San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, September 30, 2016

Good Reasons Why You Should Not Vote

Yesterday I pointed out that those good citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, including both welfare statists and warfare statists,  who go crazy when someone announces that he does not plan on engaging in the civil sacrament of voting all universally deny many of the rules of logic as they launch into fanatical tirades against people they believe should be forced to move to North Korea.  How do I know this?  Because they tell me that making the rational decision to not cast a vote actually means I am casting a vote.  They also tell me that voting for one person actually means I voted for another person.  What do you call that if not crazy?
Although it is impossible for state worshipers to understand, those of us who do not practice their civil religion actually have some very good reasons why we make the rational and conscious decision to forgo voting.  Today I would like to give you some of those reasons.
  • No person should ever vote because the act of voting is immoral.  Voting is immoral because rank and file citizens do not have the authority to vote.  Why do rank and file citizens not have the authority to choose those who will rule over them?  Because the God ordained nature of the universe is that authority flows down from God to His covenantal representatives, not upward from the people to the rulers they elect.  Democracy is immoral for the same reason congregational church government is immoral.  Both forms of government believe that original authority is vested in the individual and somehow gets transferred upward by means of the vote.  He who collects the most votes accrues the most authority and the right to rule over those who are under him.  The biblical model for authority is the exact opposite.  Jesus declares that all authority is vested in Him.  That is the starting point.  He then declares that He delegates His authority to specific individuals within the three covenantal institutions (church, family and state) that He has created.  He provides the rules for the form and function of those three institutions and the rules related to the continuity of each institution do not include voting by the membership.  According to biblical principles of authority, successor authority figures should be chosen by the current authority figures and appointed to their offices before the current crop retires.  I realize that this has been a long paragraph and nobody in the universe believes a single thing I have written here so let me go on to another good reason for why you should not vote.  Go ahead and vote if you want to be guilty of subverting legitimate authority.
  • Some famous person from the past once said that elections are nothing more than auctions for goods that have not yet been stolen, or something to that effect.  He was right of course.  There are two classes of people who vote:  those who want to use the coercive and legal power of the state to steal from their neighbors and those who want to use the power of the state to somehow try to protect themselves from their neighbors depredations.  Since more people want to steal goods from others than those who are actually robbed and since the majority always wins in a democracy, it therefore necessarily follows that the act of voting is an act of violence and really constitutes theft.  You need look no further than the fact that the top 49% of the income population funds 98.5% of the entire federal budget for proof that what I am writing here is correct.  As Hillary loves to drone on and on about her imaginary "institutionalized racism," so the fact of institutionalized envy is dramatically proven every time there is an election.  Go ahead and vote if you want to be guilty of the sin of envy.
  • Voting for the lesser of two evil people is still voting for an evil person.  The Bible says that Christians should not even greet false teachers in order to avoid "participating in their evil deeds."  When you vote you are giving your approval to the person you vote for.  That means you are participating in their evil deeds.  So go ahead and vote if you want to participate in his evil deeds.  Go ahead and vote if you want to do something that even you believe is evil. 
  • When you vote for any candidate today you are voting for a man or a woman who believes in humanistic law.  All candidates for political office in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika deny the moral and legal legitimacy of theonomy.  Theonomy is the position that Evangelicals profess to believe but never practice.  All Evangelicals, by definition, believe that the Bible is "sufficient for all matters of faith and practice."  That means they believe that God has given us His opinion about all matters of faith and life that we need to order our churches and governments properly.  That opinion is found in the Bible and, in regards to civil government, in the most holy and perfect law of God.  Although all Evangelicals profess to believe that the Bible contains everything they need to know for "life and godliness," when it comes time to put that into practice they reject what they profess to believe and adopt the principles of antinomianism instead.  Antinomians deny the moral legitimacy of the law of God when it comes to the civil government.  Along with all of the other God haters in this land, Evangelicals adopt the doctrines of religious pluralism and reject God's law while enshrining man's law, with all of its immoralities and inherent contradictions, as the law of the land.  When you vote you authorize that process of immorality.  So go ahead and vote if you want to reject the Word of God and enshrine the immoral law of man over you.
  • All candidates for political office must claim to be patriots.  That means they must believe in the doctrine of Amerikan "exceptionalism."  Amerikan exceptionalism denies the reality that all men, even Amerikans, are sinners and in need of redemption.  Those who believe in Amerikan exceptionalism, which is just about everyone these days, believe that whatever Amerikans do is good, right and proper simply because they are Amerikans and therefore morally, intellectually and spiritually better than everyone else in the world.  If you want to disagree with God's opinion about the nature of man and enshrine yourself as a morally superior being, go ahead and vote.
  • All candidates for political office must also believe in the moral legitimacy of the Amerikan empire.  No candidate will ever be elected by campaigning on the promises to remove all military bases from foreign lands, stop meddling in the affairs of foreign nations and engage in free trade with stinkin' foreigners from any country in the world.  When you vote you vote to maintain and expand the Amerikan empire, no matter how many of those stinkin' foreigners you have to kill to do so.  You believe that if they disagree with us they deserve to die for their sin.  You also vote for the blow-back that is inevitably associated with empire.  Those stinkin' foreigners don't take kindly to being occupied, raped and murdered.  Eventually they come looking for us and when they find us they are not happy.  So if you want to keep murdering innocent foreigners and if you want to keep giving them reasons to become "terrorists," go ahead and vote.
  • Civil government in the SDA is designed to give all citizens cradle to grave security, at the expense of the top 49% of the income population.  The government claims to be our messiah and the great majority of the citizens in this idolatrous country believe that claim.  They look to government every time there is a natural disaster.  They look to government when they want funding for government schools.  They look to government when they want someone else to pay for their abortions.  They look to government for retirement income.  They look to government for health insurance.  Idolatrous citizens look to their god for everything these days.  Government has responded to those requests by attempting to give the envy filled citizens everything they desire, in exchange for a vote.  The net result is the top 49% of the income population witnesses the theft of ~50% of their annual income which is then transferred, less 10% for handling, to those who voted for legalized thievery.  So go ahead and vote if you wish to be an accessory to theft.
  • The book of Revelation teaches that civil government, especially the civil governments of the world's greatest empires, make up the entity known as the Beast.  The Beast is empowered by an imprisoned Satan and authorized to wage war against the Church.  I know I am getting into some really weird theology that even Christians do not believe these days.  Bear with me.  I am describing the tenets of amillennialism, an eschatological doctrine that previously dominated Christian thinking but that has been thrown under the bus in this age of dispensationalism.  To make a long story short, engaging in the act of voting is voluntarily agreeing to participate in one of the activities of the Beast.  So if you want to be a part of the Beast, go ahead and vote.  Warning:  hitching your wagon to the Beast will have seriously negative eternal consequences.
I do not want to anger God by assuming I have authority that He has not granted to me.  I am not interested in my neighbor's property and I further believe that it is my moral duty to help him protect his property from the onslaught of thieves and robbers.  I do not believe that a less evil deed is somehow a good deed and I do not want to participate in the less evil deeds of others.  I do not want to incur the wrath of God by ignoring His law.  He has told me how to behave and the last thing I want to do is bind myself to obedience to a code of law that oftentimes directly contradicts what He says is the right thing to do.  I most certainly do not want to participate in the process by which men are appointed to deny the law of God and create humanistic law to put in its place. I deny that I am superior to Mexicans, Canadians, Bolivians, Australians, Frogs, Krauts and Koreans simply because I was born in the geo-political zone called Amerika.  I deny that the God of the Bible is blessing the empire and its wars of imperial expansion.  I deny that it is God's will for this land to be involved in the internal affairs of the great majority of all of the sovereign nations in this world.  I believe that it is always wrong to steal from my neighbor, even if he has an abundance and I am in need.  I deny that I have a moral claim upon my neighbor's property simply because I am part of a majority group.  I believe it is wrong to rob my neighbor at gunpoint and that it is equally wrong to rob him by majority vote.  I also believe that the Amerikan empire is the current and most magnificent (in an evil way) example of the Beast, as described in Revelation, that the world has ever seen.  I want no part of that and neither should you.  Do yourself a favor and stop voting before it is too late.

Thursday, September 29, 2016

Not Voting Is A Vote For Nobody

I was driving in my car yesterday, with the radio on, when I heard the King speak.  It wasn't an entire speech but the radio station had a sound bite from a full speech he had presented the day before.  I quickly genuflected, bowed my head and prepared to be addressed by the deity of this idolatrous land.
What the King said to me made me quite confused.  Here is an exact quote of what I heard, "Not voting is a vote for Donald Trump!"  I added the exclamation point because he was quite adamant about his assertion.  I turned off the radio to ponder the wisdom of my moral and intellectual superior.  I kept repeating to myself the phrase that not voting somehow actually constitutes the act of voting.  Not only that, not voting somehow constitutes the act of voting for Donald Trump.  No matter how hard I tried I could not figure out how things could be so.  So I decided to ask another person who is much smarter than me how not voting can become the act of voting.
My Republican friend, I will call him Bob, believes that every citizen in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika is morally bound to "exercise his constitutional right to vote."  Bob believes so firmly in the right to vote that he gets upset with people who do not vote.  I thought it would be a good idea to ask him if not voting actually means I voted for Donald Trump.  His answer surprised me.  Bob agreed with our King that not voting constitutes the act of voting but, according to Bob, when I don't vote I am really casting a vote for Hillary Clinton.  Now I was very confused.  My King tells me that when I do not vote I am casting a vote for Donald Trump and my good friend Bob tells me that when I don't vote I am casting a vote for Hillary Clinton.  What am I supposed to do?
After I got home from work yesterday I searched out the sound bite of my King I had heard earlier on the radio.  As it turned out he said more than just what I quoted above.  He went on to say that "casting your vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Donald Trump."  My head was swimming after hearing that statement.  I was still trying to figure out how not voting ended up being a vote for one of the two candidates for King/Queen of the SDA when my King informs me that voting for a real candidate ends up being a vote for Donald Trump as well.  I thought of Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for King.  According to my King if I cast my vote for Gary Johnson I have actually just voted for Donald Trump.  I was now so utterly confused I decided to binge watch several episodes of "The Simpsons" in what proved to be a successful attempt to return to psychological and intellectual normalcy.
The first thing I realized, after regaining my senses and my rational faculties, was that the people I had been listening to and talking with are all worshipers of the State.  That should have been my first clue that something was going to be in error.  The second thing that I realized is that the different people I spoke with and listened to varied in their views of what their deity should be primarily involved with doing.  King Obama wants to expand the welfare state and Bob wants to expand the Amerikan Empire by means of perpetual warfare.  Once I realized that my information was coming from religious zealots with little to no ability to present a rational and logically necessary argument I started to understand what was taking place.  King Obama wants me to vote for Hillary so he creates the preposterous idea that not voting at all is a vote for Donald Trump.  King Obama also believes that any vote I cast for anyone other than who he wants me to vote for is a wasted vote.  That is why he told me that voting for Johnson would also be a vote for Donald Trump.  It is a really stupid thing to say but it makes sense when I think about the religious zealotry and passion my King displays in his worship of himself.  Bob is just as bad.  He uses the same argument used by my King but changes who it is I am allegedly voting for.  What a bunch of silly idiots those two people are.
I guess I should cut Bob and the King a little slack.  They are deluded by their religion.  They both become very angry when people like myself refuse to bow down to their god.  They become even more angry when I refuse to engage in the State sacrament of voting.  You read that sentence correctly.  Voting today has become a sacramental act that believers in civil government do to profess their continued loyalty and allegiance to the Beast.   That is why government worshipers become so angry when people like me refuse to vote.  It makes them as angry as when I refuse to salute the flag or stand at attention when the national hymn is played.  They don't understand that the God of the Bible does not allow for additional deities.  They do not care that God has forbidden idolatry.  On the contrary, they proudly enter their voting booths and swear their fealty to the god of civil government.  Anyone who does not do that is evil and should leave the country.
When I make the rational and conscious decision to not vote I am making a very clear statement.  I am declaring that it is my desire to be ruled by none of the people who wish to rule over me.  I am not voting for someone else when I do not vote.  I am voting for nobody when I do not vote.  Why that is so hard to understand is incomprehensible to me.  I guess that means that I do not worship the Beast, otherwise known as the State or civil government.   In case you do not know, that is a good thing.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

A Moral Tax Policy

While Donald and Hillary display all of the character, dignity, intelligence and emotional self control of  three year olds, they also continue to spout nonsensical and immoral tax plans.  Every tax plan ever proposed during my lifetime, that I am aware of, has been immoral.  No career politician has ever argued for a program to tax the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika that did not constitute the act of theft.  Even the Libertarians have no clue how to go about raising revenue for the State to operate within its proper boundaries as they consistently call for the total abolition of all taxes and the IRS.  Civil government has the moral right to fund itself.  The question is how it should go about doing so.  Today I am going to tell you how the State can and should tax us in a moral fashion.  In other words, here is how the State can raise revenue without committing the act of theft.
All forms of taxation but one are immoral.  All taxes are a form of control and an assertion of power.  Sales taxes are immoral because they interject civil government into voluntary transactions between people. Sales taxes create perverse incentives that should not exist in the free market.  The State has no right to intervene between two or more parties as they engage in free trade. The same is true for tariffs, which are essentially sales taxes on the international level.  Tariffs are even worse than sales taxes because they create protected and privileged classes of domestic workers who then become dependent upon the taxes for their survival.  The end result of both tariffs and sales taxes is that consumers pay more for finished goods than they would have to in a true free market.
Real estate and property taxes are an assertion of ownership.  When the all powerful State claims the right to tax my real property it is making the claim that it owns my property and I am little more than a tenant.  This is not a difficult point to prove if you consider the simple truth that I will be evicted from my home if I do not pay the real estate tax on it.  The State owns my home and my rent payment is the real estate tax I am expected to pay annually.  The same is true of taxes on my personal property.  My automobile tax is a claim by the State that it owns my car and, in reality, I have a lease agreement with the civil government in which I agree to make an annual lease payment in exchange for the privilege of driving on the government's roads.
Inheritance taxes are socialism at its finest.  The idea behind the inheritance tax is that civil government has some sort of moral responsibility to break up family "dynasties" by taxing away a good portion of the estate that would be transferred from one generation to the next.  Why the transfer of wealth from one generation to the next is an immoral thing is never explained.  The simple truth is that the inheritance tax is one of the finest and purest examples of envy at work.  People with smaller estates, or no estates at all, are highly envious of the wealthy and they want to see their god, civil government, punish those rich people for their sins.  It is assumed that people can become rich only off the backs of the noble workers so when the State takes most of the money from them and gives it to the noble workers via wealth transfer programs it is deemed to be a moral activity.  The exact opposite is the case.  The inheritance tax is nothing but theft, pure and simple.
The myriad taxes such as gasoline taxes, utility taxes, technology taxes and telecommunications taxes are all little more than death by a thousand stings.  Each of the above taxes, and every other tax similar to them, suffers from the same malady.  They are all a form of sales tax attached to a particular product and, as such, they are as immoral as any other sales tax.  The State has no business interjecting itself into the voluntary decisions of its citizens to purchase a gallon of gasoline or to purchase natural gas to heat their homes.  The very notion that the State has the right to tax something anytime a voluntary transaction takes place is utter nonsense.  Why should the mere fact that two parties agree to trade with one another create an environment in which a tax should be imposed?   Answer:  It does not.
There is only one moral form of taxation and there is only one moral amount that can be extracted from a citizen before the act of taxation becomes an act of theft.  To the surprise of all God hating pagans, as well as to the surprise of all Evangelicals, God has an opinion about taxation.  There are  many things that God does not have an opinion about.  God does not care if you use Crest or Colgate.  God does not care if you drive a Ford or a Chevy.  God does not care if you eat a hamburger or a hot dog.  But there are many things that God does care about and whenever He has an opinion about something He shares that opinion with us through the Bible.
The Bible contains the opinion of God about how the State should obtain the money it needs to perform its God ordained functions.  Please note what I just wrote.  God gives the State the right to raise revenue to perform its God ordained functions and nothing else.  The State is a God ordained covenantal institution that has a limited function in this world.  According to God, the State is limited in its authorized activities to protecting the three civil rights of its citizens (right to life, freedom and property), defending its citizens from aggression by others, both internal and external, and enforcing the revealed Law of God as found in the Bible among its citizens.  Just writing that last sentence indicates how far the Socialist Democracy of Amerika has devolved into a post-Christian society.  What I wrote is laughable.  Nobody, even Christians who profess to believe the Bible, agrees with me.  That is okay with me since popularity is almost always a sign of error.  I much prefer to be a minority of one and be right. 
The Bible declares the income tax to be the only moral means by which a covenantal institution (there are only two with taxing authority....the Church and the State) can raise funds for operation.  The Bible also declares that both the Church and the State are limited in their ability to tax the incomes of their subjects to the rate of 10% of their incomes.  Does God have an opinion about how the State should be funded?  Yes He does.  God declares that civil government, in all of its permutations and levels, is limited to 10% of the annual incomes of its subjects.  If it finds itself unable to operate with that level of income it needs to reduce spending and come into conformity with God's revealed will for what it should be doing.  The Church is also morally required to extract 10% of the incomes of its members to enable it to carry out its biblically mandated duties.  That is known as the tithe and it is generally ignored by almost all Christians who claim to believe the Bible these days.
I live in a country in which Evangelicals give ~3% of their annual income to their churches and the State, at all of its various levels and through all of its thousands of different taxes, extracts ~50% of my annual income.  There is a reason I consistently refer to the citizens of this country as State worshipers.  Most people are just dandy with the state of affairs I just described.  Indeed, most people in this country would have the tax exemption for charitable contributions taken away and even higher rates of taxation imposed upon the top 49% of the income population who, unfathomably, are still deemed to not be paying their "fair share" of the federal tax burden.  What is that if it is not worship of the all powerful and beneficent State?
God will not be mocked.  Do not confuse His long suffering with tolerance for sin.  Do not think for one moment that His slowness to bring judgment is indicative of an unwillingness to do so. The tax policies of the SDA are immoral, through and through.  Those who support them, operate within them, enforce them and praise them will be severely judged for their actions unless they repent.  

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Plenty Of Economic Ignorance On Display Last Night

Like most of you I tuned into the panel discussion featuring the two people who want to be the next King or Queen of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika last night.  After watching the festivities I stick by my prediction, made well over a year ago, that Hillary will be the first Queen of the Amerikan Empire.  But that is not the point of today's post.  The first section of the panel discussion was dedicated to giving each of the candidates the opportunity to show just how little they understand about economics.  They both did a fine job of broadcasting their total ignorance about economic truth.  I was furiously writing down notes as they brought forth one stupid assertion after another.  Today I want to bring you a small sample of the economic understanding of the two people who earnestly desire to run the Amerikan Empire.  I believe they are eminently suited to be our rulers as neither one of them has a clue about how the world really operates.
Hillary began the parade of ignorance when she said, "If you helped create those profits you should share in them...." in reference to an argument she was making in favor of a new federal law she would like to see that would mandate profit seeking businesses share some of their profits with their employees.  Hillary's stance is a smart one from the political perspective.  There are far more employees than there are profit seeking entrepreneurs.  She will be likely to gather many more votes by pandering to employees than she ever would by pandering to employers.  She has the added advantage of the presence of sinful envy in the hearts of all the reprobates who populate this sinful land who are likely to vote for her.  Appealing to their desire to take something from someone who is richer than themselves is always a successful way to build a following of ardent supporters.
Is Hillary's idea for a new federal law a sound one?  Hardly.  Hillary has no conception of ownership.  I might be willing to go along with her preposterous plan if she crafted the law to also include the necessity for the employees to share in the realized losses of a profit seeking corporation.  If the employees, who have taken no risks and put none of their money into the venture, are to share in the profits if they are realized, then they should also share in the losses if they are realized.  If a company goes bankrupt, its employees should as well.  That is only fair.  I wonder if Hillary would agree with my proposal?
Furthermore, if employees are expected to share in the profits of successful companies simply because they sold their labor services to the company at some point along the way, why should every single person who had anything to do with the company also not have a moral claim on some of those profits?  If employees should receive a profit sharing distribution, so should the bankers who loaned the company money, so should the bond holders who purchased the corporate bonds, so should the hot dog vendor who sold the CEO a hot dog on the street outside the corporate offices, and so should the consumers who made the profits possible by purchasing the finished products of the company.  But let's not stop there.  All government regulators involved in the business of the company should also be entitled to a share of the corporate profits.  Career bureaucrats at OSHA each have a claim upon them.  So should the cops who patrolled the streets anywhere the products were produced  or sold.  By the time we are done putting together the list of people who have a moral claim to the profits of a profit seeking business each of those beneficiaries will be in line to receive a penny or two as his share.
Donald offered up a bit of economic wisdom when he later said that "we need to stop our jobs from being stolen from us."  The assertion was made in the context of his war upon free trade.  Donald, as I believe everyone knows, wants to engage in a trade war with every country on the face of the earth.  He sees trade as an act of war, with winners and losers, and he wants to make sure that Amerikan businesses are always the winners.  To make sure that Amerikan businesses are always the winners he wants to slap huge tariffs on all goods produced by Amerikan companies that utilize foreign labor in the production of those goods.  Donald, of course, is doing nothing more than attempting to buy the votes of laborers who have lost their jobs to cheaper, more efficient and superior laborers who happen to live outside the confines of the SDA.  His jingoistic chant that Amerikans are good and stinkin foreigners are good for nothing rings true in the ears of the deplorables who populate this country.  It is good politics even if it is horrible economics. 
I don't know if Donald is aware of this but no foreign country has ever "stolen" a job from a company operating within the SDA.  Profit seeking businesses, in a never ending quest to serve and satisfy the demands of the sovereign consumers, compete against one another for the business of those consumers.  To compete effectively, and thus make the consumers happy, they have to find the cheapest price for their raw materials and labor.  Companies hire laborers who domicile in countries outside the SDA because they can provide the same or better labor services for a lower price than what can be found domestically.  Donald needs to explain why that is immoral.  I understand why lazy, bloated, inefficient and politically privileged Amerikan workers don't like that truth but it does not change the fact that it is the truth.  It also does not change the fact that outsourcing labor is not an immoral activity and no foreign country has ever stolen an Amerikan job.
Hillary followed up Donald's ridiculous comment with a doozy of her own.  Speaking about the career politicians who preceded the Obama administration and in reference to Donald's proposed tax plan she said, "The Great Recession was in a large part caused by the politicians who slashed taxes for the benefit of the rich."  Now I have heard a lot of stupid explanations for what brought about the economic conditions which have come to be known as the Great Recession but I have never heard that it was caused by Republicans who "slashed taxes" for the rich. Hillary did not follow up her outrageous assertion with any form of economic argument.  She made no attempt to explain how cutting taxes harms the economy and she certainly made no attempt to explain how King George's tax policies created the Great Recession.
I have posted on the causes for the Great Recession many times in this blog.  If you want to read those posts type "Great Recession" into the search bar and see what comes up.  Needless to say, the Great Recession was not caused by tax cuts.  A tax, despite what Hillary believes, always impedes economic growth.  Cutting taxes, regardless of which ones and regardless of how much, always encourages economic growth.  It is impossible for a tax cut to be unhealthy for the economy.  The only thing that is harmed by a tax cut is government spending and, by implication, those people who are on the government dole.  Hillary knows this.  She knows that people on the government dole will vote for her if she can give them a moral legitimacy for their parasitical actions.  Blaming the Great Recession on a tax cut is that sort of legitimacy.
I conclude with a statement from Donald about the stock market.  He said, "We are in a bubble right now.  The only thing that looks good is the stock market but when they raise interest rates the whole thing will come crashing down."  Donald is making numerous economic assertions in this statement and all of them are wrong.  First, the stock market is not "in a bubble."  His belief that the mere fact that various stock market indices are hitting all time highs indicates the presence of a speculative bubble is ridiculous and unfounded.  Stock markets operating within growing economies will constantly be setting record highs.  That says nothing about the relative amount of speculation that is taking place. In addition, Donald's belief that stocks will crash when interest rates rise is also unfounded.  Go here for my blog post on that ignorant belief.
The current Fed policy of keeping interest rates at zero is not impacting the stock market.  The primary harm being inflicted to the economy of the SDA by interest rates hovering near zero is felt by bond holders and investors in other fixed income instruments.  Talk to retirees who were planning on living on the interest from their investments and find out just how difficult life is for them thanks to the Fed.  On the other hand, the primary arena in which irrational exuberance is taking place is in the mortgage market.  Mortgage companies are making hay while the Fed stupidly and harmfully keeps interest rates at artificially low levels.  People are buying homes they cannot afford because interest rates are unrealistically low.  When interest rates rise it will not be the holders of stocks who will be hurt.  It will be the holders of bonds and adjustable rate mortgages.
Both Hillary and Donald displayed breathtaking levels of economic ignorance last night.  I believe that suits them well.  I believe it also qualifies either one of them to be the next King or Queen of the Socialist Democracy.  I can rest easy in the fact that regardless of which one wins the next election, the person selected by the sovereign majority of this sinful land will be qualified to lead the Amerikan Empire to its imminent demise. 

Monday, September 26, 2016

When In Doubt, Sue A Profit Seeking Corporation

The front page headline story in my Saturday Denver Post told the sad story of the lady manager of a farm in Fountain, Colorado who is unable to harvest her produce this year because of the presence of PFCs in her crops.  The headline read, "Farm turned wasteland" and had the following things to say about the plight of this poor woman:
"It's harvest time, but this year, there's no pumpkin giveaway at Venetucci Farm, which for decades has delighted families in the Pikes Peak region and produced fruits and vegetables for schools and others.  Instead, researchers are conducting studies and drawing blood from cows in search for signs of contamination.  Reeling from the toxic chemicals that have tainted groundwater south of Colorado Springs, the iconic Venetucci operation was forced to shut down sales before the harvest, which farm co-manager Susan Gordon figures cost it $100,000 in lost sales.  Gordon and her family are making plans to have their own blood tested because for a decade they have been drinking water contaminated by perfluorinated chemicals, or PFCs.  They know there is no remedy if it turns out they absorbed cancer-causing PFCs."
Just how bad is the PFC contamination at the farm?  According to the story, "This week the latest government well test data shows PFCs have contaminated groundwater throughout the Fountain Creek watershed, nearly as far south as Pueblo, at levels up to five times higher than the Environmental Protection Agency health advisory limit of 70 parts per trillion."  That sounds pretty bad, doesn't it?  How could such a thing take place with a government regulated and controlled water source?
A part of the answer to that question has to do with the fact that the 70 parts per trillion standard was just established in May of this year.  The article says, "PFCs have been included on lists of chemicals that EPA scientists are considering for possible regulation in the future.  Federal water quality experts for years have known about PFCs, but it wasn't until May that the EPA issued the 70 ppt health advisory limit, lowered from a previous limit of 400ppt."  Well there it is.  The current level of PFC contamination in the Fountain water supply of 350 ppt was within the federal water standards limit of 400 ppt prior to May of this year.  It was only after that limit was dramatically reduced from 400 ppt to 70 ppt that the water quality in the Fountain Creek watershed became an issue.  One day the water was good, the next day it was toxic, according to government scientists. 
So who is responsible for the PFC contamination?  Although the article says no definitive answer to that question has yet been determined, the two primary suspects are the Air Force and the City of Colorado Springs.  Apparently the Air Force routinely uses a product called "aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) at military airfields to suppress fuel fires and explosions.  AFFF is the prime suspect in the presence of PFCs in Fountain Creek.  The Air Force has declared that "any Air Force use of the AFFFs at military airfields has been done in full compliance with the law."  The second possible culprit in the case is the City of Colorado Springs fire department, which apparently uses AFFF in its training exercises.  The location of the training exercises allows the AFFF used there to drain into Fountain Creek, according to the article.
The article also points out that "it's not illegal to make and use PFCs, and, although the EPA in May issued the health advisory, those who use PFCs are not regulated."  So we have a situation in which a particular chemical is legal to produce, market and sell.  Two primary users of this particular chemical, both of them government entities, are likely responsible for contaminating the water source for the City of Fountain.  Prior to May the water in Fountain was technically not contaminated but the change in quality standards by the EPA changed the status of the water from good to contaminated.  Once the water was officially contaminated the people who have been using that water experienced serious repercussions.  Two of those repercussions were that Susan Gordon could no longer sell the produce from her farm and Susan Gordon is now afraid of getting sick due to the presence of PFCs in her body as a result of drinking the now technically contaminated water.
I think I have done a decent job of summing up the situation in Fountain from the perspective of one person who lives there.
Can you guess what some of the folks who live in Fountain have decided to do about their predicament?  I bet you can.  Remember we live in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  Remember that most of the people who live in this envy filled land despise profit seeking corporations for no more reason than they earn profits.  Remember that most of the people who live in this idolatrous land worship the god of civil government and believe that only good things come from it.  Also remember that most people, following their natural sinful inclinations, like to use the immoral laws of this country to get something for nothing when they can.  So what have the good people of Fountain done?
According to the story, "Fellow residents of Fountain, Security and Colorado Springs filed two lawsuits in the U.S. District Court this week against 3M Corporation and various manufacturers that produced and sold firefighting foams they claim has leached the cancer causing chemicals in the Fountain Creek watershed.  The lawsuits seek a class action certification on behalf of affected residents and a declaration that the defendants acted with gross negligence and careless disregard for the safety of those who use water from the contaminated watershed."
So there you have it!  3M Corporation is a profit seeking corporation, and therefore quite evil.  3M Corporation produces a product that is legal to produce, legal to market, legal to sell and legal to use.  Two government entities purchased their product and used it according to standards established by the EPA, another government entity.  Then, the EPA changed the standards regulating how the product should be used and the two government entities were suddenly in non-compliance with the new regulation.  Everyone downstream from the source of the newly declared hazardous water contamination is negatively affected by that decision and they decide the moral thing to do is sue the company that made the PFCs.  The only way the action taken by the citizens makes any sense is if we grant that socialism is true, envy is good, idolatry of civil government is proper and all profit seeking corporations are, by definition, evil.  The moral of the story is simple......when in doubt, sue a profit seeking corporation.  Government agencies, government entities and government regulations are immaculate.