San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, December 23, 2016

Christmas Is For Christians

A lot of Evangelicals become upset this time of year and they often speak about "taking Christmas back" or "putting Christ back into Christmas."  Although I understand what they are saying when they utter those phrases it seems to me they are operating with a false presupposition about the nature of religious belief in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika today.  The biggest false assumption made by those who want to take Christmas back is that a true biblical conception of Christmas actually existed in the minds and souls of the citizens who populate this country in the first place.
The SDA has never been a Christian country, despite what Evangelicals love to believe.  It is impossible to ratify a constitution that legitimizes and mandates a secular civil government and be a Christian nation at the same time.  It is impossible to reject the law of God in civil government and claim to be a Christian nation.  The law of a nation always reveals its operational deity.  It is impossible to require no religious test for those who seek to rule over us and claim to be a Christian nation at the same time.  The total number of true Christians who live in this land has no doubt fluctuated throughout the years but, make no mistake, this has never been a God-honoring Christian nation.
Joseph Sobran writes this about how Christians in this country don't fully appreciate the true nature of Jesus' teachings, as well as biblical Christianity, and its opposition to the civil government of the SDA, "Sometimes I think the anti-Christian forces take Christ more seriously than most nominal Christians do. The Western world, including many of those who consider themselves Christians, has turned Christmas into a bland holiday of mere niceness. If you don’t get into the spirit, you’re likely to be called a Scrooge....Nice? That’s hardly the word for Jesus. He performed miracles of love and mercy, but he also warned of eternal damnation, attacked and insulted the Pharisees, and could rebuke even people who adored him in words that can only make us cringe....Such a strong, indeed unique, personality could only meet strong — and unique — resistance. This is why Christians shouldn’t resent the natural resistance of those who refuse to celebrate his birth. In their way, those people are his witnesses too."
Christmas is not for God-hating pagans.  If God-hating pagans want to celebrate some warm fuzzy midwinter event by hypocritically speaking about peace, joy, love and goodwill towards men, let them do it on their own time.  It will only add to the weight of their eternal punishment.  Why should true Christians care about what other people do in the name of Christ?  Jesus Himself will deal with them.  We should leave them alone or call them to repent of their sins and let Jesus deal with their blasphemies.
I watched "A Charlie Brown Christmas" again last night.  Your probably read about the government school teacher in Texas who ran afoul of the powers that be when she posted Linus' speech, taken from Luke 2 in the Bible, on the door to her room.  The principal ordered her to take it down.  A compromise was eventually reached and she was permitted to leave the words from the Bible on her door.  I would not have allowed that.  If I worked for the government I would enforce a strict separation of the Christian church and the government schools.  No Bible verses would ever be allowed in my school in any form.  Any student who quoted the Bible would be expelled for the sin of intolerance.  But that is just me.  I try to live consistently with my beliefs although I realize that most people just want to experience good feelings throughout life.
As much as I love Linus' speech in the television show from the 1960s, the writers left one important part of the passage out.  Luke 2: 13- 14 says, "And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.'"  I have highlighted the part that everyone always leaves off.  Were you aware that the phrase "peace among men on earth" is incomplete?  Did you know that the angels added the extremely important qualifier, "with whom He is pleased" to the group he blesses with peace?  Most people are not.  Indeed, most people would consider me to be harsh, intolerant, extreme, and unloving simply for pointing out this important truth.  God does not grant peace to men on earth with whom He is not pleased and, as far as I can tell, He is not pleased with most people.
On the contrary, when we seek out God's opinion about the citizens of the earth we find this rather caustic analysis, "There is none righteous, not even one.  There is none who understands.  There is none who seeks for God.  All have turned aside, together they have become useless.  There is none who does good, not even one."  You will find that passage in Romans 3.
The history of mankind is not one of peace.  It is one of war, ceaseless, endless, destructive war.  The history of the SDA is exactly the same.  Precious few are the years this country has not been at war with some other foreign land.  Why do men wage war endlessly? God answers that question as well.  The answer is found in James 4: 1-3.  It says, "What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you?  Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members?  You lust and do not have, so you commit murder.  And you are envious and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel.  You do not have because you do not ask.  You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures."  That sums up human nature pretty well, don't you think?  It also sums up Amerikan foreign policy and the Amerikan political process with perfection. 
A Christian is a person who agrees with God about His opinion of men and who then makes the voluntary decision to repent of his sin and promise to be obedient to the Word of God for the rest of his life.  A Christian is a person who can be forgiven of his sin because of the propitiatory sacrifice of the sinless Son of God.  A Christian is a person who celebrates the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity in the God-Man Jesus the Messiah.  That is what a Christian celebrates at Christmas and if you are not a Christian you would be wise to not pretend to be one this time of year.  Be true to yourself.  Pagans should celebrate their utterly ridiculous belief that men are basically good and able to save themselves by doing good deeds that outweigh their bad deeds which then forces God to allow them into heaven.  Worshipers of the civil government of the SDA should praise their career politicians and lobby them for special privileges in the coming year, all in the name of equity and fairness of course.  Christians should fall on their knees and thank God that He sent His Son to be their savior.  Christmas is really only for Christians because only Christians understand what it means.  There is nothing wrong with that.

Note to regular readers:  I am taking next week off.  I will return in the new year.  Until then, Merry Christmas to Christians and a short prayer for the rest of you that you will repent before it is too late.

Thursday, December 22, 2016

Global Warming Kills Donner And Blitzen

In an article entitled "Rudolph is Shrinking:  Climate Change is Shrinking Santa's Reindeer," author Laura Geggei makes the following assertions:
  • Reindeer are shrinking, and it's not because they're on a diet for the holidays. Rather, climate change is making it difficult for them — and their gestating fetuses — to survive extreme winters, new research shows.
  • The findings are the culmination of a 16-year study on the reindeer living Svalbard, a Norwegian archipelago located between Norway and the Arctic. In 1994, the adult reindeer in Svalbard weighed an average of 120 lbs. (55 kilograms), but in 2010, they weighed less than 108 lbs. (49 kg), on average — a 10- to 12-percent drop in weight.
  • The drop in weight was linked to warmer winters and summers...But warm winter temperatures have increasingly brought rain, not snow, Albon said. Then, when temperatures drop, the wet ground freezes like an ice rink, with the reindeer's tasty lichen stuck beneath the ice. Unable to get to their food, hundreds, if not thousands, of reindeer die.
  • In the winter, over the 20 years we've been working there [Svalbard], the temperature has gone up 9 degrees Celsius [16.2 degrees Fahrenheit]
  • The warmer summer adds a complication, Albon said. When Svalbard is warm and sprouting with food, reindeer are more likely to mate. That means the reindeer population is growing despite the frequent, severe ice-rink winters, he said.
Did you get all that?  I will come back to the specifics in a moment.  But first, consider this climatological data about Norway that I extracted from a global-warming friendly website:
  • For the period 1900-2008 as a whole, the annual mean temperature in Norway has increased by about 0.9°C. Dependent on geographical region, the increase in an­nual temperature varies from 0.5 to 1.1°C. The largest increase is found during spring, where the mean tem­perature has increased by 0.7-1.4°C
And this comment from another website:
  • When it comes to the normal temperature distribution in winter, two main features are evident: firstly, the mean temperature in the winter months are above freezing all along the coast from Lista (Vest-Agder) to the Lofoten area (Nordland). Secondly, the lower inland areas, both in the southern and northern part of Norway, have very low mean temperatures in winter. The Finnmark Plateau is the coldest area with mean monthly temperatures around -15 °C
The panic-stricken article prematurely announcing the deaths of Donner and Blitzen seems designed to add another voice to the cacophony of screams decrying the alleged fact that global warming is going to kill everything on the surface of the earth in the next few years.  I found the article by doing a Google search entitled, "What real harm has global warming done in 2016?"  The group of researchers who wrote the article were looking for something else when they noticed the average weight of a particular population of reindeer had dropped over the past two decades.  They conclude that the average weight has dropped due to global warming but does that conclusion make sense in light of their own observations?
They claim that the temperature in the area they are working has increased by 9 degrees C over the twenty years they have been working there but their own global-warming friendly temperature records indicate that the mean temperature in Norway has only increased by 0.7 to 1.4 degrees C in the past 108 years.  Even allowing for regional differences it is very hard to believe that a real 9 degree temperature change has occurred in their region of study.  Even granting that for some unknown reason their region has really experienced that severe of a temperature change, it is clearly limited to that region and of no value when describing conditions throughout all of Norway.
Apparently a series of ice storms in the winter that have been peculiar to that archipelago have caused the available forage to decrease, resulting in the starvation of more reindeer during the winter season than previous average starvation rates during the winter.  Yet, as the comment about temperature distribution throughout Norway indicates, coastal areas routinely experience above freezing temperatures during the winter months.  If these areas are now experiencing a higher than average incidence of freezing events it would seem to be the case that temperatures in the area have gone down rather than up.
I find it fascinating that the overall population of the reindeer in this area is increasing, despite their smaller size.  The author readily admits that the warmer summers are a "complication" but why should that be so?  Would not warmer summers allow for more biomass to grow, thus allowing the reindeer to consume even more food and grow even larger?  Why are they convinced that the smaller size is directly tied to global warming?  I believe I can make a plausible empirical argument that global warming should not only increase the population of reindeer but also their relative size.  If they are shrinking in size there must be another, localized, cause for that reality.
Ultimately, even if the arguments made by the author are true and global warming is creating a larger population of smaller reindeer in an obscure part of Norway, what difference does that make to the price of tea in China?  This is simply another example of their god in action.  I have never met a single environmentalist who was not committed to the religion of evolution.  Survival of the fittest and natural selection in light of climate change determine the direction of evolution.  Clearly the larger population of smaller reindeer are adapting to their environment better than the smaller population of larger reindeer.  Why is that a problem?  Why should that be a reason to write another article complaining about the evils of global warming?  Ultimately, why should anyone give a hoot?  I certainly don't.
By the way, I mentioned my Google search for actual harm done in 2016 by global warming above. I didn't find a single article describing any real harm done to anyone or anything living in any part of the world in 2016.  I found thousands of articles about lots of ice dying but little more than that.  Maybe global warming is actually a good thing for the living creatures that populate the earth?  I sure think so.  And now I am going to go for a drive around town for a while.  My only goal is to put more carbon emissions into the air and increase the rate of global warming.  I am tired of the cold winters around here.

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

You Must Watch "Dateline"

I will readily admit to being a fan of the television show Dateline.  It is on Friday night and usually features a story of one spouse murdering another, usually for money and almost always due to an ongoing adulterous affair.  That, however, is not the reason I find the show so mesmerizing.  I watch the show to witness, first hand and in real life, the immoral operations of the cops and the district attorneys responsible for administering justice in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  If you are still unconvinced that the judicial system in this God-hating country is corrupt to the very core, you need to watch the show.
Last Friday's show was a case in point.  In a rare move, the show was divided into two one hour segments.  After watching the show I seriously suspect that that was done on purpose as a means to illustrate just how evil the cops and district attorneys in this land are.  The first story was a follow up on a man who was convicted of murdering his wife, on slim circumstantial evidence alone, who had served 15 years of his prison sentence when he was finally given a new trial, his fourth, and found not guilty.
The murdered wife was never found.  No murder weapon was ever found.  The only evidence against the husband was a small amount of blood on a carpet in the hallway that the DA claimed was evidence of massive blunt force trauma to the head of the deceased.  While doing their sterling detective work the cops assigned to the case ignored the testimony of a man who said he saw another man fighting with the wife just prior to her death, outside the family home and near where her car was found the next day.  He provided a solid description of the man and corroborating witnesses confirmed that the wife had been drinking heavily and playing sexual games with the man that night at a bar, as well as the fact that they left the bar together.  That man has long since disappeared.
Immediately after the woman was declared missing the cops swept in upon the husband and began their usual ritual of the psychoanalysis of his behavior.  According to them he did not behave the way a bereaved husband should behave.   Rather than doing some actual police work they harassed him and attempted to construct a circumstantial theory revolving around the blood on the rug that could get him convicted in a court of law.  The usual jury of dimwitted individuals intent upon seeing themselves on the news as members of the jury in a high profile case were selected.  And as usual, the jury found him guilty and sentenced him to prison.  He appealed two separate times and both times he was sent back to prison.  Finally, he appealed once more, using some legal maneuver that I did not understand that granted him the ability to do so, and agreed to waive his "right" to a jury trial.  The same evidence was presented in the same fashion as before and it took the judge about 20 minutes to declare him not guilty and set him free.  Fifteen years of his life had been stolen because the cops were lazy and the publicity seeking DA wanted a high profile conviction.
The second story is the reverse of the first.  You had to see it to believe it.  An air-headed prostitute, pretending to be a realtor, marries a convicted con man and they set up their home in a prestigious south Florida community.  The man is seriously trying to go straight and pay off the debts he owned from his prior conviction while his wife, the lisping air-head, is trying to hire a hit man to kill him so she can get his condo and his cash.  The situation becomes known to the police and they video her on several separate occasions attempting to hire a hit man for the job.  Eventually a cop posing as a hit man takes the job.
In a very fun series of events the woman comes home from her morning Orange Theory class to discover that her husband had been "killed."  She plays the role of the grieving wife to perfection, not knowing that her husband is alive and well and waiting for her at the police station.  She is taken to the station and the plot is revealed.  Rather than confessing her guilt she continues to assert her innocence and then proceeds to concoct three different stories, one for her original defense and two more for each appeal, about what had actually happened.  She was convicted all three times.  It was hard not to.  The evidence was considerably more than circumstantial.
After telling three different stories she is finally able to get another trial, I don't remember how that happened, in which her scum bag lawyers finally came up with a winning lie.  It just so happened that the television show Cops had filmed the entire scene as it went down.  Her story was now that she was a victim of a police set up.  According to her, the police set her up to have a good story for the television show to record.  She claimed that all of the video evidence was falsified and that she was a "spiritual" person who "loves God" tremendously.  Her lawyers made the same profession of faith.  She screened her jurors carefully and filled the box with more air-headed fools who believed her preposterous story and cut her loose.  It is hard to imagine anyone could be so stupid as to believe her story but it happened and a woman who attempted to murder her husband for cash is now walking about freely.
The SDA judicial system is in shambles.  Innocent people are being sent to prison based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence and a good story spun by aggressive DAs looking for the spotlight.  Meanwhile, low-life clumps of human detritus, known as defense attorneys, are getting clearly guilty people off scot-free by making up bizarre and unbelievable stories that play well to stupid jurors.  If there is one lesson to be learned from Dateline it is this....never talk to the cops, always lawyer up immediately, never consent to a search or an interview and do your level best to give the primary players in the judicial game absolutely no information about yourself or the circumstances you find yourself in. As they say, any information you give the cops will be used against you, even if it is only used to fabricate a preposterous story about how you murdered your wife.

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

It Is Christmas Time, A Perfect Time For Envy

Don't you just love the hypocrisy associated with Christmas?  People who hate God sing Christmas carols, thus increasing His wrath against them in the coming day of judgement if they fail to repent before they die.  People talk about love, peace and goodwill while fighting with each other in the shopping malls.  Families gather together to gossip about and slander one another.  People who only go to church services twice a year show up at church and the pastor, ever vigilant in his goal of increasing the membership rolls and the income to the church, preaches a bastardized and lie filled sermon designed to reinforce each man's view of himself; namely that God loves him and has a wonderful plan for his life this Christmas season.  Christmas is also a wonderful time for the expression of that lovely character quality known as envy.  Let me tell you a little Christmas tale today about envy and the Chipotle restaurant chain.
Chipotle is in trouble.  Third quarter revenues were down 22% y/y and the stock price has also dropped 26% this year.  All of these woes originally stemmed from the problem Chipotle had a year or so ago with quality control in regards to the food being served.  If I remember correctly, and I probably do not (and I am too lazy to look it up), some folks died after eating poisoned food from a Chipotle restaurant.  I don't remember how many folks died but I do recall it was a big news item for a month or so as Chipotle engaged upon several promotional stunts in an attempt to rehabilitate its reputation.  To date none of them have worked.
The Sunday Denver Post contained a story, in the Business Section, detailing Chipotle's woes.  That story described how Chipotle's woes no longer come from the ancient history of food poisoning but from a recent history of poor service and inferior quality food.  Gary Alfred, of Denver, responded to that story in yesterday's Letters to the Editor section of the paper.  Here is what Gary had to say, "It has been quite a while since I last visited my local Chipotle restaurant.  Improving the guest experience, as outlined in the Denver Post, is not something likely to encourage me to return. Such an experience is expected. Rather, if the new sole CEO Steve Ells would forgo his $10 million-plus annual salary and pledge to use the money to provide end-of-year bonuses to the restaurant's line workers, that would be quite welcoming.  With all the negativity surrounding the company, such a positive gesture around this holiday season would go a long way towards raising the profile of the company as a quality and responsible neighborhood employer."
Chipotle has 60,000 employees.  $10 million divided by 60,000 is $167/employee.  The average "team member" at Chipotle makes $25,000/year.  The average store manager makes $50,000/year.  Gary's proposed bonus would make up 0.67% of the average team members salary and 0.34% of the average store manager's salary.  Although I am sure nobody would turn his nose up at a free $167, do you really believe people would flock to Chipotle restaurants because the people working there each earned a year end bonus of $167?  That proposition stretches credulity.  Indeed, I suspect if Chipotle actually did give each employee a year end bonus of $167 the store would be castigated in the press for giving out such a stingy year end bonus.
Chipotle has a market capitalization of $11.3 billion. In the last fiscal year the company had gross revenues of $3.8 billion and EBITDA of $278 million.  The company's profit margin is 1.9%.  It pays no dividend on the more than 28 million shares outstanding.  Given the fact that the employees of the company are contract laborers and the shareholders of the company are the ones who have risked their money to provide a product to the public that has been, until recently, wildly popular, why should the CEO now be required to give up his salary and work for free?  Furthermore, if the CEO is to be required to forfeit his salary, why should it go to the employees instead of the shareholders?  The answer, of course, is Gary's envy demands it.
Gary is much holier than I am because he thinks about the little guy all of the time.  It drives him to madness that line workers at Chipotle are only making $25,000 year when the CEO of the company is making $10 million.  I wonder....how many times has Gary, when he used to go to Chipotle, voluntarily given some of his money to the line workers as a bonus for their service to him?  In other words, does Gary put his money where his mouth is or is he simply another loud-mouthed, envy filled hater of the free market?  I suspect the latter.
Chipotle, like all profit seeking corporations, is not organized to be a "responsible neighborhood employer."  Entrepreneurs risk their own money to serve the public by providing them goods and services they hope the public will buy at a price they can afford.  Employees are a fungible quantity and ultimately nothing more than an additional factor in the cost of doing business.  Chipotle serves millions of customers and should not be required to pay its employees one red cent more than the free market will bear for their labor services.  It is the customer who reigns supreme in the free market, not the employees who work for the company.  I wonder....how many jobs has Gary created in his neighborhood?  Do you think he has been a responsible neighborhood employer?  Chipotle has created 60,000 jobs.  How many has Gary created?  My guess is that Gary has never created a single job in his entire life.  Ah yes, Christmas time is a wonderful time to express your envy and display your hypocrisy, isn't it?

Monday, December 19, 2016

The Evil Empire's Nasty Plan For World Domination

In honor of the current Star Wars movie, I present to you a real world example of a true evil empire and its designs upon  world domination.  You must go to the following link and watch the seven minute clip found there before reading any of the commentary that follows.  Here is the link.
(If the link does not work, go here:   https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/12/gary-north/reversal-neocon-foreign-policy-takeover/)
Thanks to Gary North for providing the above link.  As North wrote about it, "things can be hidden in plain sight."  This startling speech excerpt, available for all the world to see on YouTube, was delivered in 2007 and contains a complete summary of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika's plans for the expansion of the Amerikan Empire around the world.  Please go watch the link now.

The speaker is not some leftist liberal or some rightist conspiracy theorist.  He is, "Gen. Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO."  The gist of his speech is that the military forces of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika have been and will be used to attack "seven countries in five years" in order to capitalize upon the demise of the Soviet Union by expanding the Empire throughout the Middle East while the Russians are down. If you read some of North's commentary you will note that he adroitly points out that the plan has now backfired.  Syria was next on the plan for destruction, after destroying Iraq and Afghanistan, but the Russians, under Putin, rose up and became strong enough to thwart SDA plans in Syria just within the last year.  It does not take a genius to realize that the current anti-Russian propaganda streaming out of the military-industrial complex is a response to this reality.  It also does not take a genius to realize that King Donnie is a major obstacle in the way of the hawkish Neo-cons who still want to dominate the world.
The SDA warmongers desperately wanted to unseat President Assad and they were willing to sacrifice the innocent lives of a half million Syrian citizens to accomplish their goal.  The SDA did manage to murder a half million innocent Syrians but failed in its goal of taking over Syria, thanks entirely to the presence of a strong Russia under Putin.  Assad remains in power and the SDA is highly unlikely to engage in any military attacks in Syria now that Russia is strong enough to fight back.  It is not the Amerikan way to fight people strong enough to fight back.  No, the Amerikan way is to occupy and rule countries that are defenseless in the eyes of the Empire.
How would you, as a citizen of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, feel if a powerful foreign government sent its military into your country in an attempt to overthrow your current King?  How mad would you become if that foreign military was responsible for the murder of a half million SDA citizens?  Would that make you angry enough to engage in a guerilla war against that occupying force?  If you said yes, you have now met the definition of a terrorist in the eyes of the SDA power brokers.  I realize you believe that you are a patriot for defending your country from a foreign occupying force but that is not the way the SDA defines a patriot. The SDA definition of a patriot is anyone who worships and adores the SDA military.
What is the constitutional basis for the Amerikan Empire? What is the moral basis for an offensive war against nations which have no intention or ability to attack the SDA?  Why are the taxpayers being legally required to finance these immoral wars of empire expansion?  Why are the soldiers who prosecute these immoral wars of empire building not charged with murder when they kill innocent foreigners who posed no threat to SDA security?  On the contrary, why are those same soldiers praised as heroes for their immoral acts of war against stinkin' foreigners around the world?  I know they all deserve to die for refusing to bow down before the Empire but please help me to understand....when did the American way become the way of Empire?  Who stole my country?  Is there any hope I can ever get it back?  I think not.

Friday, December 16, 2016

The Russian Obsession

Neo-cons (Cheney, Rumsfeld), warfare statist Republicans (Romney, Rubio, McCain), vote-seeking moderate Democrats (Hillary, Kerry)  and the military-industrial complex (nameless faces at the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, etc) all love Russia.  More precisely, they love to hate Russia.  It seems like everybody hates Russia, and its charismatic leader Vladimir Putin, except King-elect Donnie Trump.  Even the present King of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, Barak Obama, now hates Russia.  At one point in the not so distance past, four years ago to be exact, King Obama liked Vladdie, even telling him that after he won the next vote contest for the Kingship he would be able to move forward with cordial relations between his country and ours.  Now all of that has changed since the various spy organizations that operate on SDA taxpayer dollars have declared that Russia influenced the last election.  It does not matter that they have produced absolutely no evidence in support of their claim (just trust them, they tell us).  All that matters is that King Obama now hates Russia as well since, according to him, the evil Putin kept Hillary from becoming the first Queen of the SDA.
I find all of the firestorm surrounding the allegations that Russia influenced the SDA Kingship elections most amusing.  Even though there is absolutely no reason to believe we are being told the truth, I will grant that Vladdy was able to use his amazingly expert computer skills and hack into the DNC servers.  But, as the cops like to tell me all the time, "why not let us look around if you have nothing to hide?"  Hillie certainly would not have voluntarily allowed people who did not support her to look around her emails so Vladdy did us all a favor and revealed them to us on her behalf.  Once again I must ask, why all the brouhaha if Hillie and the DNC had nothing to hide?  Most folks in the SDA have abandoned and abolished the 4th Amendment based upon the belief that nobody should complain about being searched by government agents unless they have something to hide.  Clearly Vladdy is not the problem here.  The problem is the content of Hillie's and the DNC's email messages.  Why should Vladdy be blamed for what Hillie said and did?
Did Vladdy "influence the outcome" of the SDA voting contest?  Absolutely, if you believe revealing information about the various candidates that is true can be responsible for influencing how people will vote.  I am not privy to the information contained within the heads of hundreds of millions of SDA citizens but I can conceive how it is possible that many millions of them decided to vote against Hillie because of what they read in her emails.  But it was not Vladdy who changed their minds since he was simply the conduit for the information.  It was Hillie who changed their minds.  Her arrogance and elitist attitude could easily have turned off many of those who might have voted for her if she had been successful at keeping up her public image intact while distracting folks from what she is really like.
I find the media to be somewhat less than morally pure on this topic.  Conservatives, moderates and screaming liberals alike are maligning Vladdy for what he allegedly did.  Do they also expect me to believe that the "news" they reported to me during the election cycle was unbiased and not designed to favor a particular candidate?  Give me a break.  The only difference between what Vladdy did and what Fox News, CNN and MSNBC did during the last election cycle was....uhm....ahum.....well.....as I think about it.....I can't think of any difference.
JFK refused to go to war with Cuba, angering the hawks in Washington DC beyond belief.  He was dead a scant couple of years later.  Donnie refuses to go to war with Russia, even daring to befriend Vladdy over the protestations of the hawks in Washington DC.  Donnie would be wise to watch his back.  I can easily see how those in power who need to continually foster a hatred for Russia could be persuaded that it is good for one man to die so that the rest of them might continue to prosper.  (Note to the FBI agent reading this blog, oh how I flatter myself, this is not a threat.  Nobody should ever take up arms against their rulers.  Read the other posts to this blog to see that I have continually preached this truth.)
Those of you who hate Russia, I have a couple of questions for you:
  1. Why do you hate Russia, and Vladdy?  What has he ever done to you?  Be specific, what has he really done to you?
  2. Why are Russia's excursions into Ukraine and Syria any of our business?  If they are our business, please explain why it is not our business to defend the citizens of North Korea.
  3. What is the constitutional basis for the argument that the SDA has a responsibility to police Russia as it operates around the world?
  4. Since the only reason I can think of to vilify Russia as an enemy is directly tied to the belief that the SDA is morally required to be the biggest and baddest empire the world has ever seen, please explain why it is morally proper, or required, for the SDA to be the biggest and baddest empire the world has ever seen.
  5. What difference does it make if Russia becomes the next great world empire?  So what?  Who cares?  Why not let Russia deplete its economic resources maintaining a world-wide empire as we are doing today so the SDA can go back to business and produce things that people around the world want to purchase?
  6. Do you really and truly believe, as my Dad used to tell me, that we have only two choices:  either live in the greatest and most brutal empire the world has ever seen or suffer deprivation, torture and death under the rule of a communist dictator?
I predict that if the SDA withdrew militarily from all parts of the world not contained within the 50 states that make up the SDA we would never be attacked or harassed by Vladdy in any way.  Of course my prediction will never be tested.  The one thing all Amerikans agree upon is the primary importance of the protection and expansion of the Amerikan empire.  Shall we admit this truth this Christmas season?  Shall we joyfully proclaim peace on earth and good will towards men provided they first bow down before us?

Thursday, December 15, 2016

Another Sermonette, Free Of Charge

Titus 3:3 describes the moral condition of all people who are not true Christians.  It says, "For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another."  What a complete and accurate summary of the nature of unregenerate man that sentence is.  Let's consider it for a moment today.
I could preach an entire sermon on the various characteristics of sinful men found in the above verse.  But this is a sermonette, not a sermon, so I will focus on just one part of the sentence.  What interests me today is how God-hating reprobates spend their lives in "malice and envy,...hating one another."   I think it is especially appropriate during this time of year when so many have words like joy, love and peace on their lips to consider the true nature of human nature.  All human beings, in their natural state, are filled with malice, envy and hatred for their fellow men.  This is an incontrovertible fact and easily shown to be true by looking at the real world of human relationships.
Malice is defined as "the intention or desire to do evil."  Envy is defined as "the desire to have a quality, possession, or other desirable attribute belonging to someone else."  Hate is defined as "intense or passionate dislike."  Be honest with yourself and consider the relationships you are most familiar with.   Do not these three words characterize them perfectly?  If it were the case that good will towards men, joy at another's wealth and charity for all were the primary behavioral characteristics of men in this world we would live in a very different world than the one we do.  I think it is time to cease being hypocrites and admit the obvious.  Generally speaking, we are filled with hate, malice and envy for the people we know, especially those we know the best.
Let me get a bit more specific. Specifically, let's consider envy for a moment.  Envy is one of the seven deadly sins and, in the minds of most theologians, ranks second only to pride in its vileness.  A citation in Wikipedia states that, "According to St. Thomas Aquinas, the struggle aroused by envy has three stages: during the first stage, the envious person attempts to lower another's reputation; in the middle stage, the envious person receives either 'joy at another's misfortune' (if he succeeds in defaming the other person) or 'grief at another's prosperity' (if he fails); in the third stage the term is hatred, because 'sorrow causes hatred.'"  I think that is a pretty good summary.
In the first stage the envious person defames his target.  The rich are evil.  Enough said. In the second stage the envious person rejoices when the rich are fleeced by a new law and wail unceasingly when the rich become even richer.  Enough said. In the third stage hatred for the rich is a virtue.  Enough said.
Can anyone who has made the voluntary decision to vote tell me how the act of voting can ever been seen as anything other than an act motivated by envy or, conversely, an act motivated to protect the voter from the envy of another?  In every instance that I can think of during my lifetime, an affirmative vote for some candidate has always been based upon what that candidate promises "to do" for the person voting for him.  By definition a career politician can do nothing without funding and, also by definition, all government funding originates from taxation or inflation.  When an envy-filled person votes for a candidate who promises him free health insurance he is actually voting for a person who promises to take money from another person and give it to him.  When a person desirous of protecting his assets from depredation votes for a candidate who promises to not allow the civil government to create a law giving people the right to have free health insurance he is voting defensively against the envy-filled voter.  Has anyone ever seen any other type of vote or voter other than what I am describing here?  If so, I would like to know when, where and what it was.
Last month my neighbors voted to increase my property taxes in order to pay their government school teachers more money to babysit their children.  They won and I lost.  I will now be paying more money in taxes as a result of the fact that I lost.  Please explain, in moral terms, why I have not been robbed.  Please explain, in moral terms, how envy was not the root cause of the plan to raise my property taxes in order to generate funds to pay government school employees to babysit my neighbor's children.
Why are "the rich," whoever they are, demonized while the "working families" of this immoral land are canonized?  Because of envy, of course. Why is a person's moral standing in the universe determined by his net worth or his income?  Because of envy, of course.  Why is it considered to be a good thing to have civil government and career politicians enact laws to take money from one group and give it to another?  Because of envy, of course.  Why is income inequality (except in the case where government employees make more than those of us in the private sector) considered evil?  Because of envy, of course.  Why are the voting contests that are held annually in this land so hotly contested? Because of envy, of course.  Envy is the basis of all political action in this immoral land.  The only thing worse than envy is the pride seen in the actions and words of the victors of the annual voting contests as they make plans about how they are going to violently beggar their neighbors so long as they can retain the power to do so.  So please, don't talk about "goodwill towards men" this holy-day season.  It makes me sick to hear it. 

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

The First Shall Be Last

Jesus said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.  It is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave..."  Let's think about those words for a while today.
The immediate context of the passage is that of a conflict between the disciples of Jesus as to which one of them would be the greatest when He established His earthly Kingdom and put them upon 12 thrones to rule the world.    It would apply to civil leaders in our time as well.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely and limited power corrupts as well.  There is not one man in a thousand who can be entrusted to use legitimate power without becoming corrupted by it.  Jesus describes it well when He said that "the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them."  Those in power almost without exception become intoxicated by that power and begin to consider themselves superior to their underlings.  It does not take long before those in power come to believe that they are better than everyone else and, since they are superior human beings, they are entitled to extra privileges.
The entire political process in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika is infected, through and through, with this mindset.  Those in power use it to suppress and harass their enemies while those who seek that power will do anything necessary to obtain it.  Everyone knows and understands that those who win get the right to boss everyone else around until their term is up.  Then, whoever wins the next round of voting gets to do the exact same thing to their enemies.  The entire process has devolved to putting various power-mad people into positions of authority for various periods of time and encouraging them to beat up on the losers for as long as they can.  This truth accounts for the utter despair experienced and proclaimed by those who lose a voting contest.  They know that, for a time at least, they are going to be lorded over.
As regular readers are aware, I live in the midst of Yuppies.  I made the voluntary decision to buy a home in the midst of Yuppie-ville so I cannot complain about my predicament.  Living among Yuppies is a difficult and trying experience.  One of the most trying aspects of life with these poor souls is tied to the fact that they are all Type-A Obsessive/Compulsive personalities.  Yuppies are driven.  Yuppies are always in a hurry.  And Yuppies must always be first.  Let me tell you a few stories.
There is a two lane left turn near my home that leads to an arterial road that immediately leads to an Interstate highway.  Due to the accidents of geography most of the people who use the two lane left turn lanes intend to turn right onto the Interstate highway shortly thereafter.  I would estimate that it is about a quarter mile from the two lane left turn to the junction with the on-ramp to the Interstate highway.  When it is my intention to use the Interstate highway I use the right lane of the two lane left hand turn lanes.  That makes sense since it puts me into the right lane on the arterial, thus allowing me to merge on the on-ramp to the Interstate highway without switching lanes.  Guess what the Yuppies I live with do at this two lane left turn?  You got it!  Yuppies live life in the fast lane.  That means they use the left lane of the two lane left turn lanes and then scream forward, turn signal flashing, and force themselves into the right hand lane to merge onto the Interstate highway.  I cannot make this left turn without this happening at least once each time I am there.
Today I was heading out on to the road for a Dunkin Donut.  I stayed in the right lane as long as I could to avoid being overrun by Yuppies in their Lexi (plural of Lexus).  At the last moment, when there was nobody in sight behind me, I moved to the left lane in order to turn into the donut shop.  Immediately a Yuppie driver in her SUV was on my tail.  I don't know where these folks come from.  One minute they are not there and the next minute they are on my tail, clearly indicating they want me to get out of the way.  Not wanting to be rear-ended (it has happened to me before) I moved to the right, allowed the lady to scream past me, and missed my turn into the donut shop.  Not to worry, I circled around and got my donut.
My wife and I were leaving the local Costco a month or so ago.  It was a Saturday and the place was chock-full of Yuppies.  Costco, in case you do not know, is a "warehouse" store where items can be purchased in bulk and often at superior prices.  Before leaving the store each customer's cart is checked by a Costco employee to ensure nothing is being stolen.  Typically there are two lines that form as people are being checked on their way out of the store.  This day there were three lines.  As we were patiently waiting in line one highly agitated Yuppie male started shouting at the customers trying to leave the store, ordering them to get into the various lines in such a fashion as he could get out more quickly.  He clearly had little patience for people like us.
I was driving home from work in the late evening a couple of days ago when a Yuppie in an SUV came up quickly on my left side.  I was driving on the right lane of the road as he approached so I stayed put so as to avoid impeding his progress.  He was significantly exceeding the speed limit as he aggressively approached the rear bumper of the car ahead of him, also in the left lane.  He repeatedly honked his horn but the other Yuppie would not move over.  So he quickly changed lanes, moving to the right, and sped forward in the right lane.  At this point a stop light on the road ahead turned yellow and the Yuppie accelerated to get through the intersection. Flying through the now red light at a high rate of speed the Yuppie was quickly on the rear end of another Yuppie car, this time in the right lane.  He honked his horn aggressively as I watched the cars disappear over the hill and as I stopped for the red light.  If this were an isolated occurrence I would not mention it.  Unfortunately, this happens all the time where I live. 
I could go on and on with tales of fights for a place in line at the store, of races to the most prestigious tables in restaurants, of outrageous driving habits that indicate the Yuppie is the true center of the universe and of the general "me-first" attitude that dominates the people where I live.  Unlike my Yuppie compatriots, one of my goals in life is to stay out of the way of other people.  I will purposefully inconvenience myself to avoid getting in the way of the hot and bothered.  I will pull over or off the road multiple times each day to allow a hard-charging Yuppie to pass.  Being first in this life means very little to me.
As I witness the incredible level of selfishness evident in the lives of the people I am surrounded by, (I sound very self righteous, don't I?) I often find myself recalling the Bible verse I quoted at the start of today's post.  That verse gives me a powerful motivation to be last in this life.  I don't want the admiration of the public.  I don't want to even think about what others might think about me.  I don't want the biggest house or the fastest car.  I don't want to be at the head of the pack.  I don't want people to step aside to let me through.  I don't want to lord it over anyone.  I am pleased to do my best to stay out of the way for all of you who are clearly much more important than I am.
I will tell you what I do want however.  I want to be first in the Kingdom of Heaven.  That sounds awfully arrogant and selfish too, doesn't it?  It is not that I expect to be first in the Kingdom of Heaven.  That is a ridiculous belief not based upon any empirical evidence or spiritual facts.  But what I do want to see when I get to Heaven is those who spent all of their lives trying to be first among us being told that their time for prominence is over.  Psalm 23 says, in part, that God will prepare a table for His children in the "presence of their enemies."  He will do that to exalt them over the people who have lorded it over them during this life.  Who will you be, assuming you are a Christian and will get to Heaven?  (Non-Christians are doomed to the Lake of Fire and have no hope.)  Will you be one who Jesus invites to come forward or will you be one who Jesus instructs to move to the back of the room?  I am trying to live my life today in last place, hoping that the day will come when I will be invited forward. 

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Who Makes More: Government Or Free Market Employees?

According to a “News Release” from the Bureau of Labor Statistics within the U.S. Department of Labor dated December 8, 2016:
“Employer costs for employee compensation averaged $34.15 per hour worked in September 2016, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Wages and salaries averaged $23.42 per hour worked and accounted for 68.6 percent of these costs, while benefits averaged $10.73 and accounted for the remaining 31.4 percent. Total employer compensation costs for private industry workers averaged $32.27 per hour worked in September 2016. Total employer compensation costs for state and local government workers averaged $45.93 per hour worked in September 2016.” 
Here is a graphic comparing employee compensation for private sector workers and federal government employees:

                


As a young lad growing up I was repeatedly told that people gravitated to government jobs because they were secure and likely to last a lifetime, fully recognizing however that they would be paid much less than the equivalent job in the private sector    I believed that mantra, until recently when the facts forced me to change my mind.  According to the government’s own statistics, government workers, on average, make 40% more money, in both cash and benefits, than their free market counterparts.  That is a startling higher rate of compensation for performing the exact same job.  Indeed, the disparity of pay between the two groups is evident in all levels and types of employment except for those who hold professional degrees or doctorates.  Even there, however, the case can be made that wages are higher in the private sector for doctors, lawyers and the like only because they enjoy the benefits of a government monopoly subsidizing their incomes.  It seems like no matter how you cut it, government employees are always better off.
Why should government employees make so much more than their free market equivalents?  I can think of no logical, economic or moral reason why this should be so.  On the other hand, I think I know why things have become so distorted.  Let me explain.
The free market is subject to economic expansions and contractions.  Wages in the free market are directly tied to market conditions at the time.  The colossal decrease in wages that occurred in many jobs during the Great Recession set the rate of progress in wage gains dramatically backward for several years.  Only recently have wage gains recovered and exceeded their previous highs.  Government jobs, on the other hand, never experience any real world conditions.  Since revenues are provided by the twin pillars of inflation and taxpayer dollars there is no reason for government jobs to ever take a pay cut.  As a result, government jobs have continued to pay higher and higher rates regardless of market conditions.  Given enough time it is inevitable that government jobs will eventually pay more than the free market.  We are now there.
What should be done about this income inequality?  Where are the complaints from those who ceaselessly complain about income inequality in the free market? Where are the calls for government intervention like the ones we hear about CEO compensation and the wage gap between rich and poor?  Why is income inequality in the free market evil but good in the world of government?  I have no answers to those questions.  If you know of anyone who does please let me know.

Monday, December 12, 2016

Elise Metzger Expresses Her Concerns

Elise Metzger, of Glenwood Springs, is worried about many things.  In fact, she is so worried about so many things she took the time to write a letter to the editor of the Denver Post to express her concerns for readers like me to see.  Let's consider her concerns for a while today.  Here is her letter, in its entirety:
"It is great that we are predicted to get more jobs in the state, but construction jobs are not permanent.  Will the state have some type of plan to make sure that people coming in from other areas have work once the construction is complete?   Colorado's unemployment rate is currently one of the lowest in the country.  It would be too bad if that were to change due to the influx of people to fill these construction jobs.  Additionally, how does the state plan to keep up with this growth? Rent prices are high in most areas and there seems to be a shortage of places to live.  Where will these new workers stay?"  Let's consider some of Ellie's worries, comments and questions here today.
Elly, as her friends call her, is pleased to see that profit seeking corporations involved in building things in the geo-political zone known as Colorado have been hiring people to perform labor services for them.  Although she is pleased that new construction jobs have been created by the free market, she is very worried that these jobs created by the free market will not be eternal.  She knows that when profit seeking corporations no longer need labor to conduct their businesses the jobs associated with those activities will cease to exist.  This worries her.  She wants to know what should be done about the fact that jobs created by the free market are not eternal.
Elly puts her beliefs in the form of questions.  She does not ask why the profit seeking corporations do not create jobs that last forever.  Instead she ask the god of civil government what it is going to do about the fact that evil profit seeking corporations are unwilling to create jobs that are eternal.  She believes that by invoking her deity of civil government, and with unlimited taxpayer subsidies, it is possible for her god to create jobs for unemployed construction workers that will last forever.  I am putting Elly on the spot today not because I believe she is a weirdo.  I am putting Elly on the spot today precisely because I believe she is a perfect example of a citizen of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  She believes that every person has a civil right to a high paying job that lasts forever and if that state of affairs does not exist it is the job of the people who rule over us to create them, at taxpayer expense of course.
Elly is pleased that the geo-political zone known as Colorado has an unemployment rate, determined by government paid economists, that is one of the lowest in the nation.  She is worried that that might change.  She believes that people with construction skills who migrate to Colorado to engage in a voluntary contractual agreement to provide labor for profit seeking corporations are going to end up on the government dole when those jobs expire.  So on one hand Elly is happy the free market has created jobs but sad that those jobs are not eternal.  I wonder where her belief that jobs should be eternal comes from?
Elly acknowledges that the free market is responding to housing market conditions by engaging in a plethora of new building projects.  These projects are being undertaken by profit seeking businessmen who desire to give consumers what they want....affordable housing options.  I am sure Elly is in favor of affordable housing options but, at the same time, she is very worried that too many people will move to Colorado and drive up the price of housing.  Elly is worried that all of the construction workers moving to Colorado will have no place to stay while they are working on the new projects.  She also seems to be worried that they will stick around after the jobs are complete and still have no place to stay.  Elly does not seem to realize that the free market is already responding to and answering her questions.
The free market is serving consumers as businessmen hire laborers to build homes.  That drives down the price of housing, or causes it to rise less quickly, and provides homes for people who want them, include the people involved in building them.  Elly is confused, frightened and worried because she is either unwilling or unable to conceive of how it could be that the free market can do such magical things.  She looks to her god, the god of civil government, and expects some sort of action to keep all of these bad things at bay.  That is the heart of worship of civil government and Elly is just like the great majority of the citizens in this ignorant, sad and immoral country.