San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Saturday, May 28, 2016

Worshiping The Holy Icon

The Socialist Democracy of Amerika is a religious institution and the citizens of the SDA are religious zealots.  I know progressives, neo-cons and patriots would disagree with me and claim to be perfectly secular in nature but life in the SDA has all of the trappings of a religious experience.  There is no separation of church and state in this country, there is only a choice of which religion you wish to follow.  The religion of state worship in the SDA has an initiatory rite, like Christian baptism, called the citizenship oath.  It has a continuity rite, like Christian communion, called voting.  It has a national hymn, like Christian hymns, called the Star Spangled Banner.  It also has a national holy icon, like the Christian cross or fish symbol, called the flag.  That is what I would like to discuss today.  The iconic flag is treated as an object of worship.  Don't believe me?  Consider the following facts.
I had the distasteful experience of playing a round of golf on Saturday of the Memorial Day weekend.  I had hoped to go out and enjoy a round with seven other friends who had gathered together for a wedding that night.  Instead I was subjected to verbal harassment because I refused to worship the holy icon known as the flag of the military and government of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.
I didn't even notice it at first since it is not my practice to look at the flag on the green.  I am happy just to hit my ball on the green and I don't worry about attacking the flag stick as better golfers are able to do.  As we approached the first green I removed the stick and dropped it to the ground a reasonable distance from the hole and in such a way as it would not impede any putts, as I always do.  I did this for several holes until I noticed that the group in front of us kept staring at us while we were on the green, apparently upset about something we were doing.  It took us a while to figure out what was going on but while we were putting on one green and they were standing on the next tee box we heard them yelling at us to keep the flag off the ground.  That is when we realized that the flags on the stick were all miniature SDA flags.  Needless to say, the people ahead of us were very upset that we were desecrating their holy icon.
Not being one to give in to peer pressure, especially when that peer pressure is designed to make me worship a false god, I continued to drop the flag on the ground at each green.  A couple of holes later a friendly employee of the golf course came up to us on his cart and informed us that the flags were SDA flags and they needed to be kept off the ground.  He politely informed us that the golf course had provided little stands to the side of the greens on which we could place them without desecrating them and offending their deities.  We stared at him blankly and he eventually moved on.
I had seen the stands beside the greens earlier and had assumed that they were for a tournament that was going to be played later.  It is not uncommon to have markers to indicate who hits his ball closest to the hole and I assumed the stand was a marker to be used for that purpose.  Not wanting to create any waves I started placing the flag stick on the stand as I was instructed to do, with the flag end touching the ground.  I refuse to worship idols.  We didn't get any more harassment, probably because the greens were hidden from view on the rest of the holes and nobody could see our desecration of their holy icon.
One of the fellows I was playing with is in the military.  He is also a Christian and he refuses to worship the flag.  He informed me that putting a flag on a flag stick at a golf course is probably a breach of flag etiquette and that motivated me to check out precisely what the rules for flag behavior are.  If you wish to read all of the rules you can go here.  Although the rules of etiquette do not specifically address the issue of a flag being fixed to a flag stick on a golf course green I believe it definitely violates the spirit of the law to do so.  A flag is never to be used to decorate something, which seemed to be the case with the flag stick.  A flag should never be used to advertise something, which certainly seemed to be the case to me as the flag was clearly advertising the fact that the golf course wanted to recognize Memorial Day weekend.  A flag should also never be used as a drapery and it was clearly adorning the flag stick.  A flag must never be used as a receptacle for anything but on the golf course it was clearly marking the receptacle for the golf ball called the hole.  Although I cannot say with absolute certainty that the SDA flags on the golf course were a breach of flag protocols, it sure seemed to me that the were.
Each time we approached the green we had to raise and lower the flag stick twice, thus raising and lowering the flag 36 different times during our round.  According to the above website, "The flag should be raised briskly and lowered slowly and ceremoniously. Ordinarily it should be displayed only between sunrise and sunset. It should be illuminated if displayed at night.  The flag of the United States of America is saluted as it is hoisted and lowered. The salute is held until the flag is unsnapped from the halyard or through the last note of music, whichever is the longest."  I know for a fact that those flags were placed on the greens prior to sunrise because we were out there as the sun came up.  I also consider it to be more than a nuisance to be required to salute the flag each time it was removed from and placed back into the hole.  Here are the rules about a salute, "To salute, all persons come to attention. Those in uniform give the appropriate formal salute. Citizens not in uniform salute by placing their right hand over the heart and men with head cover should remove it and hold it to left shoulder, hand over the heart. Members of organizations in formation salute upon command of the person in charge."  Just imagine the comical situation that would arise on each hole as all four of us stood at attention and displayed a proper salute each time we entered and left the green.  The pace of play would have slowed considerably, not to mention the fact that my bald head would have become sunburned after that much exposure to the sun.
Shall we be honest enough to admit that the SDA flag symbolizes the Amerikan empire and nothing else about the country we share?  If you do not believe me, read this blog post for the argument.  I believe, and you should too, that the Amerikan empire is a murderous empire that needs to go out of existence.  It has killed tens of millions of innocent people all around the world who never posed any serious or legitimate threat to our national security.  The only threat posed by the people the SDA military has killed over the decades was to the existence of the empire itself, not to the homeland or citizens of the SDA.  I believe empire is immoral.  I therefore believe the symbol of the empire is immoral.  Even if the flag represented nothing but whatever might be good about this God hating and immoral country I would still not be allowed to venerate it because my God forbids me to worship other gods or their icons.  I realize that the great majority of the citizens of this land worship the Beast of civil government but I am not one of them since I am convinced that the civil government of the SDA is nothing more than the current manifestation of the Beast as described in the book of Revelation.  Needless to say, I should not be venerating any iconic image of the Beast, and neither should you.
By the way, if you take exception to what I have written today, and I know that most idolatrous citizens of the SDA would take violent exception to what I have written, then you are the best proof for my argument.  No doubt you want to tell me that heroic people died for my freedom and the flag represents their heroic deaths.  No doubt you want to tell me that I need to move to a communist country and see what kind of freedom I might have there if I don't like it here.  No doubt you would tell me that this is Amerika and I can either love it or leave it.  Your country, right or wrong!  Your anger and downright hatred for me and what I have written is the best evidence of your religious worship.  The zeal you display in defending your holy icon is a perfect example of religious zealotry.  Amerikans display the same religious zeal in defense of their god as Isis and other religious sects display in defense of their holy icons.  And, strangely for the land of free people and free speech, they display the same intolerance for dissenters.  Congratulations patriotic Amerikans, you worship a god who does not exist.  

Friday, May 27, 2016

Patrick Buchanan Is Wrong On White Males

I just finished reading a blog post written by Patrick Buchanan.  It was entitled "The Great White Hope" and it can be found here if you are interested in reading it.  Just looking at the title made me believe that the article was just another racist rant by an angry white male.  I too am an angry white male and I have written several racist rants for this blog.  You can find two of them here and here.  That is why I was interested in reading what Buchanan had to say.  That is also why I was surprised by what I read in his article.  Here is a partial quotation from the piece, see if any of the content surprises you:
“'Something startling is happening to middle-aged white Americans. Unlike every other age group, unlike every other racial and ethnic group … death rates in this group have been rising, not falling.  The big new killers of middle-aged white folks?  Alcoholic liver disease, overdoses of heroin and opioids, and suicides.' So wrote Gina Kolata in The New York Times of a stunning study by the husband-wife team of Nobel laureate Angus Deaton and Anne Case.  Deaton could cite but one parallel to this social disaster: 'Only H.I.V./AIDS in contemporary times has done anything like this.'  Middle-aged whites are four times as likely as middle-aged blacks to kill themselves. Their fitness levels are falling as they suffer rising levels of physical pain, emotional stress and mental depression, which helps explain the alcohol and drug addiction.  But what explains the social disaster of white Middle America?  First, an economy where, though at or near full employment, a huge slice of the labor force has dropped out. Second, the real wages of working Americans have been nearly stagnant for decades.  Two major contributors to the economic decline of the white working-class: Scores of millions of third-world immigrants, here legally and illegally, who depress U.S. wages, and tens of thousands of factories and millions of jobs shipped abroad under the label of 'globalization.' Another factor in the crisis of middle and working class white men is the plunging percentage of those who are married. Where a wife and children give meaning to a man’s life, and to his labors, single white men are not only being left behind by the new economy, they are becoming alienated from society. 'It’s not surprising,' Barack Obama volunteered to his San Francisco high-donors, that such folks, 'get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them…'"
Wow, that was a mouthful!  I would like to consider some of the things written above in a bit more detail today.
White middle Amerika, whatever that is, is a "social disaster" according to Buchanan.  I am a member of white middle Amerika, or at least I think I am but I am also aware that some people believe the Welsh are not members of the white race at all.  We are far too ruddy and hairy for the tastes of some white folks who make what I believe is an irrational decision to label us as a separate race more closely related to Bigfoot or Yeti.  Be that as it may, I still believe I am a member of the latest victim group in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika and I want what is coming to me, I want my fair share, I want some government money!  Why?  Because I am a member of a special interest group that only makes up 31% of the Amerikan population, a minority group larger than both the homosexuals and the transvestites, that is the only group in this deadly country that is experiencing a drop in life expectancy.  If anyone deserves compassion, care, special government privileges and transfers of taxpayer money it is white males like me.
Buchanan explains that the social disaster that I am a part of is caused by a couple of factors.  Those factors are the reason why I decided to write this blog post.  Buchanan believes, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the SDA is in a period of economic decline.  Is that belief correct?  Here is a chart of real (inflation adjusted) Gross Domestic Product for the past ten years.  Notice that the current level of economic production is the highest in the history of this country and, except for the impact of the Great Recession, shows a steady rate of growth:

                      

If white middle class males are killing themselves off because of economic conditions they should probably first consult with me so that I can show them the error in their reasoning.  Who knows how many lives I could save?
After falsely declaring that the economy of the SDA is shrinking Buchanan goes on to gives two reasons why the economy is shrinking, both of which allegedly directly impact white middle class males like me.   Here are his two reasons:  "Scores of millions of third-world immigrants, here legally and illegally, who depress U.S. wages, and tens of thousands of factories and millions of jobs shipped abroad under the label of globalization."  Let's consider each of these arguments for a moment.
How do third-world immigrants "depress US wages?"  All these poor people are doing is coming to this county in search of employment.  When they find employment they accept the terms of the job and they work.  How does that simple fact cause white Amerikan males to kill themselves?  The typical response to my question is that these stinkin' foreigners are "stealing Amerikan jobs" because they are willing to work for a lower wage and greedy corporations want to increase their immoral profits by paying less for labor.  The question that is never asked, it is simply assumed that all profit seeking corporations are immoral and only concerned with making a profit by the most immoral means possible, is why do profit seeking corporations seek the lowest rate for the labor they employ?
Profit seeking corporations compete with other profit seeking corporations to deliver goods and services to consumers at a price the consumers are willing to pay.  The company that can deliver the same good, other things being equal, for a lower price will sell more of those goods and earn higher profits.  Other corporations that deliver the same goods for higher prices will either suffer lower profits because of decreased sales or go out of business entirely.  Because most of the envy-filled citizens in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika are philosophical socialists they believe corporate profits to be evil.  According to them, companies should be willing to pay above market wages to their employees and operate as non-profits if they truly wish to be deemed moral.  What is never considered in this little fantasy world is that profit seeking corporations do not set the terms for their profits.....consumers do.
The reason a corporation seeks to pay the least possible amount in labor is directly related to the fact that consumers demand the lowest possible price for the goods the corporation produces.  Any company that does not deliver the goods for the lowest price will go out of business, potentially destroying thousands of jobs and doing incalculable harm to economic growth.  What is crucial to understand, and what is always ignored in these types of discussions, is that the consumer sets the terms by which corporations may operate.  It is the consumers, people like you, who demand low prices.  It is the consumers, people like you, who put middle class white males out of work in favor of third-world labor. If the finger is to be pointed at anyone for what is happening to white middle class males it must be pointed at those evil consumers who always demand the lowest price.
The exact same situation exists with the globalization of jobs.  In their never ending search to satisfy the desires of the consumers, profit seeking corporations are forced to ship their jobs all over the world in order to find the lowest price for labor and, thus, provide the lowest cost goods to the all powerful consumer.  Buchanan does not like this but I wonder.....does he voluntarily pay more for the goods and services he purchases in order to allow less efficient corporations to remain in business and pay above market wages for their labor?  I rather doubt it.  I have known thousands of people who complain about evil profit seeking corporations but I have never known anyone who willingly paid more for the goods he purchased in order to support the workers he allegedly cares about.  And I have most certainly never heard any consumer confess to the absolute fact that it was his actions as a consumer that forced profit seeking companies to hire third-world laborers and ship jobs overseas.  Economic ignorance is a terrible thing and it makes so many socialists say so many stupid things.  If you really want to help white middle class males then start paying much more for the goods and services you purchase.  Only then can the genocide be stopped.
Before I go I cannot help but mention the quote of King Obama at the end of Buchanan's post.  He quotes our King as saying this to a group of contributors to his cause, "It’s not surprising that when such folks get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them..."  Buchanan's stupid arguments were just that, stupid arguments.  King Obama goes beyond stupidity and takes up a personal assault against the God of the Bible.  That does not surprise me since the SDA is a post-Christian society and attacks upon Christians and Christian beliefs are encouraged by the God-haters who rule over us.  Notice what our King said.  According to him, white middle age males, as a result of their pathological anger, believe that they have the right to bear arms and practice Christianity in this country.  Imagine that!  Because white middle aged males like me are angry for one reason or another (my reasons are well chronicled in this blog) we believe that the Bill of Rights actually applies to us.  How foolish we are.  How absurd our beliefs are.  Don't we all realize that the Bill of Rights was abolished long ago?
King Obama clearly equates belief in Christianity with mental illness.  You know who else did that?  History is resplendent with tyrannical groups who believed that Christian doctrine and practice was indicative of mental illness.  From the Romans to the Nazis, all sorts of manifestations of the Beast have sought to destroy Christianity and install themselves as the supreme god of the universe.  They are all long dead and gone and Christianity is still here. 

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Warren vs. Trump: This Time Its Personal

Elizabeth Warren is on a crusade against Donald Trump.  Although nobody can know for certain why she has decided to dedicate herself to insulting the Republican nominee for the next King of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, I suspect she is either angling for the VP nomination this year or paving the way for her run for Queen in 2020.  Either way, the things she is saying about Trump today are ridiculous, absurd and filled with abundant evidence of her total economic ignorance as well as her own elitist arrogance.  Trump, for his part, is responding the way Trump always does, with off the cuff remarks about her personality and little in the way of a substantive argument in his defense.  (All quotations below can be found in this article.)
Warren is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts.  She has been attacking Trump for his "unwillingness to release his tax returns, noting that while every presidential candidate since 1976 has done so, 'he doesn't think that the rules that apply to everyone else should apply to him.' Warren then skewered Trump for defending his desire to avoid paying taxes: 'Two weeks ago, he said that he was more than happy to dodge taxes because he doesn't want to throw his money, quote, "down the drain."  'Let's be clear,' Warren said. 'Nurses and teachers and dockworkers, they pay their fair share to keep Trump's businesses going. Programmers and engineers and small business owners, they pay their fair share to support our military, who show courage and sacrifice every day.  Donald Trump thinks that supporting them is throwing money down the drain? Then I say we throw Donald Trump down the drain.'"
"Trump, for his part, has fired back at Warren on Twitter, calling her 'goofy' and questioning her Senate record. Speaking at a rally in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Tuesday night, Trump also called Warren 'Pocahontas,' a reference to how her past description of her native American heritage became a divisive campaign issue during his bid to become senator in 2012."
"Warren portrayed the billionaire real estate mogul as uncaring and dishonest -- picking up on Trump's comments he made about the 2008 financial crisis. 'What kind of a man roots for people to get thrown out of their houses? What kind of a man roots for people to get thrown out of their jobs? To root for people to lose their pensions?' Warren asked. 'I'll tell you exactly what kind of a man does that, it is a man who cares about no one but himself. A small, insecure, money-grubber who doesn't care who gets hurt, so long as he makes a profit off it.'"
Let's consider Warren's accusations about Trump for a bit today.
Warren is upset that Trump will not "release his tax returns" to the media.  She claims that there is a rule requiring him to do so and that his refusal to release them is a flagrant violation of those rules.  Her assertion is a lie.  There is no rule requiring candidates to release their tax returns.   In fact, according to this NY Times report, "Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, introduced legislation on Wednesday (May 25th,ed) that would require major presidential candidates to publicly disclose their three most recent personal income tax returns, a challenge to the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump, who has resisted releasing his filings.  Mr. Wyden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, is trying to goad Republicans, including the committee chairman, Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, and the majority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, into defending Mr. Trump..."  Now why would a democratic senator introduce a bill to create a law to require Trump to release his tax returns to the media when such a law already exists?  Despite Warren's protestations about Trump's moral character, she is already sinking deeply into the mire of lying and purposeful deception with her untrue statements about the alleged requirement for candidates to release their tax returns to the media.
Warren then "skewered Trump" by asserting that "his desire to avoid paying taxes" is immoral and disqualifies him from being King of the SDA.  Only a career politician could make that argument with a straight face.  Everyone in the universe wants to pay less in taxes.  I suspect that a careful examination of Warren's tax returns over the past several years would clearly show that she has taken all available deductions, adjustments and exemptions in order to reduce her own taxable income to the smallest possible amount.  If she has not done that, choosing instead to not utilize legal means to reduce her taxable income and thus end up paying more in taxes than the law requires, she still can't claim that Trump is immoral for following the law and reducing his taxable income to the lowest possible number.  So, if Warren has paid the least amount of total taxes possible she is a hypocrite when she criticizes Trump.  If she has voluntarily paid more than the law requires she is no saint for doing so and she is certainly no better than Trump or any other citizen who attempts to pay the minimum amount required by law.  On the contrary, she is simply being incredibly stupid.  Anyone who pays more to the federal government in taxes than the law requires clearly is a worshiper of the federal government.  Government, for those idolatrous people, has become a god. 
Warren's argument about where tax revenues collected by the IRS end up going is bizarre.  She claims that moral people like "nurses, teachers and dockworkers pay their fair share to keep Trump's businesses going."  What?  I had to read that sentence several times and I still have no idea what she is trying to say.  Does she really believe that federal tax revenues are sent to Donald Trump to "keep his businesses going?"  Is she really so dumb she does not realize where Trump's profits come from?  Is she actually incapable of comprehending even the simplest truth about the free market?  It would appear so.  It is never a good idea to install a career politician into office who believes that corporate profits are derived from federal tax revenues. 
Warren next appeals to the warfare state and love for the Amerikan empire to rally emotional support for her lies.  As all career politicians seem to do these days, Warren loves the military.  Clearly she believes that it is a good thing for the SDA military to have installations all around the world.  Clearly she believes that it is a good thing when SDA military forces murder millions of citizens in sovereign nations around the world.  For our purposes here, she believes that spending taxpayer dollars on the murder of innocents and the expansion of the empire is a good thing and she criticizes Trump for not agreeing with her.  I am no fan of Trump's distorted take on waging economic warfare with all the other economically powerful nations of the world but when it comes to his desire to rein in the military and reduce the size of the empire I am in full support of him.
Warren's comment about the Great Recession and Trump's related comment in regard to his desire to be able to purchase real estate at lower prices during times of economic distress is one of the best examples of hypocrisy and lying I have read recently.  Warren asks the rhetorical question, "What kind of man roots for people to get thrown out of their houses?"  Obviously she is referring to the wave of foreclosures that characterized the housing market during the Great Recession.  What she does not mention is her material participation in the collapse of the housing market.
According to Wikipedia, "During the late 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, Warren taught law at several universities throughout the country while researching issues related to bankruptcy and middle-class personal finance.  She became involved with public work in bankruptcy regulation and consumer protection in the mid-1990s."  Furthermore, "On November 14, 2008, Warren was appointed by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to chair the five-member Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the implementation of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act."  As one of the chief protagonists in the federal government's response to the Great Recession (that it created) she should know better than to criticize Donald Trump for his views on what took place.  Warren knows, or should know, that federal housing policies encouraging lending to unqualified consumers, coupled with the disastrous and federally mandated "mark to market" corporate accounting principle, were responsible for the onset of the Great Recession.  She should also know that her actions as overseer of the federal government's reaction to the collapse of the housing market only made matters worse for the citizens of this country.  (Go here, here and here for blog posts in support of what I am writing.)  Does she man-up and accept responsibility for the sins she has committed against the very poor people she speaks so fondly of?  Of course not, that is not the way of a career politician.
What is most needed at a time of financial collapse?  Have you ever pondered that question?  More precisely, what is most needed during a time of collapse in real estate prices?  Is it funny-money created by the Fed, as the career politicians believe?  No, that only creates inflation and prolongs the recession.  Is it more laws created by politicians to "make sure it never happens again" and that punish free market entrepreneurs for their alleged role in the collapse?  No, that is just blame shifting and it only ends up in capital destruction.  When the real estate market is collapsing the best way to stop the collapse is for buyers to step in and start buying.  Guess what?  That is precisely what Donald Trump said he would do and it is exactly what Donald Trump did when the Great Recession hit.  Thanks to his, and many others like him, efforts at buying properties while they were collapsing in value a floor was established in the real estate market and the collapse was halted.  Who knows how much worse things would have become for the poor and dispossessed of this country if rich buyers like Donald had not stepped up and stopped the hemorrhaging?
Does Warren praise Trump for his heroic actions during a time of crisis that helped the real estate market of this country recover?  Of course not.  Does she thank him for helping more people to stay in their homes?  Of course not.  All she can see is that he made a profit from his activities and, for that, she condemns him.  Men like Donald Trump bailed Warren and her deadly economic policies out and she now turns around and crucifies him for what he did.  Only in Amerika, where envy reigns supreme in every man's heart,  could this sort of brainless economic propaganda play well with the masses.  Warren is a massive hypocrite.  She claims that Trump "does not care who gets hurt" when, in reality, she was one of those doing the hurting.  When Trump stepped into the fracas and put an end to it, albeit making a profit while doing so, she turns to those she was hurting and attempts to get them to believe that Trump is evil for stopping the bloodletting and that her harmful and destructive efforts against them were noble and kind.  What an ignorant, lying, deceptive, deceitful, arrogant, elitist, stupid, dumb, hateful woman she is. No wonder she believes she is Pocahontas.

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

What Is The Main Function Of Government?

What is the primary function of civil government?  Have you ever considered that question or have you simply assumed that whatever is, is the primary function of civil government?  That would be a big mistake.  Political philosophers have argued for centuries about what civil government should do.  On rare occasions in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika some citizens of higher intelligence will also occasionally think about the issue but, for the most part, the shepple who populate this ignorant and foolish country care nothing for topics that require them to exercise their brains, especially if those topics would cause them to miss the latest episode of The Voice.   
The founding fathers of the now defunct United States of America were quite astute political philosophers.  They believed that civil government primarily existed to protect three fundamental civil rights that all citizens of the land had by virtue of being created in the image of the God of the Bible.  Those three civil rights were the right to life, the right to freedom and the right to own property and use it as one sees fit.  The founding documents of that now dead country were crafted in a vain attempt to accomplish the goal of protecting those rights.  The antiquated idea that a citizen of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika should be free to live his life and enjoy his property as he sees fit sound quaint and downright non-progressive to the ears of today's socialist.  
According to this article at National Review, "A question on an exam for a course at the Milwaukee School of Engineering declared 'income redistribution' to be among 'the main functions of government.' The declaration was part of a question on an exam given on April 29 in in Professor John Traxler’s Healthcare Economics class, a copy of which was obtained by Campus Reform. It read, in full: One of the main functions of government is income redistribution. This means:
A. Regulating businesses so they pay their fair share of taxes 
B. Taxes (as a percent of income) are higher for the wealthy 
C. Taxing the wealthy and giving it to those in poverty 
D. Taxes (as a percent of income) are higher for those in poverty"
Let's consider the question and answers for a bit today.
The question is a simple one....what is income redistribution?  The correct answer is C.  Income redistribution is when civil government takes money earned by people who make more than others and gives it to people who earn less than others.  Why one group earns more and another earns less is not considered.  Why income should be redistributed is not described.  The answer simply states that income redistribution is "taxing the wealthy," whoever they are, and "giving it to those in poverty," whoever they are and regardless of why or  how they find themselves in that condition.  What is astounding is the sentence that comes prior to the question on the test.  I will reserve that topic for last and first consider the other possible answers given in response to the question.  
Answer "A" is nonsense.  It confuses government regulation with government taxation.  Regulations do not tax a business, tax law taxes a business.  Mind you, this is a question from a college exam in an engineering class, where the students are ostensibly fairly intelligent and the professor is usually deemed to be even more intelligent.  Businesses are regulated by civil government in the SDA because career politicians and the citizens who elect them believe businessmen are immoral and career politicians are saints.  Why are politicians not regulated?  Answer: because they never do anything wrong.  Why are businesses regulated?  Answer:  Because they are greedy monsters out to rip off the public.  Sadly, most people believe this tripe.  
The tired old refrain about businesses paying their "fair share of taxes" is also dragged into the discussion. What in the world does that mean?  As I argued in a blog post a couple of weeks ago, businesses should not be subject to taxation at all.  What is the fair share of government revenue profit seeking businesses should be responsible to pay? Answer:  None.  All revenues should be derived from income taxes on all the citizens of land.  Go back and read my prior post if you want to understand why.
Answers "B" and "D" are two sides of the same coin.  Neither answer is correct for the question asked and only one of the two answers can be true.  Which one is it?  Who pays more in taxes, as a percentage of income, in this envy-filled land?  This graph will answer the question and will no doubt shock you if you have been living on a steady diet of Bernieisms:

The average citizen of the SDA pays right at 10% of his income in federal income taxes.  In addition to paying more overall income taxes (the members of the top 49% of the income population pay almost all federal income taxes), the people with the highest incomes also pay the highest percentages of their income in taxes.  Please explain to me how that can be described as "fair" without assuming that the poor have a moral claim on the income of those who make more than them or that all personal income ultimately belongs to the government.  
If the only way you can answer my last question is by assuming that the poor, however they are defined, have a moral claim on the money of the rich, also undefined, please explain the ethical or moral system you are using that allows you to come to that conclusion.  If the only way you can answer my last question is by assuming that all personal income belongs to the civil government please explain the ethical and moral system you are using that allows you to come to that conclusion.  I predict that if you hold to either of those two preposterous presuppositions you will find yourself incapable of explaining the moral basis for them.  Your belief in them is a religious belief based upon your faith in the god of government.
All of this brings me to my main point.  According to a professor at the Milwaukee School of Engineering, and perhaps according to the entire professional staff at the school, "income redistribution is one of the main functions of government."  In making this assertion the professor finds himself in the company of Bernie and his legions of socialist followers.  I hasten to point out that the USA was founded by men who wrote founding documents which asserted precisely the opposite of what most people believe today.  According to the old dead guys who founded what has now become the SDA, income redistribution was an act of theft that no civil government should ever engage in.  Indeed, almost to a man they described how they self consciously crafted the governing documents of this land in what is now a failed attempt to keep the property of the minority safe from the depredations of the majority.  My how things have changed.
Nobody, except the Mad Welshman and the editors of the National Review, ever stops to question the fundamental belief that civil government exists to take income from one group and give it to another. Every single citizen of this land that I have ever queried has told me that he believes theft to be immoral.  Ever single person I have ever met believes that it is wrong for one man to take a gun and take the money or property of another man by force.  Everyone is in universal agreement that such actions constitute theft.  That is, at least, until we discuss civil government.  Then, for purely selfish and religious  reasons, the argument suddenly changes.
The religious worship that is reserved for civil government and the career politicians who operate it in this land is the reason why theft by majority vote is considered to be a good thing when all other forms of personal theft are condemned as evil.  The pronouncements of those who rule over us are morally perfect, by definition, because they are gods who can do no wrong.  It also helps that those who make the most money are a minority group that is easy to fleece because they have no political power under the terms of Bernie's democratic socialism. Democratic socialism simply means the majority has the moral right to steal from the minority.  Oh, to be sure, the theft is gussied up with phrases like the "greater good" and the "needs of the oppressed" and other such claptrap but in the end it all boils down to using the coercive power of government to steal from a group that cannot protect itself.  It is not right but it is true...the primary function of government in the SDA is to steal from the productive rich and give to the unproductive deadbeats who elect career politicians to do their dirty work for them.