eminent economic doom.  Here, in part, is what he had to say:
"I've been predicting the next financial crash ever since the last one....I have witnessed the 1980s savings and loan crisis, the 1987 stock market crash, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the 1998 collapse of a hedge fund called Long Term Capital Management that had to be  bailed out before it took down the global economy.  Then came the 2000 dotcom bust.  Then, the 2008 financial crisis and the muck our economy has been stuck in ever since.  Every crisis is different in detail, but the cause is always some variation of the same game:  High rollers amass debt until they can't pay it off, and then they default, setting off a string of insolvencies that can be stopped only by putting taxpayers at risk.  Systemic fraud is exposed in every crash, but little is done about it.  Big business, big government and big bankers are too often from the same self-dealing clan....Economists working for the looting class often compare the economy to the weather.  They claim that unavoidable cycles cause crashes, as if the economy were a natural phenomenon existing apart from humanity.  But humans create economies and humans cause financial disasters.  Financial crimes are tolerated in the name of free-market capitalism and the comforting pretension that another economic crash could never happen again."  I can hardly decide where to begin pointing out the economic fallacies in Al's argument.  Still, I will try.
Al has been around a long time.  So have I.  He goes all the way back to the 1980s when reciting his litany of stock market crashes.  So can I.  Only in my case I choose to look at the other side of the coin.  Al accentuates the negative.  I prefer to accentuate the positive.  Al refers to all of the major market downturns since 1980.  He makes it sound as if anyone who has invested in the stock market since 1980 has lost enormous amounts of money.  How could anyone possibly make any money when the stock market has been saddled with one disaster after another, and all of them created by the greedy fats-cats who manipulate the system for their own gain?  Al needs to look at things from the perspective of the small-time long term investor (that would be me).  Since 1980 the S & P 500 stock index has averaged 11.8%/year in total return.  That is a pretty decent rate of return for an ordinary Joe like me.  In fact, since I own some mutual funds that have been able to do a little bit better than the stock market over that time frame I have actually done better than 12%/year since 1980.  I wonder how Al's investments have panned out since 1980?
Al is pretty ignorant of economics.  His allegation that the bankruptcy of Long Term Capital Management was about to "take down the global economy" is nothing more than ridiculous and absurd hyperbole.  LTCM was a hedge fund that over-leveraged.  It went bankrupt.  It should have been allowed to go bankrupt.  There would have been a slight ripple effect throughout the stock markets of the world and then it would have been quickly forgotten.  Instead, rent-seeking career politicians fanned the flames of panic and then presented themselves as the solution to a problem that did not exist.  The end result was that the taxpayers ended up bailing out LTCM.  That never would have happened in a true free market.
Al is right that every financial crisis is always some variation of the same game.  He is, however, quite wrong when he names the game.  Every crisis that Al listed, with one notable exception, was created as a direct result of government laws, rules and regulations that created a moral hazard in the free market whereby some market participants assumed risks they never would have assumed in the absence of a government promise to bail out all potential losers.  Furthermore, every crisis, with no exceptions, was created by Federal Reserve monetary policies that have induced the cycle of boom and bust periods we are all so familiar with.   Allow me to explain.
The savings and loan crisis was a direct result of FSLIC.  In the absence of a promise by the federal government to guarantee all S & L loans, no prudent S & L would have issued bad loans and those which did would have gone bankrupt.  Government was the direct cause of the S & L crisis.  The 1987 stock market crash was a classic case of short-term panic that resulted in the largest one day drop in the history of the stock market.  Al fails to mention that 1987 ended with the stock market on the positive side of the ledger for the year.  His "crash" was nothing more than a very volatile day.  The Asian financial crisis was simply an Asian version of governments getting involved in business so that entrepreneurs took risks they never would have taken in the absence of a government promise to cover all bad decisions.
The dotcom bust, as Al calls it, was the one exception to the general rule.  Blame, if it is possible to assign it to market turns, must be placed at the feet of stock market investors who rode a wave of irrational euphoria as technology stocks seemed poised to rise forever.  Much like the tulip bulb mania of generations ago, everyone and his brother suddenly became a stock market expert.  I once passed a fellow riding a bike (I was riding a bike too....I was much faster back then) who told me he had quit his job as a commercial airline pilot to stay home and day-trade technology stocks.  It was only a matter of time until that bubble burst.  I have written extensively on the causes of the 2008-2009 market crash.  Those interested in reading more can go here, here and here.  Needless to say, the full responsibility for the crash fell squarely upon the shoulders of career politicians and the stupid bureaucrats who wrote the rules in a vain attempt to micro-manage the economy. 
Al is right about one thing.  The economy goes through an endless number of cycles.  He is wrong about how those cycles come about.  He claims that believers in free market capitalism profess that market cycles are an inherent part of capitalism that must simply be withstood in the name of profits.  He should know better.  No proponent of free markets believes that.  Those who understand economics (the Austrian variety) know that market cycles are a direct result and creation of Federal Reserve monetary policies. Each period of expansion causes the next period of contraction (recession).  The expansions are always caused by Fed created inflation which distorts market signals and creates miss-allocation of resources and overproduction of goods and services.  The recession corrects those problems and then the entire process starts all over again.  The simply truth that Al refuses to admit is that it is possible to stop all cycles of expansion and recession overnight.  All that has to be done is to abolish the Fed and establish sound money. Preferably the dollar would be replaced with a gold standard.  But that is never going to happen because government gains too much power and influence by having its own central bank.
According to Al I am a member of the "looting class" because I invest in the stock market.  According to Al I am practicing "financial crimes" because I make a profit in the stock market.  Al, those are fighting words.  I don't take kindly to being called a looter and a criminal simply because I understand economics and you don't.  I especially don't take kindly to being called a criminal and a looter when the real criminals and looters, career politicians and their lackey bureaucrats, are running free and garnering praise for their efforts to "manage" the economy in favor of the "little guy."
Al concludes his column by predicting another market crash sometime in the future.  Talk about shooting fish in a barrel.  I will conclude my blog post today by predicting that after the next market crash, which will be the direct result of government intervention in the free market, the market will rise again.

Thursday, April 10, 2014

Spend Trillions To Prevent Climate Change, Now!

The UN committee on global climate change issued another report last week.  It was a huge report that delved into the expected future consequences of global climate change.  Among other things, it included predictions, accepted as fact by all true believers, that there would be an increase in global warfare in the future that will be directly related to global climate change.  In essence the report argued that everything that happens in the world from this point forward will be a direct result of global climate change, whatever that is.  The only way to prevent all the the things that are going to happen in the future from happening, of course, is for the government to spend thousands of billions (that would be trillions) of taxpayer dollars suppressing all of the free market activities that are causing this horrific global climate change.  Let's consider this scenario for a moment, shall we?
I miss the old phrase "global warming."  At least I understood what it meant.  Even a dunderhead like me can understand that global warming means that the average temperature of the world is steadily rising.  I particularly liked the phrase because it was extraordinarily easy to either prove or disprove.  All one had to do was compare the average temperatures around the world from year to year and one could immediately tell if the earth was getting warmer, cooler or staying the same.  Alas, that simple definition was its own undoing.  When the earth stopped getting warmer a couple of years ago the proponents of global warming had a serious problem.  Their phrase no longer applied even though they were desperately seeking government grants to continue their research into something that was no longer taking place.  Enter "global climate change."
Who can disagree with the fact that the climate on the earth is constantly changing?  I certainly can't.  It was cold yesterday.  It is warm today.  It was dry yesterday.  It is expected to rain tomorrow.  And that creates the perfect setup for meteorological "scientists" who are on the government payroll who are trying to stay on the taxpayer funded dole provided they can convince the politicians that global climate change is a bad thing.  So when global warming was shown to be no longer happening the propagandists in favor of the program of meteorological socialism and statism agreed to change the terminology.  They needed a phrase that would always be true, regardless of what was really happening to the weather around the world.  Global climate change is the perfect term because it says absolutely nothing.  In the hands of skilled propagandists it is therefore possible to make it mean anything they want it to.
Global climate change has now come to mean the rather obvious truth that the climate of the world is constantly changing.  Added to that indisputable fact is the highly disputable allegation that man is primarily responsible for those changes.  Added to that dubious observation is the even more disputable allegation that everything man does has a negative impact upon the climate.  This entire pantheon of socialistic meteorology is then capped with the outrageous and morally bankrupt doctrine that career politicians should bankrupt their countries creating programs to fight global climate change and enrich those involved in the process of fighting it.  The losers in this program are all taxpayers and all practitioners of free market activities.  The winners in this program are the government connected meteorologists and the career politicians. 
Last week Tony Murphy wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post in which he constructed a list of things the global warming alarmists had predicted twenty years ago.  He then went through that list and showed how none of the things that were predicted had even come close to actually taking place.  He rightly concluded that global warming science was nothing more than junk science designed to fleece the taxpayers and enrich government connected "scientists."  Craig Eley of Denver wrote a letter to the editor today disagreeing with the position taken by Tony.  Does Craig present alternative bits of data which show that Tony was in error?  No.  Does Craig challenge the historical accuracy of Tony's earlier predictions?  No.  So just what does Craig do?  Let him tell you in his own words:
"Letter writer Tony Murphy lists several predictions he claims were made 20 years ago that have not yet occurred and then poses the question, 'Why believe the global alarmists when they are always so wrong?'  The answer is simple -- if they are right, the consequences will be cataclysmic."  Wow!  Now that is a scientific argument if I have ever read one.
Craig does not engage Tony in any meaningful fashion.  Instead, he chooses to ignore Tony's logical arguments in favor of emotional extremism and blatant socialistic statism.  It is hard to believe that an adult would present the argument he presents but that is the state of logical thought in our country today.  The reason the federal government should bankrupt the country by taxing its citizens into oblivion and spending trillions of dollars on ridiculous programs to fight global climate change is if the global climate change alarmists are correct we will soon all be living under cataclysmic circumstances, whatever those are.  Obviously it does not occur to Craig that the program he is proposing to fight the non-existent problem of global climate change will necessarily result in a cataclysmic state of affairs as the Socialist Democracy of Amerika implodes from over taxation and over spending.
Despite all of this, I like Craig's method.  I am going to apply it to more circumstances in our world.  According to Craig, anytime someone issues an argument that ends with "if we do not do this now we are all doomed" it is the responsibility of the government to spend billions of dollars to try and prevent whatever is going to bring about this doom because if it does happen  it will be cataclysmic.  It does not matter that the predictions for the future are based upon wild speculation and junk science.  It does not matter that the predictions for the future have already shown to be wrong.  All that matters is that the predictions for the future are so horrific that a failure to act today will bring about inevitably disastrous outcomes.  Without further ado, here are some of my predictions:
  • The Welsh are a special breed.  In order to ensure the continuity of the human race it is essential that all Welshmen be preserved and allowed to propagate.  To accomplish this goal all citizens of the SDA should be required to pay a 10% surtax on their annual federal tax return.  Proceeds from this surtax, after career politicians take half of it, are to be dispersed in equal shares to all Welshmen.  A failure to do this will bring about the destruction of the human race and an end to life as we know it. 
  • If we have learned anything from the movies it is this....technological progress will inevitably result in our being enslaved to robots.  It is only a matter of time before "smart technology" brings about a condition whereby some robot develops independent consciousnesses and intelligence.  At that point we are doomed.  To alleviate this inevitable future outcome I propose that all personal electronic devices (PEDs) be immediately outlawed.  This includes all cell phones.  Anyone caught owning a cell phone should be executed on the spot.  
  • All of mankind suffers from a common malady.  It is called sin.  As a result of this condition known as sin, all men find themselves at enmity with the God of the Bible.  Unless a man repents of his sin and casts himself upon the mercy of God offered through the atoning propitiatory sacrifice of His Son, he is doomed to eternal damnation.  Therefore, all men should repent today for the simple truth of the matter is that Jesus is coming back to this earth and when He returns it will not be to save men but to judge them.  All who have not repented will be damned on the spot.

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Heterophobic Zealots Attack Mozilla CEO

Maybe you heard about the story.  You can read about it here.  Mozilla, perhaps most famous for its "Firefox" web browser, appointed a new CEO a short time ago.  His name is Brendan Eich.  I believe it is fair to assume that Mr. Eich was appointed by the shareholders and board of directors of the company because they believed he would do the best job leading Mozilla in all of its various corporate endeavors.  He had worked his way up through the ranks of the company and had been the Chief Technology Officer prior to being appointed CEO for the firm.  Ordinarily this would not be a news story.  But these are not ordinary times.  We live in a time when free speech is censored.  We live in a time when a person can be civilly and criminally punished for not believing and asserting what the government says is the proper line to toe.  Most disgustingly, we live in a time in which heterophobic bigots and zealots are using the power of the state and the media to viciously discriminate against the right of free speech on the part of heterosexuals. 
Here is an excerpt from the story, "Brendan Eich, the newly named CEO of the software firm Mozilla Corporation, resigned from the post after angering gay rights activists and some in the tech industry for his opposition to same-sex marriage.  Eich's views on gay marriage came to light in the days following his appointment last week to run Mozilla, best-known for its Firefox browser.  News re-emerged of a $1,000 donation he made in 2008 supporting California's Proposition 8, an anti-gay marriage referendum.  Since then two former Mozilla developers and the dating site OKCupid,  among others, have publicly condemned the software development firm for appointing a known supporter of the anti-gay law -- voters passed Prop 8, but it was later shot down by the Supreme Court."
So let me get this straight....and I do mean straight.....Mr. Eich believes in heterosexuality.  He donated $1000 of his own money to a political campaign to defend the heterosexuality that he believes in.  He did that almost six years ago.  And now, six years later, he is driven from his position as CEO of Mozilla by heterophobic zealots who do not believe he has the right to freely express his opinions in favor of heterosexuality?  What am I missing here?  Help me to understand.  Why are homosexuals allowed to expound their opinions in favor of homosexuality with impunity but when a believer in heterosexuality does exactly the same thing he is driven from his position with the firm?  Why should he be punished for the views that he holds about sexuality?  What do his views on sexuality have to do with his ability to lead Mozilla into the future?  What does any of this have to do with his activities as CEO?  I just don't get it.
Actually, I do get it.  Homosexuals are on a cultural rampage against heterosexuals. They have declared war against us and we are not even aware of it.  By the time we heterosexuals wake up it will be too late.  We will find ourselves in prison for violating hate speech laws that grant freedom of speech to homosexuals and deny it to heterosexuals.  This is just the beginning.  It will get much worse.  Sadly, many heterosexuals have already raised the white flag.  They have come to believe the homosexual propaganda that merely disagreeing with the militant homosexual political agenda constitutes an immoral action.  They have acquiesced to the position that merely stating your opinion that homosexuality is wrong is a hateful and criminal action.  Even the folks at Mozilla have fallen into the trap.  Look at how they responded to the heterophobic zealots who drove Mr. Eich from his position:
"We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better....Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all....We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community."
Are you kidding me?  This response is so politically correct it is hilarious.  Just look at that long list of people/things that Mozilla professes to be "inclusive" about, whatever that means.   Nobody is allowed to be offended, except Christians.  Nobody is allowed to be disagreed with, except heterosexuals.  Nobody is ever allowed to have their feelings hurt unless they are Christian zealots who oppose progressives and the homosexual agenda. They are always fair game.  Everybody must have their self-esteem bolstered on a daily basis with words of praise and acceptance for every lifestyle imaginable, except the Christian lifestyle.
I think Mozilla needs to add a few more items to their list of inclusiveness, whatever that means.  I don't think they even come close to being properly inclusive.  There are dozens of groups that need daily affirmation.  I would suggest including "Cubs fans" (they are always discriminated against), "Welshmen" (same thing), the left-handed, short people, tall people (don't want to play favorites here), dog lovers, cat lovers (same thing) and all Sudanese pedophiles of Belgian descent.  If they do not add these categories to their list of people/things they do not discriminate against I am going to organize a protest and seek to have the CEO removed from his position forthwith.
The incredible hypocrisy in the official company line is palpable.  Look at this line from the statement issued to try and sooth the outrage of the homosexuals:  "Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public" unless those opinions are in favor of traditional Christian morals in which case they are grabbed up and opposed by heterophobic zealots intent upon jamming their militant homosexual agenda down our throats. Then all bets are off.  Then there is no tolerance for openness whatsoever.  The only openness that exists is the openness of being out of the closet.  The ability to share an opinion in public is granted only to the homosexuals.  Heterosexuals need not apply.  This is blatant, abject discrimination.  This violates everything the Constitution of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika stands for.  And this is the new Amerika of the homosexual political lobby. Get used to it.  It will only get worse.
I use Mozilla Firefox as my preferred web browser.  And guess what?  I am not going to stop using it!  I am not going to call for a boycott of Mozilla.  I am not going to organize my fellow Christians and heterosexuals in order to oppose the pro-homosexual agenda of Mozilla.  I don't want to bring economic harm upon Mozilla.  I do not want the new, pro-homosexual, CEO of Mozilla forced from his position. For you see, I don't give a rip about the sexual practices of the people who work at Mozilla.  I also don't care what they believe about various sexual behaviors.  All I care about is that they produce a web browser that I like to use, so I will continue to use it.  I am a bit afraid however.  What if the heterophobic zealots who populate Mozilla find out who I am?  I don't know what kind of powers they might have.  If they do end up finding out who I am, I am sure of one thing....they will immediately cut off my service thus guaranteeing that this heterosexual will not be able to use any of their products.  That is the way heterophobic bigots operate.  They don't tolerate anyone but themselves. 

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

God Decreed The Fort Hood Shootings

I was reading my Denver Post yesterday when I came across a short article that typifies so much about what is wrong with the Christian church in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika today.  The article was entitled "Churches Near Fort Hood Honor Shooting Victims."  Here is a part of what it went on to say:
"What would have been a routine Sunday service at Tabernacle Baptist church just outside Fort Hood became a tribute to the soldiers killed four days earlier when a fellow service member opened fire.  Similar gatherings were held throughout the military town of Killeen, but there were more questions than answers.  'A lot of us, I think this morning, are asking the question, Why?  Why would this happen again?  Why are these types of things allowed to happen?' Pastor Robert Sperbeck told dozens gathered at Tabernacle."
Allow me to make some observations on this news article and allow me to answer the pastor's questions, if you will.  Killeen has a population of 128,000 people.  In the state of Texas there are an average of 12 deaths per 100,000 people per year from automobile accidents.  If Killeen is average it follows that somewhere around a dozen people were killed in car crashes in Killeen last year.  Do you think any of the churches in Killeen held a special service for  any of those people?  Unless the victims were members of a particular church I rather doubt it.  330 people were murdered in Texas in 2010.  Do you think any of the churches in Killeen dedicated a Sunday service to the murder victims if they were not already members of their churches?  I doubt it.  So why is it that many churches in Killeen decided to dedicate a Sunday service to "honor" the unknown victims of last week's shootings?  What makes their blood more sacred?
Of course we all know the answer to those questions.  Killeen is a military town.  The town would probably not even exist were it not for the presence of the SDA military.  And we also know that Christians are overwhelmingly Republican warfare statists.  They love the military and all things associated with it.  They believe that God is accomplishing His revealed will around the world through the activities of the SDA military.  You will probably not find this hard to believe but I have been told, by several soldiers who served in Iraq, that they saw their endeavors in Iraq as being primarily evangelistic in nature.  It's true, I am not making this stuff up.  They were desperately trying to convince themselves that what they did in Iraq was good because they were bringing the Gospel of Jesus Christ to those heathen Muslims.  The fact that everything was done at the point of a gun seemed to escape them.  How delusional they are.  
Were the men who were killed honored simply because they were killed?  Do we know if they were honorable men?  God is seriously mocked whenever a public service of worship is dedicated to the honor of human beings of whom we know nothing about.  God is seriously dishonored when a public service of worship in His name is dedicated to honoring men who might not have even been true believers.  Were those questions asked?  Were the dead extolled for their Christian faith and dedication to service of the Church?  Not having been there I cannot say for sure but I would be surprised beyond belief if anything like that actually took place.  I think we all know how the services would have gone down.  There would have been pictures of the dead and they would have been praised for their "service to the country."  We would be told how, thanks to them, we are free.  We would have been told they died protecting us from terrorists.  They would have been classified as heroes and our children would be encouraged to emulate their lives.  The state of their souls at the time of their death would never be addressed.  How sad.
But all of this has nothing to do with why I am writing this post today.  I want to answer the pastor's questions.  He asked two of them.  He asks, "why would this happen again?" and "why would this be allowed to happen?"  Allow me to answer those questions for him.
The reason a sinful man became enraged at his fellow soldiers to the point he took out a gun and shot several of them is entirely related to his sin.  The shooter was a sinner.  He did what sinners do.  In that sense he is no different than any other non-Christian in the world.  All non-Christians are enslaved to sin and incapable of doing anything but sin.  Some practice more violent forms of sins than others but everyone who is a non-believer is a sinner utterly incapable of doing anything that is pleasing to God.  All Christians, prior to being converted, were in the same sinful boat.  That being the case, how could any professional theologian ever ask the question the pastor asked?  Is he so unaware of the historic Christian doctrine of sin that he does not know the answer to his own question?  Rather than asking why another person at Fort Hood decided to take a gun and shoot people he should have asked why that does not happen every single day.  Given the sinful nature of man and the specifically sinful nature of military service at this time, what should surprise us is that things like the shootings do not take place on a daily basis. 
The pastor's second question is what really got my goat.  When he asks why the shootings would be "allowed to happen" I think we all know he is not talking about some breakdown of national security that resulted in another shooting.  He is not asking why the military police were unable to prevent this shooting.  On the contrary, he is interrogating God.  Even worse, he is indicting God on the charge of "allowing" the murders to take place.  The pastor has put God on trial.  That is a very dangerous and stupid thing to do.
The pastor's heretical and apostate indictment of God is indicative of a theological presupposition that he holds in common with practically every evangelical Christian in the SDA today.   Practically everyone who calls himself a Christian these days has abandoned the historic Christian doctrine of the sovereignty of God.  It is a strange thing to be alive in a land that calls itself Christian that has abandoned one of the central doctrines of the Christian faith but, lo, that is the nature of the times.  In today's heretical atmosphere God has been relegated to being a semi-powerful cheerleader who loves all  human beings but is not quite strong enough to keep bad things from happening to the ones He loves.  That is the standard answer to why the shooting could happen.  It is also grossly in error.
Let's get to the point.  God never "allows" anything.  Everything that happens is a direct result of the sovereign purpose of His will.  Everything that takes place does so because He has decreed it to take place.  Nothing ever happens that He has not willed and decreed to take place.  So the answer to the pastor's question is a simple one.  God did not allow the shootings to happen.  He decreed the shootings to happen.
I will go one step further.  The question the pastor should be asking is not "why did God allow this to happen" but "why, given the sinful nature of men, does God not immediately kill everyone?"  That is the real question here.  Beginning with the erroneous presupposition that men are basically good leads to the asking of very stupid questions.  Once we understand human nature we are in a better position to analyze what has taken place.  The miracle is that anyone of us is able to draw a breath today.  All of us deserve, or deserved, death.  None of us should be alive.  God should have killed us all long ago.  Our mere existence on the surface of the earth is an affront to His moral purity and it takes a truly God-like act of long suffering to even bear having to see human beings on a daily basis.  
For some reason, called sinful human nature, people get angry with the answers I just wrote.  I do not consider that to be my responsibility.  I am only writing what thousands of Christian theologians over thousands of years of Church history have written and believed.  It is only in the modern era in the SDA that these historic doctrines have been lost.  If men like the good pastor in Killeen really want answers to the questions that they ask, and I doubt that they do, they do not have to go very far to find them.  They are right there in their Bibles.  All they have to do is read them.  The fact that God is sovereign and never "allows" anything is pretty clear.  But I don't think the problem is an intellectual one.  Our problem today is moral, not intellectual.  We don't believe the truth because we don't want to and that is a bad place to be.

Monday, April 7, 2014

King Obama's Undeclared War On The World

For the source of all the statistical and historical assertions made in today's post go here.
King Obama likes to present himself as the yin to King George's yang. King George, we all know, was a neoconservative warfare statist who never met a war he didn't like.   King Obama, on the other hand, is the proud recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.  That makes it especially ironic that King Obama has now taken the Socialist Democracy of Amerika to heights and breadths of worldwide warfare that were only dreamed of by King George. 
King George brought us the concept of perpetual war.  He was the one who declared that the SDA will forever be engaged in the Global War on Terror, or GWOT.  According to George there would never be a period of time in the future where the SDA would not be waging war against some hapless enemy somewhere on the face of the earth who had somehow earned the moniker of "terrorist."   A terrorist, as the term has come to be defined, is anybody who does not bow down to Amerikan military might and, even worse, anybody who is not afraid of the big, bad SDA.  Needless to say, when using that definition the world is filled with terrorists.
All of these alleged terrorists share one thing in common.  They all hate the SDA.  Why do they hate the SDA?  Because we are free, generous, kind, loving and, above all, we are characterized by Amerikan exceptionalism which makes everything we do automatically morally correct.  Anyone who does not agree with this premise is a terrorist and subject to execution by drone or killing squad. Those are the moral terms and justifications for the GWOT.
There are very few citizens of the SDA who do not suffer from the severe case of paranoid schizophrenia that infects all of our career politicians.  This schizophrenia convinces them that every person in the world who harbors a negative opinion of the SDA is a terrorist capable of terrible acts of vengeance and destruction upon Amerikan soil and property.  As a result most citizens of this land share the opinion of their rulers that there is a terrorist behind every tree just waiting to set off an atomic bomb in their town.  Republicans and Democrats rarely agree on anything. There are several things that they both agree on however.  They both agree that the SDA should be waging an undeclared war around the world.  They both agree that this war should never end.  They both agree that King Obama should be in charge of the war. 
I do not doubt that there is an increasingly large number of people around the world who hate the SDA with a passion.  What I doubt is what we are being told about the reason behind that hatred.  I have never known anyone who hated someone else because the other person was free, kind, generous or moral.  On the other hand, I have known hundreds of people who hated someone else because that other person had "done him wrong" at some point in the past.  Since Amerikans are exceptional it is impossible for us to conceive of the possibility that we might have actually done something wrong to anyone living anywhere in the world.  That moral blindness could end up being our undoing.  Allow me to explain why.
Nick Turse (the author of the article in the link above) has written that, "In 2013, elite U.S. forces were deployed in 134 countries around the globe, according to Major Matthew Robert Bockholt of SOCOM Public Affairs."  That represents about 70% of the total number of countries in the world.  At the end of King George's reign SDA Special Forces were present in 60 countries around the world.  Under the reign of Nobel Peace Prize award winner King Obama that number has more than doubled.  Nick describes these operations as being "conducted largely in the shadows by America’s most elite troops, the vast majority of these missions take place far from prying eyes, media scrutiny, or any type of outside oversight, increasing the chances of unforeseen blowback and catastrophic consequences."
Here are some more things you should know about SDA special operations.  "Formally established in 1987, Special Operations Command has grown steadily in the post-9/11 era.   SOCOM is reportedly on track to reach 72,000 personnel in 2014, up from 33,000 in 2001.  Funding for the command has also jumped exponentially as its baseline budget, $2.3 billion in 2001, hit $6.9 billion in 2013 ($10.4 billion, if you add in supplemental funding).  Personnel deployments abroad have skyrocketed, too, from 4,900 “man-years” in 2001 to 11,500 in 2013."
One of the direct evidences of these special operations in foreign lands is the number of drone missile attacks we are launching upon other countries without a formal declaration of war against them.  Nick writes, "The White House has also overseen an exponential expansion of America’s drone war.  While President Bush launched 51 such strikes, President Obama has presided over 330, according to research by the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism.  Last year, alone, the U.S. also engaged in combat operations in Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen."  Under the official terms of the GWOT as created by King George, the SDA Commander in Chief is legally permitted to have anyone he wants executed on the authority of his command alone.  He can do this to anyone in the world at any time.  It does not matter if the person targeted is an SDA citizen.  It does not matter if the person is a citizen of a foreign nation with which we are ostensibly at peace.  King Obama literally presides over a force of death squads that he dispatches anywhere in the world to do his bidding.  You rarely hear about the operations of these death squads but they are active on a daily basis, killings those our King does not want to draw another breath.  All of the dead are described as being terrorists although the majority of them were people just like you who were going about their daily business until fire rained down from the sky.
Defenders of this program are legion.  They tell us that all of the dead are "bad guys" (oh how I hate that phrase) who deserved death for their sin of disrespecting the power and might of the SDA.  None of the people who have been targeted and killed by King Obama actually constituted a real or legitimate threat to the national security of the SDA.  They are all essentially men living in tents in the desert who like to shoot off their mouths about how they are waging jihad against the SDA while they fire their machine guns into the air and shout Islamic slogans.  They are no more a threat to the lives, property and freedom of the citizens of this land than the Canadians are.  The only SDA citizens they ever actually manage to kill are those who have previously invaded their land as part of the GWOT and a strong case can be made that they are only defending themselves from our prior military incursions.  Not mentioned are the huge number of "innocents" who are killed while the "bad guys" are being blown to tiny pieces.  It is not uncommon for twenty or thirty by-standers to be blown to bits just to accomplish the execution of one target.
When King George began his GWOT he had a little gimmick that he used to justify the execution of foreign nationals on their home soil.  He had a deck of cards and painted on the face of each card was a terrorist target.  King George assured us that the SDA Special Operations forces were capable of killing each of those terrorists.  He also assured us that once those terrorists were dead we would all be safe because there would be no more "bad guys."  So guess what happened?  The people on the original deck of cards are long gone.  But, as more and more innocents were executed by SDA forces more and more people joined the terrorist groups.  They did so to protect themselves and their countries.  They did so to exact revenge upon the SDA for the senseless slaughter of their family members and friends.   It is called "blowback" and it is happening big time around the world today.  The list of potential terrorists to be killed by Special Forces in the future now numbers over 2000 people.  How ironic that the GWOT has accomplished the opposite result of its stated goal.  The more the SDA attacks other countries the more enemies we create.  Do you think that will cause us to come to our senses and stop attacking others?  Of course not. We are exceptional.  We never do anything wrong.
So let me ask you, how would you respond to the SDA if you were a citizen in one of the 134 countries around the world where SDA Special Operations forces are conducting nightly death squad raids that often end up in the killing of dozens of innocent civilians? How would you respond if your wife and children were gunned down by sniper fire in the middle of the night?  How would you respond if a foreign country was making nightly incursions into your neighborhood and killing people it did not like all  in the name of self defense?  Maybe now you can understand how the GWOT is only creating more enemies for us to kill.  Maybe now you can understand that the GWOT will never end.  Maybe now you can understand why Republicans, Democrats and the military-industrial complex love the  GWOT.
Something is desperately wrong with a country that is at war with 70% of the world.  Something is desperately wrong with a country that has a military budget that is larger than the combined military budgets of the rest of the world but still insists that at least 70% of the world's countries are a threat to its security.  It is called paranoia and we are full of it. 
I do not know how this is going to end.  I hope some King comes along with enough sense to say enough is enough and stop this senseless GWOT.  I hope that the SDA would do what is right and leave other nations alone.  But I don't expect that to happen.  SDA citizens and rulers are bloodthirsty maniacs bent on revenge, destruction and murder.  Their appetites for death and destruction are insatiable.  I don't think the GWOT will ever end until the SDA is not the world's greatest imperial power.  The daily creation of new enemies as a result of the GWOT will never end well for us.  In what would be a major irony, I can conceive of how the GWOT will come to an end when our enemies come to make up the entire world and they are able to band together and forcibly put an end to our imperialism.  That will be an interesting day.