San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, August 14, 2015

The Difference Between BP And The EPA

In April of 2010 an oil rig operating in the Gulf of Mexico and owned by British Petroleum ruptured.  Oil spilled into the gulf and before it could be sealed a total of 4.9 million barrels of oil had poured into the ocean. According to Wikipedia, "The Gulf Coast Claims Facility (a $20 billion fund) was administrated by attorney Kenneth Feinberg.  The facility began accepting claims on 23 August 2010.  On 8 March 2012, after BP and a team of plaintiffs' attorneys agreed to a class-action settlement, a court-supervised administrator Patrick Juneau took over administration.  Until this more than one million claims of 220,000 individual and business claimants were processed and more than $6.2 billion was paid out from the fund."  In addition to the billions of dollars payed out in settlements to people who claimed to have been financially harmed by the spill, the government of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika also used the accident to extract cash from BP.  Again, according to Wikipedia, "On 14 November 2012, BP and the US Department of Justice reached a settlement. BP will pay $4.5 billion in fines and other payments, the largest of its kind in US history."  In addition, "On 2 July 2015, BP, the U.S. Justice Department and five gulf states announced that the company agreed to pay a record settlement of $18.7 billion.  To date BP’s cost for the clean-up, environmental and economic damages and penalties has reached $54bn."
British Petroleum has been fined, sued, and criminally prosecuted for a single accident.  Over fifty billion dollars has been legally, but immorally,  taken from the company.  Most of that money ended up in government coffers and in the pockets of profiteering people who suffered no financial harm from the accident but who knew how to work the system to their benefit. A relentless stream of propaganda has spilled forth from various governmental and environmental groups painting BP as worse than Hitler and claiming that the profit seeking oil company has consciously attempted to destroy the world.  This is all true despite the fact that the long term affects of the oil spill are non-existent.  Just like all "environmental disasters" involving oil spills the environmental wackos who promote them consistently lie about the impact of the oil upon the local environment.  Other than a few dead ducks, always photographed slowly dying as they wallow in sticky oil, there are usually no long term impacts from an oil spill.  The amount of oil as a percentage of the amount of water is just too small to do any real long term harm.  Furthermore, the natural ability of bodies of water to cleanse themselves is always ignored and government worshiping haters of profit seeking corporations always pretend as if the environment is incapable of cleaning itself up without their help.  What arrogance those idiots display.
Last week the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) directly caused a leak from an abandoned mine in the area of Silverton, Colorado that spilled an estimated 3 million gallons of toxic waste into the Animas River.  The stream flow in the Animas river at the time was 81 cubic feet per second.  It is not hard to imagine the impact of such a spill upon such a tiny river.  In a matter of minutes the river had completely changed color.  Anyone who is familiar with the story has seen the images of a once clear mountain stream running mustard yellow.  The waste that was spilled into the river included all sorts of known carcinogens and poisons.  No doubt the fish in the river have been dying in droves.  And what is the public response to the EPA for what has happened?  Practically nothing.
Gina McCarthy, a big-wig at the EPA, has been running around making speeches in which she declares that she is "genuinely sorry" and that the entire situation is "heartbreaking."  She is also assuring the media types who are lapping up her every word that, "rest assured, we will learn lessons from this as we move forward in the work ahead."  How comforting.  Other than her litany of apologies it seems as if the EPA has been given a free pass.  The Colorado and New Mexico governors are squawking about filing some lawsuits in order to try and get some federal money and ingratiate themselves with the voters in their states but it remains to be seen if anything can ever come of it.  Remember, the federal government can only be sued if it agrees to allow itself to be sued.  I don't see that happening.
A series of letters to the editor were printed by the Denver Post and they all generally make the same argument.  Illustrative of the general content in the letters are these comments, "However, had the mining companies years ago given more consideration to all the chemicals they subjected the mountains to and been concerned about how their greed for gold would affect future generations, a clean-up would not have been necessary in the first place....the EPA would better serve the public interest by recognizing these sites were not created by the EPA but by irresponsible individuals, companies and corporations that relegated environmental safety to the lower priority over making a profit."  So there you have it.  The disaster that befell the Animas river was the fault of profit seeking companies that followed the requirements of the law perfectly when it came to controlling the hazardous wastes produced by their industrial enterprises.  The EPA apparently had nothing to do with it.  Amazing.
The spill was less than a week into history when the EPA came out with an announcement that the river had already returned to the exact same condition it had been in prior to the spill.  I do not doubt that statement.  As I mentioned earlier, bodies of water have amazing restorative power.  What I find interesting is that when the spill is the direct result of a government agency's malfeasance we hear that the water has already cleansed itself.  When the spill is the result of an accident at a profit seeking corporation the environmental impact goes on for decades.  Both cannot be true.
What is the difference between the EPA and BP?  That is not hard to see.  The EPA is a government agency and, as such, it is worshiped and adored by the idolatrous citizens of the SDA.  BP is a profit seeking company that does nothing more than produce high quality goods for the citizens of this envy-filled land for a price they are willing to pay.  But because they make a profit they are deemed evil by the sin-laden people who populate this sad and disgusting country.  The EPA can do no wrong, even when it does wrong.  BP can do no right, even when it does right.  The conclusions have already been made when it comes to the morality of government vs business.  Government is always morally pure and business is always evil.  That is one of the cardinal tenets of socialism and the SDA is a country filled with greedy people who are thoroughly committed to socialism.  

Thursday, August 13, 2015

SDA Citizens Looking At 20 Years For "Thought Crimes"

Maybe you saw the story.  A young, recently married couple from Mississippi was arrested yesterday and today they are looking at 20 years in prison for no other reason than the fact they do not worship the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  According to the Associated Press, "A young Mississippi couple who is charged with attempting to join the Islamic State was ordered held without bail Tuesday, pending federal grand jury action on the charges....Twenty year old Jaelyn Delshaun Young and 22 year old Muhammad Dakhlala were arrested at a Mississippi airport just before boarding a flight with tickets bound for Istanbul."  The judge presiding over their initial hearing denied them bail "saying that even though the pair have never been in trouble with the law she believed their desire to commit terrorism was 'probably still there.'" 
Did you catch that?  Here we have a case in which a couple has been arrested not for what they have done but for what the judge and the FBI think they might do in the future.  The judge did not release them on bail and argued that their arrest was a moral and constitutional action for no other reason than her belief that the couple might want to "commit terrorism," whatever that means.  The prosecutors in the case had urged the judge to deny bail because "handwritten farewell letters they left for their families said they would never return."  I ask you, how can a couple be accused of wanting to commit terrorist acts against the SDA while, at the same time, be arrested because they left notes informing their family members they would never return to the SDA?  I guess logical consistency has nothing to do with the judicial process in this immoral land.
The SDA Attorney prosecuting them said, "They do not need a gun to do harm, they don't meet military training to do harm.  What they need is a violent, extremist ideology, and that's exactly what they have espoused."  Did you get that?  The prosecuting attorney believes they are guilty of a crime because of their beliefs about the relationship of Islam to the SDA.  The FBI believes this couple has committed a crime simply because of their political beliefs.  The couple was arrested on the grounds that they were "attempting and conspiring to provide material support to a terrorist group, a federal crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison."  What did their conspiring and attempting to provide material support to a terrorist group consist of?  The mere fact that they purchased airline tickets to Istanbul and wrote letters to their family members informing them they would never return to the SDA.
I have to ask these questions.  What does any of this have to do with national security?  How in the world can this couple be considered a threat to the lives and property of SDA citizens?  The couple was attempting to leave the SDA and had no intention of returning.  How can that constitute a threat to do harm to SDA citizens?  The FBI's entire case against the couple is grounded upon their beliefs about the relationship of Islam to the SDA.  The prosecutor agreed that the couple had no weapons, nor did they have any military training.  All the couple is guilty of is believing that the SDA is oppressing Islamic nations and people in the Middle East, an objectively accurate and readily provable fact.  Millions of people around the world share the belief of this couple.  But because this couple had the misfortune of being citizens of the SDA they are not permitted to hold a political opinion shared by millions of rational human beings around the world.  They had to be arrested for their thought crime.
Where in the Constitution of the SDA does it say that the federal government has the right to arrest and imprison the citizens of this country for expressing a political opinion about the behavior of the military in the Middle East that goes contrary to what our King and his servants command us to believe?  Where does it say it is a crime to go to the Middle East to aid those people they truly and accurately believe are being starved, maimed and murdered by the SDA military?  I can hear the response of right-wing fanatics ringing in my one good ear.  They are screaming, "They were going to join the enemy.  They are traitors and they should be executed for their crime!"  To that illogical assertion I ask, where in the Constitution does it say that it is illegal for a citizen of this country to expatriate?  I have heard right-wing zealots scream hundreds of times that "this is Amerika and if you don't love it you should leave it" but when someone actually tries to do that they are arrested and imprisoned for 20 years.  Does this make sense to anyone but a rabidly insane lover of the government and the military?
This case is important because it dramatically illustrates what the people who rule over us have become.  We, as citizens of the SDA, are expected to arrange our personal thoughts and opinions in such a way as to make them agree with what our rulers tell us to believe.  Those who refuse to do so, even if they try to leave the country to live consistently with their beliefs, are deemed evil criminals in need of punishment.   Ladies and gentlemen, I give you 1984 in all of its horrific glory.  We have arrived.

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Adult Children Are Irresponsible, Greedy Monsters

I was reading Jill Schlesinger's column last Sunday and what she had to say angered me beyond belief.  Jill, in case you are not aware, is one of those pop-financial gurus like Suzy Orman (I don't know if I spelled that correctly) who dispense financial advice for free.  She writes a weekly column that shows up in my Denver Post.  I find her advice to be generally sound and will usually take a couple of minutes to read her column each week.  Sunday's column was one for the record books however, as the piece was entitled, "Are greedy kids raiding your retirement?"
Throughout the history of humankind children have been the number one retirement program for married couples.  People had children because those children would be expected to provide for them when they were elderly and unable to support themselves any longer.  All cultures and all societies throughout the history of the entire world have operated under the principle that it is the responsibility of adult children to provide for the physical needs of their parents when their parents are no longer able to take care of themselves. That principle has been applied with varying degrees of success but the principle itself is indisputable.  Any adult child who does not take care of his parents is a moral degenerate.  It is that simple.
The Apostle Paul wrote a letter to a fellow minister by the name of Timothy.  In that letter he described how to set up a church welfare program.  Yes, believe it or not, churches actually used to take care of their own.  This was all well before the adoption of the modern doctrine which states that church finances are to be spent on non-believers as a means of evangelism and church members are left to scrounge for scraps from the government.  Paul told Timothy who qualified to be put on the list of people who would receive church support.  In the context of describing who qualified for church financial support he wrote, "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever."  The "his own" that Paul refers to is the class of people known as the elderly who were expected to be taken care of by their adult children.  Those are pretty harsh words.  Evangelicals profess to believe in the Bible but they don't believe in this part of it.  As far as I am aware, no evangelical church in the country teaches that adult children are morally responsible to provide for the physical needs of their parents.  As far as I am aware no evangelical church in this country exercises discipline upon those adult children who fail to perform this biblically mandated task.
Jill began her column with this:  "'Greedy adult children have become rapacious consumers of their parents' money!'  Those are the stinging words of financial planner Jonathan Pond, who worries that baby boomer parents have overindulged their children."  Jill goes on to support her initial claim with a couple of statistical claims that defy my moral sensibilities.  She wrote, "Nearly 63 percent of American families provide financial support to their adult children, according to the insurance and financial services trade association LIMRA....A separate study last year by the nonprofit American Consumer Credit Counseling found that a higher proportion of US households provide financial assistance to adult children than support for elderly parents....Of those parents helping their adult children, 45 percent say it is hurting their retirement savings."  Are you angry yet?  You should be.  Let's consider these statistical assertions for a moment.
63% of elderly or retired couples with adult children are at least somewhat providing for the financial responsibilities of those adult children.  Does anyone remember the good old days when children were expected to grow up and become self-sufficient?  What has happened to us?  Two thirds of adult children are still tied to their parent's financial umbilical cord.  How can those adult children hold their heads up when they walk down the street?  They should be ashamed of themselves.  Maybe nobody understands the meaning of the term 'adult.'  An adult is someone who takes care of himself.  An adult lives within his means and does not expect others to pay his bills.  An adult works hard, provides for himself, and sets some of his income aside to provide for his future needs as well.  An adult, or at least a moral adult, also uses some of his income to provide for his elderly parents if they need it.  Are there no adults left in our world today?  Is there no shame left in our world today?
More older couples are providing for their adult children than adult children are providing for their elderly parents.  This is the exact opposite of the biblical model and it is wildly immoral.  Older couples paid their dues.  They raised their children.  They covered all of their children's physical needs.  One of the reasons they did so was so that their children would grow into responsible adults who would, could and should take care of themselves, their children and others if the need arose.  Shame upon all of you adult children who are continuing to mooch off your parents.  Shame upon all of you adult children who use your parents as a personal bank.  Shame upon all of you adult children who do not make provision to provide for your parents in the future if they need it.
Almost half of the elderly couples who are providing funds to their irresponsible and greedy adult children claim to be doing so to their own hurt. This is what I do not understand.  I do understand the bond that forms between parents and children.  I do understand that parents do not want to see their children suffer.  But when taking care of adult children means you are going to suffer harm yourself, I do not understand that.  Maybe it would be a good thing for those adult children to be evicted from their apartments, have their cars repossessed or file bankruptcy.  Maybe they need a good hard dose of real life in order to learn the lessons necessary to be a financially responsible adult.  Maybe the best thing to do is cut them loose and let them fend for themselves.
I believe I know why we have come to this inverted situation in our society today.  In fact, I think there are two reasons.  The first is the simple fact that almost all adults are greedy materialists who want everything right away.  Delaying gratification is an unknown concept in our culture.  Going into debt is expected and encouraged.  Living above our means is a way of life.  All of these things are the by-product of sinful materialism and need to be repented of and stopped.
The second reason why adult children not only do not support their elderly parents but also expect them to take care of them is the role played by Social Security and Medicaid.  Adult children believe that the government will take care of their parents so they are relieved of the responsibility to do so.  And to a certain point it is true that the government will take care of their elderly parents, but it misses the point entirely.  It is not the responsibility of the government to take care of your parents, it is your responsibility.  But because of the faith and belief in the all powerful and all beneficent federal government adult children are happy to walk away from their moral duties and leave it to the career politicians and bureaucrats who rule this sad land.  It is all so wrong.

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Jury Nullification And Free Speech

Jury nullification is an ancient biblical principle.  The Apostle Peter was once ordered by the powers that be to cease and desist his preaching of the Christian gospel.  His response to that legal order from a God ordained authority was to say, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking what we have seen and heard."  In other words, God's law triumphs man's law every day of the week.  Not only that, no governing authority has the legal or moral authority to prevent the right of free speech.  Peter continued preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ until he was executed for doing so.
Jury nullification is nothing more than the legal principle that the conscience of a juror may not be bound by the civil authorities or an immoral law.  If a juror believes something is wrong with a legal decision that has been rendered according to the proper interpretation of the law, the principle of jury nullification allows him to ignore the law and follow his conscience.  In the exact same way Peter refused to obey the lawful order given to him to cease preaching, a juror may refuse to obey the order of a judge to follow the immoral law of the land in a particular judicial case.
Here is an example of a judge's orders to a jury just prior to it being dismissed for deliberations.  I found this sample "jurors oath" on the internet (therefore it must be accurate) and believe it to be representative of what happens to all people who are conscripted into jury duty:  "You, as jurors, are the judges of the facts.  But in determining what actually happened -- that is, in reaching your decision as to the facts --  it is your sworn duty to follow all of the rules of law as I explain them to you.  You have no right to disregard or give special attention to any one instruction, or to question the wisdom or correctness of any rule I may state to you.  You must not substitute or follow your own notion or opinion as to what the law is or ought to be.  It is your duty to apply the law as I explain it to you, regardless of the consequences...That was the promise you made and the oath you took."
I believe any reasonable person can easily see that taking such an oath and following such instructions is little more than blind obedience to authority that binds the conscience of the individual.  When the day comes, and it will be soon, when preaching that homosexuality is a sin and preachers are hauled before juries on charges of hate speech violations it is the sworn duty of those jurors, some of whom will be Christians, to deny their belief in the truth and God of the Bible and follow the immoral law of the land.  It is because of the immoral oath that must be sworn prior to serving on a jury that I believe all jury duty is immoral.  No Christian should ever serve on a jury and no Christian should ever bind his conscience to enforce and uphold the immoral civil law of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.
All of this is an introduction to my main point today.  I was reading the Denver Post this morning when I came across a story about the arrest of Eric Brandt.  Brandt manned a small booth in a public square with the sign "Juror Info" on the front of the booth.  The public square happened to be outside a civil courthouse.  As he sat passively in his booth he would hand out a brochure describing the biblical principle of jury nullification to anyone who requested it of him.  Several people who had been summoned by the judicial high priest to appear and potentially serve on a jury had picked up copies of the brochure.  Once inside the sanctified confines of the government courthouse the presiding high priest of the state (judge) discovered that several people were carrying contraband which informed them of their moral right to ignore immoral laws.  He was incensed.
Eric Brandt was arrested and charged with several counts, one for each brochure he distributed, of "jury tampering."  This is the case despite the fact that none of the potential jurors had yet been selected to serve on a jury.  This is the case despite the fact that no judicial case was before the court at the time.  This is the case despite the fact that Mr. Brandt was exercising his constitutionally protected right of free speech to speak his mind on the principle of jury nullification.  This is the case despite the fact that Mr. Brandt no more tampered with a jury than I have climbed Mt. Everest.
The Denver District Attorney, prior to arresting Brandt, "reviewed the literature and determined it violated state law regarding jury tampering."  So there you have it.  In Denver it is illegal to express the opinion that a jury need not follow the immoral law of the civil government.  Those who do exercise their right to free speech and declare their opinion that the law of the civil government is sometimes immoral and not to be followed are arrested, tried and incarcerated for their actions.
All of this has me wondering.......I wonder what would have happened to the last person who was tried and convicted under Colorado's old marijuana prohibition laws which required a life sentence for a three time offender if the jury had decided to practice jury nullification.  One thing is for sure.  That person would not be rotting away in a prison cell for the rest of his life.  Too bad for him I guess.  If the decision had come down a day later the jurors would be acting legally because marijuana was then declared to be a good thing.  But on the last day prior to the changing of the law the jurors would have been guilty of violating their oath to blindingly follow the idiotic, stupid, immoral and mutable law of the career politicians who rule over us.  Oh well, it is just human lives we are dealing with here.  They don't even begin to rise in the scale of importance when compared to the rules and regulations created for us by taxpayer financed career bureaucrats. 

Update: September 1, 2015

The horrible people who were distributing literature in favor of jury nullification were vindicated last week as a Denver judge ruled they had the right to exercise their free speech and weigh in with an opinion on jury nullification that is contrary to that of the established powers that be.  The Colorado attorney general immediately declared that he was going to seek a law that forbids people from exercising their right of free speech in front of the Denver courthouse because it "detracts from the dignity and decorum" of the location.  I guess his definition of "dignity and decorum" is compliant citizens bowing down and genuflecting as career politicians walk by.  Where in the Constitution of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika is it written that free speech may only be exercised at locations other than government buildings?  It seems to me that our rulers are getting a bit nervous, don't you think?

Monday, August 10, 2015

Arrested For Attempted Suicide

I was reading the newspaper a couple of weeks ago when I came across a tiny story tucked away on a back page.  It was entitled "Larimer Man Tries To Set Self On fire."  Here is what the story said: "A 34 year old man shouting on a porch doused himself with gasoline and lit himself on fire Sunday afternoon at the edge of Fort Collins, but Poudre Valley firefighters almost instantly sprayed him with fire retardant foam and saved his life.  The Poudre Valley Fire Authority crew was so precise that Roland Rideout was able to try to run away, authorities said.  Larimer county sheriff's deputies with dogs quickly nabbed him...He is being held on suspicion of first degree arson and resisting arrest."
So let me get this straight.  A poor fellow by the name of Roland made the decision that it was too hard to continue living and that it was time to take his own life.  In order to go out on his own terms and in a fabulous blaze of glory he decided to cover himself with a flammable liquid and set himself on fire.  It would have been a spectacular display of pyrotechnics if not for the intervention of some government employees with crack foam shooting skills.  Rather than allowing the man to burn himself to a crisp they decided to intervene and put out the inferno before it could even become an inferno.  As a result old Roland was barely charred and he now sits in a county jail on trumped up charges that he was trying to kill himself by burning and that when he was the target of shots of anti-fire foam he make the entirely rational decision to run away.  Outrageous!
Killing oneself is a sin.  It is not the unforgivable sin, as some would have you believe (Catholics mostly).  But taking one's own life is a sin.  That is true because only God can give and take life.  When men attempt to take a life on their own terms they violate God's monopoly on the granting and taking of life.  God is not pleased when His monopoly on granting and taking life is jeopardized so He labels all such activities as sinful.  Unlike many sins however, God has not given us any sanction associated with the failed attempt at suicide.  Rather obviously when a person is successful in his suicide attempt there is no reason to punish him as he is already quite dead.  On the other hand, should there be a punishment associated with attempting suicide?  As far as I am aware there is no biblical law specifying a punishment for attempted suicide.  This truth is not without precedent.  God commands his people to be generous with their resources but there is no sanction for the stingy.  God commands people to seek to find the owner of a found good but there is no punishment for the person who claims "finders-keepers" and retains the good for himself.  Likewise, God commands men to not take their own lives but there is no punishment for those who attempt to do so and fail, except, perhaps, the ridicule of the rest of us for their ineptitude.
After Roland failed to take his own life he should not have been arrested.  It is a sign of the messianic-state that men are arrested and charged with crimes that have no biblical basis whatsoever.  It is a clear sign that men worship civil government when they create, enforce and submit to rules and regulations that have no foundation in biblical law at all.  Roland is presently cooling off in a jail cell, charged with attempted arson and resisting arrest.  The attempted arson charge comes from the fact that he was unsuccessful in his attempt to torch himself.  The resisting arrest charge stems from the fact that he ran away from the government firefighters as they were shooting him with flame stopping foam.  Am I the only person in this country who finds this entire story ridiculous?