San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, February 13, 2015

Let The Free Market Regulate Home Inspectors

I bought a home a couple of years ago.  I have mentioned that purchase several times in past blog posts because the home that I purchased is right in the middle of Yuppie-dom.  I had never lived among Yuppies previously and the experience has proven to be both enlightening and frightful.  But that is not the point of today's blog post.  Today I want to consider the fact that the only part of the process of buying a home that is not currently subject to some sort of government regulation is the job of the home inspector.  The home inspector is the person the buyer hires, usually on a recommendation from his realtor, to inspect the home for problems prior to closing the sale.  The State of Colorado wanted to regulate these immoral charlatans, for the public good of course, but the bill that "would have required licenses for Colorado home inspectors was narrowly defeated in a state Senate committee," according to the Denver Post today.
I have a pile of papers on my desk that measures over one inch in thickness.  The papers make up all of the documents that I was required to sign when I purchased the home I am living in today. I don't see why it should take an inch high pile of documents just to purchase a home.  It seems to me that a contract, a deed of trust and a mortgage note, if you are not paying cash, is all that should be required to purchase a home.  The contract would specify the terms and conditions of the sale, how much the respective realtors are to be paid and when the deal would be closed.  The deed of trust would convey the title and would include the title insurance policy.  Since I bought my home with a mortgage there would be a contract related to the loan as well.  Beyond that I can't see any reason for anyone else to be involved in the process.
The federal government has other ideas when it comes to the buying and selling of homes.  Government bureaucrats and career politicians begin with the assumptions that both parties to a real estate transaction are raving idiots who have no idea what they are doing and that both parties are desperately seeking to rip each other off in the transaction.  The government also assumes that it knows what is best for both parties and will make rules and regulations to ensure that its will gets done.  Because of those assumptions the government has created an elaborate bureaucratic process that greatly hinders the simple process of buying a home.  Consider the fact that my home purchase involved the following items:
  1. A Hud-1 Settlement Statement.
  2. A Borrower's Hud-1 Attachment.
  3. A Borrower's Affidavit.
  4. A Notice For Completion of Borrower's Title Affidavit.
  5. A Statement of Confidential Information for Your Protection (it made me feel so safe).
  6. Loan Escrow Instructions (12 pages).
  7. An Addition to the Loan Escrow Instructions (1 page).
  8. Loan Closing Instructions.
  9. Another Hud-1 Settlement Statement (who knows why?).
  10. An Itemization of the Amount Financed (I was too dumb to do this myself).
  11. The Note
  12. The Deed of Trust (9 pages).
  13. A Planned Unit Development Rider.
  14. An IRS Form W-9 (so the transaction could be reported to the IRS).
  15. A Notice of Right to Cancel.
  16. An IRS Form 4506-T (Request for Transcript of Tax Return).
  17. An Initial Escrow Account Disclosure Statement.
  18. A Name/Signature Certification form (signing a form to authorize signing the forms).
  19. An Affidavit of Occupancy (did the feds assume I would not move in?)
  20. A Borrower's Certification and Authorization form (to prove we obtained a mortgage).
  21. A Loan Closing Disclosure Acknowledgements form (to prove we bought a loan).
  22. A First Lien Letter (to prove we had a mortgage).
  23. A Hazard Insurance Authorization and Requirements form.
  24. A Hold Harmless for Well, Septic and Insulation (we don't have two out of three).
  25. A Homeowners Real Estate Tax Authorization (would they not tax us if we didn't sign?).
  26. A Flood Insurance Notification (we are nowhere near a flood plain).
  27. A Hazard Insurance Information for Refinance (we were not refinancing).
  28. A Compliance Agreement/Limited Power of Attorney (we complied with everything).
  29. A CAD Wiring Information Request (I have no idea what this is but it protects me from CADs).
  30. An Amortization Schedule (my computer could print one for free).
  31. An Acknowledgement of Receipt of Disclosures (of course).
  32. A warning from the FBI that "Mortgage Fraud is investigated by the FBI."  This warmed my heart.  I couldn't conceive of engaging in a private transaction without being threatened and intimidated by the FBI for doing so. 
  33. A Colorado Tangible Net Benefit Disclosure in which I acknowledged that getting a mortgage would help me buy a home.  
  34. A Hud-1 Addendum.
  35. A Certificate of Receipt of Appraisal (I had already received it). 
  36. A Federal Truth-In-Lending Disclosure Statement (two copies of that important form).
  37. An Undisclosed Debt Acknowledgement form in which I informed the mortgage company that I did not lie to them about my many debts.
  38. An Authorization for the Social Security Administration to Release Social Security Number Verification form.
  39. A Uniform Residential Loan Application form.
  40. A Notice Concerning Private Mortgage Insurance Lender Paid Mortgage Insurance.
Did you notice that the one thing not on that list of forty mandatory government forms was a form acknowledging that I hired a house inspector?  That fact drives bureaucrats and career politicians crazy.  So several elected rulers in Colorado proposed a bill to fix this problem that does not exist.  The rationale for the bill was, "They are the only party in a real estate transaction that is unregulated and given unfettered access to a person's home."   The career politician who said that then went on to tell the story of a home inspector who sexually assaulted a 14 year old girl in the home he was inspecting in Aurora.  If the new law only keeps one girl from being sexually assaulted in her home then it will be worth it.  The bill was voted down by a 5-4 vote so dangerous sexual predators posing as home inspectors continue to prowl the streets of metropolitan Denver.  I wonder if it ever occurred to the politician that jack-booted thugs called police officers obtain unfettered access to people's homes, via the battering ram, and kill innocent citizens living inside all the time.  Where are the regulations for these criminals?  The elitism evident in that politician's argument is nauseating.
Every one of the thirty seven extra forms found in the above list costs money to administer.  Behind each form is a government rule and a fully staffed bureaucracy paid to enforce that rule. Who knows how much the rules and regulations add to the price of a home?  I certainly don't.  But I would wager that it is at least several percentage points of the final price of the home.  And what did I get for all of this wonderful regulatory oversight?  A cramped signature hand and a higher priced home.  Nothing that the government required me to sign added to the efficiency and full disclosure of the sales process.  I knew exactly what I was buying without reading any of the government forms.  Indeed, the government forms generally don't require that anything be done.  They simply require that I acknowledge that nothing has been done.  That is government at its finest.
The government should get out of the mortgage business.  If some unscrupulous mortgage broker abuses some stupid home buyer then let the buyer resolve the issue in the courts.  The rest of us should not be forced to pay thousands of dollars for regulatory burdens designed to protect the few and the stupid.  It is not just home inspectors that should remain free.  Everything related to the purchase of a home should be as free as an E-bay transaction.  Let the buyer beware and let the purchaser get a lower price.

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Another Immoral Supreme Court Decision

Yesterday's post to this blog centered around an 1895 Supreme Court decision which properly enshrined the legal principle of innocence until guilt can be proven as the law of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  Back in 1895 the Supreme Court of the United States bore little resemblance to what the Supreme Court of the SDA is today.  Today's Supreme Court is an unconstitutional institution that exists mainly for the purpose of engaging in judicial activism by means of the creation of new and immoral laws.  I don't know when the Supreme Court became an immoral organization but it was certainly the case that by 1973's Roe vs Wade decision they were over the brink of morality.  Making the murder of tens of millions of SDA citizens a legal right by granting women and their government licensed doctors the right to conspire together to murder babies is one of the most horrendous legal decisions ever made. 
A somewhat less evil decision, if it is possible to quantify evil in these situations, was the one delivered by the court in 2010 in the Christian Legal Society vs Martinez case.  You have probably never heard of that decision.  I certainly hadn't until I read a story in the Denver Post about the ongoing shenanigans at the Colorado legislature that referenced it.  According to Wikipedia, "Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld, against a First Amendment challenge, the policy of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law governing official recognition of student groups, which required the groups to accept all students regardless of their status or beliefs in order to obtain recognition....the Christian Legal Society (CLS), required members to subscribe to a 'Statement of Beliefs' and refrain from certain proscribed behavior. Hastings denied the CLS recognition as a student organization.The beliefs and behavior at issue were those of LGBT students; neither those students, nor those who advocated for them, were allowed to become voting members. The CLS sued, arguing that the university, as a public institution, could not restrict the group's rights to freedom of speech, association, and religion; the National Center for Lesbian Rights represented Hastings Outlaw, a campus gay rights group that joined acting chancellor and dean Leo P. Martinez to defend the policy."
The CLS case is typical of the behavior we have become accustomed to seeing from radical heterophobic organizations.  Although militant homosexual men and women at Hastings College had no desire nor intention of joining an evangelical Christian club, they wanted to make sure that the Christian club could not require its members to be Christians.  Live and let live is not a motto that applies when it comes to the hate-filled homosexuals who populate this disgusting land.  They make it their goal to seek out and destroy anything that is Christian and they use the coercive power of their god, government, to accomplish that goal.  The Supreme Court decision in the Hastings College case was a great victory for them.  They managed to make it illegal for a Christian club on a public university to make a Christian profession of faith a requirement of membership.  I hope they are proud of themselves.  I hope their precious little egos have been protected and they are all filled with enormous amounts of self-love and high levels of self -esteem as a result of their actions.  It is probably the case that dozens of Lesbians, Gays, Bi-sexuals and Transvestites ended up not committing suicide as a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision.
I sat down to eat my raisin-filled oatmeal the other morning and was treated to this headline, "Bill on college leader's faith fails."  The headline caught my attention so I read on.  The story told me that, "A bill in the Colorado legislature that would have allowed religious clubs on the state's college campuses to set rules on faith for its leaders died on a party-line vote in a House committee....Under the Colorado bill, religious clubs would still be required to accept anyone as a member, but it sought to exempt club leaders....Reps Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora, and Dominick Morena, D-Commerce City, said the bill was an attempt to discriminate by using religions, specifically against lesbian, gay, bi-sexual or transgendered students..." 
So let me get this straight.  According to the law any type of social club is permitted to form on a public college or university provided the club does not actually exist to serve the people who believe the things the club came into existence for?  Furthermore, requiring that a person who wants to be a member actually believe the things the club exists to promote is an act of discrimination that must be criminalized?  Even worse, the leaders of these clubs that exist to promote particular beliefs are not required to actually believe the things they are promoting?  Has the entire world gone insane?
Let's change the name of the club for a minute and see what happens.  What if the club was not the Christian Legal Society but was the Government Worshiping, Christian Hating, God Despising Militant Lesbian Association, or GWCHGDMLA, for short.  In fact, that club already existed at Hastings College.  It was called the Hastings Outlaw and it was a group of militant lesbians who clearly consider themselves to be outside the boundaries of the law.  How do you think the Hastings Outlaw club would respond if I showed up and informed them that I was going to run for club president?  A straight Christian male wants to run the militant lesbian club.  Do you think they would approve? What if I demanded the right to make a campaign speech at each club meeting and my campaign speeches consisted of nothing but reading Bible quotes condemning homosexuality?  Do you think those perverts would be praising the Supreme Court decision then?
It gets even more absurd.  A men's group dedicated to growing petunias is now legally required to admit women.  A women's group dedicated to bad-mouthing men is now legally required to admit men.  A co-ed group dedicated to growing potatoes now has to also agree to grow cauliflower.  The local speech club has to admit the mute and the local bird-watching group has to admit the blind.  In those two cases there would be additional Amerikans With Disabilities Act rules that would have to be followed as well. Somehow the blind would be made to see and the mute would be made to speak.  Praise government for its wonderful abilities!   I wonder if the association of wheel-chair bound humans is now required to admit the walking?  It should be if the law is to be enforced consistently and without discrimination.  Black student groups exist all around the country.  Are they required to admit the Welsh?  Could I, as a Welshman, run for president of a black student group and, if elected, make it my first action to either change the name of the club to the "White Welshmen" or shut the club down?  The law requires that all of the things I have written here be allowed to take place. Everyone has gone insane and the Supreme Court is leading the charge to madness.
The newspaper article quoted a person in student government who was in favor of the state legislators' decision to quash the bill who said, "The bill seeks to limit leadership opportunities available to some of my friends...by funding clubs that discriminate against them."  This brilliant future career politician also said, "religious groups are welcome to form but they should not be allowed to discriminate..."  Well then I say that the National Pedophilia Association should be allowed to form a club and the leader of that club should advance the cause of man-boy sexual relations.  If the student leader considers that to be too discriminatory, the club should also allow for sex with animals.  If that is still too restrictive, sex with inanimate objects should be included as well.  In fact, let's just go to with the principle of sex with everything, anytime and anywhere.  Of course that is going to conflict with the Right to Not Be Raped Club that is meeting just across campus.  My oh my, how are we going to resolve all these conflicts?  One thing is for certain, when special interests are involved and when those special interests are using the coercive power of government to force people to bend to their will, the use of common sense will never occur. 

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Do you believe that you are innocent until proven guilty?  You shouldn't.  In the Socialist Democracy of Amerika the common law precept of the presumption of innocence no longer exists.  The concept of innocence until guilt is proven is not found in the Declaration of Independence, nor is it found in the Constitution of the United States (what this country was prior to its takeover by socialist democrats).  The idea that an individual is to be presumed innocent until a prosecuting authority can prove guilt is an ancient legal concept found in most civilized societies around the world.  It was established as a rule for jurisprudence in the old United States in a landmark 1895 Supreme Court decision.
In Coffin vs United States the Supreme Court upheld the principle of innocent until proven guilty.  The criminal case revolved around charges of bank fraud.  In the course of issuing its decision, the Supreme Court made this assertion about innocence until guilt is proven, "The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law. … Concluding, then, that the presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in his behalf, let us consider what is 'reasonable doubt.' It is, of necessity, the condition of mind produced by the proof resulting from the evidence in the cause. It is the result of the proof, not the proof itself, whereas the presumption of innocence is one of the instruments of proof, going to bring about the proof from which reasonable doubt arises; thus one is a cause, the other an effect. To say that the one is the equivalent of the other is therefore to say that legal evidence can be excluded from the jury, and that such exclusion may be cured by instructing them correctly in regard to the method by which they are required to reach their conclusion upon the proof actually before them; in other words, that the exclusion of an important element of proof can be justified by correctly instructing as to the proof admitted. The evolution of the principle of the presumption of innocence, and its resultant, the doctrine of reasonable doubt, make more apparent the correctness of these views, and indicate the necessity of enforcing the one in order that the other may continue to exist."
There is a lot of legalese in that paragraph but I think you get the point.  The law of this land used to be that nobody could be arrested on the grounds that a crime was presumed to have taken place and then required to prove his innocence.  On the contrary, it is the responsibility of the prosecutorial authority to make a case against the alleged criminal  sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence and prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.
The presumption of innocence is a biblical principle.  Under biblical law an offended party is required to prove to the elders that the alleged perpetrator did in fact commit the sin/crime against him.  Nobody is ever granted a hearing in the presence of the elders who simply claims that someone has sinned against him and now needs to prove that his allegation is not true.  The burden of proof is always on the back of the one who claims victim status.
The principle changed significantly as the government of the United States officially became the victim of all crimes, regardless of who the real victim was.  Now the prosecutor in all cases is a government employee known as a District Attorney who has unlimited access to taxpayer funds and as much time as he needs to engage in his prosecutions.  Despite this very real unfair advantage given to the prosecutor, his hands were still bound by the presumption of innocence.  Or, at least, they used to be.  That is the situation no more.
In a tiny, two paragraph, story tucked away on an obscure page of the Denver Post last week I saw an article entitled, "Police seize 1,100 marijuana plants."  The article caught my eye because I was operating under the assumption that marijuana was legal in Colorado.  If that is true how could the police arrest someone for growing a legal product?  I don't recall ever reading any stories about the police seizing 1,100 corn plants and arresting the farmer who grew them.  Nor could I recall ever reading any story about the police seizing 1,100 cattle and arresting the rancher who was raising them.  It didn't make sense to me so I read the two paragraphs.
Apparently a neighbor of the two people who were arrested for growing the marijuana was upset with them for some reason so he called the cops and told them that there was a "grow house" next to his home.  Once again, since marijuana is legal, why should it be illegal to grow it?  The article never addresses that issue.  What it does say is this, "A Firestone pair caught growing more than 1,000 marijuana plants in a Lafayette home face felony cultivation charges, and must now prove that the grow operation is not illegal."  Ignore the fact that growing marijuana in Colorado is not supposed to be illegal and focus upon the final part of that quote.  The accused must "now prove that the grow operation is not illegal."
Since when do the cops have the right to arrest people and tell them that they have to prove that what they were doing when they were arrested was not illegal.  Isn't the role of the cops in this land to arrest people when they can prove that what we are doing is illegal?  If cops are free to arrest anyone they want and then inform the poor person who has just been arrested that he has to prove that something he was doing was not illegal, then we are forced to admit that the principle of innocent until proven guilty no longer exists in this immoral land. 
Besides the moral outrage that I felt as I read that article about jack-booted thugs invading a person's home on an anonymous tip from a hate-filled neighbor and arresting a couple for a crime they did not commit while informing them that they are presumed to be guilty until they can prove themselves innocent, the thing that bothered me the most about the article was the total lack of public outcry over the arrest.  Where is the ACLU?  Where is Jesse Jackson?  Where is Al Sharpton?  Where were all of the investigative reporters from the local television news stations?  Since when is a blatant assertion that a citizen of the SDA is presumed guilty until he can prove his innocence not newsworthy?
We have become a nation of sheeple.  We are being blindly led down the path to the slaughterhouse by our government captors and nary a single one of us has even noticed what is going on.  Cops can arrest people for growing legal products.  Cops can arrest people based upon tips from neighbors, thus turning all citizens into agents of the state, constantly spying on each other in search of violations of the enormous body of immoral laws we are living under.  Then, after the arrest has been made, the 1895 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States is thrown out and the hapless detainee is informed that he will be thrown into prison if he cannot successfully prove that he is innocent.  Get used to it sheeple.  More is coming.

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Magic Elixirs And The Fools Who Buy Them

Historians debate who actually said it but some notorious person from our past once uttered that there is a sucker born every minute.  Regardless of who said it, it is true.  Human nature never changes.  Despite all of the amazing progress the members of the human race have made in technology, capital creation and the scientific understanding of the universe, the human soul remains as spiritually dead and sinful today as it was the day humanity was first created.  Human beings can pass technology, capital and knowledge on to their heirs but human beings are incapable of passing on personal sanctification to their heirs.  As a result each new baby that is born comes into the world just as sinful as Adam or Eve.  Being spiritually dead and lost in sin, it is only reasonable to expect that the majority of human beings will also end up being colossal fools. 
One example of the amazing foolishness of men and women is their propensity to believe in the efficacy of magic elixirs.  From the very beginning of time there have been snake oil salesman who were willing to sell a bottle of vitamin water to a fool who believed it would cure him of everything that ailed him.  Things are no different today.  I was driving home from church last Sunday when I decided to change things up.  Rather than playing one of the Anthrax or MegaDeath CDs which are perpetually inserted into my car's CD changer, I made the bold move of turning on the radio.  What I heard next amazed me.  I had preset several stations years ago, when I first purchased the vehicle.  I have probably listened to the radio a dozen times since then.  I hit my first preset and was treated to an infomercial about some pill, the name of the product escapes me, that the promoter insisted would cure everything from hair loss to cancer.  I listened in amusement for a couple of minutes and hit the next preset button.  To my surprise I found myself listening to the exact same program.  I quickly hit the next preset and, you guessed it, there it was again.  In fact, four of my six preset stations were airing the same infomercial at the same time.  Amazed, and somewhat irritated, I turned off the radio.  I wondered what kind of sales figures the company was managing to generate with its commercials.
I was watching a series of "Star Trek - Next Generation" episodes over the weekend when I noticed that the commercial breaks during the shows were all of the same type.  One commercial informed me about a liquid women could put on their skin that would remove wrinkles and make them look twenty years younger.  Another commercial told me that if I took their pill I would lose twenty pounds in four weeks, without exercising or changing my eating habits.  The next commercial proudly announced that rubbing their cream on my skin would take away pain in my joints.  Not having any pain in my joints I did not bother writing down the name of the product.  Another commercial showed a happy and physically active older couple.  I was informed that they were happy and physically active because they were taking a pill that gave them the energy of people half their age.  The next product told me that all I needed to do was consume their drink and my colon would be cleansed.  Once my colon was cleansed I was expected to experience life on another, much more fulfilling, level.  I considered that one for a minute or two.  Did I really want my colon cleansed?  I decided to take a pass on that one.  I think you get the point.  You are probably thinking of a dozen or so similar commercials you have seen recently.  What is going on here?
The only conclusion I can draw is that most people are fools and they will believe anything people tell them if they really want to believe what they are being told.  In other words, rational arguments and scientific evidence are irrelevant.  If a person wants to believe something, he believes it, regardless of the lack of reasonableness of the belief.  People want to believe that something as simple as taking a pill or rubbing some fluid on their skin will make them happy, healthy and wealthy so they take pills and rub fluid on their skin.  When it does not work it does not matter.  They quickly forget that it did not work and move on to the next product that promises to give them what they want for no effort and with no requirement of personal discipline whatsoever.
Rational argument is irrelevant for most folks.  The handful of us human beings who live in the world of rational argument are incapable of reaching or communicating with the rest of the folks who populate the universe.  I know that taking a pill is not going to make me lose weight.  Taking another pill is not going to make me smarter.  It is not possible to rub a cream on my knee and heal arthritis in the knee joint.  It is also not possible to rub another cream on my lower back and eliminate muscle spasms, no matter how many times the computer graphic in the commercial shows images of warm lines making my muscles relax.  It is not possible to take a vitamin pill and cure myself of cancer.  Wearing a metal bracelet on my wrist is not going to keep me from catching a cold.  Wearing a garment with copper woven into the fabric is not going to make me run faster or jump higher.  Moving a hand held device that vibrates and flashes lights over my skin is not going to cure me of rheumatoid arthritis or make my age spots disappear.  In fact, flashing lights are not going to cure me of anything, even though the entire medical science of the Star Trek episodes I was watching that day is based upon it.  Just writing this stuff makes rational people laugh hysterically.  It is all so intensely silly and stupid.  But the great majority of human beings continue to believe in these lies.  So I will continue to watch and listen to these commercials.  I will continue to tell people that pills and potions do not work. And I will continue to watch a parade of fools plunk down their hard earned cash to purchase products they believe will make them better off.   Indeed it is true, a sucker is born every minute. 

Monday, February 9, 2015

My Rights Are Unalienable, Not Grants From Government

One of the most maddening realities of government worship is the fact that all citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika have lost track of the definition of the term 'unalienable.'  Do you know what it means?  It is not hard to understand.  Something that is unalienable is incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred.  By necessary deduction, unalienable rights are rights that are incapable of being surrendered or transferred.  By equally necessary deduction, unalienable civil rights are incapable of being surrendered or transferred.  Do you see the significance of that truth?
The Declaration of Independence says that, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  The "pursuit of happiness" clause is generally misunderstood these days.  When Jefferson penned those words he was doing so under the influence of John Lock who equated happiness with the right of personal property.  One highly intelligent blog writer (not me) has described it this way, "The 'pursuit of happiness', as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, relates to the inalienable, indefeasible, and perfect right of human beings to seek that which gives them personal gratification – whether it be through commerce, the acquisition of property, the building of wealth, the composition of music, or the charity disposed upon others. Jefferson’s usage, although clearly derived from Locke, goes far beyond the Lockean right to acquire property or create wealth – as has been latched onto by most who seek to interpret the phrase. It includes not only the right to pursue that which provides one with personal satisfaction, but also the right to simply be left alone – if that makes one happy."
I believe Jefferson was on to something and that is why I, and a long list of very smart dead guys from our past, believe that the three civil rights described in the Declaration of Independence were the rights to life, freedom and property.  I have posted to this blog many times on this position in the past.  If you want to see the argument in detail go here, here, here and here.  Today I will presuppose that what I have written earlier is correct.  What is bothering me today, indeed, what has driven me into an almost uncontrollable rage, is what I read in my Denver Post last week.  In particular, I read two articles that had a lot to say about the civil rights of the citizens of the SDA.  Let me tell you about them.
The first article was about TABOR.  TABOR, for those of you reading this blog who are not citizens of Coloraodo, is the taxpayer bill of rights.  The Colorado taxpayer bill of rights was passed into law by the majority vote of the citizens of the state twenty years ago.  Fed up with runaway state spending the majority of the taxpayers decided to enact a law to tie the hands of the career politicians and professional bureaucrats in this state.  The law is simple on a grand scale.  The state may only increase its annual budget at the same rate of the growth of the economy.  If the economy grew by 2% last year, the state may increase the budget by 2%.  In years in which the state is mired in a recession and experiences negative growth, the state may not increase the budget at all.  Since the next year's budget is calculated based upon the prior year's growth it is possible to end up with a surplus of funds at the end of a fiscal year.  When that happens the TABOR law clearly specifies that all surplus funds are to be returned to the taxpayers the next year.
Guess what?  Colorado ran a surplus last year.  Also guess what?  The career politicians who rule over us want to keep that surplus.  Here is what the newspaper had to say about it, "A low income Colorado family may get an extra $220 tax refund on next year's filing.  A middle class taxpayer may see an average break near $40.  A higher earner could save as much as $76....The question is simple: Do people want their refunds or do they want the state to spend the money?...An effort from education advocates to ask voters to spend the money is taking shape.  And a Democratic state senator championed a bill this week to direct all surplus money toward schools."   What part of TABOR do our rulers not understand?  The law is the law, why are they trying to circumvent it?  I have an unalienable right to my property, including my money.  What right does the state have to take money from me, that the law requires be returned to me by the way, in order to pay for my neighbor's kids to go to school?  The mere fact that the representatives of the people in the Colorado statehouse are willing to even entertain the idea of keeping the surplus funds clearly indicates that TABOR is a joke.  Colorado citizens have no civil rights unless they are granted to them by the state legislature and that same state legislature can take them away at any time.  There is a word for what the state is doing.  It is called stealing and, last time I checked, it was immoral.  Colorado legislators seem incapable of understanding that my rights are unalienable and not subject to their willful grants or withdrawals.
The next morning I settled down with my paper to read an article entitled, "Parents Bill of Rights:  GOP effort moves on..."  Here is what I learned, "A Republican bill to establish a parent's bill of rights, giving them authority over every aspect of their children's health care and education, is moving to the Senate floor....Senator Tim Neville, R-Littleton, said parent's rights are 'under increasing attack' in all public venues, and the bill is an effort to 'halt the overreach.'"  Did you see the presupposition under girding this proposed new law?  Look carefully and you will find it.
Let's talk about reality for a moment.  In the real world I have total and absolute authority over my children.  I have authority over their health care, their education, their allowance, their household chores, their household rules and everything else that pertains to them.  Government did not grant me the right to rule my children, God did.  The right to rule my children is an unalienable right.  My children are my children.  They belong to me, not the state.  Now I realize that the state does not agree with my assessment in this matter.  The state sees children in a variety of ways.  From the perspective of the state children exist to become future government school students who will learn about the glories of the Amerikan empire, they exist to spy upon their parents by turning them in to the police when they witness violations of drugs laws in their homes, they exist to become future cannon fodder for the military in the prosecution of its glorious wars of imperial expansion, they exist to become future taxpayers to fund the operations of the all-encompassing State and they exist to produce more children to keep the process running in perpetuity.
I reject the State's view of children and repudiate all claims of the State upon mine.  I also repudiate the presupposition that the State can "give me authority over my children's health care and education" by means of a new law.  The state does not have the authority to grant to me the right to raise my children as I see fit.  My right to raise my children as I see fit is an unalienable right.  As such it is not subject to any claims from the State, whether they be positive or negative claims.  The right to raise my children my way is an unalienable right and the State had best keep its nose out of my business.
God grants unalienable rights and when representatives in the State attempt to meddle in the matters of rights that God has granted to me they are walking on dangerous ground.  Make no mistake, God will not be mocked.  All civil representatives need to repent of their beliefs and associated behaviors which indicate that they believe they are the source of my unalienable rights.