San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, February 19, 2016

Millennials and Socialism

A week or so ago a fellow by the name of Ross Kaminsky wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post in which he made the rather obvious argument that Millennials who believe in the religious tenets of socialism are ignorant fools.  He pointed out that anyone with half a brain knows that socialism is a destructive economic system that, if implemented, destroys the wealth of an entire society, including those it was intended to help.  As you might expect, socialists throughout the Denver metropolitan area rallied to the cause of their religion and wrote insightful letters to the editor of their own.  I would like to discuss two of those letters here today.
David Kelly of Northglenn proudly declares that millionaires and billionaires are "leeches" because "so many of those people have been stealing wages from their workers for the past 35 years."  Now that is an interesting idea.  I wonder how these immoral rich people have been able to "steal" the wages from those they employ without a single one of them ever having been found guilty of theft in a court of law?  It seems to me that if all of the millionaires and billionaires in the country who operate a business have really been stealing the wages of their employees somebody would have been found guilty of that crime after 35 years. But, as far as I know, that verdict has never been rendered against any rich fellow.
I am not so stupid as to believe that David actually believes that rich people are literally stealing the wages of the people they employ.  I realize that David is speaking metaphorically.  He actually means to say that, in his opinion, people who have made the rational and voluntary decision to enter into an employment contract with a rich fellow for a lower wage than David thinks they should be paid are having their wages metaphorically stolen from them.  David does not explain why his opinion should be considered when two people work out an employment contract.  Nor does he explain why he is qualified to determine what the market wage is for any particular job.  He simply asserts, quite unilaterally, that he knows best and, in his opinion, rich people always exploit the people they employ.  I beg to differ. David needs to take his high horse and go home.
David goes on to say that "Social Security, worker's compensation, unemployment insurance, the GI Bill, the interstate highway system and the Department of Veterans Affairs are all socialistic programs....think what our country would be like without those socialist entities."  Okay David, I will......hummm.....hummm..... well, by doggies, I believe our country would be a lot better off without any of those socialist entities.  Social Security is a disaster.  It is underfunded and bound for insolvency.  Worker's compensation and unemployment insurance have done precisely what all government programs do.  They have created more injured workers and more unemployment.  Need I comment on the VA?  Is there anyone in the world, besides David, who thinks the VA is an efficiently run bureau that actually fulfills the mandate for which it was created?  I am afraid that David's love of government has blinded him to what everyone else who is not a socialist is able to see quite clearly.  Socialist programs don't work.  They never have and they never will.
Truman Sager (I don't think he has his own television show) believes that socialists are the very cream of Amerikan society.  He writes, "Those who are liberal arrive at this approach to life from an inquisitive mind, from years and years of study of the sciences, history, philosophy and doing personal research."  Speaking of those who teach socialism he writes, "They do have an interest that their students do not end up being selfish, uncompromising, lacking in empathy, and ill-informed, an approach to life that gets us nowhere."  Let's deal with the two arguments that Truman makes, shall we?
I am no scholar but I have a hard time seeing how knowledge of biology, chemistry or physics would cause me to embrace the doctrines of socialism.  I reject Truman's assertion that a knowledge of the hard sciences can bring one to the heart of socialism outright.  History and philosophy, on the other hand, can tell us a lot about socialism.  Let me see....I seem to remember a couple of countries that adopted socialism as their economic model.  Russia and China under Mao come to mind.  How did those two economies work out?  Not so well, as I recall.  For a more recent example I am thinking of the worker's paradises found in Cuba and Venezuela.  Sure, everyone in those countries can get a free government education and, after waiting for a year or two, an appointment with a government doctor.  But what is the state of economic welfare for the poor people living in those tyrannical countries?  I just read that Venezuela is expected to have an inflation rate of 720% this year.  Way to go socialism!  You can't find a loaf of bread on a shelf in Venezuela.  You can find one loaf in Cuba, if you are first in line to get there.
Does philosophy teach the moral superiority of socialism?  One branch of philosophy is ethics and, last time I checked, most philosophers agreed that stealing is wrong.  Since socialism is grounded upon the bedrock principle of stealing from the rich minority and giving it to the poor majority, less 20% for government handling, I have a hard time seeing how the philosophical disciplines would lead one to conclude that socialism is just dandy.  Truman's main argument in favor of socialism seems to be his personal research into the matter. I suspect he has been on the receiving end of lots of government largess.  Do you think that could be coloring his take on things?
Although he does not come right out and say it, Truman believes that those who defend the free market are selfish, uncompromising, lacking in empathy and ill-informed.  These are standard criticisms from those who know nothing of the free market.  The free market forces each individual participant to bring something to it with which to serve others.  Anyone who does not come to the free market seeking to serve others never realizes a profit.  That is the antithesis of selfish.  Selfishness is experientially defined by those who go to career politicians and ask them to steal the money of people working in the free market and give it to them.
Empathy is the ability to think the thoughts or feel the feelings of others.  Only those who operate in the free market are able or motivated to truly empathize with their fellow human beings.  Anyone who comes to the free market with no empathy quickly realizes financial losses and is driven out of business.  Participants in the free market spend countless hours seeking to know what the other participants want, so they can then produce goods and services for them at a price they are willing to pay.  Meanwhile, participants in the government spend their time determining what they believe people should be allowed to have, and then they create laws to mandate their sovereign will on everyone, regardless of each individual's circumstances.  The free market is filled with empathy.  Civil government is void of empathy.  Ask yourself a simple question to illustrate my point. Would you rather have to pay a visit to the Department of Motor Vehicles or Starbucks?  I rest my case.

Thursday, February 18, 2016

I Am A Member Of A "Hate Group"

I opened my Denver Post this morning, over a delicious Duncan Donut and a cup of coffee, to discover something about myself that I did not know.  There, on page 2, was an article informing me that, "Report:  Colorado is home to 16 hate groups."  Not being sure what the headline to the article might mean I immediately ran to my dictionary to find out the meaning of hate.  Here is what I discovered.  Hate is "intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury; also, extreme dislike or antipathy."  After reading that definition I was very confused.  The hate group that I thought I might be a member of does not officially exist while the one I actually am a member of does not incite hate in me at all.  Let me tell you about my predicament.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, based in Atlanta, has taken it upon itself to go around the country spying on people.  Yep, the Southern Poverty Law Center is in the business of minding other people's business.  Mark Potok, senior fellow and editor of the organization's Intelligence Report, gathers together information from around the country and then groups various people into categories that he believes exist exclusively for the purpose of hating other classes of people.  According to the Center, "nationally, hate groups grew 14% in 2015, up from 892 from 784."  The newspaper article went on to list a couple of the 16 hate groups that allegedly exist in Colorado.  On the list were some Neo-Nazis, an anti-immigration group that hates Mexicans and a group that calls itself "Israel United in Christ."  Israel United in Christ is, incredibly, a bunch of black Jews that hate whites.  Good for them. 
Most interesting to me of all the groups on the list was Friendship Assembly of God, "a church in Colorado Springs that teaches falsehoods about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups."  Here is the church's website.  You might want to check it out.  It looks pretty much like any other Pentecostal church in this country.  Pastor James Hagan looks pretty much like any other Pentecostal pastor.  I poked around the website and could not find any of the alleged hate for homosexuals, bisexuals and transgendered people.  I didn't see any groups that meet during the week to make bombs to blow up gay bars.  I didn't even find any sermons from the pastor about how we should all hate homosexuals.  I suspect the Center came across some teaching somewhere in which the pastor and his church took the very common doctrinal position that being sexually perverted is a choice and not a genetically determined lifestyle.  I don't happen to believe that doctrine is correct but the church and its pastor have the biblical and constitutional right to declare that doctrine if they believe it to be true.  Or at least, they used to have that right.  Under the new rules operating in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika the First Amendment no longer applies when dealing with politically protected groups carrying special government privileges.
All of this is to say that I now find myself in a hate group.  My church and our pastors all believe homosexuality to be a sin.  We all believe that practicing homosexuals are bound for the Lake of Fire.  But, strangely according to the Center, I don't know of anyone in my church who has any intense hostility and aversion, usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury, towards homosexuals.  Indeed, I know and communicate with several homosexuals.  I don't hate any of them.  I never have.  If I have any emotional response towards them at all it is usually pity.  Of course I will admit that militant homosexuals ruffle my feathers.  When they tell me that I am a bigot and an ignorant fool because I disagree with them I get angry.  When they tell me that I must affirm their lifestyles or be responsible for their decisions to commit suicide I see red.  When they march down the street immodestly dressed, recruiting others to their lifestyle via public displays of perversion,  I become enraged.  But in all of those instances they started it.  If they leave me alone I will leave them alone.  Live and let live, that is the Welsh way.
Despite what the Center says I do not belong to a hate group that hates homosexuals.  On the other hand, my experience with the militant homosexual lobby shows me that they are the real hate group.  They have a pathological hatred for anyone who dares to challenge their worldview, including their view of themselves.  They despise the doctrines of the historic and orthodox Christian Church.  If there is any hate being spewed, it is coming from their camp, not mine.  If anyone should be classified as a hate group, it is the militant homosexual lobby, not the historic Christian Church.
I think I might write the Center and squeal on some of my neighbors.  As I have considered the concept of a hate group I have come to realize that many of my neighbors belong to hate groups that did not show up on the list of 16 that theoretically exist in Colorado.  In my neighborhood alone there are several families that  have an extreme dislike and intense aversion for me because I do not support government schools. I believe that government schools should be abolished.  I believe that being forced to pay real estate taxes to support government schools is robbery.   I have felt their wrath first-hand on several occasions.  They are clearly a hate group. 
If voting records are any indication, the majority of the people who live in my county have an extreme dislike for people who make more money than they do.  They consistently vote for national and state career politicians who promise to use the coercive power of the government to take money from the minority group which earns more money than they do and give it to themselves.  When I point out to them that they are actually engaging in an act of thievery they express their hatred for me in no uncertain terms.  I think they are clearly members of a hate group. 
The more I think of it the more I come to realize every political action group in this envy-filled land is actually a hate group.  All of them exist for the purpose of using the coercive power of government to control the lives and property of their neighbors, to their personal advantage.  That is hate in a most foul representation.  People who love one another, the opposite of hate I would argue, would leave each other alone.  They would not use, or attempt to use, government to force others to bend to their will.  That I why I conclude that, despite the fact the Center says I am a member of a hate group, I am probably one of the most loving people in Colorado.  I have no desire to force you to do anything.  I only wish you would treat me the same way.

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Homeland Security Protects the Denver Bronco's Profits

I suspect most people who read this blog are aware that the Denver Broncos were this year's winners of the final football game of the season.  After the game was in the books a large group of fans, estimated anywhere from 350,000 to one million people, attended a downtown parade for the Bronco players.   They were all properly worshiped and everyone who attended forgot their various woes for a day.
While the adoring throngs were paying tribute to a small group of millionaires who, truth be told, generally despise the fans, the ever present Department of Homeland Security was patrolling the crowd, looking for terrorists to arrest.  Although no terrorists were discovered the government bureau was pleased to announce shortly after the parade had dispersed that they had "seized more than 350 counterfeit NFL related merchandise items."  I breathed a sign of relief when I read that report.  Who knows how many, probably 350, deaths by exploding baseball cap they prevented that day?
A story in the Denver Post gave me the sordid details about how and why Homeland Security would be harassing a handful of people out trying to make a buck by selling Broncos paraphernalia to the faithful.  I was relieved to see that "no arrests were made following the seizure from 15 vendors who were hawking counterfeit T-shirts, jerseys and beanies with Broncos and Super Bowl 50 trademarks....Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agents seized 361 items from salespeople in Civic Center park with the expertise of two NFL-brand security experts who could spot the fake items."  Well there you have it.  Apparently having a shirt with the word "Broncos" on it is illegal if the Broncos and the NFL have not first approved it.  I give my heartfelt thanks to the ridiculous and immoral copyright laws of this country for what went down at the parade.  I know I am safer for it.
I am not going to point out that the government issuance of a copyright or a patent is an immoral act because it seeks to allow the original creator of a good the ability to control the use of that good after the good has exchanged hands.  In essence copyright law turns every transaction into a rental agreement rather than a sale since the new owner really does not have the rights of ownership over the good he has purchased.  All of this is done in the name of the public good but the actual fact of the matter is it is little more than the creation of a government monopoly to enrich those connected to the government.  But I am not going to mention that here today.  I want to focus upon the reason given by Homeland Security for their confiscation of private property.
David Thompson, special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations, offered this reason for the seizures, "Counterfeits are inferior quality.  They steal Amerikan jobs, and they support criminal organizations." Well there you have it.  Three fine reasons why Homeland Security had to protect us from the unscrupulous criminal element that lives among us and preys upon us by producing goods we want to purchase and selling them to us for prices we are willing to pay.  This will not do!   Let's consider each of the agent's arguments in the order he presented them.
  1. Counterfeits are of inferior quality.  So what?  When I make a purchase I only do so because I value the good I am purchasing more than the cash I hold in my hand.  It does not follow that every purchase I make must be of the highest quality.  Sometimes I am satisfied with inferior quality.  What business is it of government whether I buy inferior or superior quality?  When I purchased a 1998 Subaru Impreza many years ago I did so because I valued the car more than the  $15,000 cash I was holding.  But you know what?  The Impreza was of inferior quality when compared to a Lexus or a BMW.  I could have had a car with a stereo, heated seats, a sun-roof and side airbags.  My Subaru had none of those items, although it did have everything that I wanted.  I wanted to purchase a "key and heater," nothing more.  Should Homeland Security have interjected itself into the transaction and confiscated the car because it was of inferior quality to many others cars I could have purchased?  According to the logic being offered up by agent Thompson, he would be well within his rights to do so as an agent of the federal government protecting me from terrorists and any good he deems to be inferior.  
  2. They steal Amerikan jobs.  Now that is a fascinating assertion.  From what I could tell the good folks selling clothing emblazoned with Broncos logos in Civil Center park were hard at work the night before making those items in their basements and garages.  They were people who live in the Denver metropolitan area.  They were operating as self employed entrepreneurs when they sold their wares to a willing public at the parade.  They had actually created a job, their own, and remained off the unemployment rolls as a result of their initiative.  On the other hand, the officially licensed Broncos clothing being sold by government approved salespeople was made in Pakistan and Honduras.  You got that right.  Michael Stewart, of Evergreen, wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post explaining that he had paid twice as much money for a couple of items that were officially approved only to discover they were made overseas.  Agent Thompson has his facts confused.  He was supporting an immoral monopoly, the NFL and the Denver Broncos, that has resulted in some jobs being shipped overseas.  Oh, by the way, Michael Stewart also claimed that "Both items appear to be made form thin, poor quality material."  
  3. They support criminal organizations.  That is a good one!  Ha! Ha! Ha!  The only reason the Mom and Pop shop that made those T-shirts is considered to be a "criminal organization" is directly attributed to the fact that the immoral copyright law turns them into criminals, not because they actually are criminals.  I can just see it now.  Mafiosos all over the country sent their henchmen to Denver to sell T-shirts after the Broncos victory.  Were it not for the fearless actions of Homeland Security we would have enriched organized crime beyond belief.  No, I believe the truth is exactly the opposite.  The agents from Homeland Security were the ones supporting a criminal organization. They were supporting the copyright bureau of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, a criminal organization if there ever was one. 

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

The Supreme Court Is A Joke

Man am I embarrassed.  As brilliant as I consider myself to be, I completely missed the fact that, according to the pundits, the Supreme Court of Jokers for the Socialist Democracy of Amerika had a 5-4 conservative majority until the death of Antonin Scalia.  I would have bet the mortgage that the 5-4 majority evident in many recent votes was indicative of a liberal majority.  I was talking with a person who is far more intelligent than I am over the weekend when the news came in.  Seeking to impress him with my knowledge I informed him that the 5-4 liberal majority was destined to become even more powerful with a new liberal appointment.  I explained how a 6-3 liberal majority, after King Obama's nominee is appointed, would give the liberals a virtual hammer-lock on the Supreme Court.  He politely and humbly informed me that I had things backwards.  A new liberal appointee would now give the Supreme Court a 5-4 liberal bias as opposed to the conservative bias it has had in recent years.  Like I am I embarrassed.
I think you can understand my confusion about this issue.  Maybe you have been confused yourselves.  According to this CNN report, "In a landmark opinion, a divided Supreme Court on Friday ruled that same-sex couples can marry nationwide, establishing a new civil right and handing gay rights advocates a historic victory.  In the 5-4 ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority with the four liberal justices. Each of the four conservative justices wrote their own dissent.  Nearly 46 years to the day after a riot at New York's Stonewall Inn ushered in the modern gay rights movement, the decision could settle one of the major civil rights fights of this era. The language of Kennedy's opinion spoke eloquently of the most fundamental values of family, love and liberty."  If the Supreme Court had a 5-4 conservative bias how did it come about that it was able to discover a provision in the Constitution of the United States that mandates state recognition of sodomite "marriages?"  I don't understand that.  It seems to be that a conservative would oppose gay marriage.  
According to this CNN  report, "In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court saved the controversial health care law that will define President Barack Obama's administration for generations to come. The ruling holds that the Affordable Care Act authorized federal tax credits for eligible Americans living not only in states with their own exchanges but also in the 34 states with federal marketplaces. It staved off a major political showdown and a mad scramble in states that would have needed to act to prevent millions from losing health care coverage. 'Five years ago, after nearly a century of talk, decades of trying, a year of bipartisan debate, we finally declared that in America, health care is not a privilege for a few but a right for all,' Obama said from the White House. 'The Affordable Care Act is here to stay.'  In a moment of high drama, Chief Justice John Roberts sent a bolt of tension through the Court when he soberly announced that he would issue the majority opinion in the case. About two-thirds of the way through his reading, it became clear that he again would be responsible for rescuing Obamacare."
I am told that Chief Justice Roberts is a conservative.  That is why it sent a "shock" through the liberal media when he was chosen to read the majority ruling on Obamacare.  As a conservative he should have recognized that my neighbor does not have a right to take some of my money to pay for his health insurance.  As a conservative he should have recognized that the Constitution of the United States does not delineate a civil right called "the right to health insurance."  As a conservative he should have opposed Obamacare, but he didn't.  In fact, two of the allegedly conservative justices had to vote with the liberals to derive the final 6-3 margin of victory for Obamacare.  I do not understand how a conservative could believe that the federal government has the right to force the citizens of this land to purchase health insurance and then, when they comply with the law, declare that the insurance premium is really nothing but a non-deductible tax, but it happened.
Two of the most significant rulings issued from a conservative Supreme Court over the past couple of years were decidedly liberal in nature.  If conservative really means conservative that never would have happened.  Clearly conservative no longer means conservative.  Clearly the justices of the Supreme Court of Jokers in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika have abandoned the Constitution of the United States.  That is what makes them, and the entire judicial process, nothing but a cruel joke.
Now that Scalia is dead the scramble is on for the next appointee.  King Obama is looking for a liberal judge to nominate and the Senate is promising to reject the nomination.  Much is being made of historical precedent and whether the King could or should bring forth a nominee for the Senate to consider.  It seems pretty clear that it is the King's right to offer up his God-of-the-Bible-hating selection for the office.  And it seems pretty clear that the Senate is free to reject it.  What seems most clear to me, however, is that none of this matters.  There is no distinction between conservative and liberal, if recent votes are any indication of the current state of the court.  Supreme Court decisions are awash in humanistic subjectivity and have no correlation to the constitutionally mandated purpose for the nation's highest court.  The idea that the Court would judge each case presented to it on the merits of its constitutionality is absurd.  I am no historian of the Supreme Court but I do know enough to understand that when Rowe vs. Wade brought about the judicial declaration that the Constitution of the United States contains a provision declaring that women have a right to murder their babies, the Supreme Court of Jokers had abandoned their constitutional mandate.  Nothing that has happened since then changes my opinion. 
The Supreme Court is nothing more than a piece of the political puzzle that rules us all.  We pretend as if it actually does things that are substantive but, in the final analysis, all it does is support the status quo.  It is used by career politicians and career bureaucrats to feather their nests, obtain the adoration of the public, and continue the fiction that we are members of a country that believes in limited government and the separation of civil powers.  What a joke it all is.

Monday, February 15, 2016

Bernie's Doctrine of Wealth Flows

I was eating dinner tonight when a commercial for Bernie Sanders came on the television.  Yes, I commit the social faux pas of eating while sitting in front of the television.  I was okay though since my wife gave me permission to do so.  I was running a little late for dinner and neither one of us wanted to miss Jeopardy  so as we sat down to watch Alex a commercial for Sanders came on.  I almost lost my dinner when I heard its content.
The commercial began with Bernie informing me that "most newly created wealth flows to the top 1% of the population."   While he was speaking a cartoon drawing was illustrating his point.  A bag of money just appeared out of nowhere and then climbed steeply up a hill to the place where the top 1% of the income population allegedly live.  It was clear that Bernie was not pleased with the fact that the top 1% of the income population ends up with the lions share of the newly created wealth.  What was less clear was Bernie's doctrine of wealth creation.
Bernie simply asserted that newly created wealth somehow magically appears in the economy of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  Perhaps because he knows better, or perhaps because he is a fool, I don't know which, Bernie made no effort to explain where "newly created wealth" comes from.  Telling that part of the tale would most certainly ruin his main point so it had to be ignored.  Maybe Bernie believes that government creates wealth.  He certainly talks that way all the time.  Or maybe he truly understands that wealth is created by profit seeking businesses.  I don't know what Bernie believes because he does not tell me.  Bernie's commercial is short on facts and long on propaganda.
I don't know if it is true but the number the politicos constantly banter about is that 90% of the wealth in this land is owned by the top 1%.  For purposes of argument, I will assume that is true.  The question that always goes both unasked and unanswered is how much of the newly created wealth in this country was created by those people sitting in the top 1%?  Clearly Bernie is appealing to the sinful emotions of envy and covetousness and he has no concern whatsoever about justice or economic reality, but what if the top 1% of the population actually creates 91% of the "newly created wealth?"  If they create 91% of it and only 90% of it ends up in their bank accounts then they are being robbed.  Once again I do not know the actual statistics but I believe that the top 1% makes more new wealth than they end up holding.  The simple fact that the top1% of the income population pays 37% of the entire federal budget makes it impossible for them to keep all that they make.  The fact that the lower 50% of the income population pays a whopping total of 3% of the federal budget means they have to be holding a lot of the top 1%'s wealth. 
Bernie is a dishonest man.  If he really wishes to tell the truth he should say that he is seeking my vote by attempting to get me to commit the sin of envy.   He desperately wants me to ask him to steal the money of those who are creating the most new wealth in this envy-filled country and give a nice chunk of it to me.  He does not admit to that and I suspect he never will.  On the contrary, Bernie casts himself as a powerful protector of the poor who desires to do nothing more than act as a modern day Robin Hood.  Unfortunately for him, Robin Hood was nothing more than a petty thief.  Bernie wants to be the biggest thief in the land.  Good for him.  Given the sorry state of moral character of most citizens in this land today he might just be successful in his quest.
I saw some statistics the other day that told me that roughly half of all twenty-somethings now call themselves socialists.  I doubt that they fully appreciate what that means but the primary reason they are happy to carry the socialist mantle is their desire to have their student debts forgiven.  Bernie has capitalized on that larcenous motivation and captured the sinful hearts and minds of countless millions of SDA youth.  Good for him.  Unless he repents the praise he receives from them will be the only praise he ever receives.
Bernie's commercial then went on to tell me that the top 1% of the income population uses the "coercive power of government to keep most of the wealth."  Bernie did not bother to explain how this takes place, he simply asserted that it is true.  That assertion strikes me as quite odd.  If the top 1% of the population has, in fact, created all of that new wealth we are talking about then it is the moral responsibility of the civil government to protect it from theft.  If the wealth held by the top 1% is truly theirs, and I believe it is, then the government would be acting immorally if it took some or all of it away from them.  That, of course, is precisely what Bernie wants to do.  He told me that if I vote for him he will completely change the nature of government.  Under his benign rule I can expect that those who create new wealth will have it stolen from them and given to those who do not work.  He will call that social justice and those on the receiving end will agree with him.  Those who are being robbed will not be heard because they are members of the minority and their voices do not matter.
I like Bernie.  I hope he becomes our next King.  I will wake up everyday with a smile on my face knowing that he is sitting in the big chair in Washington, pulling all of the strings and making us all rich beyond our wildest dreams.   Bernie is the perfect King for this country.  The Socialist Democracy of Amerika needs an avowed socialist at the helm.  It is time for a change.   Vote for Bernie and let's see just how bad things can get in this immoral land.