San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, October 9, 2015

HUD Persecutes Denver Landlords Unjustly

HUD stands for Housing and Urban Development.  This part of the gargantuan federal bureaucracy was created by King Johnson back in the 1960s.  Despite the fact that social and economic conditions in the pre-socialist land of that time were and had been improving dramatically since the end of WWII, King Johnson decided to declare a "War on Poverty" that had the totally predictable impact of stopping economic progress for the poor, creating more poverty and putting tens of millions of people on the government dole.  As is the case with all bureaucracies, HUD has grown into a monster with its tendrils penetrating into all parts of our society.  And as is also the case with bureaus created to fix problems that do not exist, everywhere HUD goes it destroys.  Let me give you a couple of examples.
Although you will read this truth nowhere but in this blog and with a couple of other economically astute people, HUD was significantly responsible for the Great Recession.  You recall the Great Recession, don't you?  The stock market dropped 60%, millions were unemployed, Nancy Pelosi passed a gigantic bill filled with horrible new laws so she could "figure out what was in it," Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke stepped to the plate and issued trillions of dollars in new credit and career politicians slapped each other on the back as they congratulated themselves for "saving the economy" and "preventing another Great Depression."  The truth was quite the opposite.
The Great Recession was caused by the ridiculous application of the "mark to market" rule to investment securities backed by government created and insured mortgages.  Where did the investment securities that ended up causing all of the problems come from?  HUD.  If HUD, and its various branches, had not been involved in the mortgage business the Great Recession never would have happened.  But the Great Recession is not HUD's only legacy.  Federal housing programs on Indian reservations, which former Secretary of the Interior James Watt once described as the greatest example of the failure of socialism this country has ever seen, are also creations of HUD.  Anyone who has ever visited an Indian reservation can simply look around and see evidence for Watt's assertion everywhere.  Furthermore, HUD dollars have been involved in creating many of the greatest slums and ghettos in the history of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  Public housing, as it is called, is created by career politicians seeking reelection and HUD is commissioned to bring it into existence.  There is no long term example of a successful public housing project in the history of the universe.  Without exception all public housing projects end up becoming slums.  Thanks HUD!
HUD has hundreds of different scams going at the same time.  Go here to see the list of programs currently wasting enormous amounts of taxpayer dollars.  It is a good thing that HUD is funded by the top 49% of the income population alone.  If the bottom 51% of the income population in this envy-filled country were forced to fund it, it would not be around for long.  As it is, the bottom 51% uses HUD programs to transfer the wealth from the top to themselves.  HUD is, as is the case with all government programs, nothing more than a wealth transfer scheme.
This rant against HUD was precipitated by an article I read in the newspaper yesterday.  In addition to the hundreds of economically harmful programs administered by HUD, the agency is also responsible for going about and persecuting landlords as they seek to engage in mutually voluntary contracts with their tenants.  They call this behavior "anti-discrimination" enforcement and they brag about how they have brought social justice to the SDA by seeking out and prosecuting landlords who discriminate against tenants, whatever that means.
Yesterday was a case in point.  The title of the article was, "Lakewood landlords charged with family discrimination."  The article went on to inform me that, "Federal housing officials announced they have charged a group of Lakewood landlords with relegating families with children to apartments in the rear of a complex."  The HUD press release declared that HUD operatives had gone undercover at an apartment complex in Lakewood and discovered "an ongoing practice of illegally steering families with children to apartment units in the rear building of the complex, while renters without children were offered units in the front building."  Horror of horrors!  Can anyone imagine a more serious example of man's inhumanity to man than this?  This makes Hitler look like a Boy Scout.  This makes Stalin look like a humanitarian. Call Rosa Parks.  How can anyone be relegated to the rear of anything these days?  The article concluded by saying that "HUD is seeking a $16,000 civil penalty against each landlord."
Let us admit that the owners of this apartment building have clearly told their leasing agents to discriminate when it comes to where various tenants are placed on their complex.  And let us admit that a clear pattern of discrimination exists in regards to families, as families with children are being segregated into a particular building, or set of buildings, in the rear of the complex.  But the question that is not being asked is why?  Why would the landlords do what they are doing?  Are they just evil racists who hate children and who like to make the lives of other people miserable?  Do they derive a perverted joy from conjuring up images of public busing in the south prior to the civil rights movement?  Just what motivates these monsters to do what they do? 
One owner attempted to explain the practice of his ownership team by informing the reporter from the newspaper that putting families with children in buildings further away from a busy street and closer to a playground seemed to make good sense for all parties involved.  It also made good sense to have families with children close to one another so they could make friends and socialize.  It also made sense to have families with children closer to one another so the parents could help one another as situations arose with their children.  And, as the landlord said to the reporter, "It isn't what they say it is.  We have always allowed kids in the front building."  Apparently the idiots at HUD never bothered to ask why the landlords were exercising this particular type of discrimination.  They never considered the possibility that everyone involved with the situation was happy with the outcome, except for some government worshiping busy-body who brought this non-event to HUD's attention.  All the HUD officials could see was discrimination and somebody was going to have to pay.
HUD did not explain why its agents did not more intensely investigate other forms of discrimination that were taking place at the apartment complex.  My own personal investigation has revealed that some families with children are being placed in apartments with white paint on the walls while others are being placed in apartments with egg-shell colored paint on the walls and none of the tenants had a choice in the matter.  Indeed, they were not even informed of the difference.  In all cases where a tenant was placed in an apartment with white paint there was a clear link to that person or persons being of Welsh or Scottish descent.  I detect an Irish plot here somewhere.
In cases of apartments near the front of the complex I discovered that elderly tenants were always placed on the ground floor of the buildings while younger tenants were forced to climb stairs to enter their units.  A more clear example of discrimination cannot be found.  To make matters even worse, all tenants were placed haphazardly when it came to which direction the largest window in their unit was facing.  No attempt was made by the leasing agent to determine if a potential tenant might suffer from Seasonal Affective Disorder.  No doubt many tenants who suffer from SAD are now in units with less natural sunlight than tenants who do not suffer from the disorder.  But it gets even worse.  The leasing agent did not perform a hearing test on all prospective tenants to determine who might be most impacted by the traffic noise emanating from the busy street near the front of the complex.  In a clear act of discrimination the landlords allowed people with superior hearing to live in apartments facing the street, thus seriously eroding their quality of life, while practically deaf tenants were living in the relative quiet of inner facing apartments.  I could go on and on.  Maybe you can come up with some examples of discrimination of your own.  They are everywhere.
This report, from February of this year, informs me that, "The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) today unveiled President Obama’s proposed HUD budget for Fiscal Year 2016 which is focused on helping to secure quality housing for Americans; to end homelessness; to make communities more resilient from natural disasters; to protect people from housing discrimination; and to provide critical rental assistance for millions of extremely poor families.  The 2016 budget includes $49.3 billion to support these efforts, representing a $4 billion, or 8.7 percent, increase over current levels."  Fifty billion dollars is all these noble warriors are allocated from the federal pie to perform their heroic works?  This is an outrage.  That budget should be quadrupled.  After all, these god-like bureaucrats are "ending homelessness" in our time.  There should be no limit on how much taxpayer money they can spend on such a valiant and loving cause.  Furthermore, there is so much discrimination going on in the housing market I am amazed that people are even able to find rental units anymore.  All discrimination, just like that I described above, must be banished from the world forever.  I don't know about you but the next candidate for King that I am going to vote for had better include a massive expansion of the HUD budget if he expects to get my vote.

Thursday, October 8, 2015

Moral Law Is Determined By The Majority In The SDA

The nature of the philosophical and presuppositional beliefs under girding law systems are fundamental questions for any group of people living in a specific geo-political zone.  As a first principle it must be asserted that law always comes from and is a result of the religious beliefs of the people living in any particular geo-political zone.  The question is not if law is going to be religiously based, for that is a guarantee. The question is which religion is going to determine what the law shall be?  In the colonial period of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika the great majority of the thirteen colonies had law systems based upon some form of biblical law.  This made perfect sense since many of the citizens of those colonies were religious people, Christians specifically, seeking to live under their own system of law in a new land.  Since the SDA is now a post-Christian society, what makes up the basis for moral law in our country today?
To answer the question I have raised I take you to the front page of yesterday's Denver Post.  There I read an article entitled "6,000 will be freed early" that told me about how "the Justice Department is set to release about 6,000 inmates from prison to reduce crowding and provide relief to drug offenders who received harsh sentences in the past three decades."  King Obama commissioned a panel some time ago to look into the problem of people being caught with a bit of marijuana on their persons being sentenced to life in prison for their alleged crime.  Prior to a year or so ago it was a crime and an immoral action to have marijuana in your possession in Colorado.  Today it is a moral action and a good thing to have marijuana in your possession provided you live in Colorado or Washington.  People who got caught with marijuana in their possession prior to it becoming a moral thing to do, or in states where it is still immoral, are wasting away in prisons today.  King Obama wants to do something about that problem.
According to the article, "the panel estimated that its change in sentencing guidelines eventually could result in 46,000 of the nation's approximately 100,000 drug offenders in federal prison qualifying for early release."  Imagine that.  Forty six thousand people have had their lives ruined by the federal "justice" system and now they have an opportunity to be released from the prisons they never should have been sent to in the first place.  What are they going to get for their time?  Nothing, of course.  The federal government never admits to making mistakes.  Some of these poor souls have been languishing in prison cells for over twenty years for nothing more than being caught with a bit of marijuana in their pockets.  Nevertheless, they will not receive so much as an apology when they are granted "early release" by their federal persecutors.
Federal Public Defender Virginia Grady said, "Releasing the 6,000 offenders is a small step in the right direction.  It would take new laws to remedy a program stemming from onerous laws passed by Congress in the mid 1980s.  Congress needs to rethink its approach to mandatory sentencing....its a terrible way to govern people."   She got that right.  Congressmen enacted absurdly severe criminal sentences for activities that do not even constitute biblical crimes, or sins if you wish, in order to appear tough on crime and ensure their status as career politicians.  They did not care one whit about the people whose lives they were destroying as long as they could provide a good sound-bite and get perpetually reelected.  They also knew that they could appeal to a majority of the citizens in this immoral country who looked to civil government to enforce "law and order" and provide personal security for all.  The more innocent people were thrown in jail, however, the more the opinion of the majority began to turn.  That brings us to today's situation where states are seriously considering the legalization of drugs that used to be punished with harsh prison sentences.
The change in federal prison policy has come about because "The US Sentencing Commission voted unanimously for the reduction last year after holding two public hearings in which they heard testimony from former Attorney General Erick Holder, federal judges, federal public defenders, state and local law enforcement officials, and sentencing advocates. The panel received more than 80,000 public comment letters, with the overwhelming majority favoring the change."  Well there you have it.  The majority has spoken again and this time they want those previously incarcerated for non-criminal activities to be granted "early release."  It must be nice to be a part of the law-making majority but it is sure a bummer to be one of those upon whom the fickle laws of the land created by that majority are enforced.
Make no mistake, these people should be released from prison.  Indeed, tens of thousands of citizens incarcerated under state and local judicial systems should also be released.  But that is not the point.  My point today is that when the law is created by majority vote we can be sure of two things.  First, the law will change all the time, usually contradicting what it stood for previously and always punishing people who are innocent of criminal activity.  Second, the perpetual change in law by the means of majority vote really does indicate that the citizens of the SDA worship not only the career politicians who rule over us but also themselves. Praise democracy for it has imprisoned thousands of innocent people.  Praise democracy for it has stolen income from millions of productive citizens.  Praise democracy because it has declared homosexuality a moral behavior.  And praise democracy for it has sentenced 30 million babies to death.  Democracy truly is the god that failed.  Isn't it time to give it up?

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Three Things I Have Learned From The Animal Kingdom

It seems like I learn something new every day.  I suspect that has a lot to do with the low level of information my knowledge reservoir started with.  I also suspect it has a lot to do with the outlet stream from my knowledge reservoir that seems, despite my best efforts to the contrary, to continually allow knowledge to flow away downstream.  Then, when I least expect it, some of that knowledge comes back through an inlet stream and it seems to me as if it is new.  I have learned many things over and over again.  I guess that is one advantage of getting older.
One thing that I learn a lot from is the animal kingdom.  I observe what goes on in the animal kingdom and things jump out at me as obvious truths that I might not have appreciated in the absence of my experience with the animals.  Allow me to tell you about three things I have just recently learned, or maybe relearned, from animals.
I spent my early years stomping around the Jemez mountains of northern New Mexico.  I did a fair bit of stomping and never once recall ever stepping on a mouse.  That does not meant that I did not step on a mouse at some point or another.  Those little fellas tend to hide in the grass and it is possible I could have crushed one without even knowing it.  But it is not my usual practice to go around stepping on tiny critters so you can imagine my surprise when I discovered that parts of the country where I used to roam freely are now off limits to me.  Here is the story from a local paper published in Los Alamos, a town in the Jemez mountains that is also experiencing a serious drop in the right to move about freely:
"The Santa Fe National Forest today issued a closure order for four areas on the Jemez Ranger District that have been identified as occupied habitat for the endangered New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. The closure areas are located along the Rio Cebolla and San Antonio Creek in the Jemez Mountains. In October 2014, the Forest constructed temporary fences in marshy areas along the Rio Cebolla and San Antonio Creek to protect the mouse’s habitat. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) listed the mouse as an endangered species in June 2014, and these protections are needed until the Forest Service concludes consultation with the FWS.  The closure order will be in effect until rescinded. All activities are prohibited within the closure area."  And what is the punishment for a transgressor of the rules?  The article continued, "Forest Service personnel will enforce the closure. Violations are punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000 for individuals and $10,000 for organizations, imprisonment of not more than six months, or both."
Well there you have it.  Entire sections of mountain land where I previously would go to hike are now closed to humans because some stray human might step on and kill a jumping mouse.  Personally I don't see how that can happen.  If the mouse is able to jump it should be able to jump out of the way of the footfall of a human.  But who am I to question my superiors who work in government?  They always know what is best.  Pity the poor soul that might accidentally step upon a blade of grass within the protected zone.  He does not even have to kill a mouse before being sent up to the big house in Santa Fe to serve six months.  And his wallet will be $5k lighter as well.  I conclude one thing from this experience with the animal kingdom.  The government of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika cares more about jumping mice than it does unborn babies.  Mice live, babies die. Mice are protected by law.  Babies are murdered by law.  No government can last long with an agenda like that.
I was driving down the road the other day when I saw a familiar bumper sticker.   It informed me that "Garbage Kills Bears."  I have seen a fair number of bears in my day.  I have never seen one eating garbage nor have I ever seen a dead one, despite my best efforts at casting hot lead in their general direction on occasion.  But I believe what the bumper sticker was telling me.  That does not mean that I believe bears die of coronary heart disease when they eat discarded quarter pounders with cheese.  Nor do I believe that they die from strange diseases when they end up eating cast off genetically modified foods.  I believe the point of the bumper sticker is that bears which become accustomed to eating in dumps lose the ability to forage for food on their own and become entirely dependent upon their human benefactors.  That inevitably leads to an early demise.
As I pondered the acknowledged fact that bears which become accustomed to hand-outs from humans inevitably lose all initiative to provide for themselves and, thus, ensure themselves a short and miserable future it occurred to me that I had just learned something else from the animal kingdom.  According to the career politicians who rule over me it is true that garbage kills bears because it makes them dependent upon humans.  On the other hand, they tell me, it is false that government distributed welfare destroys human initiative and puts human beings in a state of despondent welfare dependence.  What the career politicians and bureaucrats are telling me is clearly false.  Spend five minutes in an unemployment line or a welfare office and it will become obvious that those who inhabit such places are zombies, just like bears in the dump.  What I conclude from my experience with bears is that animals tell me the truth but career politicians are pathological liars, especially when it comes to justifying welfare programs.
I was taught, during my government school days, that every animal that exists has come into existence through the process of evolution.  The mechamism of evolution, as I was also instructed, consists primarily of environmental change, genetic change and a whole lot of time going by.  As the environment changes and as the creatures that live within that environment experience genetic change it is inevitable that they will evolve to best fit the new conditions.  That concept is known as survival of the fittest and it was presented as a scientific fact as well as a generally good thing to believe in.  The operation of the principle of the survival of the fittest ensures that only those animals that are best adapted to the environment will continue and that, I was informed, was a morally good state of affairs. 
Notwithstanding what I was taught about evolution by means of changes in the gene pool, many people in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika today believe that genetically modified organisms are a terrible blight upon our land. They want the government of the SDA to ban all genetic modification.  They are convinced that genetic modification will eventually destroy us all in some sort of environmental Armageddon.  Many of the same people who believe GMOs are horrific also believe that changes to the environment are horrific as well.  Although they agree with the doctrines of evolution in regards to the necessity of environmental change to bring about progress, they take the contradictory position that environmental change is somehow evil when it impacts them.  Following their logical contradiction they proceed to make impassioned pleas to their career politicians, begging them to enact new laws that will save the environment from human impact.  Certainly they must be aware that if the government were capable of doing so it would bring evolution to a quick halt. 
Most of the folks who believe that genetic and environmental change are evil also believe in evolution. Believers in evolution staunchly profess their belief that man is simply the current pinnacle of the animal kingdom and will inevitably be replaced by something else as the process of evolution, including genetic and environmental change, marches inexorably onward.  Yet when those same people who profess faith in evolution see the mechanisms of evolution working in our world today they call upon their government to spend trillions of taxpayer dollars to stop them.  The human animal, as evolutionists refer to themselves, profess to believe in the rightness and moral propriety of evolution until their ox is being gored and then all bets are off.  My observations of the human animal lead me to believe that he is desperately evil in all of his thoughts and behaviors and will do anything to suppress the truth about the world found in the Bible.  The best way for the human animal to suppress the truths about the world discovered in the Bible is to worship the government and its career politicians.  As proof for my believe consider what a strange contradiction is presented by human animals who profess to believe in evolution, until they don't. 

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Ripping Off The Rich In California

According to a story found here, California is a sterling example of how career politicians and bureaucrats can use fiscal policy to manage a state economy into a condition of prosperity for all.
"California was hit hardest by the recession, but the Golden State has come roaring back with a vengeance. A new tech boom, the housing recovery and a temporary tax increase approved by voters under Proposition 30 have led California out of a deficit and into a budget surplus. Unemployment has fallen from a peak of 12.4 percent to 6.1 percent.  Under Prop 30, the highest tax bracket in the state moved to 13.3 percent, and capital gains are taxed as regular income. The state says an estimated 10 percent of total personal income tax revenue comes from capital gains, or about $12 billion this year. 'So far we have not seen a big drop (in tax revenues), but there's a real risk,' said Jerry Nickelsburg, senior economist for the UCLA Anderson Forecast. He added that the risk could increase if Prop 30 is extended past its 2018 expiration date, 'because it extends this extraordinary dependence that we have on high-income earners.'  H.D. Palmer of the state Department of Finance said tax revenues in the fiscal year that started July 1 are 'so far, so good.' However, he is keeping an eye on the stock market: 'Just 1 percent — about 150,000 of the returns — are responsible for more than 45 percent of all the personal incomes taxes paid in California.'"
So let me get this straight.  A career bureaucrat believes California is a beautiful example of how career politicians can manage an economy to stratospheric heights of prosperity and growth.  As evidence for his position he points out that California had a public vote about whether to confiscate a significant portion of the politically unprotected top 1% of the income population in the state.  To nobody's surprise the final result of the democratic process ended up forcing the top 1% of the income population of California to pay almost half of all state income taxes.  Since there are a lot of wealthy people in California, like movie stars, musicians and athletes, the state is experiencing a windfall of revenues as the new tax rate kicks in.  As further evidence for his position that stealing huge amounts of income from the politically unprotected top 1% of the income population by means of the democratic process is a dandy way to conduct government business, the career bureaucrat cites the rate of economic growth in California as proof for his position.  Here is a graph of the real gross domestic product for California since 1998:

Since recovering from the Great Recession California has experienced a rate of growth of about 2.5% annually.  Proposition 30, which was unconstitutionally enacted retroactively, began on January 1, 2012 and is set to expire at the end of 2018.  Does anyone really believe it will expire?  Neither do I. Regardless, do you see any evidence in the GDP graph shown above that economic growth shot upward starting in 2012?  Neither do I.  In fact, the initial impact of the new tax was a very small decline in the rate of GDP growth.  That hardly constitutes a smashing success, unless you are a career bureaucrat seeking to justify your paycheck.  The only thing the tax increased accomplished was to transfer enormous sums of money from rich private citizens to the government of California.  In case you are not aware, giving large sums of money to career politicians never ends well. 
The graph below shows the real gross domestic product for Texas for the same time period.  Texas does not have a state income tax.  It does not take a statistical genius to see that Texas is growing much faster than California, without the alleged benefits of a state income tax stuffing the state coffers.  Is it possible that taxation actually retards growth?  Is it possible that the best thing the politicians in California could have done would have been to reduce taxes?   Is it possible that the career politicians in California are really only concerned with saving their own salaries and pensions?  Me thinks so.

Jerry Nicklesburg (I wonder if he is counting his nickles?) admits that there is a "real risk" that rich folks in California will get tired of paying the entire bill and move elsewhere.  Ya think?  He thinks that is especially true if the tax gets extended, as it inevitably will.  Ya think?  How can these people be so amazingly stupid?  Answer:  they are career politicians pandering to the sinful envy of the majority of the citizens in the envy-filled state of California.  They are not really stupid, they are heroes who deserve the praise of the public.
The top 10% of the income population in California now pays 80% of all state income taxes.  Please explain how that is fair.  Please explain why that is not theft.   Please explain why it is moral when the majority of the people living in an arbitrary geo-political zone make the decision to take away large amounts of money from the minority of people living within the confines of that zone.  Please explain why that is not simply theft by majority vote.  Please explain why the God of the Bible should not bring judgment upon the thieves responsible for this state of affairs. 
California is one of the most socialistic states in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  As such it has been leading the way in theft, destruction of private property and expansion of government for many years.  This latest grab on the part of the career politicians, despite their present beliefs and assertions about its ignominious success, will end in miserable failure.  Mark my words, California will sink again.