San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Saturday, April 23, 2016

Businesses Made Patsies For Pregnant Women

I have written in recent posts about how profit seeking businesses, despite being universally hated and despised by the majority of the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, are made the patsy for practically every hair-brained government wealth transfer program conceivable.  Two posts on that topic can be found here and here.  Today I continue with another post on that theme.  Something happened in the Colorado legislature last week that you must know about.  But first, I have a quick story to tell you.
I was watching the nightly local news two days ago when the talking head on the screen informed me that her station needed funds to help out the poor person of the day.  You know about these soft "news" stories.  The local affiliate goes about town looking for some person who is down on his luck, publicizes the story, and then sits back to take credit when various good Samaritans contribute money to a bank account set up for the person by the local network affiliate.  In this case the reporter finished the report by making an appeal to the "local businesses," asking that they would take some of their profits and donate them to that night's cause.  As she uttered the words from her mouth it occurred to me that I had heard similar things many times before.  In fact, I realized that profit seeking businesses, despite being universally despised and hated, are usually one of the first entities to be hit up for cash when someone believes there is a need for cash.  Now that makes good sense since businesses are the only entity in this socialistic country that actually create new wealth and realize profits.  What does not make sense, until I ponder the sinful nature of man,  is why businesses and the people who run them would be so universally despised for doing precisely what people want them to do.
But let's get back to my original story.  According to the Denver Post, "Activist groups and the lawmakers sponsoring a bill seeking to protect pregnant Colorado women in the workplace urged support for the legislation on Wednesday as it begins its path through the Capitol.  'This is about healthy pregnancies, healthy children,' said Representative Faith Winter, a Westminster Democrat who is the legislation's lead sponsor.  The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act bars pregnancy based discrimination from employers, and mandates accommodations for pregnant women, including bathroom breaks, water and seating....Winter told reporters that she is pushing the bill because Colorado's workplace laws do not do enough to prevent pregnant women from being fired when they need simple, reasonable accommodations."  The report goes on to tell the sad story of a pregnant woman who was working as a clerk in a clothing store.  She demanded that her employer agree to allow her to essentially take home a paycheck but not do any of her usual duties because her pregnancy made it difficult and dangerous for her to perform them.  She had a note from her doctor informing the employer that she should not perform any of her usual duties because doing so could endanger the baby.  The employer told her to keep performing her usual duties.  She quit her job and now desperately wants to sue her former employer, hoping that winning the litigation lottery would alleviate her emotional pain and suffering.  This new law would allow her to do so and, most likely, guarantee that she would win her lawsuit.  Of course, she said that she supports the law so "this sort of thing would never happen again."  Isn't it amazing how altruistic all of these parasites are?
The proposed new law raises several issues in my puny little brain.  First, why are we worried about a bunch of cells bunched together inside the body of a woman?  The law of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika has already declared that a pregnant woman is not carrying a baby, or even a human being for that matter.  The glob of cells growing inside her has no rights, including the right to life.  So what if being required to perform her job duties causes a spontaneous abortion?  How would a spontaneous abortion be any different than a liposuction procedure?  In the eyes of the law the two events are identical.  My goodness, the woman can legally execute her baby and we are spinning our wheels talking about forcing the employer to give the woman a drink just because she is pregnant, whatever it means to be pregnant, although we know that it certainly does not mean she is carrying a rights-bearing human being in her body.  It is time for women to shut up about the special rights they allegedly want and need when they are pregnant given the legal fact that the extraneous tissue growing inside their bodies has no rights whatsoever.  All of this makes me Rep. Winter pro-abortion?  I bet you she is.
The second issue is equally absurd to me.  As an employer I hire people to perform a particular task.  If I hire a man to mop a floor I expect the man to mop the floor.  If he mops the floor I pay him what we agreed upon for doing so.  If he does not mop the floor he does not get paid and our employment contract terminates.  This is all very simple and just common sense.  If I come to work one day and discover that the employee I hired to mop the floor had both of his arms blown off in a tragic blimp accident why should I be responsible to keep him on the payroll?  I would ask him if he can continue to mop the floor, as we agreed upon previously, by using his mouth or his chin.  If he could we are okay.  If he cannot he will be terminated.  Am I terminating him because I am an evil business man, as most everyone would claim?  No, I am terminating him because he can no longer perform his job.  If I feel sorry for my limbless former employee I might throw a couple of dollars his way but I have no legal or moral obligation to do so.
If, as a result of being pregnant, a woman can no longer perform her job description, why should the employer be required to pay her for work she does not do?  Why should the employer be the patsy for her medical condition?  Why should her family not be required to pick up the slack for her while she is pregnant?  Why should her husband not pick up the slack for her when she is pregnant?  If she is a Christian, why should her church not pick up the slack for her while she is pregnant?  Why must the law of the land always require the profit seeking businessman (hated by the way for seeking the profits that will be used to pay off this woman) to pick up the slack for her while she is pregnant?
There is no moral reason why a profit seeking businessman should be legally required to subsidize the voluntary pregnancy of a female employee.  When the woman decided to become pregnant she also decided to take on the responsibilities associated with her pregnancy.  One of those responsibilities is determining what she can and can't do in the market place.  If she can no longer perform her duties as described in her employment contract she should resign from her position rather than forcing her employer to fire her.  That would be the noble thing to do.  That never happens in the SDA.  There is precious little nobility to be found in the citizens of this immoral and disgusting land.  On the contrary, in the SDA pregnant women run screaming to their god of civil government and ask for a law that will force their employers to subsidize their pregnancies.  Once again profit seeking businessmen are made the patsy for a government protected class.  No doubt when businessmen complain that they are being made the patsy for another politically protected group they will be cast as greedy monsters who are not paying their fair share of taxes to finance the socialist heaven we all live in.  Praise Bernie!

Christians Must Abandon Their Beliefs To Be Good Citizens

The results are in from the first official Mad Welshman poll and the information conveyed by the poll is shocking, more shocking than Donald Trump assuming leadership of the GOP.  The true/false question asked of MW readers was "Christians must abandon their beliefs to be good citizens."  A whopping 75% of those responding to the poll answered that it was true that Christians must abandon their religious/theological/personal beliefs in order to participate in civil society in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  Since we all believe in the religion of democracy it is necessarily the case that what 75% of MW readers believe to be true is true.  I too concur that a Christian must abandon all belief in biblical truth if he wants to participate in civil government in this land and will argue for that position in today's post.
I read an article yesterday about a teenage girl, I have already forgotten where this story took place, who has decided to declare that she is really a boy.  The first thing the article informed me is that a legal distinction has now been made in this country between gender and sex.  Apparently several courts have upheld the rhetorical fiction that sex is a physical characteristic of the genetic code whereas gender is whatever name or sexual identity a person wishes to self-identify with.  So I am a member of the male sex but I can identify myself, legally and forcefully, as either male, female, bisexual, transsexual or, as I usually prefer, a hermaphrodite.  In this case the girl is a girl but tells people she is a boy.   Some lawyers who advocate for sexual perversion found out about her and the trouble soon started.
The girl attends a government school so the lawyers sued the government school for sex discrimination when they refused to allow her to use the boy's bathrooms.  In response to the lawsuit the school, at taxpayer expense, constructed three new bathrooms around the school facility for her exclusive use.  If you believe that this issue is about justice and fairness you would be forced to conclude that what the taxpayers did should have been sufficient....but this is not about justice and fairness, it is about creating a privileged government class.  Quite predictably the girl and her legion of lawyers said the new bathrooms were also discriminatory because she is a self-identified male and should be allowed to use the boy's bathrooms.  The case went to court and, also not surprisingly, the girl won and she now uses the boy's bathrooms although she admits it feels "awkward" to do so.
Although not all Christians agree on which doctrines apply to the public square I am going to give you a list of doctrines that Christians are not permitted to discuss in public.  The list is mine and does not necessarily represent all people who call themselves Christians.  In each case the belief that I present is a long-standing doctrinal position in the historical and orthodox Christian Church.  Also in each case, the belief that I present is not permitted in this immoral country if one wishes to be deemed a good citizen.  This list could go on for hundreds of examples but I do not have that much time.  I need to go outside and cut my grass (bluegrass and fescue, not the other type of grass legal in Colorado).  Consider the following examples:
  • Homosexuality is a government protected and privileged class.  Christian businessmen are legally required to serve homosexuals, even when their requests are offensive to biblical truth, whereas homosexual business people are not required to serve Christians when they are offended by biblical truth.  The majority of the people in this envy filled country now believe homosexual behavior and homosexuals are right dandy in the eyes of God.  Anyone who holds the traditional Christian view on the matter is labeled a purveyor of hatred and will, eventually, be arrested for hate speech when voicing orthodox Christian doctrinal positions.
  • The myth of evolution is taught in government schools.  That is a good reason to never send your kids to government schools.  Other good reasons to not send your kids to public schools is the fact that they have become prison-like, patrolled by armed guards carrying assault weapons, they teach the myth of global warming, they indoctrinate your kids into the tenets of socialism and your daughters have a chance at being bludgeoned to death in a girl's bathroom by a bunch of other girls.  Teaching the doctrine of creation, despite the fact it is true, is specifically prohibited in government schools. Teachers who attempt to do so will be fired.  In fact, I think it is about the only thing that can dislodge a government school teacher these days.  
  • The aforementioned myth of global warming is not only taught in government schools, it is taught universally throughout the land.  Anyone who dares to disagree with the religious doctrines of global warming is classified as a "denier" and socially ostracized.  Holding to the Christian belief that the earth is big enough to take care of itself without any of our help, as well as adhering to the concomitant belief that it is the duty of mankind to subdue and control the earth for our benefit as much as we possibly can, is strictly forbidden.  No Christian may be allowed to hold to the doctrine of the dominion mandate in the public square in the SDA.
  • The Bible declares that "if a man will not work, neither shall he eat."  The civil government of the SDA declares that if a man makes the voluntary decision to not work he immediately receives a moral claim on the money and income of those who do work.  A program is created to forcibly and legally extract money from the productive and transfer it to the unproductive.  No Christian involved in the public square who declared his desire to abolish all government income transfer payment programs would ever be permitted to speak or hold office.  
  • The Bible declares that all wars must be defensive in nature if they are to be moral in nature.  The Bible prohibits the creation of an empire.  There are probably less than a couple of dozen people in this hate filled land who believe the Amerikan empire is immoral.  Any Christian who dares to oppose the warfare state of the Amerikan empire will be shouted down and forbidden to speak.  It is a certainty that no Christian who wishes to express his opinions against the Amerikan empire will be given the floor except in government designated "free speech" zones which are always, for some unknown reason, far away from any place people would typically gather.  
  • To hold any public position in the SDA a Christian must confess his belief in the myth of neutrality.  The myth of neutrality, for those of you who are unaware, is the mythological belief that Christians hold "religious" positions that do not apply to the real world while the vast majority of God-hating citizens in this country hold morally neutral secular positions on all of life's issues.  Religious positions, as the Constitution itself declares, are not permitted in the public square.  On the other hand, secular positions are exclusively permitted to be discussed.  Perhaps the best way to illustrate this position would be to ask you a simple question.  What would happen if you referred to the Bible to support your position in a debate?  I think we all know that, in addition to being ridiculed, we would not be permitted to use the Bible in the public square.  We would be called "Bible thumpers" and be accused of "ramming the Bible down other people's throats."  Meanwhile, all of the "secular" pagans in the country are spewing mindless drivel about what they believe which is equally religious in nature.  The myth of neutrality refuses to recognize or acknowledge that all assertions about the nature of reality are essentially religious in nature.  The question is not one of being secular or religious.  The question is which religion will we follow.  In the SDA Christianity is outlawed.
  • I believe it is immoral to participate in an immoral system so I quite logically also believe it is immoral to vote.  I recognize that Christians disagree on this position but that is not my point here.  The all powerful state orders us all to vote, in no uncertain terms.  Voting is the religious sacrament of the religious worship of civil government.  Congress has considered a law in the past, and I believe will eventually enact it in the future, making it illegal to not vote.  Every politician you hear says something along the lines of, "it does not matter who you vote for but you must vote."  That is one of the single dumbest things I have ever heard.  It matters enormously who I vote for.  By elevating the act of voting to a religious sacrament the state betrays its true nature.  As a non-voter I am yelled at, accused of disloyalty to the government and informed I should move to another country simply because I do not vote.  Clearly I must abandon this Christian belief if I wish to be a good citizen of the SDA.  
I opened my morning paper today, after finishing this blog post, and was treated to a story entitled, "Grand Junction rescinds Schilling invite."  How a city can engage in a personal action was not explained.  Nevertheless, I did get the gist of the story.   Curt Schilling is a former baseball player (a very good one by the way) who is also an outspoken Christian.  Since retiring from baseball he has held several positions in the media calling baseball games and being a guest speaker.  Until Wednesday he was employed by ESPN.  Last week Schilling posted comments to his Facebook account about the current movement for transgendered perverts to receive special government protective status, calling it and the behavior wrong.  As soon as ESPN executives discovered his comments he was summarily fired.  Please tell me why that is not discrimination?  Please tell me why that is not a perfect example of how a Christian must abandon his beliefs to be considered a good citizen of this God-hating country?  After he was fired by ESPN some unnamed cowards operating the NJCAA Division I JUCO World Series banquet in Grand Junction, Colorado, informed Schilling that he was being disinvited as their keynote speaker.  Please tell me why that is not discrimination?  Please tell me again how Christians are free to voice their opinions in the public square without recrimination for doing so?  Please explain to me, despite all evidence to the contrary, why Christians are not required to abandon their beliefs prior to having an opinion and voicing it in public.  As far as I know only Christians and smokers are not allowed to say what they believe.  All other groups, no matter how perverted they may be, are given carte blanch to say anything they want.  The SDA is not only a post-Christian society.  It is now a Christian hating society.  Expect more of it.

Thursday, April 21, 2016

If You Serve One Member Of The Public You Must Serve Them All

If there is one thing we, as citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, have learned it is that any business that serves the public (is there any other kind?) must not discriminate between various customers.  Equality in all things is all the rage. Discrimination is right out.  In the old days I remember seeing signs informing me, as a potential customer, that the proprietor "reserved the right to refuse to serve anyone."  Or, in some cases, a sign simply informed me, "No shirt, no shoes, no service."  Nobody that I was aware of ever complained about those acts of discrimination, although I did not hang out with a lot of shirtless and shoe-less people during that time.  Maybe they complained, but even if they did nobody cared.  They were told to grow up, get over it and go buy a pair of shoes and a shirt.
In the SDA everything has changed for the worse.  These days everyone must be a member of a victim class that has special privileges and protections from the federal government.  Enormous sums of money are expended by various groups of people in search of government approved victim status.  Once that status is achieved the members of those classes go about asserting their authority over others and generally making the lives of normal people like me a bit less enjoyable.  What jerks they all are.
Recent cases wherein Christian business people were forced to perform services for people they would rather not serve have made this a hot topic.  We are all aware of the militant heterophobic lobby that has pushed through laws and legal precedents which allow them to force Christian business people to serve them whether they want to or not.  Given the current state of affairs in this perverted country I do not think it will be long before some militant heterophobes sue a church for refusing to hire one of them as a pastor.  Then the theological rubber will really hit the road.  Pastors will be carted off to jail and their churches will suffer heavy fines simply because they believe in the ancient, historic and orthodox Christian doctrine of the sinfulness of homosexual behavior.
The argument that is always made in support of the heterophobe's perverted position is that once a business person opens a business he is not permitted to choose whom he will serve.  We have heard this argument so many times it now tends to fall upon deaf ears.  It shouldn't.  It is an important legal precedent that only goes one way and that needs to be exposed for the hypocritical law that it is.  Shortly after Christians in Denver were persecuted by heterophobes for refusing to serve them, a Christian fellow in Colorado Springs reversed the terms in the matter.  He went to a heterophobic business and placed an order for something the heterophobe did not want to produce.  Not surprisingly, the heterophobe refused to serve the Christian.  In other words, the heterophobe discriminated against the Christian because of his personal beliefs that homosexual behavior is right dandy in the eyes of God and, most importantly, in the eyes of the SDA government.  The Christian took him to court and, as we all know, lost the case. The Judge looked at the facts and declared that he could not see any signs of discrimination on the part of the heterophobe despite the fact he refused to serve a Christian because of his own personal and discriminatory beliefs.  So much for logical and legal consistency.
Yesterday I was reading the newspaper and I came across an interesting article that adds to the body of hypocrisy that is steadily building up in this immoral land in regards to the requirement for businesses to serve everyone.  The article was entitled, "Snowboarder ban at Utah resort okayed."  The brief story went on to inform me that, "A federal appeals court backed a ban on snowboarders at a Utah ski resort, saying the private business has a right to remain one of the last resorts in the nation to ban the activity."  Now isn't that an interesting way to report the story.  Notice how the author carefully describes the ski resort as a "private business" although the business is clearly serving the public and is no more private than the Christian bakery in Denver is.  Or, conversely, if the ski resort can be deemed a private business then the Christian bakery must be as well.  I guess when the media wants to cast a profit seeking corporation in a favorable light they call it a private business but when they want to slander a business it is suddenly a public one, even though they are both engaging in the exact same sorts of business activities.
The report said, "snowboarders had argued that it was discriminatory to stop them from shredding its slopes at the resort largely on public land."  Notice the argument being made here once again.  The snowboarders, who the media obviously hate more than ski resort owners, attempted to make the case that the business, which is clearly serving the public just as much as the Denver bakery is serving the public, is a public business because it operates largely on public lands.  Now let's get one thing straight.  Snowboarders, also know as knuckle-draggers, knuckle-heads or nincompoops, are being discriminated against at Alta ski resort in Utah.  Alta ski resort is also clearly serving the public.  It is not a private, members only, resort.  Why, then, does the rule that forced the Christian businessman to serve heterophobic people not apply here?  The answer is obvious.  The rule does not apply here because Alta is not ostensibly a Christian business and there is no value to be derived from persecuting a business that is not overtly Christian.  Remember, in the SDA you are encouraged to persecute and prosecute two groups of people.  Those two groups are smokers and Christians.  The fact that the law requiring equal service for all, with discrimination against none, does not apply to Alta ski resort is simply another example of government hypocrisy and it once again illustrates that Christians have no voice in the civil affairs of this disgusting and immoral country.  Take note Christians....your voice will never be heard.  The matter is already settled and it does not matter what you might have to say.  In the SDA, the opinions of Christians are irrelevant.

A reader wrote to ask me about the specifics of the Colorado Springs case mentioned above.  A Christian individual went to a bakery owned and operated by a homosexual and asked him to bake a cake for him.  The inscription on the cake, as described by the Christian, was to be a verse from the Bible declaring homosexuality to be sinful. The homosexual business owner refused to serve the Christian. The Christian sued and the Judge deciding the case declared the homosexual business owner was not engaging in discriminatory practices against the Christian when he refused to serve him.  

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Women Should Stop Whining About Wages

“'Equal pay for equal work should be a fundamental principle of our economy,' bellowed President Obama while commemorating Equal Pay Day. 'It’s the idea that whether you’re a high school teacher, a business executive, or a professional soccer player or tennis player, your work should be equally valued and rewarded, whether you are a man or a woman.'”  Apparently King Obama does not realize it but there is a big difference between the way he believes things "should be" and the way things are.  Let's consider that fact here today.
Who is to define what equal work is?  Given the fact that every single human being who has ever existed performs tasks in a fashion different than every other human being that has ever existed (a favorite mantra of the the government school clique which instructs your children that "every child is unique"), where does our King come up with the concept that two people can perform the same job description in exactly the same way?  I agree with the principle of equal pay for equal work, as it is determined by the free market and not by some career politician.  The problem is not with that principle, the problem is that nobody in the universe ever engages in equal work.  Experience levels, educational levels, performance abilities and a host of other factors guarantee that nobody ever does something the same way as someone else.  So the question really becomes something quite different.  Who is to determine what work is being performed and who is to determine how closely the work being performed compares to the work being performed by another person in the same job description?  There are only two answers to those questions and those answers are government bureaucrats or the free market. For my money I will take the free market.
Ask any group of government school teachers if there is even a slight difference between them in regards to their teaching abilities and I suspect, if they were honest and did not have to worry about retribution for what they say,  you will receive a cacophony of powerful assertions that some teachers are good and some teachers are bad, despite the fact they are all performing the same task and receiving the same pay scale.   Should they be paid equally?  Even the most hardened lover of government, like a government school teacher, would jump at the chance to be better paid for his self-perceived better teaching ability, even if that money had to come from those he appraises to be inferior teachers.  My point is that once the incessantly chanted phrase of "equal pay for equal work" is actually dissected it becomes impossible to argue for equality of compensation since there is never equality of performance.
Feminists are particularly shrill when it comes to this subject.  They love to rail on and on, in their squeaky high little voices, about how they keep bumping their noggins on the glass ceiling.  They allege that all male actors in the free market are misogynists out to get them by making sure they never make as much money as their male counterparts.  It is all propaganda, of course, as anyone with half a brain (a couple of women might meet that qualification, but other than my wife I am not sure who they are) knows that women are compensated in the free market exactly like men are....according to how much they produce.  Women do not want equal pay, they want unequal pay.  They want to be paid more than the market will bear based upon what they actually produce and they want the government to make sure that comes about.  That makes them all good socialists. 
Hadley Heath Manning of the Independent Women's Forum wrote an op-ed piece in the Denver Post a week or so ago that has received the wrath of the feminists.  Hadley is not one of them. She believes in the free market and she advanced numerous arguments in favor of the correction belief that women are not being discriminated against, in terms of compensation, in the marketplace.  Two women responded to Hadley by writing letters to the editor of the newspaper.  Let's consider their arguments here today.
Joan Gosink of Golden writes in response to a claim made by Hadley that many women realize they will be paid less and are fine with that fact by asserting, "Most of us don't have that luxury.  We would rather have the money to support our families and pay the rent....It is time to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act."  As I considered Joan's argument I had a new idea pop into my head.  New ideas do not pop into my head as much these days as they used to.  Maybe my head is smaller, or maybe I am getting even dumber, or maybe there is just no room for new ideas but this one managed to force its way into my brain and it seems to make some sense to me.  Let's see what you think.
One of the favorite phrases used by people like Joan is "working women need a high enough wage to pay their bills."  Joan says essentially the same thing when she exclaims that she needs "enough money to support my family."  I do not doubt that Joan needs money to support her family, although I wonder if she has two cars, what the square footage of her home is, how many big screen televisions she has, what her monthly PED (personal electronic device) bill is and how many tattoos she has purchased in the last twelve months.  In my experience the people who complain the most about the need for their employer to pay their bills usually spend more per month on unnecessary items than I spend on my necessities.  But that is another matter and not the focus of my post today.
What I finally realized after years of listening to women complain about paying their bills is they believe that the social relationship that exists in this envy-filled country between profit seeking businesses and the women they employ is one whereby the business is morally responsible to pay their monthly expenses simply because the business has profits and they have monthly bills.  I wrote a week or so ago about how businesses are always the patsy in this country.  This is another example of businesses being treated like chumps.  Feminists really believe that profit seeking businesses have a moral responsibility to pay their monthly bills just because the business earns a profit and they have bills they want paid.  Just like businesses are expected to pay for my neighbor's daughter's abortions, now they are expected to pay the monthly bills of anyone and everyone who works for them.  All of the nonsensical chatter about a $15/hour minimum wage is the same sort of thing.  Those people really believe that money grows on business trees and businessmen who own those trees are morally responsible to give enough of that money to each of their employees to pay their monthly bills, whatever they may be.  The idea is preposterous and immoral but it fits in well with our socialist system.
It used to be the union leaders, thankfully most of them are long gone now, who proclaimed that companies with profits needed to stop being greedy and distribute those profits to their employees, without whom, they alleged, those profits could never have been earned.  Women have taken up the same chant as the old union leaders as they scour corporate income statements in search of profits which they then selfishly proclaim belong to them simply because they are employed by the company.  That sort of thinking is so completely disconnected from the real world it is hard to find the words to express how stupid it is.  But I will try.
Joan, listen carefully here, a businessman views labor as an expense.  When you sell your labor to a company you are doing just that, and nothing more.  You do not own the company.  You do not have a controlling interest in the company.  None of your money or capital is put at risk in the company.  You are a person selling your labor to a company in search of labor and nothing more.  It therefore follows that when a businessman does a good job at serving the public by producing goods and services for people at prices the people are willing to pay for those goods and services, that the profits realized by that businessman belong to him and not to Joan or any other seller of labor services.  Joan has no moral claim on those profits and, although it is true her labor was instrumental in producing them, they are not her profits and she could have easily been replaced by many other people willing to sell their labor services to the business.  If Joan does not like those real world conditions she can go live in a fantasy world created by Bernie Sanders where everyone makes tons of money from rich people and nobody ever has to work.
Carol Foster of Highlands Ranch goes a different route in her criticism of Hadley.  She writes, "I found Hadley Heath Manning's opinion piece to be offensive. The wage gap has not resulted from choices women make, it results from gender discrimination that has existed for centuries.  Obviously this woman has never had to march and burn her bra to be heard.  Nor has she expressed any gratitude to those of us in the generation who did those things and from which she has benefited....Gender discrimination and race are the bases for pay inequality, and always have been."  Wow!  Carol is really nuts.
Carol begins, as so many do, by proclaiming her offense.  Anyone who disagrees with Carol is offensive and should be forbidden to speak.  What does that tell us about Carol?  A lot, I would suggest, and none of it is good.  After announcing that Hadley has no right to offer up her opinion Carol does not hesitate to give us hers.  Surprise, surprise, Carol sees sexism everywhere.  Carol is obviously of my generation.  She proudly announces that she marched and burned her bra to earn whatever it is she thinks she has earned in her life. I thought that people earned things by working but now Carol tells me that we can earn things by marching and burning bras.  I had better march over to Wal-Mart and buy some bras so I can make a living.   Ironically, from Carol's viewpoint,  she did not earn much from all of her marching and burning activities because she still thinks working conditions for women are terrible.  Carol should have stayed home and left her bra on.  In fact, most women should stay home and leave their bras on.  Most of all however, women need to stop their incessant whining about wages.  It makes them so unattractive to men and that, we all must acknowledge, is what really matters to a woman. 

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

A Test For Voters

We live in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, although you would be hard pressed to show how the procedures followed by the two dominant political parties in this immoral country have anything to do with a true democratic process.  The party elites in both controlling political parties, also known as super-delegates, have an unfair advantage in determining who will be the next party nominee.  It is not a democratic process at all, although they are free to structure their political parties as they see fit.  Regardless of how they get there, once the two political parties that are in control have selected their candidates and all other third party or independent candidates have been effectively silenced, the final procedure to determine who will be our next king is seemingly quite democratic.
Although obvious to everyone with half a brain, participants in the democratic process continue to ignore the fact that democracy has two dangerous Achilles heels.  Indeed, the mere belief in democracy is a great and substantial threat to the national security of the SDA.   I have written about the first heel many times in this blog.  Simply put, democracy panders to the envy of the voters.  Everyone wants something for nothing and everyone believes that the neighbors who make more money than he does are evil and deserving of punishment by the civil government by means of a lawful, but immoral, transfer of wealth from them to him.  Envy is practically the exclusive basis for everything that takes place in this land.  We can thank Bernie for finally bringing this truth to the forefront as anyone who spends even a couple of minutes listening to him can discern that the rich, always defined as someone who makes more money than me, are evil and deserving of the wrath of the state.  Incidentally, did you know that Bernie made well in excess of $200k last year?  Does that not make him rich?  Does that not make him evil?  How can you vote for an evil rich man?  Just wondering....
The second Achilles heel of democracy does not have so much to do with the political process as it does the nature of the participants.  For the most part the citizens of the SDA are excessively stupid.  I do not write this to anger anyone, I am just telling the truth.  Once again, if we are  honest with ourselves, we are forced to admit that the great majority of the people who live in this ignorant backwater of a country are excessively and obviously very stupid.  Now writing that most people are very stupid does not mean they are inferior human beings.  Being stupid is not a negative character trait, it is simply a fact about most people, like the size of their ears or the width of their mouths.  When I write that most people are stupid that is not meant to be taken as an insult.  Indeed, everyone in this land is also utterly sinful and totally depraved, shot through with both original and actual sin.  That statement is also simply an observation about reality and not an attempt to insult anyone.
Now if everyone is excessively stupid and utterly sinful it necessarily follows that granting civil authority to the group that can garner the most votes is generally going to guarantee that the most immoral, sinful and stupid person will be elected.  It also essentially guarantees that the laws enacted by those appointed representatives will also be excessively sinful and stupid.  All of this sounds like a perfect description of life in the SDA, does it not?
Making the declaration that almost everyone is stupid does not preclude the fact that some people are not.  I will leave it up to you to determine, based upon what I have posted to this blog the past four years, if I am one of the stupid people.  My goal is to not be stupid but, who knows, I might be a raving idiot and not even be aware of it.  One thing I know for sure is that I do not know everything so it is possible I could be one of the dumbest people on earth.  I could be too dumb to know I am dumb. Ultimately it does not matter how stupid I am because I do not participate in the immoral and God-hating shenanigans that take place in this country every time an election cycle comes around.  I let everyone else select who will be the next crop of rulers and then do my level best to keep my head low and my mouth shut as I desperately try to protect myself from the reams of new immoral rules and regulations that will be forced upon me.  Just avoid the jack-booted thugs is my motto. 
As I have pondered the democratic process it seems to me that it would make sense to have some sort of qualifying test to select who should be allowed to vote and who should be locked out of the voting booth.  I know all God-hating and State-loving people will protest such a thought.  Everyone with a pulse should be allowed to vote, they say.  Everyone who wants to legally steal his neighbor's property, as well as expand the Amerikan empire around the world, should have the right to declare his opinion about who is best qualified to perform those actions by means of the vote.  I disagree and since this is my blog I am going to propose a test for voters.  Anyone who does not pass the test would be prohibited from voting if I were Supreme Commander of the SDA.  Only those who pass the test would be allowed to vote.  So, without further ado, here is a simple ten question test to determine if you should be allowed to vote in SDA political contests.  Every question is either true or false.  After taking the test total up the number of true and false answers and compare your answers to the answer key found below:
  1. Men, women, gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, transvestites, hermaphrodites, fans of reality television and all supporters of Caitlin Jenner who seek public office are generally more noble spirited and intelligent people than the members of the general population and they only seek political office in order to perform good deeds on behalf of the citizenry of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.
  2. People who believe in the free market and who spend their time in pursuit of profit are generally less noble spirited people than the rest of us.  Furthermore, since profit seeking individuals are also sinful it is inevitable that the pursuit of profit will result in graft, theft and the lying necessary to cover up those aberrant behaviors. 
  3. One of the primary purposes of civil government is to take money from the greedy wealthy people living among us (generally those who believe in the free market) and distribute it to the noble poor people living among us (generally those who believe in the omniscient and beneficent state). 
  4. The rich do not pay their fair share of taxes.  Raising taxes on the rich is always a fair, just, equitable and downright swell idea.
  5. Evangelical Christians must abandon their religious beliefs in the public square if they wish to be good citizens.  It is impossible to be a good citizen of the SDA and cling to outdated, antiquated and hate-filled religious beliefs from a previous era.  Christian doctrine and politics simply do not mix.  When Christians enter the public square they must leave their biblical beliefs and opinions behind and enter the morally, politically, doctrinally and religiously neutral realm of secular political action.
  6. Although most people are really smart, it is a primary job of government to protect people from the depredations of profit seeking business people by legislating enormous bodies of rules and regulations which are then carefully enforced by legions of moral and dedicated public servants known as bureaucrats.  When in doubt, make a new rule. 
  7. It is a matter of national significance and honor that must be dealt with swiftly by the SDA military when a member of ISIS cuts off the head of a citizen of a European country during a conflict in Syria.
  8. It is a not matter of national significance and honor that must be dealt with by the SDA military when an ISIS-like group kidnaps 200 Nigerian girls and turns them into their personal sex slaves.
  9. Career politicians and bureaucrats, armed with giant computers and control of the money supply, can ensure continuing economic growth despite the negative impact of greedy profit seeking entrepreneurs upon our economy. 
  10. The best solution to every alleged problem in this country is the passing of a new law forbidding the offending behavior, provided that new law is properly enforced by noble heroes known as bureaucrats and policemen. 
How did you do?  How many "True" answers did you have?  Here is the answer key:  there is only one "true" answer and that is number 8.  It is not the business of the SDA or the SDA military when atrocities take place in foreign lands.   I conclude that unless you recognized that every statement made above, except number 8, is false you are not qualified to vote.  Won't you join me and the rest of the silent majority and not vote this year?

Monday, April 18, 2016

Just What Is Congress Doing?

Most people are probably aware that Congress is now one of the least popular institutions in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  According to various polls over the past couple of years the approval rating for Congress has dropped to as low as 17%.  That percentage is a historic low and indicates just how much the citizens of this legalistic land are disgusted by the people they have elected to make new laws to attempt to control the behavior of their neighbors.  Congress, as you also know, only exists to do one thing and that is to make new laws. Every time Congress passes a new law that law is passed on to the federal bureaucracy and hundreds, sometimes thousands, of new rules are enacted to interpret and specify procedures for enforcement of the new law.  The government loving citizens of the SDA want something other than a do nothing Congress.  Apparently they want a Congress that enacts thousands of laws per year, thus potentially creating hundreds of thousands of new rules for us all to follow every year.  The more laws Congress passes the less freedom we all have but that does not keep the state worshiping citizens of this land from wanting more of them. 
I suspect most people are not actually aware of the great body of new legislation that is passed each year.  I went to this website to find out just what a "do nothing" Congress actually did for just one congressional session.  The 113th Congress of the USA passed a near record low 296 new laws in FY 2014.  I would like to take some time today to show you just how crucial, vital and important those new laws were.  Frankly, I do not know how we survived as a country prior to the 113th Congress.  I can't conceive of a country without the body of law passed that year guiding us and keeping us safe from harm.  You might want to click though to the website mentioned above to see just how ridiculous Congress has become.  Here, in no particular order and with no particular agenda on my part, are a handful of the 296 new laws created by Congress in FY 2014.  In each case I list the name of the new law, a summary of what the law does and, in parenthesis, any comments I might have about it.
  • Collectible Coin Protection Act:  Amends the Hobby Protection Act to make it a violation of such Act for a person to provide substantial assistance or support to any manufacturer, importer, or seller if that person knows or should have known that such manufacturer, importer, or seller has engaged in any act or practice that violates requirements for plainly identifying imitation political items or imitation coins and other numismatic items. (The Hobby Protection Act was clearly an inferior law in serious need of amendment.  I am so thankful this law was passed.  I can't begin to tell  you how many imitation coins I have purchased in my life but now, thanks to this law, that will never happen again.)
  • Sudden Unexpected Death Data Enhancement and Awareness Act:  Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to continue and report on activities related to stillbirth, sudden unexpected infant death, and sudden unexplained death in childhood, including collaborating with states and experts to improve the quality and consistency of data collected after one of these deaths.  (As if the death of a child is not traumatic enough, now agents from the federal government sweep down upon the grieving parents and grill them with questions designed to increase their feelings of guilty over the death of their child.  A simple question....why are stillbirths and SIDs any business of the federal government?)
  • Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act:  Grants the Secretary of the Interior permanent authority to authorize any state to issue electronic duck stamps.  Sets forth state electronic duck stamp application requirements. Allows the Secretary to determine the number of new states permitted per year to participate in the electronic duck stamp program.  Instructs the Secretary to require electronic stamp revenue and customer information collected by each state to be transmitted in accordance with a written agreement between the Secretary and the state.  (How did we survive without this crucial law?  Just knowing that the State of Colorado now has federal authority to issue electronic duck stamps allows me to sleep easier at night.  On the other hand, knowing that my personal duck stamp information is being sent to the feds make me sleep less easy at night.   The net result is I now sleep exactly the same way I did before the act.)
  • Propane Education and Research Enhancement Act:   Amends the Propane Education and Research Act of 1996 to direct the Propane Education and Research Council to develop for propane distributors and consumers training programs on strategies to mitigate negative effects of future propane price spikes. (Honestly, I get so confused when I go down to the local store to fill up my propane bottle.  Sometimes it cost he $10 and other times it costs me $9.  Now, thanks to this new law, I have an education resource that can help me with my confusion.  I hope they will provide counselors for me as well since those price spikes cause me great emotional disturbance.)
  • Smart Savings Act:   Makes the default investment in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) an age-appropriate target date asset allocation investment fund (L Fund), instead of the Government Securities Investment Fund (G Fund), if no election has been made for the investment of available funds. Retains the Government Securities Investment Fund as the default fund for members of the Uniformed Services (This tells me all I need to know about how Congress views military personnel.  They amend the federal government's retirement program to require a target date fund, utilizing some performance enhancing stocks in the portfolio, as the default investment selection whereas military personnel are still stuck with a performance killing government bond fund.  Apparently soldiers can risk their lives expanding the SDA empire but they are too stupid to risk their money in the stock market.)
  • Honor Flight Act:   Directs the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to establish a process for providing expedited and dignified passenger screening services for veterans traveling on an Honor Flight Network private charter, or another not-for-profit organization that honors veterans, to visit war memorials built and dedicated to honor their service. (This new law says a lot about how our rulers view both us and the military.  After insulting the members of the military with the Smart Savings Act, they throw them a bone by requiring profit seeking airlines to do something to honor them when they fly to visit war memorials built in their honor.  What, precisely, the airlines are expected to do is no doubt contained in the myriad rules created by the TSA to enforce this new law. This new law is also a tacit admission that passenger screening services suffered by civilians like you and me are undignified.  Apparently if you wear your uniform to the TSA screening area you can get through without being groped, an indignity suffered by us mere mortals.  Good for them.) 
  • Traumatic Brain Injury Reauthorization Act:  A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize certain programs relating to traumatic brain injury and to trauma research. (I became familiar with the federal government's incursion into brain injury research when I received my first traffic ticket last year.  Included in my huge fine was a fee for brain injury research.  Thanks to this law I know that I will be forced to pay that fee again, should I ever run afoul of the law in the future.)
  • Examination and Supervisory Privilege Parity Act:  Amends the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, with respect to the supervision of nondepository covered persons, to include state agencies that licence, supervise, or examine the offering of consumer financial products or services among the regulatory agencies with which the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is required to coordinate its supervisory activities. Declares that the sharing of information with such regulators, authorities, and agencies shall not be construed as waiving, destroying, or otherwise affecting any privilege or confidentiality claimed by nondepository covered persons under federal or state law regarding such information as to any person or entity other than the CFPB, agency, supervisor, or authority.  (Did you get all of that?  Neither did I.  This bill was sponsored by Ed Perlmutter, a Representative from Colorado.  I think Ed is a lawyer, don't you?  The only thing I could glean from the legalese written above is that it is now the law that various government agencies can share private information about the citizens of this land with impunity.  Hummm.....I wonder why Apple and Microsoft are so reticent to give the feds their code?)
  • United States Anti-Doping Agency Reauthorization Act:  Amends the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006 to:
    • (1) authorize appropriations for the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency for FY2014-FY2020,
    • (2) require that the Agency be recognized worldwide as the independent national anti-doping organization for the United States, and
    • (3) replace the Agency's role in preventing the use by U.S. amateur athletes of performance-enhancing genetic modifications accomplished through gene doping with a role in preventing the use of prohibited performance-enhancing methods adopted by the Agency.
    • (Why is it the business of the federal government of the SDA to be spending tax dollars to police the behavior of amateur athletes who might make the decision to use performance enhancing drugs?  Does anybody know where the authority to do this is found in the Constitution?) 
Enough!  I can hear you screaming at me.  Enough!  I did not cherry-pick the laws listed above.  They are really representative of the sorts of things Congress does every single day.  There were dozens of laws dedicated to nothing more than naming government buildings around the country after fellow career politicians.   What a bunch of self-glorifying people our rulers are.  And don't forget, we the taxpayers are paying the bill for all of these essential services and new laws. 
I have really only one question for Congress.  Why do we need you?  The things you do are either harmful or meaningless. The great majority  of the laws are meaningless and only add to the size of the federal bureaucracy.  The handful of bills that are meaningful, like sanctions against Russia, Syria and Iran, are harmful and dangerous.  Wouldn't we all be much better off if Congress were simply permanently dissolved.  If elected I promise to sponsor a bill to permanently dissolve Congress.  Will you vote for me?

Sunday, April 17, 2016

Women Don't Belong In Politics

There are many places women do not belong.  A woman does not belong in a man's bathroom, despite what the trannies like to tell us about their seriously confused gender identities.  A woman does not belong in the military and most certainly should never be put into a combat position as canon fodder in wars of empire expansion.  A woman does not belong on a men's sporting team.  A woman does not belong in a men's golf or social club.  A woman does not belong in the pulpit, a woman does not belong as the head of a household and today I am going to explain to you why a woman does not belong in politics.
Lest I be labeled a misogynist right off the bat let me make it very clear that I am pro-woman.  Some of my best friends are women.  I married a woman.  My mom was a woman.  I appreciate the female perspective on life and I enjoy being in the company of women.  Unlike many men I am quite comfortable sitting around for an afternoon with a group of women, discussing things of importance and significance to them.  So do not think for one minute that what I am about to write comes from some deep seated hatred or animosity towards women.  That mentality does not exist within my persona.
Evangelical Christians have dozens of behavioral and theological problems but one thing they get right (did I mention that some of my best friends are Evangelicals?) is the doctrine of authority, both in the church and in the family.  The doctrine of authority is a very simple doctrine, although it is also a very hated doctrine.  Paul wrote to the churches and informed them that he did not allow "a woman to exercise authority over a man."  Which part of that statement is hard to understand?  Allow me to answer my own question.  The part of that statement that is routinely misunderstood is the word 'authority.'
There are two types of authority in the world.  The first type of authority is what I like to call service authority.  Service authority is derived from serving others.  The more I serve others the more service authority I obtain for myself.  Bill Gates, prior to retiring, served millions of people.  The fact that he served millions of people made him very rich and very powerful, with service authority.  Sam Walton is a similar case. Wal-Mart employs, and has authority over, two million people around the world.  As you have probably guessed, service authority comes from business activities.  When Paul writes that a woman should never exercise authority over a man he is not thinking or writing about service authority.  Women are free to engage in business activities to their hearts content.  Women are free to run and own profit seeking corporations.  Women are free to hire and fire men.  Go for it girl!  You da girl!  Etc, etc.
The second type of authority is covenantal or representative authority.  This is the authority that is derived directly from God and given to His providentially ordained representatives on earth who are then charged to carry out His revealed will within their respective spheres of power and influence.  To anyone who hates the God of the Bible this sounds like crazy talk.  For Evangelicals this is music to their ears.  All Evangelicals understand the nature of covenantal authority because they see and practice it in their homes and their churches.  Who is to be the head of the household in a Christian home? Answer: the husband.  Everybody knows this to be true.  Paul wrote, "Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.  For the husband is head of the wife, as Christ also is head of the church, He himself being the Savior of the body.  But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything."  There is nothing difficult to understand in what Paul wrote, although theological progressives and heretical feminists have done their best to eliminate Paul's words from the Scriptures.
Who is to be in leadership in the local church?  Answer: elders.  By the way, biblically elders are always men, never women.  Paul wrote specific instructions to Timothy, describing how the local church is to be structured, as he wrote, "Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.  But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."  Evangelicals quite properly interpret Paul's injunction and require that positions of leadership in the local church be filled by qualified men and men alone.
What I have written about male headship in the church and the family is standard fare for Evangelicals.  For the most part they all believe it and they all practice it.  There are excesses of course as evangelical men have a tendency to become misogynists, over asserting their authority and exercising tyrannical rule over both their families and their churches.  But that is a topic for another blog post and I will  not be addressing that issue today.  Today I am concerned about the third covenantal institution that God has ordained in this world.....civil government.
This is where Evangelicals put on their pro-government glasses and claim to be unable to see what I am describing as coming from the Bible.  Covenental authority is simply a theological way to say that the men who are in positions of authority in the church and the family are representatives of God and required to rule their churches and families according to God's Word.  All Evangelicals agree with what I just wrote but when it comes time to talk about civil government all biblical principles are flung out the window as the Evangelical adopts the myth of neutrality and confesses that, as a Christian, he has no right to bring God's Word to bear upon civil issues.  What a mistake that turns out to be.
Romans 13 contains a passage, written by Paul, in which he informs the Roman Christians about the doctrine of civil authority.  He writes, "...there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves....for it is a minister of God to you for good.  But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minster of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil....For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing."  Once again I must ask, which part of that statement is hard to understand? For the Evangelical, as well as the God-hating pagan, the answer is, "all of it."
It is not my point to enter into a dissertation on the biblical doctrine of civil authority here today.  I am simply stating that civil government is subject to the same rules, in regards to who can exercise authority and how he may do so, as the Church and the family are subject to.  Just like the rule for the Church and the family, the Word of God must be the standard by which all decisions are made.  One of the greatest sins of the career politicians who rule over us in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika is their rejection and outright hatred for the Bible and God's moral and civil law contained within it.  Rest assured, career politicians and their ilk will receive their reward in full.  In the same way, the rules for who may assume positions of authority within civil government declare that women are excluded from those positions by virtue of the fact that they are women.  Put another way, a woman is not permitted to exercise representative authority over a man in the family; a woman is not permitted to exercise covenantal authority over a man in the Church; and a woman should not be permitted, to be logically and behaviorally consistent, to exercise authority over a man in civil government.  I know most of you do not like that but not liking something does not make it untrue.
I conclude that women do not belong in any positions of civil authority.  Women have no place in politics. That includes all three branches of civil government as it is practiced in the SDA.  Women may not be judges.  Women may not be legislators.  Women man not fill positions in the Executive branch and, therefore, a woman may not be president.  Sorry Hillary, but God is against you on this one.