San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, May 13, 2016

Pledge Of Allegiance Foolishness

A friend of mine was attending a private gathering of professionals the other day when she was surprised to discover that the meeting was initiated by an exhortation to stand, place one's hand over one's heart and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.  She refused to do so.  I have been in similar situations over the years when, for whatever reason, the folks running the show decide to start the meeting by reciting the pledge.  I also refused to do so.  Let me cut to the chase...nobody should ever recite the Pledge of Allegiance.  Let me tell you why.
When you are born in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika the immoral law of this land imputes to you the following citizenship oath, "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."  
Let's ignore the fact that this oath was  not taken freely since it was imposed upon you due to the fact of the accident of your birth.  Let's ignore the fact that you are swearing an oath to uphold a Constitution that has long since been abandoned.  Let's ignore the fact that this oath requires Christians to swear to violate the moral principles of the Law of God found in the Bible by swearing an oath to that same God to uphold the Constitution as it is understood today.  Let's ignore a lot of things about this abysmal oath and point out only one relevant point for today's post.  Your allegiance to the SDA is already a foregone conclusion since this oath is imposed upon you the day you are born.  Continually pledging your fealty to the SDA is unnecessary, ridiculous, immoral and constitutes an act of religious worship of the State.  
The entire concept of swearing an oath of allegiance to the State is backwards.  The biblical responsibility of a person under the rule of a particular group of career politicians is simple.  We are to pay our taxes and submit to all laws that do not require us to violate biblical law.  When we refuse to submit to those laws that would cause us to violate biblical law we are to joyfully accept fines, incarceration, torture and death at the hands of our rulers.  One thing, however, we are never required to give the State is an oath of allegiance.  In fact, just the opposite is the case.  The civil government should swear an oath to perform its biblical functions on our behalf.  Civil government should swear an oath to protect the citizens under its authority from external and internal attack as well as to provide a system of courts to adjudicate disputes between us.  Career politicians should pledge their allegiance to the principle of defending the rights of the minority and protecting the lives, freedom and property of all their subjects.  That, of course, will never happen.
Here are the words of the Pledge of Allegiance:  "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."  Let's consider these words for a moment.
How do I pledge allegiance to an inanimate object like a flag?  Can you think of a more ridiculous way to begin a pledge?  I owe no allegiance to a collection of materials sewn together and dyed with various colors.  The flag does nothing for me and I should do nothing for it.
The pledge also includes an affirmation of allegiance for the "Republic" of the SDA.  What a stupid concept that is.  The SDA is not a republic.  The SDA is a democracy.  Perhaps those people who mindlessly repeat this foolish pledge need to take a course in political philosophy.  There may have been a short period of time in the history of the SDA when it could have actually been described as a republic.  Those times are long gone.  Pledging allegiance to a republic is pledging allegiance to something that does not exist and should therefore not be done, unless you also wish to pledge your allegiance to unicorns and the twin myths of global warming and evolution.
The notion that the SDA is "one nation under God" is blasphemous.  The Constitution of the United States specifically repudiates the Law of God and the God of the Bible.  No religious test is permitted to be given to determine the propriety of anyone to serve in civil government positions.  Christians are expected to abandon their "religious" beliefs and practices in order to be good citizens in this hate-filled land.  As the Constitution is currently interpret by the Supreme Court of Jokers who rule over this envy-filled country, it is diametrically opposed to the Law of God in hundreds of instances.  Pledging allegiance to the SDA carries with it the necessary flip-side pledge of denying allegiance to the God of the Bible.   That is a very stupid thing to do.
The notion that the SDA is "indivisible" can only be maintained if one firmly stuffs one's head in the ground and never comes up for air.  This country is horribly divided into special interest groups, each group desperately seeking victim status and the special government privileges that come with victim status recognition.  Once again we see that the words of the pledge require the crazy person who recites them to pledge allegiance to a country that does not exist.
The notion that the SDA is a land filled with "liberty and justice for all" is so mindbogglingly wrong it is hard to write those words without either breaking into tears or erupting into anger.  There is nothing in this sad and disgusting land that even closely approximates the conditions of liberty and justice for all.  We are not free and we are becoming more enslaved with every new government regulation that is passed and enforced upon us by the para-military troops who call themselves the "police."  And what can I write about justice other than to say that there is none.  The entire legal system of this country is built upon the fiction that justice can truly be received.  Maybe you have never had the misfortune of becoming involved with the system of injustice that rules in this land.  In that case I can understand your reticence to believe what I am writing about it.  For those of you who have been involved in the system of injustice that controls all that passes for legal propriety in this immoral land you know what I am writing about.
The Pledge of Allegiance, like the National Hymn, is simply a part of the liturgical worship of civil government in this idolatrous country.  No Christian should ever participate in it.  Indeed, no pagan should ever participate in it either.  It will only increase the wrath of God upon you.

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Toy Guns Are A "Crazy Risk?"

I was reading my newspaper yesterday morning when I came across an article entitled "Students hope to arm selves with knowledge."  As one who believes that most graduates from government schools are turned into blithering idiots by what they experience there, I was interested to find out how some poor souls sentenced to three or four years of government school imprisonment might somehow manage to come out unscathed.  Little did I know that I was about to fly into an almost uncontrollable rage.  Let me tell you about it.
The first paragraph of the story told me all I needed to know.  It said, "With a table full of fake guns that looked all too real in front of her, South High School interim principal Deborah Blair-Minter told a library of students that the days of playing cops and robbers with toy guns were over."  What!?  Cops and robbers is now illegal?  What has happened to take away such a venerated rite of passage for all male children in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika?  How can some air-headed government school official make the official pronouncement that playing cops and robbers is wrong?  I was angry beyond belief but I forced myself to continue reading.
"Blair-Minter cited a national conversation stemming from shootings in which kids have been shot by law enforcement officers when playing with a toy gun as one of the reasons why Tuesday's event was so important."  So let me get this straight....these high school students have been taken from their usual classes such as "Why Socialism is Great," "How Global Warming Is Going to Destroy the Universe" and "Why You Should Worship the Government" and forced to participate in an awareness group that brainwashes them into believing that innocent children playing with toy guns who are gunned down by jack-booted thugs are to blame for their fate.  Blair-Minter (why does she not get a real name, like you know, one without a hyphen?) proudly declares that taxpayer financed enforcers of the immoral rules of the SDA are heroes when they shoot and kill innocent children who just happen to be playing with their toy guns in public.
The article continued as the author described how the brainwashing took place.  "Denver police and Denver Public Schools teamed up to present a slew of counterfeit guns to students and pose the question: 'If you were in the position of law enforcement, would you know the difference between a real gun and a fake gun?'"  Apparently one question the students were not asked was, "Can you tell the difference between a child playing with a gun and a criminal brandishing a weapon?"  Another question the students were not asked was, "How many years of training have you had to prepare you to make decisions such as which gun is a toy and which gun is real?"
Notice how the report is scripted.  Toy guns are now "counterfeit guns."  The clear intimation is that innocent children playing with toy guns are attempting to pull one over on "law enforcement" officials by using guns designed to look real but that are not.  I believe that.  Every young child I know wants to be shot by a cop because he successfully convinced the cop that he was holding a real weapon with the intent to kill.  What kid who goes out to play cops and robbers does not want to fool the police into shooting him?  None that I know.
The next paragraph enraged me.  It made me despise and pity the products of government schooling even more than I did prior to reading the article.  It said, "South High senior Nathan Carter, 18, and his peers approached the display of replica guns apprehensively, cautiously reaching out to handle the imitation weapons that they treated as if they could go off at any moment."  What?  An 18 year old male is afraid of a toy gun? What is this world coming to?  By the time I was 18 years of age I owned several real guns and had been shooting them for years.  I was never afraid to touch one of my guns and I most certainly did not think that one of them would suddenly "go off" and kill everyone in the room.  What have government school teachers been doing to their inmates that 18 year old males like Carter are afraid of toy guns?
The brilliant luminary known as 18 year old Nathan Carter was quoted extensively in the article.  He pointed out, as he had been properly instructed to do, that black kids play with toy guns and white kids do not.  How he came to that conclusion I do not know.  He did say that the fact that black kids play cops and robbers and white kids do not was the "elephant in the room," whatever that was supposed to mean.  Why his statement was not a prime example of a micro-aggressive racial epithet delivered by a boy laboring under the curse of white privilege I do not know.  What I do know is that any time a white teenager talks to the press he needs to apologize for his incipient white racism.  Well done Carter!  Mission accomplished.  I hope you feel better.
Carter went on to describe that he had spent some time at the Denver police academy where he observed various training programs related to identifying who the cops should kill and who they should leave alone.  That fact alone should have been sufficient reason to inform the cops that they should be able to distinguish between innocent children and homicidal maniacs but Carter did not see it that way.  Carter, spouting cop terminology that is sickening, said, "I saw that they have to think ahead and do what is best for the environment."  As a product of the government schools I have no doubt that Carter is a flaming environmentalist who hates capitalism with a passion.  Still I rather doubt that he was referring to the biological environment that surrounds us when he made his assertion.  Somewhere he picked up a cop-talk word called 'environment' which is clearly little more than a simile for the physical area in which a cop thinks about nothing but protecting himself from harm.  In other words, Carter now believes that the most important thing in any cop-citizen-innocent child confrontation is the safety of the enforcer of the immoral rules.  Citizens and children can be killed as long as the government hero emerges without a scratch.
Carter concludes his informative propaganda speech by saying, "I need to inform more of my youth.  I need them to know this stuff so they can be safe."  At this point I reached for my barf bag and up came up my breakfast.  Carter is already a thoroughly brainwashed statist.  Notice the use of the possessive "my" when referring to his peers.  Since when did he obtain legal possession of his peers?  That sort of talk usually only comes out of the mouths of career politicians.  I think we can speculate what Carter is going to be when he grows up, can't we?  Carter's concluding point that what matters most in life is "being safe" is disgusting and typical of his generation.  The only reason a child playing with a toy gun is not safe is due to the fact that gun-toting enforcers of the rules run around seeking to defend their "environments" by shooting and killing anything and anyone they ridiculously perceive as a threat.  I have a message for the cops....if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.  Nobody forced you into your career.  If you feel threatened by children playing cops and robbers maybe you should take up another career path.  Something like government school teacher would be nice.

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Economic Progress Yes, Political Progress No

I was watching CNN last night when an angry blond airhead made a statement about how political progressives are the only people who should be allowed to hold office in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  As is the case with all propaganda efforts in this confused country the use of the term 'progressive' has been hijacked by those who want to use the coercive power of government to legally steal things.  According to Webster, 'progress' is "the process of improving or developing something over a period of time."  A progressive is, therefore, a person who aids or enables this state of progress toward what is allegedly an improved condition for all.
An all important part of the definition of a progressive is the question of the goal.  Just what is the goal of all this progressive action?  Without exception the goal of the progressives in the SDA is more state control of all aspects of life and less personal liberty, including the outright abolition of my right to life, freedom and property. There is no necessary reason why the goal for a progressive must be more state control.  Indeed, the goal for a progressive could theoretically be a complete absence of state control.  But in a country populated with sheep who religiously worship government and the career politicians who rule over it and who also promise to give them money and shiny things in exchange for a vote, that state of affairs will never come to be.
There is a group of people who ceaselessly dedicate themselves to the goal of eliminating the felt needs of humankind.  This group of people tirelessly work to produce more goods and services and then sell those goods and services via voluntary transactions to people who want them for prices they are willing to pay.  This group of people, although largely unknown and, shockingly, generally despised throughout society, have had enormous success at their task.  Because of them the citizens of the SDA live at a standard of living unknown through all human history.  Because of them nobody starves to death.  Because of them nobody dies in the streets.  Because of them medical science has made tremendous advances, allowing lifespans to dramatically increase.  Because of them the citizens of the SDA have leisure time to pursue athletic, cultural and philosophical activities on a scale unknown to all but the most privileged royal castes of the past. Because of them we all live in conditions that would have been deemed idyllic by all previous generations.
Are these brave and noble warriors against human privation praised for the progress they have made against human suffering?  No, they are not.  On the contrary, they are blamed for those less than perfect social, political and economic conditions that continue to exist in this envy filled land.  Why are they blamed for the few remaining ills in our country?  Because they do what they do in order to earn a profit.  Many of them have become very rich because of their never ending pursuit of human comfort.  Many of them are much more wealthy than the people they sell their products to, thus resulting in an immoral condition in which the satisfied customer feels envy for the wealth of the entrepreneur who has satisfied his wants.  The sinful customer not only wants the pleasure that comes from the item he has purchased from the businessman, he also wants the businessman's wealth.  In a society with a civil government that protects the private property of the minority nothing would ever come of this sinful envy.  In a progressive society where the wealth of the minority is up for grabs, the sinful customer is encouraged to vote for career politicians who will make the plundering of the rich a legal activity.
There is progress in progressive politics and it is all sinful and immoral.  All progressives are socialists and all socialists believe that what someone else has produced actually belongs to them if the person who has produced something makes more money than they do.  The simple socialist mantra that the "means of production belong to the workers" is one of the most philosophically ignorant and economically suicidal concepts in the history of man.  The means of production never come into existence without the prior work of entrepreneurs.  Then, once the businessman has done all the work, the people he has voluntarily employed to aid him in his quest suddenly claim to own the entire enterprise.  Under the tenets of progressive politics those workers are right, and laws are crafted to enable them to enact policies that will inevitably end up killing the golden goose.   To rub salt into the wound, guess who is blamed when the goose dies?
The goal of all political action must necessarily be to make no progress at all.  The progressive movement and the progressives themselves are deadly to a society.  God has given mankind every law (a little over 600 of them found in the Bible) necessary to order society, even a society as complex as the one found in the SDA.  That body of biblical law is sufficient to order everything that takes place in this immoral, God-hating and post-Christian society.  Twelve of the original thirteen colonies realized this truth and structured their civil governments according to the biblical model.  The ratification of the Constitution of the United States changed all of that.  According to the terms of the Constitution a new, secular society was to be created and thrust upon the citizens of the newly liberated country that allowed no reference to biblical law and that imposed no religious test upon the civil rulers who would control the system.  Although that was an example of de-progression, it was not as bad as what happened next.
The Constitution was a serviceable document that did allow for the biblical principles of empowering government to protect the life, freedom and property of all citizens.  Sinful men, however, will not be stopped.  It was not long before adherents to the strict interpretation of the Constitution were being ridiculed and the process of progress was initiated.  Soon the majority came to believe that the Constitution is a living document that is constantly growing and changing.  Not surprisingly, the direction the document always grew was towards greater government power and the suppression of the rights of the political minorities that made more money and created all of the goods and services that existed in the land.
That brings us down to today when any group that can obtain a majority of those who vote can steal from their neighbors at will.  Career politicians, far from being noble statesmen who protect the rights of the minority, are now men and women (gasp!) who specialize in fomenting envy and exploiting it to advance their own political careers.  The system works splendidly as we all careen forward, making huge leaps of progress every election cycle and every time Congress is in session.  However, unlike the economic progress brought to you by businessmen, political progress is self-defeating.  It is only a matter of time before the empire collapses.  Then everyone will blame the profit seeking businessman for what has happened while, at the same time, they will once again all turn to him to provide the goods and services they will so desperately need as civilization collapses around them. 

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Amerika: Love It Or Leave It

I was returning from my daily run to Dunkin' Donuts this morning, with two donuts in my stomach and another two in the bag next to me, when I pulled up behind a car sporting a bumper sticker I found most interesting.  Here is what it said, "If you are offended by my American flag call 1-800-Leave-The- USA."  Let's think about what the driver was telling me for a while today.
What does the Amerikan flag symbolize?  Have you ever wondered about that question?  I am quite familiar with the super-patriotic assertion that the flag of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika is a religious icon that must be venerated at all costs.  I grew up learning to fold the flag properly and never caused it to be desecrated by allowing it to touch the ground.  I flew it above all other flags and destroyed it properly when it wore out.  I never permitted it to be rained on and it never had to suffer the indignity of flying during the night without a light on it.  I have a pretty good idea what the SDA flag is but I suspect that when most people talk about the flag of the SDA they have a very different idea of what it represents than I do.
I wish the SDA flag represented the forests of Colorado that I love to walk through.  I wish the flag of the SDA represented the hundreds of high mountain peaks I have been honored to have climbed over the years.  I wish the SDA flag represented the many  friends and neighbors who have endeared themselves to me in the various places I have lived for almost six decades.  I wish the SDA flag represented my church, and the entire Christian Church in this land.  I wish the SDA flag represented all of the amazing places I have visited within the confines of the geo-political area known as the United States.  I wish the SDA flag represented all of the amazing people I have met in all of those aforementioned amazing places.  I wish for a lot of things in my life but these wishes for the SDA flag have never come true, nor will they ever come true.
If we are honest with ourselves I believe we are forced to admit that the primary entity represented by the flag of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika is the Amerikan Empire, the greatest, deadliest, most powerful and most dominant empire the world has ever seen.  As an important subset of the representation of the empire, the flag also represents the military and government officials who maintain and promulgate the empire around the globe.  I do not believe I need to argue for this point.  If I were to inquire of every person who posts a bumper sticker of the sort I saw today what he means by the flag I am quite sure that the answer would revolve directly around the Amerikan empire and its significance in the world.  Statements such as, "Amerika is the greatest country in the world" and "Amerika is unparalleled in its freedom" and "Amerika defends the weak around the world" would all come from the patriotic mouths of patriotic citizens of the empire.
I am not going to prove that statements about the moral superiority of the post-Christian Amerika we live in are insanely stupid here today.  On the other hand, I wholeheartedly agree that the Amerikan empire is the greatest empire the world has seen.  Upon that point I am in full agreement with the bumper sticker crowd that so proudly declares their allegiance to Caesar.  My problem is not the historical fact and present reality that the Amerikan empire is dominant in the world.  My problem is that Amerika is an empire at all, and a disgustingly immoral and murderous one to boot.  Yes, I am offended by the flag because I know what it represents.  The flag represents the jack-boots of the SDA military on the throats of innocent citizens of sovereign nations around the world that dare to oppose SDA career politicians and the military-industrial complex of the empire.  The flag represents the murder of millions of innocent people and the destruction of billions of dollars of personal property, all simply because we wanted to kill and steal and there was no one around strong enough to stop us.  The flag is properly hated in many quarters of the world and it should be hated by truly patriotic citizens of this land who despise the empire and the damage it does to ourselves and others.  The SDA military has killed more than 20 million citizens of 37 sovereign nations around the world since the end of WWII alone.  Our rulers would have us believe they all deserved death because all 20 million of them were evil and bent upon our destruction.  Do you really believe that?
All of this brings me back to the fellow who would toss me out of my country because I do not agree with him about the empire.  Since when is support of the empire a necessary condition of citizenship in this immoral land?  What right does he have to forcibly remove me from my home simply because we have a dramatic difference of opinion?  As a citizen of the empire who opposes empire building I have apparently lost my right to free speech.  Not only that, if the bumper sticker man has his way, I would be thrown out of my own country.  Why should I be forced to leave?  Why should he not be thrown out because of his support for empire building?  I realize that his opinion is shared by the vast majority of the sheep who populate this land and I also recognize that in the SDA the majority always wins and the minority always loses.  As it stands today I can still live here, provided I keep my mouth shut and my eyes downcast, but I guess it is possible that someday the majority might make a law that will force me to expatriate if I do not support the empire.  Trust me, if and when that happens I will be happy to leave.

Monday, May 9, 2016

The Second Injustice In the Aurora Theater Massacre

As I predicted several years ago, immediately after the massacre in an Aurora movie theater, the survivors and families of the victims of the massacre have filed a civil suit against the theater's owners alleging that they are morally culpable for what happened that night when James Holmes opened fire and gunned down a dozen patrons there for the opening night of a Batman movie.  Holmes has since been sentenced to life in prison, thus forestalling for several years his appearance before the judgment seat of God and, unless he repents, his being cast into the Lake of Fire for eternity.  Now the second great injustice is about to take place in Aurora.  Allow me to explain what is going on here in terms even the most envy filled sinner can understand.
According to the Denver Post, "In an Arapahoe County courtroom, 28 survivors of the attack and relatives of the victims will attempt to convince a jury that Cinemark, the movie theater's owner, should be held accountable for the shooting....the first civil trial over the shooting will ask jurors to weigh the forseeability of such attacks in an era where they are both statistically rare and terrifyingly routine.  In other words, are mass shootings in public places now so common that a movie theater chain can be held liable for not guarding against them?"  According to one of the immoral and parasitic lawyers representing the plaintiffs, "Our belief is that Cinemark had inadequate security measures to guard against a forseeable danger.  And, had they implemented proper security measures, this act would have never happened and our clients would have never been injured."  As the newspaper article noted, "There has never been a mass shooting at a movie theater prior to the July 20, 2012, attack on the Century Aurora 16."
Here are a couple of facts for you to consider about the issue of mass shootings:



Mother Jones defines a mass shooting as any incident in which four or more people are killed in one place.  According to Mother Jones there have been 62 mass shootings in the last 30 years, an average of a little over two incidents per year.  The increase shown in the above graph indicates roughly a 100% rate of increase in the incidence of mass shootings since 2009, when compared to the past 30 years.  It also shows that a 100% increase simply means the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika have witnessed an average of 3.5 incidents per year over the past six years compared to an average of 2.0 incidents per year the prior twenty four years.  I will let you decide if those numbers are statistically significant.  Others, looking at the data from a different bias and using different definitions for key terms, conclude that the number of mass shootings have actually declined.   Use your best judgment.
According to Pew Research:

You can see that the homicide rate in which guns were involved has roughly halved in the past 23 years. That number seems pretty firm and not open to much biased interpretation.
What are the odds of being murdered in a mass shooting scenario?  National Review claims that the odds of being killed in a mass shooting are the same as being struck by lightning.  According to this website, here are some causes of death and your odds of going out that way:

Cause of
death
Annual #
of deaths
Lifetime
odds
Heart disease 631,636 1 in 6
Cancer 562,875 1 in 7
Smoking-related deaths 433,000 1 in 9
Stroke 135,952 1 in 28
Obesity-related 112,000 1 in 35
Heavy drinking 79,000 1 in 49
Breast cancer 40,598 1 in 95
Prostate cancer 29,093 1 in 133
Fall 22,631 1 in 171
Assault 18,361 1 in 211
Brain tumor 13,000 1 in 298
Car accident 12,772 1 in 303
Skin cancer 8,461 1 in 457
Pedestrian accident 5,958 1 in 649
Motorcycle accident 5,024 1 in 770
Bicycle accident 820 1 in 4,717
Airplane accident 550 1 in 7,032
Flu 411 1 in 9,410
Lightning 46 1 in 84,079
Legal execution 40 1 in 96,691
Earthquake 26 1 in 148,756
Fireworks discharge 10 1 in 386,766

If National Review is correct, your odds of dying in a mass shooting are 1 in 84,000 over your lifetime.  You are more likely to die in an airplane accident, an auto accident, from the flu or from falling down.  Weigh your risks carefully when you step outside today.
The clumps of human detritus known as lawyers representing the envy filled survivors of the massacre believe that the shareholders of Cinemark are morally responsible for the massacre because any reasonable person looking at the circumstances of that day would have concluded that it was likely someone would walk into the theater for the midnight show and gun down 12 people.  The lawsuit alleges that after coming to that conclusion the shareholders of Cinemark should have hired a massive security force to frisk every patron, secure every doorway, inspect every bag of popcorn and continually patrol the aisles of the theater while carrying machine guns to shoot down the expected shooter.  The lawsuit further alleges that if Holmes had somehow managed to get past the security forces, perhaps after hiding a machine gun under his seat prior to the show, and opened fire in the darkened theater nobody would have been shot if proper security measures had been taken.  How the security patrols could have killed him without knowing in advance when he would stand and begin firing is not explained.
Let's call this suit what it is.  Immoral lawyers have teamed up with money-grubbing survivors to fleece a profit seeking corporation of its money.  They are using the massacre as an excuse to cover their sinful desires and motives.  If they truly believe that the massacre was entirely predictable there are many other groups they should be suing.  If any reasonable person or group should have known what was about to happen why are these maggots not suing the Aurora Police Department?  The cops are the ones charged with the duty of protecting the public.  Despite the fact that they did not act in advance to prevent an entirely predictable massacre, the cops come off as heroes while the profit seeking corporation is demonized.  Furthermore, why has the suit not been filed against every person who walked or drove by that theater in the couple of hours leading up to the shooting?  If it was so obvious what was about to go down it seems to me those people are morally culpable as well.  At the very least they should have called the cops/heroes to the scene to prevent what was about to happen.
The fact that this lawsuit has not been summarily dismissed is indicative of the grossly immoral state of SDA justice.    I don't know how much filthy lucre the alleged victims are seeking but under biblical law this suit would be thrown out and the "victims" would be required to compensate the Cinemark shareholders the exact same amount they are seeking.  Now that would be justice.  How do you think the lawsuit will turn out?  I predict a stunning victory for the plaintiffs with hundreds of millions of dollars being extracted from the shareholders of Cinemark just as Cinemark goes bankrupt.