San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, April 8, 2016

What Isolationism Really Is

According to, the term 'isolationism' is best defined as, "the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities."  Let's consider the concept of isolationism for a while today.
When the term isolationist is used today it is almost always used in a pejorative fashion.  I can't recall any instance where one candidate for political office referred to another candidate for political office as an isolationist and meant it as a compliment.  The term seems to be used exclusively by one career politician as a tool to brand another career politician as backwards and out of touch with essential foreign policy issues.
Even the definition of the term as found on betrays a serious presuppositional problem with the way the word is used today.   Read the definition once again and note that it presupposes that all international and foreign interactions must be on a state-to-state level, thus ignoring foreign and international relationships that are on an individual person-to-person basis.  Countries are described as being isolationist when they, as if an impersonal entity called a "country" has a will, make the decision to refuse to enter into international agreements with other countries.  The last time I checked the nature of the universe a country was an impersonal entity with no ability to exercise any sort of will or enter into any kind of international agreement with another impersonal entity.  Of course I am poking fun at the statists among us who find it impossible to conceive of anything meaningful taking place in society if it is not being performed by career politicians as they represent their various countries.  Activities engaged in by profit seeking businessmen are strictly forbidden when it comes to thinking about isolationism.
Career politicians are quick to taint the reputation of others who might be seeking to take their place in the government bureaucracy by calling them isolationists.  What they always mean is that their opponents do not believe in the moral necessity of maintaining and expanding the Amerikan empire.  Even the definition given above betrays that belief.  Notice how the definition concludes by describing how the isolationist seeks to avoid "foreign responsibilities."  Just what foreign responsibilities does the government of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika have?  The Constitution states that the government of the SDA is responsible to protect the three civil rights of the citizens of this land, and none other.  The SDA has no responsibility to protect the lives, freedom or property of citizens in foreign lands.  Indeed, the Constitution of the United States, as it was originally written and according to its original intention, is a strictly isolationist document.  There is no place for any belief in the moral or political necessity of the SDA government to be involved in the internal affairs of sovereign foreign nations.  The idea that the SDA government, and the SDA military in particular, is responsible to do things for foreign governments and citizens is in stark contrast to the original and isolationist framework of government given to us by the founding fathers.
You can rest assured that the great majority of immoral wretches who seek political office in this land consider themselves to be proudly anti-isolationist.  By that they mean they are staunchly in favor of maintaining and expanding the Amerikan empire around the world.  All talk about how we have to "do something" about ISIS, Syria, Ukraine, Russia,  North Korea, China, Cuba and a host of other sovereign nations around the world indicates just how militarily involved our career politicians want to be.  The only well known political candidate on a national scale to not be in favor of Amerikan empire expansion has been Ron Paul.  He was immediately labeled an isolationist not only by his political opponents but by the boot-licking press that couldn't wait to besmirch his reputation by exposing him as someone who does not want to see a great Amerika because he opposes the Amerikan empire.  It was fascinating to listen to the questions he was asked.  The reporters couldn't wait to hear him respond to their questions when he would consistently assert  that SDA military forces need to withdraw from the world.  They would then pounce upon him by asking questions about how he could possibly maintain such a ridiculous isolationist position that is so out of accord with the Amerikan people, whoever they are.  That would always be the end of the discussion.
Donald the Trumpet has been accused of being an isolationist as well.  As the powers that be in the Republican party have been frantically seeking some way to slow him down and prevent him from obtaining the Republican nomination for next King of the SDA,  they have concentrated some of their efforts on comments he has made that are actually favorable to declared SDA enemies like Putin and Assad.  The fact that Donald does not want to initiate World War III, as the rest of the candidates, sans Bernie Sanders, want to do, is sufficient reason for them to seek to tarnish his reputation by painting him as a hated isolationist.
The problem with that picture is that it is simply untrue.  It is true that Donald seems to be reticent to use the military power of the SDA to maintain the empire, which we should all be thankful for, but he gleefully describes how he wants to use SDA economic power and coercive federal legislation to engage in economic warfare with countries all around the world.  He will, if elected, immediately engage Russia, China and Mexico in trade wars which would be guaranteed to harm all parties involved.  So describing Donald as isolationist is patently false.  He wants to engage foreign nations in all sorts of trade wars, with the goal being to establish the SDA as the supreme economic power in the world.  In doing so he misses the rather vital economic truths that the SDA is already the supreme economic power in the world and any attempts to engage in international trade warfare will only endanger that position.
Isolationism, as it is defined above, is a very good thing.  The SDA has no business striking deals with foreign countries.  The SDA should not be involved in military alliances nor should it be involved in trade deals.  The government of the SDA should exist to protect the three civil rights of its citizens and nothing else.  Isolationism is a fantastic doctrine and the world would be a much better place to live in if all countries adopted it as an operating principle.  People need to stop speaking poorly of isolationism and isolationists and realize that the principle and the people who support it are most able to keep the SDA at peace with the rest of the nations of the world.  However, since war is the health of the state, isolationism will always be out of favor.
More important than anything I have written thus far is the fact that the free market knows no boundaries.  When government keeps it big, ugly face out of the free market people naturally trade with one another.  Peaceful exchange between peoples of different races, cultures and nationalities takes place all the time.  Free trade among the citizens of the world is the greatest worldly means by which true peace can be achieved.  It has quite properly been asserted that it is very bad business to kill your customers.  Maintenance of the Amerikan empire and free trade with the nations of the world cannot coexist.  Guess which one always loses?
Profit seeking businessmen are the exact antithesis of isolationists as they are defined today.  They will move heaven and earth to find new customers to serve, regardless of linguistic, cultural or political barriers.  If envy-filled and God-hating Amerikan citizens really want to be anti-isolationist, they would immediately adopt the economic liberty found in the free market and, conversely, oppose all efforts at empire expansion by the SDA military/industrial complex.  That, of course, will never happen.  SDA citizens love their god too much to strip him of his power.

Thursday, April 7, 2016

Why Are Businesses Always the Patsy?

According to an online dictionary I found, 'patsy' is defined as, "a person who is easily swindled, deceived, coerced, persuaded, etc.; sucker.  A person upon whom the blame for something falls; scapegoat; fall guy.  A person who is the object of a joke, ridicule, or the like."  Each of those phrases perfectly describes the way businessmen are perceived and treated in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika these days.  It is difficult to conceive why anyone would want to go into business in this envy-filled country given the enormous obstacles stacked in the pathway of every entrepreneur.  Although difficult to conceive, I do know why people continue to go into business.  The simple fact is that, despite all of the government rules and regulations attempting to thwart their efforts, businessmen want nothing more than to produce goods and services and then sell those goods and services to people for a price the people are willing to pay.  That attitude of serving the public so dominates businessmen that they will move heaven and earth in their efforts to serve us.  If only government were so motivated.
The latest example of government created rules designed to make patsies of businessmen comes out of that haven of market freedom known as San Francisco.  I read this article in my newspaper yesterday, "San Francisco approved a measure Tuesday making it the first place in the nation to require businesses to provide fully paid leave for new parents....The San Francisco Board of Supervisors (an inauspicious title if I have ever heard one, ed) voted unanimously in favor of the measure after supporters said six weeks of fully paid leave is needed because too many families can't afford to take time off after a child is born or adopted."  Well there you have it.  Families can't afford to take care of their children so the coercive powers vested in the San Francisco Board of Supervisors have determined that some of the costs associated with having children should now be borne by businessmen.  Let's consider that for a while today.
This is not the first social cost that businesses have been forced to pay in this hate-filled country.  As the law now stands, businesses are required to pay the costs associated with their employees social security benefits, life insurance, disability insurance, health insurance, worker's compensation insurance, medicare insurance, personal retirement plans and, now, the costs associated with the first six weeks of child rearing.  As a Christian businessman I am forced, by law, to pay for my employees daughter's abortions.  I am also forced to subsidize the promiscuous sexual behavior of my female employees by paying for their birth control substances and devices, some of which are abortive in nature.  If I want to have a retirement plan, and I do, I am forced to pay some of my hard earned cash into retirement plans for my employees, despite the fact they usually empty them out to pay for vacations to Disney World.  I also have to pay for their worker's compensation, a scam if there ever was one.  They claim to be injured while on the job, when oftentimes there is no real injury or they were actually injured when they got drunk over the weekend, and I have to pay a portion of their wages while waiting for them to heal from their self-inflicted wounds.  And now I learn that if I operated in San Francisco, which thankfully I do not, I would be required to subsidize the first six weeks of their lives after someone in their household bears a child.  Man am I a patsy!
Let's think about this from the perspective of common sense.  Why is it intuitively obvious that a profit seeking business should be responsible to pay for your retirement plan?  Why is it intuitively obvious that a profit seeking business should be required to pay for your health insurance?  Please explain to me why I am responsible for the bills of my employees, over a six week period, simply because they make the voluntary decision to have a baby?  None of these rules make any common sense.  So there must be some other reason why these things are the way they are.
Historically speaking the impetus for the state of affairs we see today is grounded in government regulations.  Many moons ago Congress decided to do something about outrageous CEO salaries.  Yes, the argument from envy-filled haters of the free market that risk taking entrepreneurs make too much money has been with us a very long time.  Congressmen, always in search of a vote from the larger group of people, responded to the cries from the oppressed masses and made a law capping the amount a CEO could earn.  In response to that law something totally predictable happened.  Businesses, in search of the best talent to head their firms, had to sweeten the pot by adding non-cash compensation to their salary packages.  Presto, chango....employer provided health insurance came into being.  That precedent has come to haunt us today.
I have two questions for those who believe making businesses a patsy is a good idea.  First, why stop with insurance, retirement plans and paid time off?  If these rules do no harm to businesses whatsoever why not make businesses pay for more of their employees expenses?  I believe the employer should be required to make the mortgage payment of his employees.  Further, I believe the employer should be required to make two car payments for his employees.  It would also be a good idea for the employer to make some additional cash payment, beyond the negotiated wage rate and called a sur-payment, on a monthly basis to each employee.  Certainly none of this will ever prove harmful for economic growth in this immoral land.
My second question, asked without bias or animosity towards government worshiping fools in this idolatrous country, is why should business be forced to subsidize all of the expenses listed above?  More importantly, why is government not responsible to pay the subsidies, if the subsidies must indeed be paid?  We all know that, unlike business, government has access to unlimited funds.  Government can pay the subsidies without any harm being done to itself or the economy, or at least that is what the Keynesians who rule over us repeatedly tell us.  After all, we all know that everything government does is stimulative to the economy.  The more the government spends the more the economy grows.  Let's take it upon ourselves to shift all of the present subsidy requirements from business to government so we can all grow rich together, shall we? 

Wednesday, April 6, 2016

The Horrors of Human Made Law

The source of law for any culture is always the god of that culture.  The culture of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, if such a thing can be defined, is most closely associated with something the sociologists used to called secular humanism.  Secular humanism distinguishes itself from other forms of social construction by virtue of the fact that it rejects biblical Christianity and replaces it with a religious belief in the natural goodness of men.  It is obvious that those two views of the world cannot coexist.  Biblical religion declares that man is sinful, with no redeeming characteristics whatsoever and incapable of doing a single good deed.  Secular humanism declares that man is the measure of all things despite the fact that he will occasionally do something others might find morally objectionable.  Secular humanism and democracy go hand in hand.  When men are basically good it necessarily follows that the majority decisions of those men must be morally good as well.
Throughout most of the history of what is commonly called western civilization it was recognized that biblical law was the superior means by which to order a society.  Biblical law is exactly what it sounds like.  There are a little over 600 laws in the Bible.  Those laws, which include moral commandments, civil case laws and ceremonies that are no longer practiced, are sufficient to order a society perfectly.  Everything that a judicial branch of government needs to decide every case that comes before it can be found in the morally perfect and all sufficient Law of God.  That being the case, why do men not wholeheartedly adopt the Law of God as their legal standard?  The answer to that question is simple.  Men, by their very nature, hate God with a passion.  Remember that little doctrine called original sin?  It is no less true today than it was right after Adam consumed the forbidden fruit.  Since men hate God passionately they also hate His law passionately.
King David was a man described as being after the very heart of God Himself.  David had a very high esteem for the Law of God.  He once wrote this about God's perfect law, "The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.  The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.  The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; the judgments of the Lord are true; they are righteous altogether.  They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb.  Moreover, by them Thy servant is warned; in keeping them there is great reward."  Who today believes that keeping the moral and civil law of God is sweeter than honey?  Who today believes that men are rewarded when they observe the moral and civil law of God? Sadly, even those Christians who profess to be believers in the Bible have long since abandoned their belief in the moral necessity to obey the Law of God.  Evangelicals are, almost without exception, defenders of the aberrant doctrine of antinomianism wherein the Law of God is declared to be without value or application to the life of the modern day believer. 
Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, gave His opinion about the Law of God as it was then found in the Old Testament.  He said, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.  For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law..."  The last time I checked heaven and earth had not yet passed away.  It follows from that rather obvious observation that the Law of God still applies to our lives today.  Amazingly Evangelicals read that passage from the book of Matthew and conclude that since Jesus perfectly fulfilled the Law of God the Law of God is abolished, in direct and stark contrast to what Jesus had just said.  Evangelicals are not known for their powerful logical abilities nor for their exegetical skills.
The Constitution of the United States of America, in a successful attempt to strip the morally perfect and all sufficient Law of God from the civil arena, declared that the first branch of government shall be the legislative and that branch of government shall be charged with creating a body of law by which the citizens of this land can live together in complete and total disregard for the moral and civil restrictions of the Law of God found in the Bible.  From the moment the first God-hating legislative body was convened there has been a war against the Law of God.  God-hating men believe they can create a morally superior body of law and what we have seen since then is a perfect example of how blind God-hating men can be.  Let's consider some examples, shall we?
I read this story in the newspaper yesterday and it is what motivated this blog post today, "A 34 year old Louisiana man accused of stuffing $31 worth of candy bars into his pockets faces a possible sentence of 20 years to life in prison....Orleans Parish prosecutors chose to charge Jacobia Grims under a statue that boosts the alleged candy theft to a felony."  Mr. Grims had stolen some items prior to stealing the candy bars.  The government prosecutors wanted to make an example of him despite the fact the grand total of all items previously stolen came to less than $500.  They are charging him under their "multiple offenses" statute.   Biblical law would have required him to make restitution to the person he stole from, as well as include some multiple of the amount stolen depending upon what was taken.  The law as created by the secular humanists will likely send him to prison for life.
James Holmes murdered 24 people in a theater in Aurora, Colorado several years ago.  There was no doubt about the facts of the case.  He walked into a theater with several weapons and opened fire upon the people who were sitting there.  When the shooting was done 24 people were dead and Holmes walked out the front door into the arms of the police, who had done a fine job constructing a perimeter around the building.  After several years of legal maneuverings and several million dollars of taxpayer money wasted Holmes was sentenced to life in prison without parole.  Under biblical law the taxpayers would have been out a couple of thousand dollars at the most and Holmes would have been publicly executed within the week after his murderous rampage.
The ruling powers in Colorado declared that marijuana is no longer an illegal substance subject to criminal prosecution provided, of course, all marijuana businesses are conducted under the auspices of the state government.  If I attempt to grow and sell marijuana without a state issued license I can still be arrested and imprisoned for life.  But if I first obtain a state government permit I am free to do whatever I want with my marijuana.  People who bought and sold marijuana the day before it became legal are still in jail while their counterparts who now buy and sell marijuana for the state government are walking about as free men.  The state of Nebraska brought suit against Colorado in the Supreme Court of Jokers of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika and the Jokers decided that Nebraska had no standing to attempt to use the coercive power of the federal government to re-criminalize marijuana operations in Colorado.  What a joke it all is.  It is so simple under the Law of God.  Under biblical law each person is free to ingest anything he wishes to ingest.  Ingestion is not the crime.  It is what the person does while under the influence of what he ingested that is. 
The average prison sentence served for first degree murder in this immoral land is between 20 and 25 years.  "Aggravating factors," such as whether the person killed worked for the government, can increase the length of the sentence.  Biblical law is blind.  The sentence for murder is death.  Biblical law does not value the life of a government employee more than the most lowly commoner on the street. 
Adultery is a victimless crime in the SDA.   Since it is a state subsidized activity there is a lot of it going on around us.  Biblical law declares adultery to be a capital offense.  How likely do you think people would be to violate their marriage vows and commit adultery if they knew they would be executed for their behavior? 
Man made law is horrific.  It destroys justice and ruins lives.  It punishes minor infractions abusively and allows capital offenses to go unpunished.  It is subject to constant change, thus making it utterly unpredictable to obey and immoral to enforce.  When something is good one day and bad the next, what does that say about the system of law under which we live?  When the same action is punished by a fine of $100 in one state and life in prison in another state, what does that tell you about the criminal justice system that is imposed upon us?  Still, men prefer the law of the land to the Law of God.  The inherent hatred for God and His law found in all men is impossible to overcome.  The end result is we all are forced to live under the legal restrictions of a grossly immoral system.  Have no fear however.  God will not be mocked.  When the final judgment comes He will judge all men by the Law that He has already given to us.  Nobody will have an excuse for why he made the stupid and immoral decision to reject His law as He enforces it upon us all. 

Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Denver's Housing Crisis is Government Made

Some time ago I posted an article to this blog describing how Denver Mayor Hancock wants to create a massive public housing development with money the city does not have.  That article can be found here.  In the course of describing the alleged problem that exists with the housing market in Denver I referenced the economic maxim of supply and demand.  Housing in Denver is some of the most expensive in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  Depending upon whom you consult you will find Denver housing costs, for both rentals and new homes, on lists of the top five most expensive metropolitan areas in the country.  I have no reason to doubt those statistics as they are prepared by profit seeking real estate professionals rather than government bureaucrats.
In that earlier post I argued that Denver has seen an influx of new citizens while, at the same time, little to no new housing creation.  That combination of circumstances has created the dramatic rise in housing costs for the folks living in the Denver area.  I argued that eventually profit seeking businessmen would come to Denver and build all sorts of new housing developments, thus reliving the supply side problem and causing rents and new home prices to stabilize or perhaps even decline.  As it turns out, my prediction for the future is dead wrong.  There is another player in the Denver real estate market that I was not aware of at the time.  That new player is the source of the problem.  Let me tell you about that today.
I was sitting on the deck of the eight floor of a luxurious downtown condominium complex on Easter Sunday afternoon, talking with the owner, who also happens to be a man who lives and works downtown.  Across the street from his condominium was a very large residential building under construction.  I asked him if he expected the new building to create a parking problem for him since I expressed doubt that the new building would have sufficient underground parking to handle all the new residents.  He agreed that it could be a good idea for some entrepreneur to build a multi-story parking garage in order to exploit the situation of a serious lack of downtown parking.  Then he told me something I did not know.  It changed my entire understanding of the alleged problem with Denver housing costs.
Apparently the Denver city council passed a law a couple of years back designed to protect condominium purchasers from evil, profit seeking condominium builders.  In a high profile case, that I vaguely remember, a large condominium complex had been constructed with substandard materials, resulting in numerous problems for the people who purchased the units.  As I recall the situation had been resolved when the condo owners sued the builders in court, winning judgements in their favor and resolving the issues between them.  Career politicians, ever vigilant in looking for a situation to interject themselves into, decided that the citizens of Denver were dangerously unprotected from unscrupulous profit seeking businessmen and that a series of new laws needed to be created.
I do not know the specifics of the new laws but the fellow I was sitting with on the deck a week or so ago informed me that any condominium builder who makes the foolish decision to build in Denver is subjected to a series of new rules and regulations that essentially guarantee he will be sued by the purchasers of his building.  From the time construction is completed until exactly seven years later, when the new rules expire, the contractor and anyone even remotely related to him can be sued into oblivion by new owners disgruntled by even the most minor problems with their new homes.  As you would expect, building contractors have made the reasonable decision to stop condominium construction in Denver.  That lack of new construction, coupled with an increase in demand, is what has created the alleged problem of "too high" costs for housing in Denver.
Rather than admit that the creation of a housing-destructive series of laws are responsible for what we now know is an artificially inflated cost for housing in Denver, the career politicians who created the problem refuse to apologize or even acknowledge what they have done to Denver's housing-hungry residents.  On the contrary, Denver's economically challenged mayor has proposed to construct, with money the city does not have, an enormous complex of public housing which, we all know, will be doomed to devolve into slums in very short order.
This is government action at its finest.  Meddling in the business activities of people in search of votes and the potential to create a large victim class which will be obliged to vote for them, career politicians craft laws with dozens of unintentional consequences. When those consequences come home to roost they propose new laws and more spending to solve the problems they create.  The economically ignorant citizens of Denver continue to blindly believe that career politicians are good men and women out to protect them from evil businessmen.  Faith in government is strong in this land.  Envy-filled hatred for men and women who are only guilty of producing things that we want to purchase for a price we are willing to pay is also strong.  What a strange world we live in.

Monday, April 4, 2016

The Inherent Contradiction In Democracy

So now we learn that we all live in a democracy.  That is news to me.  I went to government school as a child and I was taught that the government that I was subject to was a constitutional republic.  But nobody speaks about anything called a constitutional republic anymore.  All I ever hear about is democracy this and democracy that.  We believe we are a democracy.  We believe everyone else in the world should be a democracy.  We believe that if some other sovereign nation is not a democracy we have the moral right to send military forces into that country and force it to turn into one.  That never works, of course, but we still think it is a great idea to attempt it anyway.  The concept of civil government called democracy has truly become a bit of a god in our land.
The God of the Bible has an opinion about which form of civil government is enforced in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  Would it surprise you to know that the God of the Bible does not believe in democracy?  It is true.  Back in the early days of this land, before the constitution was adopted, the political philosophers who wrote the founding documents that this country was supposed to be based upon understood that the God of the Bible did not support the concept of democracy.  To a man, every person involved in the constitutional convention believed that democracy had the potential to be even worse than  the despotism they believed they had just shaken off.  You don't have to go far to see the truth in what I just wrote.  Just read some of the writings from that era and see for yourself.
I am not proposing that all of the members of the constitutional convention were Bible believing Christians.  Most were not.  Most of them were probably deists.  Nevertheless, the great majority of them were steeped in biblical ethics and biblical political philosophy.  They understood that God, however they conceived of Him, had ordained civil government for a particular purpose.  There are different ways to describe what that particular purpose is.  Some would say that God had ordained that there should be only three civil rights conferred upon each citizen living in the land.  Those rights are the right to life, the right to freedom and the right to use their own property as they see fit.  Others would describe their fundamental understanding of civil government as being according to the non-aggression principle.  According to that view government exists to guarantee that each person is free to do whatever he wants to do provided he does not engage in aggressive actions toward his neighbor.  Still others would say that they believed that government should never be used to create winners and losers in society; that government exists for the purpose of protecting the three civil rights of the minority members within society.
The concept that civil government exists to protect the three civil rights of minority groups within society is what I was taught in government schools.  Even then I could see that it was a laughable concept since everyone I knew believed something very different.  The concept of majority rule, or democracy, had already firmly entrenched itself in the minds of my teachers and fellow students.  Under the principles of democracy the majority is free to do what it wants to with the lives, freedom and property of the minority groups that exist within the geo-political boundaries of the commonwealth.  Under the principles of democracy the majority exploits the minority groups as much as is economically and socially possible, short of inspiring armed rebellion against the majority.
49% of the citizens pay essentially all of the federal income taxes in this country because of democracy.  The civil right to own one's own property does not apply to the minority group made up of the top 49% of the income population in this envy filled country and government certainly does nothing to protect those in the top 49%.  The rich, whoever they are, are unceasingly and inaccurately castigated as evil beings deserving government regulation and control because they are in the minority.  The poor, whoever they are, are praised as moral paragons and bathed in government wealth transfer programs because they are in the majority in this country.  The concept of government limited to the protection of the rights to life, freedom and property of both the rich and the poor was abandoned long ago, if it was ever really practiced at all.
I picked up a newspaper from a local homeowners association a couple of weeks ago.  I had some time to kill one day so I read through it.  There was a section containing letters to the editor of the paper and the first letter caught my eye because it perfectly illustrated what democracy means to the God-hating citizens of this immoral land.  A lady member of the association was up in arms because she believed the association was unfairly discriminating against her as a dog owner.  Here is some of what she wrote, "I would like to call attention to the issue of horse manure on the open space trails. The open space committee has no concerns whatsoever about the piles of horse manure left on the trails.  The committee fines dog owners for not cleaning up after their pets, but will not even consider fining the equestrians for the same offense, which is totally unjust."   I love this.  Can't you just see people out riding their horses, carrying enormous blue garbage bags and shovels so they can clean up after them after they poop?
I suspect this lady has been fined for failure to clean up after her dog and she is out for blood.  She continues, "Anyone who bikes or hikes encounters enormous mounds of horse manure that need to be sidestepped by going off trail, which treads on the terrain, and poses the possibility of meeting up with a rattlesnake. Aside from the unpleasantness and noxious odors, horse manure contains parasites and viruses that can be potentially harmful.  Horse manure is a breeding ground for various pathogens and can be environmentally hazardous.  It can also be a breeding ground for flies, a nesting ground for rodents, and contaminate the water table, all of which can spread disease."  Whew!  Who knew that so many dangers are lurking in a simple pile of horse manure?  I haven't heard but I guess dozens of people have been bitten by rattlesnakes, poisoned by parasites and gagged by noxious odors due to the hard-hearted and callous behavior of equestrians.  This will not do.
So what does the dear lady who loves dogs and hate horses propose to do?  I have told you this story for a reason.  It perfectly illustrates the nature of democracy in our country today.  She writes, "I understand that horse manure decomposes quickly and that there is some practicality in shoveling it aside. That does not negate the fact that the laws should apply equally to everyone concerned.  What is excused for some but not others is in no way democratic and needs to be fully addressed."  Well there you have it.  Requiring dog owners to pick up their pet's poop and not placing that same requirement upon horse owners is undemocratic!  Although I believe anyone not blinded by hatred for horse owners can clearly see that there is no injustice in the association's rules in regard to animal waste, this woman wants to have a vote so she can impose her will upon the smaller group of people who own horses.  If she is successful in petitioning her association she might just get her way. There are far more dog owners than horse owners.  I suspect the day is coming when horse owners will be banned from the trails in her association and the moral virtues of dog poop on the trails will be extolled to high heaven.  That is what democracy does.  It creates winners and losers and the majority always wins.  What an immoral system it all is.
Government should exist to protect the civil rights of the minority.  Under the terms of democracy the civil rights of the minority are always suppressed.  That makes democracy an immoral system of government that is inherently contradictory.  It does the opposite of what it is supposed to do.  No wonder it is so popular in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.