San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Saturday, July 2, 2016

Ten Reasons Why I Hate Amerika

I stepped outside this morning to get my morning paper and was immediately accosted by the vision of the holy icon of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika planted in my front yard.  I flew into an immediate rage.  Somebody had trespassed upon my property.  Somebody had cast litter upon my property.  Somebody had placed a flag upon my property and in doing so had punctured the plastic underneath my landscaping that I put there to prevent weeds from springing up.  Worst of all, somebody had forcibly involved me in the worship of the federal government, the SDA military and all career politicians.  I quickly grabbed the flag and tossed it into the trash.
The flag had been placed there by a local realtor.  As such she violated at least three rules about how to properly venerate the flag.  I believe she should be arrested by the patriot police.  She ignored the fact that the flag is never to be used for advertising purposes.  Her name was plastered on the stick she had driven through my landscaping plastic.  The flag is never to be displayed at night without being lit.  She had put the flag on my property under the cover of darkness.  The flag is never to be left out in the rain, except in cases where it is flying over the high and holy grounds where career politicians work and live.  It had rained overnight and the little flag was soaked.  So the lady realtor who violated my private property to affirm her veneration for the military of the SDA empire actually violated three of the rules she professes to follow.  What a hypocrite.
People who call themselves patriots, but are not, call me a person who hates Amerika first.  I love America, when America is properly defined.  I hate Amerika, when Amerika is defined as modern day patriots define it.  Modern day patriots believe that love for their country consists of religious adoration of the Empire, its military and the career politicians who rule over them.  Occasionally they will also throw several classes of government employees, like cops and firemen (heroes, all of them), into the pot.  For most of the idolatrous citizens of the SDA, love for their country consists of adoration for the Empire.  That is sin.  That is wrong.  That is one reason why God's wrath is being and will continue to be providentially poured out up this wretched land. 
I hate Amerika.  That may surprise some of you who believe that Christians, which I profess to be, are expected to love everything and everyone.  That may be what evangelical Christianity teaches these days but it is not consistent with historic Christian doctrine.  God commands us to hate the things He hates.  He orders us to hate them with a holy hatred.  Furthermore, God has revealed many of the things that He hates and a great number of those things are found in Amerika.  Allow me to give you ten reasons why I hate Amerika:
  1. I hate Amerika because it is an evil empire.  Like all empires the SDA sticks its nose into the business of other countries with impunity.  Amerika has military bases all over the world.  Amerika is at perpetual war with the countries of the world, seeking to bend them to our will and make them our vassals.  Amerika claims to have national interests in the sovereign affairs of hundreds of foreign countries.  There is absolutely no moral justification for the foreign policy and military activities of the SDA empire. Everything the SDA leaders do in foreign countries is immoral.  Amerika is the biggest, baddest, meanest, most murderous empire the world has ever seen and I hate it.
  2. I hate Amerika because it has killed 20 million citizens of the Middle East since 1990, all in the name of spreading democracy and freedom to various peoples who do not want it.  Most of those people were innocent bystanders killed in various wars that we started.  No Middle Eastern country has done anything to threaten the national security of the SDA and yet we kill them with a viciousness consistent with only the most reprobate empires from the past.  The SDA empire makes the Roman empire look like child's play.  The SDA killing fields make the acres of Roman crosses look like playgrounds.
  3. I hate Amerika because Amerikans believe that only their lives matter.  Go here for the blog post proving this point.  When foreigners die it is meaningless, even if they die in droves at the hands of SDA soldiers and bombs.  But if one SDA citizens dies it is worthy of a world war. 
  4. I hate Amerika because we have been at war with various foreign countries for 219 of our 240 years of existence.  Almost without exception (I believe without any exceptions but will make an exception for those who disagree with me) all of those wars were non-defensive in nature.  That means that almost every person killed by SDA soldiers, and there are tens of millions of dead, was murdered. 
  5. I hate Amerika because it murders its own citizens at an alarming rate.  54 million SDA citizens have been murdered by women and government approved doctors as they practice something they call "women's healthcare."  Somehow, when women are taken care of by government approved doctors, 54 million children are murdered.  54 million dead represents 16% of the total population of this immoral country today.  Those who protest these murders are labeled as fanatics and religious zealots who need to be silenced.  Ironically,  I am hated for proclaiming this truth.
  6. I hate Amerika because it hates the Christian Church.  Amerika is a post-Christian society.  There can be no neutrality in discussions about moral issues in this land.  Either abortion is murder or it is not.  Killing a person in a foreign land with a government issued rifle is either murder or it is not.  Christians believe those activities to be murder and for holding those beliefs we are despised and hated.  Progressive Amerika is moving rapidly and forcefully to the point where Christian truth and practice will be illegal.  I say, bring it on.  Arrest us in droves.  Make the proclamation of the Bible a criminal act.  It is time to take off the masks and behave consistently with who you really are.  Admit it, you hate us.  Now do something about it.  I am so tired of your whining.
  7. I hate Amerika because it first hates me.  My opinions are called hateful and, in some cases, unlawful.  My refusal to worship before the flag is considered a form of treason that must be punished.  My belief that singing "God Bless Amerika" is a horrible idea is deemed "extreme" and, in some cases, "dangerous."  I am not allowed to express my opinion about anything in the public square, especially if I cite the Bible in defense of my view.  I didn't start this fight, Amerika did.  For that I hate Amerika.
  8. I hate Amerika because it is filled with self-serving career politicians who are worshiped and adored by ignorant and idolatrous citizens.  Everything about the Amerikan political system is religious in nature.  No Christian can be surrounded by rampant idolatry without becoming extraordinarily vexed.  I am extraordinarily vexed.  Everywhere I look I see idolatrous worship of sinful human beings, many of whom should be in prison for what they have done and are doing.
  9. I hate Amerika because everywhere I go I am subject to a bevy of immoral and God-hating laws, rules and regulations created by those aforementioned career politicians and their bureaucratic underlings.  These laws are then enforced by the most immoral judicial system in the history of mankind.  The entire legal system is designed to suppress biblical law and enrich the government employees who work within it.  My daughter cannot open a lemonade stand in the front yard because of them.  I can't rent out a basement room to a stranger because of them.  I can't put an addition on to the back of my house without their prior approval.  When I seek their approval it becomes too expensive and time consuming to be worth doing it.  Every day, just by living my life, I commit several felonies without even knowing it.  I live in the land of the cowardly and the home of the slaves and I hate it.
  10. I hate Amerika because I am surrounded by hundreds of millions of God-hating reprobates who glory in their progressiveness and rejection of biblical truth.  Half of them have committed adultery.  Half of them believe that the sexual perversions found in homosexuality and transvestism are morally proper.  Half of the women have murdered one of their children.  The great majority of them are serial fornicators.  Lying is a way of life for most of them.  At least 51% of them are committed to the immoral principle of theft by majority vote.  They glory in their thievery and rename it "compassion."  All of them glory in their sin.  All of them mock the God of the Bible All of them suppress the truth in unrighteousness.  And, to top it all off, they hate me when I point these things out.

    Friday, July 1, 2016

    One More Thought About International Trade

    There is one argument advanced by those who believe the career politicians who rule the Socialist Democracy of Amerika should engage in trade wars with every other nation in the world that seems, at first blush, to make some sense.  The argument goes something like this.  Foreign countries populated with stinkin foreigners, who probably deserve to be bombed for failing to bow down before the Imperial Amerikan Empire, subsidize the production of goods in their country, thus allowing them to sell those goods to hapless Amerikans for lower prices than what domestic producers in the SDA can sell them for.  When given the choice of buying essentially the same good for a lower price most SDA citizens will purchase the lower priced good, thus driving domestic production out of business.  This process is called dumping and most countries that sell products to the citizens of the SDA are accused of doing it.  Since foreign countries are subsidizing the production of those goods it is necessary for the SDA bureaucrats to enforce a tariff on those goods when they are imported to make them at least as expensive as the goods produced locally.  Only by using a tariff to level the playing field can SDA industries compete with those immoral and strange looking foreigners.
    I can see how a person could come to believe that argument and then be in support of tariffs.  If I was a producer of leather wallets and the Mexican government made the decision to give millions of taxpayer pesos to its domestic producers of leather wallets I could find myself out of a job.  Donald Trump's claims that Mexico is behaving unfairly (although I still do not understand how a geo-political entity like "Mexico" can have personal characteristics that allow us to describe it as "behaving unfairly") ring true to me as I receive a pink slip and find myself looking for new leather craft work.  So is it true?  Do we, the citizens of the SDA, need a bureau of professional traders to oversee all purchases and sales of goods between us and foreigners to ensure that any transaction that involves a government subsidy is properly taxed?  Let's consider that for a moment today.
    Here is a link to a list of federal subsidies.  I didn't count how many categories are on the list.  The list is far too long for me to do that.  For fun I clicked on a couple of the links and each click brought up another list of rules and regulations related to the program.  Needless to say, there are thousands, perhaps millions, of subsidies paid by the federal government of the SDA.  The federal subsidy on sugar is a case in point.  It was created many moons ago to protect domestic sugar producers from the fact that people in foreign countries could produce the same quality sugar (sugar is sugar you know) without subsidies and for a much lower price.  Sensing a threat to domestic producers and the ability to purchase votes from that constituency, career politicians created an elaborate system of sugar subsidies to keep foreign sugar out and artificially prop up the price of SDA produced sugar.  SDA consumers have paid far more than the free market price for sugar for generations in order to support the sugar subsidy, maintain sugar company employment, enrich sugar producing companies and keep career politicians in office.
    What is my point?  It, like me, is a simple one.  If we desire to go on a hunt for the country that has most egregiously violated the principles of free international trade by subsidizing domestic industries and then dumping the product of those industries upon unsuspecting foreign countries then we need look no further than the good old SDA.  As the world's largest economy we are also the world's greatest violator of free trade.   It is some what disingenuous, no, let me say it straight, it is downright hypocritical to complain about foreign dumping of subsidized goods when the SDA is the greatest violator of that principle in the history of the world.
    We must face the fact that, other than in a few pockets of isolated people, there is no free trade anywhere in the world.  Each country protects its own companies for political gain and then blames the other countries of the world for doing exactly the same thing.  The idea that the allocation of capital in the world would actually take place according to which geo-political zone is most qualified to utilize that capital is verboten.  And if we are going to be honest, the SDA is the biggest bully, the greatest destroyer of foreign jobs and the most economically immoral country in the universe.  But hey, what do we care?  They are just stinkin foreigners.  Our jobs are more important than theirs.  Our children are more important than theirs.  So what if they starve to death. 
    Trade wars have been and will continue to be waged throughout the countries of the world.  The question is how are we to respond when attacked?  The typical response given by men like Donald Trump is we must strike back, harder and more viciously than the enemy has struck us, and not relent until we have mastered them economically.  You win a trade war, according to these fools, by destroying the economies of foreign countries and making extreme profits for your own companies in the process.  What a bunch of brainless idiots they all are.
    The only way to win a trade war is to surrender.  There are several reasons for why the strategy of surrender is the only reasonable recourse when attacked by a foreign country in a trade war.  Consider the fact that when a foreign government subsidizes an indigenous company to allow it to produce goods cheaper than what can be produced by companies in the SDA it is taking money from its own citizens and giving that money to SDA citizens in the form of lower prices.  Yes, you got that right.  Domestic subsidies on exported goods are nothing more than wealth transfer scams that take the wealth of the citizens of the producing country and give it to the citizens of the foreign country making the purchases.  When SDA steel producers cry out for subsidies to allow them to produce and export steel to foreign countries the net impact of that subsidy is to take money from the consumers of the SDA and give it to purchasers of steel in foreign lands.  Who has ever heard of waging a war by taking money out of your own citizen's pockets and giving it to the enemy?  It makes no sense but it is what happens.
    In a trade war the foreign country comes up to you, the SDA consumer, and informs you that he is going to shoot himself in the foot and give you some cash.  How should you respond to that threat?  The way the brainwashed and economically ignorant consumers of this envy filled land typically respond is to cry out to government for protective tariffs that will ensure the dirty foreign citizen can't do what he wants to do.  How dare him want to injure himself to give you something for a lower price than you can get elsewhere!  He must be stopped.  The reasonable and proper economic response is to say, "I don't' understand why you are shooting yourself in the foot and I can see no rational reason why you should want to give me some of your money but if you really want to do that who am I to resist?  Give me your cash."
    When one country responds to the tariff of another country by creating a new tariff of its own it is only a matter of time until international trade is choked off.  Choking off international trade, despite what the protectionists stupidly declare, always reduces world wealth and is always harmful to the consumers in all of the countries of the world.  If one country actually had the guts to react to all cases of alleged "dumping" by declaring an unconditional surrender and allowing itself to be dumped on by anyone who wished to do so, I believe it would not be long before the citizens in the foreign countries who are being robbed to finance the "dumping" activities would rise up in anger.  As they realized that some of their money was being taken from them and given to the already enormously rich citizens of the SDA by means of their domestic industrial subsidies I can't imagine they would not seek to throw out the bums who are running the program of wealth redistribution.  Tar and feathers would be a reasonable starting point once the angry mobs come to their senses and go after the career politicians who are stealing their money.
    Let me correct something I just wrote.  I said that I believe that the citizens who are being exploited by their own governments would rise up in anger and demand changes.  That is, as I consider what I wrote, clearly not true.  These things have been going on for as long as government has existed and international trade has taken place and nobody but me has ever called for an end to them.  How quickly I forget that people are terrified of freedom and terrified of being free men and women.  Those who benefit from the subsidies (the domestic producers) don't complain.  Those who are robbed to subsidize the domestic companies don't complain because they are either too stupid or too enamored with government to know anything else.  So I am driven back to that familiar place in my mind where I conclude that the citizens of the SDA are economically ignorant fools who worship at the throne of the federal government.  That being the case, we are all getting precisely what we deserve.  Vote Trump!

    Thursday, June 30, 2016

    All We Need Is A Police State

    I have just read a compelling and convincing argument in favor of the position that the Socialist Democracy of Amerika should be transformed into a police state.  I know many of you believe we are already in that condition but I am talking about a real, full-fledged, one hundred percent police state.  Think SS and Gestapo and you will be on the right track.  My good friend Mary Reeves of Littleton wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post last week expressing her argument in favor of a police state.  I share it with you here, in its entirety:
    "The Second Amendment is about the need for protection against threats to persons and property.  However, in societies that have well regulated and well trained police, this protection is carried out by professionals.  Police in this country are not universally prepared to do this job, and therefore all kinds of people think they need to own guns.  The abundance of guns in our society contributes not only to terrorism and mass murder but also to suicides, accidents and unpremeditated murders in households where guns are owned.  Transforming police into well regulated, well trained professionals who are concerned with the welfare of all citizens results in the protection that the Second Amendment identifies.  Thus untrained individuals no longer feel the need to own guns, and violence is greatly reduced."
    Wow!  How can any rational person disagree with that argument?  Like most people Mary presupposes lots of things prior to getting down to the dirty details of her argument.  Do you see the unmentioned presupposition in Mary's argument?  Actually, Mary is presupposing two beliefs in order to come to the conclusion that an SDA Gestapo would be good for this country.  In case you don't see them, let me tell you what they are.  First, Mary is presupposing that human beings are too evil, nasty, sinful (if I might use that archaic word), selfish, greedy, hateful and violent to be trusted to own guns.  She acknowledges that we all need "protection against threats to persons and property" and she also believes that allowing the rank and file among us to own guns contributes to those threats.  Indeed, she has a long list of evils that are the result of giving sinful human beings guns.  That list includes terrorism, mass murder, suicide and unpremeditated murder.  According to Mary's first presupposition, human beings are a pretty vile lot and need something to keep them under control.  I can't disagree with that. 
    Unfortunately Mary's second presupposition contradicts her first presupposition.  Or at least it seems to.  Maybe she can explain how it does not.  I suspect she is much smarter than me and that is why I am incapable of seeing how she does not contradict herself when writing about the immoral nature of humanity.   From my perspective Mary somehow now believes that, out of that lot of wretched human beings that we all belong to, a group of people can be discovered who are known as "professional police officers."  Unlike the rest of us, these folks do not suffer from any of our sinful maladies.  They are all altruistic, kind, gentle, peaceable and, above all, interested in sacrificing themselves to protect the rest of us human scum.  Why would they want to do that?  Duh!  Because they are better than we are.  In Mary's own words, "these well regulated and well trained professionals are concerned with the welfare of all citizens."  Now here is my problem.....just where do these noble men come from?
    Is there, as Plato argued, a special class of human beings who are born to rule over the rest of us simply because they are superior human beings?  These people must naturally gravitate into the positions of authority in our land because they are just so much better than the rest of us.  Being superior to us all, they can tell who is a member of their class and who is not.  That allows them to perpetuate their superior class, thus ensuring that we underlings can be protected from evil forever.  Amen.
    Maybe this police caste comes from the same clay as the rest of us.  Maybe they become sanctified the moment its members put on a government issued badge giving them the authority to use deadly force to keep us in line with myriad rules and regulations that have nothing to do with morality and everything to do with preserving the status quo.  Maybe it is the office that makes the man.  But, if that is true, then it really does not matter who goes into that office and even those violently stupid gun owners that Mary despises so much could end up being her masters.  I suspect Mary does not believe that the office makes the man.  Mary does not tell me where these supermen come from so I am left to my own designs when trying to figure out the dilemma of their origination.
    Introducing even more absurdity and difficulty into her argument, Mary recognizes that "police in this country are not universally prepared to do this job."  It would seem to be the case then that some vile folks like you and me may end up wearing a police uniform and, not surprisingly, do a terrible job at playing god.  In that situation these folks are neither Platonic leaders nor men transformed by their office.  Indeed, Mary takes a logical step backwards and says that what these inferior forces need is a process by which they can be "transformed" into a well regulated and well trained group of security professionals.  Unfortunately that assertion only begs the question.  Where do the trainers come from who are vested with the magical ability to transform sinners into saints, thus providing an adequate supply of perfect policemen to rule over us?  Mary does not provide an answer to that question either.
    In Mary's hallucinogenic universe some super-humans are able to train some somewhat less super-humans in the art of altruistically protecting the lives and property of the filthy rabble that is the rest of us.  Once those people are identified they are to be given absolute power.  Any granting of power less than absolute power is insufficient and will result in the state of affairs we have to live with today.  We know for a fact, or at least Mary does, that absolute power does not corrupt these men.  No, absolute power only enables these god-like creatures to do their job more efficiently and effectively, thus ensuring that we all live in peace and prosperity forevermore.
    I am one of Mary's "untrained individuals."  In fact, I rebelliously despise the "training" that comes from the civil government.  I do not believe it is training that we receive from our handlers.  Propagandized brainwashing is a better term for what comes our way.  That means I will never be qualified to live in Mary's ideal state unless I willingly submit to the absolute power of my superiors.  What choice do I have?  I have decided that Mary's world sounds like a dandy idea to me.  I am tired of living as a quasi-free man.  It is time to give up and give in to the powers that be.   I can't see any possible or even probably negative outcomes from giving one group of people absolute power over another.  Give all the guns to the good guys from the government and grant them a charter to keep the rest of us in line.  That is my new motto. Once that simple goal is accomplished we can all sit back and let the good times roll.

    Wednesday, June 29, 2016

    Trump Is An Economic Idiot

    When it comes to his understanding of economics, Donald Trump is as much of a socialist as Bernie Sanders.  That makes both of them fitting citizens for the Socialist Democracy of Amerika as well as making them equally idiotic men who desperately desire to rule over us.  How can I write that first sentence?  It is easy (the second sentence was a bit harder but I managed to do it).  Donald Trump believes that trade between two entities is essentially competitive in nature and that all exchanges have a winner and a loser.  That fundamental view of what it means to trade with one another is one hundred percent socialist.  The truth is the exact opposite of what Trump believes.  But don't take my word for it.  Here is what Donald had to say just yesterday about foreign trade:
    "Republican Donald Trump took aim at U.S. free trade deals in a speech delivered in Western Pennsylvania Tuesday that painted his likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton as a champion of the kind of globalization that has pushed manufacturing jobs overseas.  'This wave of globalization has wiped out totally, totally our middle class,' said Trump, standing in front of stacks of compressed metal on the floor of Alumisource, a plant that provides aluminum scrap and other raw materials to the aluminum and steel industries. 'It doesn't have to be this way. We can turn it around and we can turn it around fast.'  The speech, delivered in the heart of America's struggling rust belt, stressed a central premise of his campaign: that global free trade — a Republican Party staple for decades — has hurt American workers because deals have been negotiated poorly. Trump has vowed to bring back manufacturing jobs, in part, by slapping tariffs on goods produced by companies that move manufacturing jobs offshore....He said the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was signed by Bill Clinton, was a 'disaster' and pointed to the Clintons support for normalizing trade relations with China."  (  June 28, 2016)
    Allow me to critique Trump's position on trade in general and foreign trade in particular.  The article begins by mentioning "free trade deals" that exist between various nations.  There is no such thing as a "free trade deal" anywhere in the world today.  Any deal crafted by politicians and bureaucrats is, by definition, the opposite of free.  All of the alleged free trade treaties that have been signed in recent years are little more than enormously complicated descriptions of how each country will protect its domestic industries by enforcing tariffs on goods produced in other countries.  Sure, they might agree to reduce their tariffs in exchange for other concessions but there is nothing free about what takes place.  A truly free transaction exists when two or more parties get together and agree to exchange what one has for what the other has in an environment that is completely free from coercion.  In other words, governments do not intervene in any way, shape or fashion when people and corporations agree to trade with each other.  Free trade never has a winner or a loser.  In truly free exchanges both parties go away happy with the end result.  If both parties had not come to the point where they were glad to make the exchange the exchange never would have been made.  Of course, free trade only exists in small communities around the world where people generally barter with each other and stay below the radar of government regulators.  The rest of us are stuck with politically negotiated "free trade" deals.
    Trump sees everything through the eyes of winning and losing.  He cannot conceive how two people can exchange things between themselves and both of them go away winners.  He therefore believes that he needs to renegotiate all of the free trade deals that currently exist in the SDA so that the SDA can come out the winner. What is his evidence that the SDA is losing out in those deals?  According to Trump the proof that the SDA is a loser when it comes to free trade is the fact that many domestic corporations have outsourced some of their production to foreign lands.  Trump believes that to be an abomination and promises to bring the full force of law down upon any company domiciled in the SDA that seeks to send some of its productive activities overseas.
    Donald does not understand that companies move their production to foreign countries because it is more profitable for them to do so.  Or, perhaps more accurately, Trump does not understand that profitability is the only means by which a company can determine if it is serving the consumers.  Trump, like all socialists, despises profit.  That is a wildly ironic and hypocritical stance for a self proclaimed billionaire to take but he takes it anyway.  In the real world profits are only realized when consumers purchase the goods and services produced by profit seeking companies.  If people do not purchase those goods profits are not realized and the companies go out of business.  Conversely, the more profitable the company is the more it is serving the consumers.  If a company can increase its profitability by moving some or all of its productive activities to a country with lower costs it is morally required to do so.  Refusing to maximize profit is an evil and consumer hating position for businesses to take and those who do take it are punished by economic death, in other words, they go bankrupt.
    Trump believes that "normalizing" trade relations with China, whatever that means, is a bad idea.  I am not aware of the particular contents to be found in the, no doubt, encyclopedia sized trade agreement that exists between the SDA and China.  Whatever those terms are, like all government created trade agreements, they exist to protect domestic jobs and thus allow the politicians who created them to be continually reelected.  When a politician decides to allow one segment of the SDA economy to be sacrificed to the more efficient competitors in a foreign country you can be sure that decision was made only after it was determined that doing so would not affect his chances at reelection.  Trump, according to his speech, wants to change all that and protect all domestic industries.  I do not know how he is going to determine just how many, and how large, all SDA domestic industries are or should be.  I do not know how he is going to calculate how much they should be allowed to grow or how profitable they should be.  I do not know how he is going to enact and enforce just the right amount of tariff charge on hundreds of thousands of individual goods and services that are involved in the production of finished goods around the world.  I suspect he does not know how he is going to do any of those things either.  But the mere fact that he believes that he can do those things proves he is a raving socialist, just like Bernie.
    Trump stupidly refuses to recognize the economic truth that producers compete against producers for the benefit of the consumers.  When one company undercuts another company and sells a similar quality good for a lower price the consumers will flock to that company and leave the old company behind.  Make no mistake, consumer loyalty is a fiction.  The one thing consumers are loyal to is their own money and when the day comes that Apple (is it already here?) no longer can compete against other companies producing similar goods it will go the way of the economic albatross and become extinct. Who benefits from this process?  Billions of consumers benefit from this process.  We are all better off when trade is free and jobs are located in those locales where the workers can produce most efficiently.  Trump wants to change that.  He wants to protect bloated and inefficient domestic companies that should have gone out of business long ago by enforcing tariffs against their more efficient competitors.
    Strangely, from an economic perspective, Trump only calls for tariffs when the competition is found in foreign countries populated with stinkin' foreigners who probably deserve to die by means of an SDA military bombing campaign but who have been allowed to exist because they served the purposes of the Empire in some fashion.  If Trump wanted to be logically consistent on his socialist position about protecting inefficient companies, he should enforce tariffs on California strawberries so growers in Minnesota do not go out of business.  He should enact huge tariffs on Florida oranges so orange growers in Maine can compete on a level playing field.  If the playing field is not level enough he should use taxpayer funds to create indoor orange groves in Maine.  Kansas wheat should be slapped with a huge tariff so that wheat producers in Mississippi can stay in business.  Chile pepper growers in New Mexico should pay monstrous tariffs to ensure the continuation of the once thriving New Hampshire chile business.  But why stop there?  Trump needs to create barriers to entry to all highly efficient competitors in order to protect another, less efficient group.  Tariffs on all cars imported from Japan would be a good place to start.  Pretty soon we can get back to the good old days when international trade did not exist and the entire world was mired in the Great Depression.
    Donald has made it very clear that he has no desire to expand the Amerikan empire by means of worldwide warfare.  That has angered the neo-cons in the Republican party to the point that, if he is elected next King of the SDA, I believe he will be quickly assassinated by them.  He should be applauded for his opposition to empire but his position on foreign trade is ridiculous, contradictory and highly damaging if actually enacted.  Donald wants to wage economic warfare on every country in the world and he will not be content until the SDA has "won" all of those wars. That makes Donald Trump an idiot in my mind.

    Tuesday, June 28, 2016

    Let's Push Church Services Underground

    Yesterday I wrote about the vital need that exists in this country to establish and practice a strict "no tolerance" policy for all things Christian.  Some of you who have not been paying attention probably drew the conclusion that I am tilting at windmills when I assert that we are now a post-Christian society that needs, for logical consistency sake, to eradicate Christianity from the face of this God-hating country.  Today I would like to use one of my favorite newspaper columns to make my point once again. Yes, I read "Ask Amy."
    Amy had responded to a person in an earlier column who had signed off as "Conflicted in CT" about how best to get along with family members who are Christians.  Isn't that an interesting change of events?  In the old days, when the Socialist Democracy of Amerika was ostensibly a nation operating under quasi-Christian principles, the problems most people had to deal with were how to get along with the non-Christians in the family.  Uncle Joe drinks too much. Aunt Sally is a chain smoker.  Grandpa Bill gets a little crazy when he goes on the dance floor and nobody every said anything about crazy Uncle Leo except that you should never leave your children alone with him.  My how things have changed.  Today Christians are deemed to be the problematic members of the family simply because they do and believe what Christians have done and believed for over two thousand years.
    The homosexual issue is seemingly always the flashpoint in these discussions.  Someone in the family makes the decision to "come out" and all of a sudden everyone is expected to step up and affirm that person's lifestyle choices.  It is not that someone might oppose the decision to be a homosexual that is the issue.  That is considered so blatantly wrong that nobody even considers the possibility that someone would say that homosexuality is a sin. The issue is whether to affirm that lifestyle choice or remain silent.  This is where a strange hypocrisy raises its ugly head.  Those who refuse to affirm the homosexual who is coming out are considered to be filled with hate and intolerance for somebody who is a heroic figure who should be encouraged and adored.  I remember when a family member sent out an email to dozens of other family members announcing that he wanted to meet individually with each one of us so he could come out and receive our support.  What an amazing jerk, I thought to myself.  What would the reaction be, given the fact that most people believe the majority of the citizens of the SDA are homosexual, if I did the same thing to come out as heterosexual?  They would, of course, accuse me of mocking him.  Which way does tolerance run again?
    Amy's column illustrates the hypocrisy of this situation quite well.  Not affirming a homosexual is considered to be at least an immoral action, and will probably end up being a criminal action in the near future.  On the other hand, refusing to affirm a Christian for his beliefs is not seen as a rude behavior.  On the contrary, it is considered to be right and proper.  Conflicted in CT had written Amy to complain that he "cringed at the thought of attending his sister's wedding vows because it would be in a church."   What a horrible thing!  The sister was probably a Christian and she wanted to recite what would no doubt be Christian wedding vows in a Christian church.  How dare her think she can do that and not offend the post-Christian members of her family!  I do not recall what Amy's response was to this God-hating chump but she most certainly did not accuse him of intolerance and hate speech for his view of Christians.  Imagine what her response would have been if the wedding were between two women and it was to be held in front of a liberal female pastor of an apostate Christian church and a true Christian family member was talking about "cringing" when the whole thing went down.  She would have blasted him out of the water for his intolerance.  Once again we see that tolerance, like water, only runs one direction.
    The letter that Amy published was from another God-hater who signed off as "Not Conflicted In FL."  Not conflicted offered up this precious bit of wisdom about how to deal with offensive Christians doing historic Christian things in Christian churches when he wrote, "I am also an agnostic and had a similar problem when one of my grandsons became a Pentecostal preacher.  I attend his services occasionally, without participating.  When others rise, I remain seated.  In this way I honor my grandson without compromising my beliefs."  Good for him.
    I believe that Not Conflicted is actually doing the right thing by not participating when he attends this church service.  He should remain seated and keep his mouth shut.  Pretending to participate in the worship of a God he hates and despises will only increase the wrath of that God upon him when he spends eternity in the Lake of Fire.  My problem with Not Conflicted is not his wise decision to stay silent.  My problem with Not Conflicted is the fact that he goes into a place knowing full well what is going to be taking place there only to sit in judgment of the proceedings the entire time he is there.  If the grandson really wanted to do the right thing he would throw his grandpa out the door and tell him to never come back.  Can you imagine the outrage that would be expressed if a Christian attended a homosexual rally only to be discovered as a mole sent there by his church to mock what they were doing?  He would be lucky to escape with his life as he would be in danger of being slapped silly by thousands of flailing limp wrists.
    Amy's response to his letter further betrays the truth that Christians are second class citizens in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  She writes, "There is a strong human pull toward witnessing.  You have found a way to do that."  She obviously approves of and admires the statement this man is making to his grandson.  Whether she is mockingly using the word 'witnessing' in an additional attempt to discredit Christians I do not know.  She is, however, clearly making the point that she believes it is good, right and proper for a God hating agnostic to attend a Christian service of worship for the purpose of passively declaring his objection to everything that is taking place.  Once again I ask, what would happen if the tables were turned and Christians did the same thing to homosexuals?  I think we all know the answer to that question.....burn them at the stake comes to mind.
    I do not believe it is a stretch to say that the God-hating citizens of the post-Christian society of the SDA believe that the mere presence of Christian worship services is an affront to their moral sensibilities.  If they could have their way Christianity and Christian worship would be declared illegal in the land.  We might get to that point in the future but right now they are waging the propaganda war and they are winning.  The mere fact that the proclamation of Christian truth in a Christian church building is now considered to be offensive proves that point quite well.  Bring in the Gestapo and the thought police and close down those churches.  It is time to drive Christians underground where they belong.

    Monday, June 27, 2016

    It Is Time For A "No Tolerance" Policy For Christians

    Please allow me to begin with an extended quotation from a theological luminary that I admire very much.  His name is Rushdoony and he wrote a book entitled "The Institutes of Biblical Law."  In the introduction to that book he explains some general principles about the nature of law and society.  It is from that section I extract this quote, "Law in every culture is religious in must be recognized that in any culture the source of law is the god of that any society any change of law is an explicit or implicit change of religion....Since the foundations of law are inescapably religious, no society exits without a religious foundation or without a law system which codifies the morality of its religion....there can be no tolerance in a law system for another religion.  Toleration is a device used to introduce a new law system as a prelude to a new intolerance....Every law system must maintain its existence by hostility to every other law system or else it commits suicide."  (emphasis mine)
    It is time for a no tolerance policy for Christians in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  By no tolerance I mean precisely that.  Imagine your local government school if you need an example.  Nothing that is explicitly Christian should be allowed to exist in the public square.  Everything that is based upon historic Christian doctrine or practice should be made illegal.  The SDA has been a post-Christian society for some time now and it is high time for us to acknowledge that fact and begin the process of eradicating all remaining vestiges of Christian doctrine and practice that infect and inhibit the pure religion of government worshiping humanism in this idolatrous country.  God-of-the-Bible hating secular humanism is a relatively new religion in the SDA and it needs all manner of legal protections to be able to blossom and overcome the stigmas associated with it due to ancient and outdated Christian beliefs.  Lest you do not remember, let me tell you just how well the Christians managed to use their policies of intolerance to suppress and persecute our fellow progressives during their reign of cultural terror.  They have:
    • Declared adultery to be a crime and followed mind-numbing legal procedures to determine which party was at fault in a divorce.  The guilty party was then punished.  This practice was based upon the outrageous claim that the Bible indicates God hates divorce and desires those who commit adultery to be put to death.  Have these idiots forgotten the principle of the separation of church and State?  Many of our progressive and sexually liberated brothers and sisters were caught up in this state sponsored terrorism and robbed of their sexual right to have sex with anything and anyone they want.  Laws should be written that permit sexual expression of all types.
    • The Christian persecution of our homosexual brothers and sisters is reminiscent of the dark ages and the witch hunts that took place during the colonial period of the SDA.  Now that they have been granted most preferred status by the Supreme Court of Jokers of the SDA it is time for them to rise up and punish their oppressors.  Many local ordinances still criminalize homosexual sex.  Those ordinances must be removed and publicly burned.  All references to the "sinfulness," what an archaic concept that is, of homosexual behavior should be classified as hate speech and severely punished.  Those who persist in their beliefs that God hates homosexuals should, at the very least, be sentenced to life in prison or until they recant their belief and affirm the progressive homosexual lifestyle.  
    • Christians use corporal discipline with their children.  They quote verses from the Old Testament (a document we all know no longer applies to modern life) about sparing the rod and spoiling the child.  It is a well known fact that Christians continue to spank and otherwise physically abuse their children in the privacy of their own homes.  Just like the Christians used to spy upon the homosexuals having sex in the privacy of their own homes, we need to turn the tables on them and go after these barbarians in the gate who are terrorizing our children.  At the very least our children need to be removed from those hate-filled homes and, better yet, the so called parents who are engaging in these acts of homicidal rage need to be incarcerated for very long periods of time, lest they hurt someone else or be permitted to breed further.  
    • Although forgotten by most people today, Christians were notorious for their tirades against alcohol and public drunkenness.  They constantly argued, once again using the Bible they love so much, that drunkenness is a moral failure and not a mental illness.  It is hard for us to believe but the mentally ill were actually arrested and forced to spend time in prison simply because they were mentally ill.  Now I am not opposed to putting people into prison for mental illness, provided it is the right mental illness.  I believe a strong case can be made that delusional Christians suffer from a severe form of mental illness that demands their incarceration.  How else can the new law system be protected?  Are we expected to simply allow these people to go around making their absurd pronouncements and possibly lead some of our brothers and sisters astray?  I think not.
    • Bible thumping maniacal Christians believe women's health care to be something they call murder.  In the old days, prior to 1973, they would force our noble and resourceful women into back alleys to procure their vitally important and necessary health care procedures.  As a result of the sometimes unsanitary conditions found in those back alleys many of our women would die.  Who are the real murderers in that situation?  Do you want to go back to those days?  Neither do I.  We need to criminalize any and all criticism of women's health care procedures.  Anyone who opposes what women sovereignly chose to do with their own bodies is criminally violating a woman's right to be reinforced by society for her personal choices and anyone who offers up an opinion about her choices, especially if it is a negative one, deserves to be incarcerated for that hate-filled crime.
    • A social hot button today is what the Christians are trying to do to our transvestite brothers/sisters/neuters.  Several state legislatures, as you probably all know, have enacted laws attempting to criminalize the morally perfect behavior of transvestites.  All people should be free to define their gender in any fashion they desire.  And in a progressive society the top 49% of the income population should be legally required (they are already morally required) to pay for the construction of millions of public bathrooms, showers and other places where people who identify themselves of any particular gender can get naked with each other.
    These are just a few of the things Christians are trying to do to us as they cling to their outdated beliefs and sense of social privilege.  Make no mistake, Christians are a real threat to our freedom.  Any response to their machinations less than a powerful legal putdown will not be sufficient.  It is time to make examples of them, especially the most verbal and public of them.  Allow me to suggest some meaningful legislation that could accomplish our goal of eliminating the odious influence of Christianity in our morally pure and downright delightful society:
    • The Chinese have it right.  The Chinese government has created a place for those who claim to be Bible-believing Christians.  It is called the Three-Self Patriotic Movement and it is the official Protestant State Church of China.  Its ministers are strictly regulated and the content of what is proclaimed is sharply redacted to include only those things that are favorable for the governmental authorities in power.  True Christians refuse to participate in the TSPM church and that makes them easy to identify and incarcerate.  The SDA needs to sponsor its own state church and require all Bible believing Christians to join it.  Only then can we begin to control these people.
    • You can always kill the beast by cutting off its head.  Christian pastors, especially the most high profile among them, must be jailed for multiple violations of the hate speech ordinances.  Teaching that God desires adulterers, homosexuals, transvestites, rebellious children, kidnappers, blasphemers and proclaimers of non-biblical religions to be executed by the civil authorities must become a criminal activity itself.  Insofar as the churches are willing to use most or all of their money in public service programs designed to help the mentally ill among us (excluding themselves of course), we will have no problem with them.  The moment they start teaching ancient Christian doctrines like the belief that Jesus is the only way to God and Christianity is the only true religion will become the moment the mighty hand of Thor shall fall upon them with a vengeance.  How can these people be so ignorant and stupid so as to not perceive how offensive their message is?  We will teach them tolerance, at the end of a taser if necessary. 
    • It is inevitable that small groups of Christians will spring up in various house churches around our glorious country so it is vitally important that everyone practice watchfulness of his neighbor.  The best sources for intelligence about home churches are the people living in the homes.  Praise them in public in direct relationship to how much they practice turning in their neighbors to the authorities for violations of the hate speech and abominable practices ordinances.  Success will be achieved when everyone is spying on everyone else.  
    • The tax code must be rewritten to stop the flow of funds to these terrorist organizations known as churches.  All church property must be subjected to a tax at least double of that found for private real estate holdings in the area.  All donations to churches must no longer be tax deductible and the churches must pay the corporate income tax on all receipts.  One of the best ways to kill a parasite is to hit it where it the pocketbook.
    Some may think I am overstating the case.  Those who believe I am exaggerating have not fully examined the problem.  Rushdoony was right on when he penned the words I began with today.   The glorious victory of the progressive movement and all of the wonderful benefits of that movement we enjoy today are the direct result of a beautifully crafted and executed propaganda campaign emphasizing the need for tolerance for us and our LGBTXYS brothers/sisters/neuters.  We were successful at convincing the Christians that all we wanted was to be on equal ground with them, tolerated by them and, if not accepted, at least not punished for being who and what we are.  We approached our takeover knowing full well that the Christians had never treated us that way and would continue to oppress us if they could.  But we won!  We convinced people that this was about tolerance for each other.  Now that we have won it is time to abandon the charade and enforce the new intolerance.  That new intolerance must begin with our biggest sworn enemies, the people in this glorious land who call themselves Bible believing Christians.  Until they are silenced we have not finished our work.  Until they are silenced we will still continue to suffer from their insults and lack of affirmation.  Rise up brothers/sisters/neuters and shout the rallying cry of "death to the Christians!"  And above all, if they adopt our strategy and begin to cry out for tolerance for their position, don't be an idiot and fall for that old trap.  Squash them like the vile little bugs they are.