San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, January 9, 2015

Let's Hope For A "Do Nothing" Congress

The 2015 Congress of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika has been sworn in.  All new members raised their right hands and professed belief in the Constitution of the United States of America.  Immediately after being sworn in they adjourned to their respective offices and began planning how to undermine the oath they had just sworn.  The last thing any career politician will ever do is limit his legislative activity to those things specifically authorized by the Constitution.  That is a sure way to become a one term Congressman.
There were many howls of protest from many quarters about the "do nothing" character of the 2014 Congress.  Media types went to great pains to point out how few new laws were enacted during the year.  Since it is the job of legislators to legislate, they argued, the more new laws that are created by each congressional session the better.  The theoretical ideal for any congressional session is that a new record for the creation of new laws would be established each time Congress convenes.   In a perfect world, for a statist, the body of laws that the citizens of the SDA are subjected to would explode exponentially each new year.  Ideally it would be impossible to build a building large enough to hold the catalog of new laws and the bureaucratic rules and regulations associated with them.
Has everyone gone insane?  How can any citizen in this sad land believe that it is in his best interest for the government to have more power over his life?  It is incomprehensible to me but most of the people living in this government-worshiping country begin with the presupposition that whatever career politicians do is always good.  Somehow by becoming a career politician a person loses his sinful nature and becomes empowered  with perfect altruism.  Or at least that is what Jeffery Moser of Aurora, Colorado thinks.  He wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post two days ago in which he said this, "Even with swearing new members into Congress this week, a national government that betters our everyday lives may be no closer to becoming a reality.  If anything, legislation far removed from helping the middle class, low income and vulnerable citizens is more likely." He then went on to complain about the new Republican majority in Congress.
Do you see the presupposition in Mr. Moser's argument?  Jeffery simply assumes that the role of government in this land is to "better our everyday lives."  He also assumes that government has the ability to better our everyday lives.  Where does that belief come from?  Is it the logically necessary conclusion of a rational argument with sound premises?  No.  It is nothing more than a faith based presupposition that stems from his religion of statism.  The State is god and it has the power to better our lives.  How does the State better our lives?  Jeffery is clear on that point.  The State makes our lives better by taking money from the politically unprotected top 49% of the income population (the group that pays 98% of all personal federal income taxes) and giving it to the "middle class, low income and vulnerable citizen", whoever they might be.  One thing is for sure.  We can know for a fact that Jeffery sees himself as a member of one of the categories on the receiving end of the income transfer he so desperately desires.
Any law that does not directly relate to protecting the lives, property and freedom of all citizens of the SDA is logically contrary to the Constitution.  All laws that do protect the lives, property and freedom of all citizens must also necessarily not create any winners or losers as a direct outcome of their enforcement.  The Constitution was written with the intention of protecting the politically unprotected minority  from the depredations of the majority by means of the popular vote.  All of the founding fathers were aware of the immoral nature of the democratic process and did what they could to prevent theft by majority vote.  They were also aware of how quickly that ideal was dismantled.  In 1820 Thomas Jefferson wrote this, "I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I live not to weep over it."  What would he have written if he were alive today?
All new laws enacted by Congress this year will create winners and losers.  The winners will be minority special interest groups who have donated millions of dollars to career politicians in exchange for the forthcoming legislation.  Those special interest groups know that their "investment" in a particular candidate will pay off many times more when new laws are created granting them particular favors and boatloads of cash payments.  The losers will the members of the majority who will be asked to "pay just a small portion" of their allegedly enormous incomes in support of this new worthy cause.  Because the amount that is being extracted is small, at least for each individual cause, the majority never gets riled up enough to put an end to the process of death by a thousand cuts.
The new laws will also dramatically increase the tension between the citizens of this immoral land and those who are paid to enforce them.  The body of laws, rules and regulations will expand and the necessary result will be that even more innocuous behaviors will become criminal.  Who would have thought just a scant thirty years ago that putting an infant into a car safety seat with it facing forward would be committing a criminal act?  Thanks to the new Congress we will have hundreds, perhaps thousands more criminal acts for us to perform.  And thanks to the new Congress, the police forces of this country will be able to arrest, fine and incarcerate even more of us for violating those laws. Do you think that is going to reduce the tension between cops and citizens?  Neither do I. 
The body of new laws will also require more bureaucrats to administer them. The federal government will grow larger and more intrusive than last year.  More people will be on the government dole, receiving incomes and promised retirement pensions far in excess of what is available to workers in the private sector.  All of this will be paid for by the top 49% of the income population while they are also castigated as greedy monsters for refusing to pay their fair share, whatever that is.  Meanwhile, the top 49% of the income population will be too busy with capital creation to take the time to protest the immoral theft of their property.  New regulations will be created and enforced and the overall wealth of all the citizens of this pitiful land will either decline or rise less rapidly than it would have in the absence of the new laws.
Think about what you are clamoring for.  Do you really want a "do something" Congress?  If you are a member of a special interest group and you have convinced yourself that theft by majority vote is not immoral then you most certainly do.  But if you have a moral conscience at all you should be protesting the enactment of new laws.  You should be hoping that this Congress will be even more do nothing than the last one. 

Thursday, January 8, 2015

Rape vs Adultery

Warning:  This blog post contains biblical material.  Those who find biblical material offensive should close their browsers immediately.  The last thing I want today's post to accomplish is to begin to break down the wall of suppression that pagans use to keep from acknowledging the truths of Scripture.  So if you are one of those people who is continually suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, you probably should go away and come back tomorrow.  End of warning.
As I was writing yesterday's post about Bill Cosby it occurred to me that there is a huge moral dichotomy in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika related to the relative reactions to rape and adultery.  It seems to me that most people consider rape to be a most egregious criminal action that should, if possible be punishable by death.  If not death then rapists should at least be sentenced to life in prison.  If not life in prison then rapists should at least be tortured to within an inch of their lives by those they have raped.  On the other hand, adultery is not even considered to be a crime.  Indeed, with over half of all Amerikans admitting to committing adultery at least once in their lives, adultery is seen simply as the necessary behavioral outcome of a marriage in which the "love", whatever that is, has died.  Nobody is guilty of anything.  It is just the way things are.  As I pondered this truth it occurred to me that something is terribly wrong with us.  Let's consider that for a while today.
The Bible recognizes a distinction between rape and fornication.  Fornication is described in Exodus 22: 16-17 which says, "And if a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife.  If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins."  This passage supports what used to be a common practice in this land.  The punishment, if you wish, for fornication is marriage.  When a couple voluntarily engages in premarital sex they have, in fact, committed an action that results in their marriage.  They should follow that action up with the second action required to constitute a biblical marriage, the swearing of the marriage vows.  These were commonly referred to as "shotgun weddings" and they were a good thing.  In cases where the woman is not of age, her father makes the decision about what to do.  If he refuses to allow his daughter to marry the louse that had sex with her the amorous young man is required to pay a fine to the father equal to the "dowry for virgins", a significant amount of money.  Wouldn't it be great to be able to require all modern day Lotharios to pay large amounts of cash to each of their conquests?  Talk about a disincentive for fornication.
Deuteronomy 22 describes the conditions and punishments for rape.  I can tell you in advance you are not going to like what it says.  In order to understand God's law in regards to rape it is first necessary to understand God's law in regards to adultery.  Under biblical law any person who is married, or engaged to be married, is guilty of adultery if that person has sexual intercourse with someone other than his spouse.  The punishment for adultery is always death of the guilty party or parties.  There is no exception to this rule.  God declares the marital union to be of such sanctity and importance that the dissolution of it through the act of adultery mandates the execution of the guilty party.  What God has joined together let no man separate.  Biblical law states that adultery is a de facto case of separation and is therefore punishable by death.  Adultery unilaterally destroys the marriage covenant and God does not take the destruction of that covenant lightly.
Deuteronomy 22: 23-27 describes the case of rape of a married/engaged woman.  It says, in part, "If there is a girl (the "girl" is married or engaged) and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor's wife....But if in the field the man finds the girl and forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die.  But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death...when he found her in the field, the girl cried out but there was no one to save her."   I think any objective interpreter can see what is going on here.  A distinction is being made between rape and adultery.  When a married woman is raped the rapist is to die.  He does not die because of the act of rape per se.  He dies because of the act of raping a married woman.
Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 describes the case of rape of an unmarried woman.  It says, "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days."  Oh my.  I can already hear the screams of outrage being directed against God's revealed in the Bible.
The punishment for raping an unmarried woman is being forced to marry the unmarried woman.  In this case the person who is forced to marry the unmarried woman is not permitted to divorce her, no matter how much she continually nags him and makes his life a living hell.  In the likely event that the rapist, now husband, decides to have sex with another woman the first wife can now have him executed as an adulterer.  The system works out rather well.
In the case where the woman, or her father if she is under age, does not want to marry the rapist she is free to extract a fine out of him.  The fifty shekels of silver was a hefty fine in those days.  I do not know how much that would translate to in today's dollars but once the calculation was completed that would become the sanction for a rapist for committing an act of rape upon an unmarried woman.  All of this reminds me of the Clint Eastwood movie, "The Unforgiven."  Maybe you recall the story.  A cowboy has raped a woman (she was a prostitute by trade) and when accused of his crime he responds by sending her a horse.  Depending upon the value of the horse that could very well have met the biblical requirements for his punishment.  The victim is outraged at the receipt of the horse and hires Clint to kill the cowboy for a cash prize.  Clint does so and everyone feels satisfied that justice is served when, in fact, Clint has gone far beyond the biblical sanction and murdered a man without cause.
So what do we conclude from all of this?  First we must recognize that marriage is a sacred institution and God takes adultery seriously.  All adulterers should be executed despite the fact that almost everyone in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika considers it to be a morally neutral event.  If half of the adults in this immoral land end up dead, so be it.  Second we must recognize that rape is a immoral activity but it is not as bad as it is perceived to be today and it is not nearly as bad as adultery.  Single women who have been raped are entitled to significant cash settlements from their rapists.  This would serve as a serious deterrent to rape.  The financial compensation would also go a long way towards bringing healing to victims of rape.  Married women who have been raped can have their rapists put to death.  The difference between the two is not the act of rape itself but it is the marital status of those who are raped.  You can clearly see that biblical law creates a strong incentive for women to be married if they want to protect themselves from rapists.  A rapist is far less likely to rape a married woman than a single one.  I wonder what the feminists think about that?  I wonder how many women would consent to simply live with men if biblical law was enforced?
Going back to yesterday's blog post about Bill Cosby....everyone is up in arms because he allegedly raped several women.  As far as I have read none of those women were married at the time of the alleged rapes.  If the allegations are true, and I have no idea if they are, then Cosby needs to pony up some cash to those women.  On the other hand, where is the outrage directed towards Hollywood performers who are known serial adulterers?  Where are the protests outside the venues where they perform?  Where are the calls for boycotts against their products?  Why does nobody seem to care about the far more serious cases of adultery?  I think we all know the answer to that question. Those who live in glass houses never throw stones.

Update:  January 9, 2015

An reader, astute in biblical law, pointed out an omission in my post.   He asked if "victim's rights" shouldn't be worked into the text somehow.  I purposefully skipped over the doctrine of victim's rights because I did not want to confuse readers who are less well versed in biblical law.  Victim's rights is the doctrine which declares that most biblical sanctions are subject to amendment if the victim of the sin/crime wishes to offer a lesser punishment to the perpetrator.  In cases of adultery that means the innocent victim could chose to not execute her husband in lieu of something like a cash payment or a long term personal services contract.  So when I wrote that "there is no exception to the rule" that adulterers are to be executed, that was not entirely correct.  My intention was to make the point that the standard punishment for adultery is always death and there is no other biblical sanction for the sin other than death.  Under the terms of victim's rights however, it is possible that another sanction could be imposed.

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Give Bill Cosby A Break

Bill Cosby is coming to Denver.  Let me be upfront and state that I have never been to a Bill Cosby concert (is that the right word for a show where he does stand up comedy?).  I also never watched any episodes of the television show in which he starred for so many years.  I also never watched him in the ancient television show known as "I Spy."  Other than hearing others recite some of his comic sketches for me I know nothing about Bill Cosby.  So I think it is fair to say that I am a neutral observer when it comes to Bill's present troubles.  On the other hand I am aware that there are many black liberals who despise Mr. Cosby because of the public stance he has taken on personal responsibility.  He has steadfastly insisted that blacks not see themselves as victims but that they should take personal responsibility for their actions.  This has put him at loggerheads with the black media apparatus that exists to perpetuate the myth of black victim hood and the need for continual governmental support. 
Bill has two shows scheduled for the Buell Theater in downtown Denver later this month.  The Buell holds 2,839 people and about 3,000 tickets have been sold for the 5:00 pm and 8:00 pm shows that day.  If there is a decent walk-up that day it is reasonable to assume that Bill will have two shows in which the theater will be at least over half full of patrons.  The two shows are being promoted by a fellow named Chuck Morris who is president of AEG Live Rocky Mountains.  I think that should be enough background information.  Allow me to get to the point.
The Denver Post had an article yesterday which stated, in part, that, "embattled comedian Bill Cosby's Jan 17 shows at the Buell Theatre will go on as planned, despite a local effort to cancel them....Scrutiny of the comic has increased since November as more than a dozen women have publicly accused him of drugging and sexually assaulting them.  A handful of American venues have postponed or canceled his appearances, but most have reaffirmed that the shows will go on amid protests."
Cosby has denied that he is guilty of the charges being levied against him.  The charges, despite being made popular in November, have been known to the public for decades.  Why they should suddenly become breaking news today is not clear.  None of the alleged victims of Cosby's behavior have ever filed criminal charges against him.  As far as I know there have been no civil charges brought against him either.  All that has happened thus far is a handful of women have made public statements about what he allegedly did to them many years ago. 
As is the case with just about every public accusation made in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika these days, the public has rushed to judgment about the allegations.  Some have taken Bill's side and believed his story that these are nothing more than money-grubbing women seeking to take advantage of his stardom and extort money from him.  Others have taken the side of the alleged victims and declared Cosby to be a sexual pervert and predator of the most serious kind.  Most importantly to me, all of these people have made up their minds about the moral nature of Bill  Cosby without a shred of personal knowledge or information about what actually did or did not take place.  Thousands of folks are running about making judicial decisions and pronouncing punitive judgments about Cosby with no material knowledge of the situation whatsoever. 
The newspaper went on to tell the story of Lucilla Tenorio, a 69 year old Denver resident and "activist" who founded the "Turn Back Cosby" campaign.  According to the paper, "Tenorio has called and emailed AEG Live, various Denver City Council members and others in an attempt to cancel Cosby's Denver Shows."  The article goes on to describe Tenorio as, "a retired personnel analyst who successfully settled sexual harassment claims against the Denver Sheriff Department in 1997."  Tenorio has claimed that Cosby's appearences in Denver have "incensed" her and that she "plans to stand in front of the venue with at least two other protesters and urge people to boycott Cosby." 
So let me get this straight.  A woman with a history of receiving cash for claiming she was sexually assaulted has taken it upon herself to ask the city government to ban a private business transaction?  Talk about gall.  Where does this woman get off interjecting herself into a situation that is none of her business?  Since when are people free to make judicial decisions about the behavior of others based upon nothing more than their own emotional predispositions and then attempt to use the coercive power of government to enforce those self-proclaimed judicial decisions upon others?  What type of world are we living in?
I don't know if Cosby is guilty of sexual assault. Furthermore, I do not care.  It is none of my business.  I do know for a fact that he never sexually assaulted me.  That is all that matters and that is all that should matter to everyone else.  If you have been sexually assaulted by Bill Cosby then take your charges to the proper authorities and prosecute him.  Otherwise, shut your mouth and mind your business. 

Tuesday, January 6, 2015

Another Disgusting Example Of Heterophobic Praise Seeking

I was reading the Business section of the Sunday Denver Post when I came across an article that shocked me.  When I read the business news I expect to read about things related to business.  Things like profit and loss, stocks and bonds, new technologies, new management techniques and who has just started what business are the types of things that should be located in the business section of the paper.  What I saw in the Sunday paper shocked and disgusted me.  The title of the article was, "LGBT-owned businesses part of diversity spectrum," whatever that means.
Do you have any idea what the article might be about from the title of the piece?  We are all familiar with the "LGBT" moniker by now.  It means lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and trans-gendered.  Sometimes a "Q" is added for those who prefer to be called queer.  It seems to me that in the interest of fair play and equality there should at least be an "S" in the term to indicate those of us who are straight, but straight people are not a politically protected class so that will never happen.  Why people who chose to engage in sexual perversions should be granted political protection is never described.  Why the sexual behaviors of various groups of people should have anything to do with the profit seeking businesses they operate is beyond my comprehension.  Why the newspaper was compelled to write an article about these folks mystifies me.
What is the "diversity spectrum?"  Is it anything like the electro-magnetic spectrum?  Just what kind of spectrum is it?  One thing is for sure, it does not include any heterosexuals.  When it comes time to talk about a spectrum, heterosexuals are right out.  To be included on a diversity spectrum you have to be a pervert first.  And what is being diversified?  I understand diversification when it comes to stock selection and portfolio construction but what does it have to do with a business being operated by a person who likes to have sex with people of the same gender?  None of this makes any sense to me.
The story went on to describe a program in San Francisco (where else?) that does not have an official name because it is technically illegal.  California law does not allow a business to discriminate based upon race, sex, ethnicity or favorite wine varietal.  But the purpose of the program is most certainly to discriminate based upon sexual orientation.  The whole process begins when some heterophobe decides to get "certified."  The article states that, "to be certified as LBGT-owned, businesses qualify through a process overseen by the National Gay and Lesbian Chanmber of Commerce (who knew that group existed?), a 12 year old advocacy group based in Washington, DC.  Applicants must submit documents proving ownership and prove their lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender status through personal references or other evidence." 
The certification process can obviously create a series of problems of its own.  How many personal references does a lesbian need to have to be a certified lesbian?  What other types of evidence will be admitted?  Is going to a gay bar evidence of certifiability?  How about speaking with a lisp?  How about having a limp wrist?  Objectives standards of gayness need to be established so only those who are truly gay can be certified by the government as proper gays.
Once heterophobes have their government certification of perversion they are free to trumpet it to government agencies, contractors and private businesses seeking to earn brownie points with the heterophobes.  Although it is illegal under California law to take gay certification into consideration when signing a business contract, the article went on to say that, "state regulators will soon consider whether to set voluntary percentage targets for utilities such as Verizon, Pacific Gas & Electric to meet."  Well there you have it.  Just like government funded colleges and universities operate under a racial quota system while denying that they do so, government owned businesses in California will soon be operating under a gay quota system while denying that they are doing so.
The fact that political privileges are being doled out to groups of people who publicly flaunt their hatred of God's moral law is not a surprise to me.  The world and its members hate God and His law.  Civil government exists to suppress the moral law of God and enshrine man as the measure of all things.  What is happening in California is simply another manifestation of God-hating people doing what they do best.
What bothered me the most about the article was a quotation from a lesbian named Sonia Luna as she commented on the official unofficial policy.  She said, "It allows me to be even prouder of who I am.  And it allows the marketplace to acknowledge a class that has been denied recognition as a minority group."  What?  Huh?  Give me a break.  What planet did this woman beam in from?  Her statement is another in a continuing litany of poor-mouth lesbians and gays who believe they have the right to force me to approve of their lifestyles because they are so desperately in need of social affirmation.  Get over it you sissies.  Grow up.  The world does not revolve around you.  Stop using the coercive power of government to force people to tell you you are good.  What a joke it all is.
And what is this about not acknowledging a minority group?  Is there anyone in the universe who is not sick and tired of the never ending stream of stories about heroic heterophobes who have come out?  Good night, even the Supreme Court is on their side.  Stop crying about how nobody knows about your tale of woe.  And, even worse, what does any of this have to do with business?  All I care about is the product or service you offer.  I do not care about you, Mr. Heterophobe, in the slightest.  Just give me something I want for a price I am willing to pay and we can trade.  But puullleeease....keep your personal life out of it.

Monday, January 5, 2015

Can We End Homelessness?

The title of this post was the title of an article in the Denver Post last week.  Vincent Carroll, editor of the editorial pages, wrote a piece in which he argued essentially the same thing Jesus said two thousand years ago when He uttered, "The poor you shall have with you always...."  As you might expect, many people reading the article, especially those who worship at the feet of the federal government, took exception to his conclusion.  You would think that people would know better than to take exception to things that Jesus has said but people of this day and age have no fear of God.  Donald Burnes of Denver is a perfect example of that fearlessness.
Mr Burnes is executive director of the Burnes Institute on Poverty and Homelessness.  The Burnes Institute on Poverty and Homelessness is a political lobbying group that seeks to get taxpayer funds allocated to those that it considers worthy of federally enforced transfer payments.  As the executive director of the group Mr. Burnes wrote that, "Yes, we can end homelessness--we just need the will."  His assertion is fraught with errors.  Let's consider a couple of them.
Who is the "we" in the above assertion?  Donald clearly believes that homelessness can be eradicated in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika if only a group of people he calls "we" somehow finds the "will" to get the job done.  As is always the case in assertions of this type, the "we" is never defined.  I am therefore forced to put words into Donald's mouth.  I suspect that if I asked him who the "we" is in his assertion he would counter by telling me that the "we" is all of us.  When I follow that answer up with the question, "Who is all of us?" I suspect he would tell me that it is every citizen in the SDA.  At that point he has won the argument.  Everything he said is true.  If every citizen in the SDA opened his home to someone who does not own a home (or who does not rent a home from someone else) then I believe there would be no more homelessness.  The reason for this is the simple fact that there are more people who own homes than those who live on the street, in their cars or in the forest.  It therefore necessarily follows that if every homeowner took in a person who does not own a home the problem of homelessness would be solved over night.
The problem, of course, is that there are many people who do not want to open their homes to people who are currently living in something other than a home.  I am one of those people.  I do not want a bum living in my home and I will not open my home to any bums.  Quite obviously most of the citizens of the SDA who own homes share my opinion.  Indeed, I suspect if we checked the residence of Donald himself we would discover that he has no bums living with him either.  That, of course, makes Donald a hypocrite.  That does not surprise me in the least.  But Donald is more than a hypocrite.  He also worships the government.
Donald understands that nobody, including himself, wants to open their homes to bums.  So he has devised another solution to his problem.  He states, "What is lacking is the political will to do so....What we need is a major campaign to change the attitudes of the vast majority of the public so that there is a real groundswell of demand for a very significant expansion of public dollars to provide the necessary housing and services that so many of those experiencing homelessness need."  Well there you have it. Donald does not want our homes, he wants our cash.  But Donald believes in democracy. As a result he wants some sort of propaganda campaign designed to convince the majority of the citizens of the SDA that the people who do not live in homes have a moral claim on the money of those who do.   Who is going to pay for this campaign is not determined.  Why this particular batch of propaganda is better than another batch, perhaps some that indoctrinates SDA citizens on the right of private property, is not described.  All we know for sure is that there needs to be a "significant expansion of public dollars" going to those who do not live in homes.
Donald, like so many socialists before him, believes that the solution to every alleged problem is to take away the money of the top 49% of the income population and give it to people like him who know best how to spend it.  Since the top 49% of the income population in the SDA funds 98% of the SDA federal budget it necessarily follows that any program designed to transfer taxpayer money to a select group of political winners must first steal that money from the politically unprotected 49%.  Donald does not explain how it is that stealing from a politically unprotected class of citizens to give money to a politically protected class of citizens is a moral thing to do.  He simply assumes that anyone who does not own a home has a moral claim on some of the cash income of those who do. Indeed, it is not difficult to expand Donald's argument to the point where those who own homes are immoral and those who do not are moral.  A home then becomes a cosmic hot potato.  If you own one you are immoral and you have to give it away to someone who does not. Then, the person who just received the home has become immoral and has to give it back to the newly created homeless person.  He who gets stuck owning a home when he dies goes to hell. 
Just as nobody is about to open their homes for bums to live in them, so nobody is going to voluntarily give away significant portions of their cash incomes to allow bums to buy or rent homes for themselves.  Donald knows this so he introduces the coercive power of government to accomplish his goal.  If he can only convince 51% of those who vote, around 30% of the total population of voter eligible citizens, to vote for his wealth transfer scam he can reach his goal of wiping out homelessness in our time.  Let's assume that somehow the money is found to pay for his propaganda campaign.  Let's also assume that somehow Donald is able to realize his groundswell of support for his new tax and transfer program.  What do you think will happen next?
Donald has not thought it through yet but I can tell you what will happen next.  Once people begin to realize that they can get free homes if their incomes are low enough, those people who are living at the margin of that line will stop working so they qualify for a rent/mortgage free home also.  There is an ironclad rule about human behavior.  When you subsidize something you get more of what you have subsidized.  If bums are given free homes more people will make the voluntary decision to become bums.  Rather than solving the alleged problem of homelessness Donald will discover that he is responsible for the creation of even more homelessness.  Do you think that will make him stop?  Of course not.  He will simply clamor for more money.  For a socialist the solution to every problem is to steal more money from the top 49% and give it to them. Trust them, they know what to do.