San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, July 3, 2015

Government Schools Are Religious Schools

This past week the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that a Douglas County school voucher program was unconstitutional.  As a result of that ruling the voucher program has been shut down.  The sticky wicket with the voucher program was the fact that some of the vouchers were being redeemed at Christian schools.  Troublemakers, government worshipers and an assortment of God-haters were all thrown into a tizzy by that fact.  So they banded together and brought a lawsuit against Douglas County that eventually worked its way to the Supreme Court.  To the surprise of nobody it was determined that a strict wall of separation must exist between government and religion.  Taxpayer dollars being funneled to Christian schools breached that wall so they were terminated.  Let's consider the issue for a while today.
Two letters were written to the Editor of the Denver Post after the ruling was announced.  Both were in favor of the Supreme Court's decision and both made essentially the same argument.  Mark Boyko wrote that, "No one is disputing the right of parents to select schools that best fits their children's needs.  However, the cost of sending students to private religious school is not to be underwritten by the taxpayers of the state of Colorado.  What is critical is the courts hold inviolate the separation of church and state and avoid the slippery slope of those who seek to obfuscate constitutional limitations in order to undermine this historical and legal separation."   Edd Doerr added his two cents worth by writing, "The Colorado Supreme Court's ruling against the Douglas County school voucher plan was a great victory for public education and religious liberty, the right of taxpayers not to be compelled to support religious institutions."  As you can clearly see, both Edd and Mark firmly believe that the taxpayers should never be required to support religious institutions.  I could not agree with them more.  I stand up and applaud what they have written.  I also demand that they apply this rational and moral principle consistently.  Therefore I demand that taxpayers not be required to fund the government schools.
The crucial distinction between the position of Edd and Mark and my position is their erroneous belief that government schooling is not religious schooling.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Government education is at least as religious as Christian education, probably more.  RJ Rushdoony has poignantly written that, "Law in every culture is religious in origin.  Because law governs man and society, because it establishes and declares the meaning of justice and righteousness, law is inescapably religious....It must be recognized that in any culture the source of law is the god of that society.  If law has its source in man's reason, then reason is the god of that society.  If the source is an oligarcy, or in a court, senate, orruler, then that source is the god of that system....In any society a change of law is an explicit or implicit change of religion....There can be no tolerance in a law-system for another religion."
You may not like what Rushdoony has written but it is still true.  The source of law in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika is first the King, second the Congress and third the Supreme Court of Jokers.  All three groups make new laws on a regular basis.  All new laws are imposed upon the citizens of this tyrannical county without mercy and if you do not like that it is too bad for you.  Those three groups are our gods and we are expected to worship them.  Tomorrow, the 4th of July, is one  of the high holy days when the citizens of the SDA make it a point to drink too much alcohol and make non-stop statements of adoration about the government, especially the military branch, under which we live.  Let the worship service begin, complete with a full litany of hymns (patriotic songs), sermons (speeches by career politicians) and genuflecting (saluting the flag).
Government schools are just an extension of the government designed to indoctrinate the children living in this country into the worship of the state.  Children arrive at school and sit in rooms under the watchful eyes of past and present Kings, all of whose photographs adorn the walls of each room.  They begin their day with a pledge to worship and obey the King.  It is called the "Pledge of Allegiance."  Included in that opening pledge is proper deference to the state sponsored religious icon called the flag.  After the opening ceremonies they proceed to study history.  There they learn about the glories of their god.  They learn the history of the country, which is little more than a recitation of the imperialist wars fought by the SDA military over the years, and proudly believe that the SDA is the greatest country in the world and truly exceptional.  They also learn that everyone else in the world is either good or bad depending upon how they relate to the SDA.  Good countries obey us, evil countries do not.  Evil countries are described as Satan.
In their civics classes they learn that the only truly important activities undertaken in this life are political ones.  The Christian church is marginalized, if it is even mentioned at all.  Business activities and the free market are ignored.  The world of politics is supreme and rules all.  Each student is taught that he must participate in the state sacrament of continuity.  In the Church it is called communion.  In the state it is called voting.  Each student is taught to confess his sins.  He must come forward and confess that he was once a greedy money grubber out to destroy the environment until he saw the light and converted to the environmental religion.  He must confess to the state that he is wholly dependent upon it for his life and sustenance.  He must confess his love for the beneficent gifts from our god of social security and Obamacare.  He must learn that putting the right people into the right career positions in politics is the pathway to salvation.  He must repeatedly chant that the "rich" are evil because they are unwilling to help the cause of the poor.  Like Jesus allegedly did, the government associates with the poor, the needy, the downtrodden and the dregs of society.  It does so to bring them to state salvation by means of government transfer payments from the taxpayers to the politically privileged.
I could go on but I think you get my point.  Government schools are just as religious as Christian schools.  That being the case, both Edd and Mark should be in full agreement with me that the taxpayers should not be forced to pay for the government schools.  Let the parents who believe their children need to worship the state foot the bill for their own children's education and leave those of us who worship the true God alone.  We are not asking for government vouchers.  We are just asking to not be forced to pay for the damning religious instruction being offered to our neighbor's children by the government schools.

Thursday, July 2, 2015

Segregation Is A Natural and Moral Human Desire

I was reading "Ask Amy" yesterday, as I usually do, when her answer to a question brought me to a revelation about the nature of human segregation.  That was not her intention.  In fact, her intention was the exact opposite.  In her answer to a particular question she argued for the moral necessity of unlike groups constantly being forced to associate with each other.  In that sense she was just like one of those business-minding kooks that runs around telling others to "celebrate diversity."  Although they never define what it means to celebrate diversity it usually boils down to ordering people to spend time with people of different racial backgrounds.  Not wanting to spend time with people of different racial backgrounds is called "segregation" and it is universally condemned as evil.   Let's consider that idea for a while today.
The question posed to Amy was, "What is the politically correct way to exclude the developmentally disabled from an organized group?"  In this case the organized group was a high level bowling league and the developmentally disabled group was made up of people from an assisted living home.  The bowling alley where the league played informed the league representatives that their contract to use the facility would not be renewed if they did not accept teams from the assisted living home.  Quite accurately, I would suppose, the representative from the league who wrote to Amy asserted that, "If the league admits individuals with vastly inferior skill levels and low mental awareness of league bowling rules, that will greatly slow down the normal pace of play and frustrate many of our existing members."  How do you think Amy responded?  How would you have responded?
Amy wrote, "I can't provide a politically correct way for you to exclude these people because the very notion is so unkind that the mind reels.  The heart takes a hit too."  She then went on to correctly point out that the management of the bowling alley was free to do whatever it wanted to do.  If the league did not like management's decision it was free to take its business elsewhere.  Amy's economic thinking on the issue was correct.  What threw me into an instantaneous rage was her allegation that the members of the league were hate-filled neanderthals because they wanted to preserve the quality of the competition in their league.  Her response was so unkind it actually hurt my heart.
Amy's irrational insistence upon forced integration of disparate groups put me on a pathway of thought that eventually brought me to the title of today's post.  Segregation is a natural and moral human desire.  Most of the time we prefer to associate with those who are similar to us and that is not an immoral thing to do.  Why should the members of a bowling league, who thrive on the competition they derive from playing opponents of an equally high level of skill, be morally required to introduce inferior players?  Why is it immoral if they do not want to?  I wonder if Amy is a member of a bridge club?  If she is, I wonder what she would say if I accused her of immorality if she did not replace her bridge partner with a 12 year old child who knows nothing about bridge?  Do you think it would be fair to call her unkind and heartless if she objected?
I believe it is fair to say that the desire to segregate is fundamental to human behavior.  Do you want to spend a day with a NASCAR fan at the Taladega Speedway if you are a fan of the ballet?  Do you want to be forced to spend a day at the local little league ball park when you despise baseball and have no children?  If you are a fan of the blues why should you be deemed an evil person for not wanting to spend a day at a rap jamboree?  Should a vegetarian be required to go elk hunting with a hunter?  Why should a competitive bowling league be required to admit disabled players to avoid being called hateful?  I could go on with thousands of examples that all illustrate the lunacy of insisting that different people should be forced to spend time together or face the stigma of being labeled evil segregationists. 
I believe that all but the most hardened Type A Yuppie would agree that one of life's greatest joys is the time spent with friends.  Even those who spend their time printing "CoExist" bumper stickers would agree with that assertion.  Even those who believe we should celebrate diversity spend most of their time associating with their friends.  And what, exactly, is a friend?  Is it not true that  friend is someone with whom you share a bond of similarity?  Maybe you both like to hunt, or fish, or hike, or attend the ballet, or attend the rap concert, or discuss theology, or ride bikes, or any combination of these and many other activities.  We don't make friends, we find them.  And we find them when we discover that someone else sees the universe in a fashion similar to ourselves.  But notice what happens the moment a friendship is formed.  The moment two people become friends they have practiced segregation.
By definition when I have a friend everyone who is not my friend is not my friend.  Furthermore, everyone who is not my friend is now separate from me and my friend.  Conversely, when two people form a friendship of which I am not a part I have been segregated from them and they have been segregated from me.  Now, please tell me, why is that such a horrible thing?  There are millions of people in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika that I want to have nothing to do with.  Statists, government worshipers,  militant homosexuals, members of the Church of Satan, feminists, socialists and communists all make my list of persona non gratia.  I don't want to have anything to do with them and, if they were willing to tell the truth, they would admit that they want nothing to do with me.  Most importantly, we are both okay with that.  So why do busy-bodies like Amy insist that we must spend time together?  I don't know.  I don't understand the urge or the need to control the behavior of others.  I have a hard enough time trying to control my own behavior without taking on the behavior of those who surround me.  Plus, it warms my heart to see people having a good time together, even if they are doing something I detest. 

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

The Art Of Losing

The Denver Nuggets, a woefully pathetic professional basketball team if you are not aware, lose a lot of games.  They lose so many games the owner of the team has done what every disgruntled owner does when his team is losing.  He fired the coach.  Firing the coach makes no sense from a basketball point of view.  The coach did not miss easy free throws.  The coach did not refuse to play defense.  The coach did not sit on the bench and mope when he didn't get enough playing time.  The coach did not launch reckless three pointers in a vain attempt to make Sports Center that evening.  The coach was not obsessed with his personal statistics.  The coach was not spending game time thinking about his endorsement contracts.  The coach was not more concerned with style than substance.  No, the coach didn't do anything to make the Nuggets lose but he was the one who was fired.  I understand the owner's problem.  Coaches can be had for a couple of million bucks per year.  Firing all of the lazy, disinterested, selfish players who are there to collect a paycheck would bankrupt the team.  So the coach gets fired and the team remains.
The search for a new coach took a long time.  Finally the Nuggets decided upon a fellow whom I have never heard of, which is really easy to do since I stopped following the NBA when the Nuggets fired Doug Moe (look it up if you don't know). I saw a portion of his introductory press conference and he made an interesting statement.  He said that he would shape the team around players who have three particular qualities that he is looking for.  Those qualities were good character, a good work ethic and the necessity for the player to "hate to lose."  Not surprisingly, the Nuggets new number one draft choice, drafted just last week I believe, declared that "losing makes me sick" when he was introduced to the Denver sports media.  I don't know if losing really does make him sick but he sure knows how to get into the good graces of the new coach.
I am sick and tired of hearing professional athletes, or anyone else for that matter, declare how much they despise losing.  What universe do these idiots live in?  Life consists mostly of losing.  Sports consists mostly of losing.  Losing is the pathway to knowledge and personal growth.  Learning how to lose is one of life's most important lessons and all I hear these days are the voices of spoiled, selfish millionaires whining about how they hate to lose.  Grow up and lose like a man, you wimps.
Back in the old days, so far, far away from me now, coaches used to teach their players how to lose.  I remember it well.  We were told to win with grace and lose with dignity.  If a player did not display the proper attitude after a game he would not be playing the next game.  Coaches realized that life was about a whole lot more than winning and losing.  But then something happened along the way.  I don't know what it was or when it happened or even why it happened but things changed.  Suddenly, it seemed to me, nobody knew how to lose anymore.  Suddenly, when I was watching some of my favorite sports teams, I noticed that nobody seemed to know how to lose with dignity.  All I saw was a group of infantile adults playing games in a very poor fashion.  I don't know how a coach can consider a player to be of "good character" and also "hating to lose" at the same time.  Those two things do not go together.  Character is built and displayed via losing, something the new coach seems to not recognize.  Something has gone terribly astray in the world of sports.
Being a "poor sport," which is what we used to call these people, has been turned into a virtue.  Declaring how angry you are when you lose somehow means you care.  All it means to me is that the person making the declaration has the emotional constitution of a baby.  When a person does not throw a fit and walk around angry and sullen after a lose the fans, coaches and media will question his "will to win."  The desire to win is now exclusively associated with how poorly a player loses.  How tiresome it has all become to watch the baseball player walk into the dugout and smash the water cooler with his bat.  How irksome it is to watch the basketball and football players throw hissy fits and refuse to talk to the press after a loss.  All of the faithful gather around and speak in hushed reverent tones about how great an athlete the person is because he is throwing a tantrum after a loss. Everyone is afraid to speak to him because he is so mad about the loss.  But I don't see greatness.  I see emotional immaturity and tremendous personal insecurity, and I don't like what I see.  Do you?

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

End The War On Education?

I was sitting in line yesterday at the government building I am forced to visit every three years to have the emissions coming out of my tailpipe checked.  I have never failed an emissions test but I still have to go through this government mandated hogwash every couple of years. I once failed a gas cap test and was forced to go to Wal-Mart, buy a new gas cap and return to go through the line once again to prove that I had a new cap.  Efficiency is not important at government owned and operated businesses.  Neither is serving the public.  Credible studies have shown the career politicians who populate the Colorado state legislature that these emissions tests are comical wastes of time but they continue to renew the program every time it comes up.  I guess they consider it to be a fine example of how government can create jobs.  Despite the fact that there were five lanes painted on the ground allowing access to the building where I was to have my car tested only two of them were open.  One employee was sitting in the shade next to the building chewing on a big piece of watermelon.  It was a hot day as we idling our cars while waiting dutifully in line to be summoned forward.
It was then that I noticed it.  I had been looking around at all of the Yuppie cars being driven by people from my neighborhood.  I had BMWs and Audis all around me.  The car in front of me was a Lexus.  I looked a bit out of place in my 2003 Toyota Corolla but that is par for the course with me in Yuppieville.  As I was taking note of the vehicles around me my eyes skimmed over the bumper sticker on the car immediately in front of me in line.  It said, "End the War on Education."  Now that came as news to me.  I never even knew that the Socialist Democracy of Amerika had declared a war on something called "education."  I decided to investigate this hidden conflict.
Later, as I sat down at my computer to investigate this secret war, it dawned on me that the lady driving the Lexus was probably a government school teacher in my county.  If that was true then I was looking in the wrong place by searching the activities of the department of defense of the federal government.  I needed to find out more information about government school education in the state of Colorado.  Still, despite my best efforts, I could find no evidence of a war having been declared on the government schools of Colorado.  After completing my emissions test, for which I forked over $25 to be told my car was fine, I drove around the neighborhood looking for signs of warfare at the neighborhood government schools.  I looked for broken windows, burning cars in the parking lots and bullet holes in the walls.  I could find no evidence of any of these things.  I was perplexed, to say the least.
Later on that day I asked my wife if she had heard anything about a war going on at the government schools.  I wanted to know who was behind it and why the government schools were under attack.  She looked perplexed so I explained what I had seen on the bumper sticker.  At that point she shook her head and clicked her tongue while informing me that I was being a crazy, old fool by interpreting the bumper sticker literally rather than figuratively.  Now that possibility had never occurred to me.  I immediately agreed she was correct, she usually is, and went out in search of a figurative war against the government schools of Colorado.  Here is what I discovered.
I have been around the block a couple of times and I am aware of the fact that when people figuratively describe something as a "war" they are really talking about money and how the career politicians who rule over us should distribute it. The "war on women" and the "war on racial minorities" are both examples of that sort of metaphorical war which are really nothing more than calls for taxpayer dollars and government privileges to be distributed to special interest groups.  That certainly had to be the case here.  All I needed to do was follow the money and I would eventually discover that the citizens of Colorado had declared war upon the government schools by refusing to fund them.  After a bit of searching I discovered that the state of Colorado extracts revenues from the taxpayers, via both state income taxes and real estate taxes, of $10,319/student.  That was the most recent figure I could find and it was for 2013.  Five years earlier Colorado tax collectors had stolen $9,285/student from the taxpayers to fund the government school  system.  I didn't see any evidence of a war in those numbers so I kept looking.
Arizona extracted $8,599/student from taxpayers to fund government education in 2013.  New Mexico stole $10,753, Utah took $7,650, Wyoming took $18,498 and Kansas took $11,596.  When compared to neighboring states it appears as if Colorado takes an average amount of money from the taxpayers to fund its government school operations.  I certainly do not see any evidence of a war on education in the amounts being taken from the taxpayers to fund it, especially when compared to neighboring states.
Maybe government school teachers believe they are under attack because they are being forced to work for the taxpaying public for slave wages.  It did not take me long to find some information about the wages paid to government school teachers.  According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, the average government school teacher salary for the 2010-2011 school year was right at $56,000.  Maybe, I thought to myself as I desperately was trying to find a figurative war,  Colorado pays teachers ridiculously low amounts when compared to the national averages or the states surrounding us.  I checked into that theory and found that Colorado's average teacher salary (I am not sure what year this information is for but it is consistent for each state) was $49,844.  Arizona was $49,885 (only a couple of dollars difference), New Mexico was $45,453 (paying considerably less to teachers despite taking more from the taxpayers), Utah $49,393, Wyoming $56,775 (maybe they have to pay that amount to get teachers to live there) and Kansas $47,464.  I did not see any evidence of a figurative war taking place in these numbers although it is sure interesting to see the divergence between what is being take from the taxpayers and what is being given to the teachers in some states.  Just what does Kansas do with all of that extra money?
Maybe government school teachers in Colorado believe they are at war with the taxpayers because they make less than commensurate professions, if it is possible to make such a comparison between professions.  I assumed that it was and I went in search of information to find out if that could be true.  I found this graph, a bit old with 2003 data, that shows such is not the case.  Indeed, as the graph points out, when teacher's salaries are adjusted for the hours worked and the number of days worked per year they end up making more per hour than many other professions.  

Figure 1

So then I thought maybe teachers feel like they are under attack because they are generally disrespected by the public.  I can certainly understand that.  When I have thousands of dollars of my hard earned money stolen from me by the government to fund the education of my neighbor's children I get a bit upset myself.  I don't use the government school system so I never see any of the dubious benefits of government schooling.  All I see are the costs and they seem exorbitant to me.  Wikipedia came to the rescue on this possible source of war.  This page about "occupational prestige" had the public rate 20 different professions.  Teachers came in with a very high score and ranked fourth on the list.  My profession, janitor, was not even worthy to make the list.  Ministers came in 19th place.  If anyone should feel disrespected it should be Christian ministers, not government school teachers.  Government school teachers are put high upon the social pedestal. 
So I give up.  I have no idea why some teachers believe a war has been declared upon them.  What it does make me wonder is how wise can it be to send your children to government schools to be educated by folks who believe they are under attack despite all of the rather obvious evidence to the contrary.

Monday, June 29, 2015

Three Rules For Living In Sodom

As a pastor of mine frequently used to say, "There is always room for deprovement."  How right he was.  No matter how bad things are they can always get worse. And, in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, things got much worse last week as the Supreme Court of this sinful land made the decision to sanctify sodomy.  Anyone with eyes to see could have seen this one coming.  The sodomites won the rhetorical war for the hearts of the majority of the citizens of this ignorant land years ago.  Slogans like "Love Wins!" have punctuated the sodomite propaganda campaign for a long time.   As a result of a massive media campaign to make homosexuality palatable to the masses, homosexual behavior was already justified in this country.  With the current decision made by the stooges sitting on the Supreme Court of the SDA homosexuality is now sanctified.  Expect, from this point forward, for homosexuality be glorified by everyone except Christians.
Since the federal income tax was instituted back in 1913 by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, the citizens of this country, through the career politicians they elect to do their dirty work, have rigged the federal budget such that 95% of all federal expenditures are paid for by the politically unprotected top 49% of the income population.  That is called theft on a grand scale and, in case you do not know, it is immoral.  God has an opinion about theft and He does not approve.  Those who participate in the process of legalized robbery will be held accountable for their actions.
Since 1973 when the Supreme Court of Stooges discovered a heretofore undiscovered clause in the Constitution declaring that all women have a right to a taxpayer financed abortion, over 1 million citizens per year in this violent and hateful land have been brutally murdered by their mothers and the mother's government appointed hatchet men, also known as doctors, who have all sworn an oath to "first, do no harm."  Imagine what it would be like if 15% of the citizens of the SDA were killed overnight.  Well today you do not have to imagine that.  It has already taken place.  And by the way, in case you are not aware, God is not pleased by this state of affairs.  Those who are responsible for the millions of murders will be held accountable for their actions.
Last week the Supreme Court of Immoral Spineless Wimps decided that it was time to discover another hidden gem from the Constitution.  Apparently the right of the federal government to force all states in the union to sanctify homosexual marriages has been in the Constitution all along.  Thanks to the tireless efforts of the sodomites, the bozos sitting on the court were forced to go back and read the document and, lo and behold, there it was!  So we were all informed by the highest court in the land that homosexual marriages are good, right and proper. Furthermore we were all informed that no government entity has the right to prohibit a homosexual union.  In case you are not aware, God has an opinion about this issue.  God hates homosexuals.  Homosexuals and those who support them will all be held accountable for their immoral actions.
As I consider my place in this brave new world I realize that things have changed dramatically.  Homosexuals now have the force of law on their side.  There is no stopping them now.  Soon, just as in Sodom, they will be banging on the doors of our homes demanding that our men be sent out into the public square so that they might make sport of them.  In light of this new reality I have come up with some rules to help me live in Sodom.  I would like to share them with you today.
RULE # 1:  Expect a new intolerance.  As RJ Rushdoony once wrote, "There can be no tolerance in a law-system for another religion.  Toleration is a device used to introduce a new law-system as a prelude to a new intolerance....Every law-system must maintain its existence by hostility to every other law-system and to alien religious foundations or else it commits suicide."  In the past the law-system of the SDA was intolerant towards homosexuals.  That was a biblically correct position.  Today the opposite is the case.  Although the radical homosexuals have been screaming their lungs out about the need for tolerance, the fact of the matter is that they must now impose a new intolerance upon Christians in order to survive.  Expect it.  It is coming.  I do not know what form it will take but it is coming.
RULE # 2:  Expect further degradation.  Misery loves company and so does sin.  Sinners are not content to simply glorify themselves.  They want to be surrounded by other God-hating sinners all of whom are glorifying each other.  I read in the paper just this morning that one GBTLQ activist proudly announced that the "work has just begun."  He/she/it envisions a new land in which every conceivable sexual perversion is sanctified by the Supreme Court and every single Christian is forced to comply with the demands issued by the practitioners of the perversions.  In classic Orwellian style, this is all accomplished by means of terminology like tolerance, love, co-existence and kindness.  The path that the majority of the citizens of the SDA are on is clearly one of spiraling moral degradation.  Public pronouncements of hatred for the God of the Bible will become the norm.  Persecution of His people is to be expected. 
RULE # 3:  This rule is specifically for Christians.  Please, please, please, stop invoking God to "Bless Amerika."  The incessant cries of Evangelical Christians in this immoral land for God to bless us have always been a bad idea.  Asking God to bless rampant immorality is just plain stupid.  Even worse, asking God to bless a people who specialize in flaunting their disobedience to His perfect moral law is an affront to His nature and character.  God does not bless sin.  God does not bless those who hate Him.  God does not bless a nation that takes a public stance against Him and His law.  So stop asking Him to bless us because it isn't going to happen. 
Now that I have given you my rules for living in Sodom, allow me to make an infallible prediction.  I read another story in my paper this morning about the pastor of a Baptist Church in Dallas who took a firm stance against the Supreme Court of Jokers by declaring that he will continue to preach the immorality of homosexuality.  Good for him.  As a result of his stance his church will probably be one of the first attacked by the homosexual-glorifying IRS in order to revoke its tax exempt status. Unfortunately he concluded his pronouncement by saying that this was an opportunity to "show the love of Jesus Christ to the nation."  Wrong, wrong, a thousand times wrong.  The decision made by the high priests of the state religion in the SDA is not an opportunity to declare that God loves them.  It is an opportunity to declare that our God is an avenging fire.  It is an opportunity to declare that our God will not be mocked.  It is an opportunity to declare that current prosperity should never be confused with blessing and His righteous judgment is sure to come.
Here is my infallible prediction...the iniquity of the SDA will eventually fill up and when it does the reprobates citizens of this land will be crying out for the mountains to fall upon them and cover them from the wrath of the Lamb of God who has come to judge them eternally.  You are probably not aware of this but the God of the Bible has established a pattern of behavior whereby He waits to allow a nation to become as morally bankrupt as He can stand prior to coming in judgement.  God-hating sinners take His slowness to come in judgement as endorsement of their lifestyles.  Make no mistake, God will not be mocked.  The iniquity of the SDA will eventually be full and then all men will meet their maker as the Supreme Judge of the universe.