San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, February 10, 2017

Warmongering With Russia And Iran

The warmongers in Washington desperately want a war with either Russia or Iran.  Some of them might want to have a war with both countries.  I truly believe that some of them want a nuclear war as well.  King Donnie stands in their way to some degree.  His favorable comments about Putin and his reference to the Socialist Democracy of Amerika as a place where murderers go about murdering with impunity outraged the neo-cons in Washington who see Amerika as exceptional and therefore morally perfect.  Behind all of the rhetoric coming out of the mouths of the warmongers is the simple truth that Amerika is the biggest and baddest empire the world has ever seen and it therefore has the moral authority to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants to whomever it wants.  When you are the biggest bully on the block you have the right to redefine what is moral and what is not.  When you have nobody who will stand up to you it is easy to define every action you do as being moral. That is where things stand today with the SDA.  Career politicians, bureaucrats and the Amerikan Imperial Military can do no wrong, no matter what they do or how wrong it may truly be.
Someone once said that a picture is be better than a thousand words.  My post to this blog today is short.  It consists of two pictures.  I think each is worth at least a thousand words.

The same is true of Iran:


Thursday, February 9, 2017

Thin Skinned Senators Should Resign

Have you been following the story about the silencing of Princess Warren in the Senate the other day?  Princess Warren, or Liz as she likes to be called, is one of the most God-of-the-Bible hating career politicians to come along in a long time. She adores, praises and worships at the throne of civil government while, at the same time, she despises Christianity with an intense passion.  She also believes that everything earned by the top 49% of the income population is her personal budget to be spread around as she sees fit, but only to those who vote for her of course.  Apparently the Senate was debating the potential appointment of Jeff Sessions as attorney general the other day when Liz assumed the podium to argue against his appointment.  In the course of making her argument as to why Sessions, an admitted racist, xenophobe, homophobe and, according to some "dark" sources, a cross-dresser, dog beater and friend of Vladimir Putin, she read from a letter written by the widow of my favorite socialist adulterer....Martin King.  Coretta King wrote a letter way back in 1986 to oppose the appointment of Sessions to a federal judgeship position.  She got her way and Sessions was not appointed.  Liz decided to read that letter to her fellow Senators as an argument against the appointment of Sessions to the position of attorney general of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  The Republican senators who happened to be on the floor that day got tired of her endless whining (who wouldn't?) and invoked an obscure Senate rule to force her to shut up and sit down.  It is that rule, and the application of it, that I would like to consider here today.
Senate Regulation 19 states, in part, that it "...bars any senator from impugning the motives of any other senator or imputing any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming of a senator."  What a bunch of sissies those privileged career politicians are!  They make rules regulating free speech on the floor of their own branch of government.  Can you think of a more audacious violation of the right to free speech than Rule 19?  Senators run around doing all sorts of immoral things and then they make a rule which prohibits them from talking about it with each other.  We all know and realize that senators have made this rule because they are notoriously insecure people.  They expect to be worshiped by the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika and they usually are. They also expect to be worshiped by their fellow senators but that rarely happens.  They know too much about each other to engage in the fiction of praise for one another.  So rather than deal with the fact that they are a bunch of immoral louses constantly seeking the praise of men they write a rule that forbids them from ever telling the truth about each other in public.  What a joke it all is.
Have you ever watched the British House of Commons?  You should.  Go here for a funny moment on the floor of the House of Commons.  If you watched the clip, or if you have seen the antics that take place in the House of Commons before, you will realize how genuinely human the proceedings that take place there really are.  The career politicians who populate that branch of government in the UK make no attempt to pretend that they can get along with each other, much less that they could or should actually like each other. They are true to their beliefs and they ridicule, demean and defame the other party's representatives with wild abandon.  How refreshing it all is.
Then we come to the proceedings of the SDA Senate and we find a rule that expressly prohibits honest verbal interaction between the senators.  Why?  Because the senators are so thin-skinned and terrified that the truth about their plethora of immoral activities might get out to the general public they enforce a gag order on each other to make sure that never takes place.  I have had the opportunity to sit in meetings such as those that take place on the floor of the senate many times in my life.  Most all of those meetings have been in the context of the Christian church.  To nobody's surprise, Christian leaders are identical to senators when it comes down to being thin skinned and extremely emotionally and intellectually insecure.  I can't recall how many times I made a comment on the floor of a presbytery meeting only to be answered with a shrill form of the question, "are you trying to impugn my motives?"  My answer to that question was always the same.  It was, "of course I am, otherwise I would not have said what I said."  Things would rapidly degenerate from there.  On another occasion I was considering joining a church with a powerful pastor who was also very insecure.  I was looking over the application for membership when I discovered that prior to becoming a member I was required to swear an oath to never impugn the motives of the pastor as well as to report to him the moment I ever heard anyone else impugning his motives.  Needless to say, I did not complete the application process.
My Pa had an expression that he would use on occasions like this.  He would say, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."  I have used that expression a lot over the years.  People who put themselves in positions of public authority are voluntarily putting themselves into a "hot" position.  Positions of public authority are rife with disputes, rancor and accusations of wrongdoing.  It is the very nature of the beast.  So what is the response of fearful, cowardly, insecure and controlling men and women to that environment?  They make rules in what is always a vain attempt to control the behavior of others.  I have a simple suggestion for the senators in the SDA Senate.  If you find yourself taking offense when others disagree with you, call you names or impugn your motives do yourself and the rest of us a favor...resign from your office.

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Government School Students Have Entitlement Complexes

I had just returned home from the gym yesterday and was making my way towards a hot shower when the doorbell rang.  Assuming that it was Publisher's Clearing House with a gigantic novelty check worth millions of dollars payable to me I stopped before heading to the shower to open the door.  That was my first mistake.  My second mistake was engaging the government school air-head who was standing on my front porch in a conversation.  Let me tell you about that interchange today.
I forget the name of the boy who was standing before me.  The only good thing I can write about him was the fact that he did not use the word 'like' repeatedly.  That was the only good thing.  He wasted no time launching into his spiel, not even asking my name or if I was particularly interested in standing in a cold open doorway while dripping wet from my workout.  I have a steel security door on my front porch for instances just like this.  I made no attempt to open the door as he clumsily attempted to hand me a card that contained a list of magazine subscriptions I could purchase in order to give him points to help him towards his goal of attaining some sort of "scholarship."  I learned all of this in a scant few moments as this young man would not shut up as he told me all about himself.
After a couple minutes of his monologue I interrupted with a question.  "What is in this for me?" I asked him.  Amazingly he didn't miss a beat.  He told me that I would have the pleasure of helping him earn additional points on the way to his goal of a "scholarship" to somewhere for some reason.  Things began to degenerate when I immediately informed him that I did not care about him or his scholarship and that I was mostly interested in taking a hot shower and he stood between me and the bar of soap waiting for me upstairs.
This boy was well trained.  He quickly dodged my blunt statement about his utter meaninglessness to me and tried the "support our troops" scam.  He informed me that if I purchased some subscriptions I would then be given the honor of receiving photographs and notes from some platoon of soldiers working for the military of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  I told him that I consider soldiers of the Amerikan Empire to be murderers as they prosecute their immoral wars around the world.  He countered with a jolly "no problem" and proceeded to launch into a description of how I could get a photograph and letters from a local day care center instead.
After he described the day care option I told him that I was already supporting two grandchildren with tens of thousands of dollars a year in cash and prizes and that I was not interested in the children of other people, especially single mothers who were probably in that predicament due to their own sexual promiscuity.  That is when things finally turned south.  His merry banter immediately stopped (he is probably the kid of a single mom, I thought to myself) and he turned on his heel and walked away, all the while mumbling something about what a jerk I was.
I closed the door and headed to the shower.  I have to admit I was angry with this product of the government school system.  I probably should have reserved my anger for the government school teachers who have indoctrinated him but I did not have the displeasure of having to deal with them.  Instead I had to deal with a young man who has no idea how the world works.  He had come to my home, interrupted my schedule, expected me to stand in cold air while dripping wet, made no attempt to find out anything about me and proceeded to tell me how I could do things for him to make his life easier.  When I did not purchase what he was trying to sell he went away angry with me!  How can a person have a view of the world that is so distorted that he would go away from our interchange angry with me?  Incredible.
This was not the first time I have had an encounter of this type.  They all follow the same predictable pattern.  Some government school kid shows up at my door and proceeds to inform me that it is my moral duty to help him out in some way.  When I ask him what I gain from the proposed transaction he will readily admit that I gain nothing but an ephemeral sense of pleasure from doing him a good deed.  Why these kids cannot see that makes them nothing more than beggars I do not know.  Why they are not ashamed of themselves for what they are doing I do not understand.  Why they get angry with me when I explain to them the real world principle that if you want to get something from someone you must first have something to offer that person in exchange I can't comprehend.
I am driven to the conclusion that one of the lessons being taught to the students in government schools in my area is that in addition to expecting me to pay for their buildings, teachers and educational supplies, I am also expected to go above and beyond the call of duty and do special things for them even though I don't know them from Adam and don't care who they are in the slightest.  Clearly their teachers are instructing them that taxpayers like me are there to be fleeced.  Quite obviously they are being taught that taxpayers like me exist to serve their every need and whim.  And very sadly they have all been successfully indoctrinated in the concept that they are special and entitled to the time and property of others, even though they do nothing to earn it.  That makes them perfect future citizens for the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Fiduciary Rule Hypocrisy

Former King Obama made up a new financial rule that brokers were expected to follow starting April 10th of this year.  It was called the Fiduciary rule and despite much confusion about what it is about, the bottom line about this rule is that it makes brokers operating on commission illegal operatives.  Proponents of the rule, namely those who operate on a fee only basis, allege that the new rule will force all investment advisors to give the best advice to their clients, as if commission based brokers have been giving inferior advice all these many decades and only fee only advisors have been giving good advice to their clients.  This is a long-standing war between the two camps and until recently the free market was allowed to determine who was winning.  Customers in this free market were free to chose the type of investment advisor they wanted to utilize.  Then King Obama decided to mix things up with his declaration that commission based advice would become illegal this year.
In direct response to our former King, King Donnie has recently signed an Executive Order that delays the implementation of the Fiduciary rule.  He has commissioned a 120 day study into the debate between the commission only and fee only investment advisors and it is expected that he will overule Obama's directive and allow both types of advisors to go forward.  Let's hope so.  Does anyone out there believe in their inalienable right to choose?  I sure do.  I would expect many liberal women would support my position as well.  They are always shrilly declaring that they have a right to choose. 
The fact that investment advisors have been very quick to embrace the new rule should give investors pause.  Why would investment advisors be so quick to adopt a new rule that will ostensibly reduce their compensation because they will no longer be able to gouge their customers with high commissions?  Answer:  because the Fiduciary rule will not reduce their compensation.  Fee only advisors have long held the moral high ground in the debate with commission based brokers because they allege they make recommendations that are in the clients best interest alone.  They claim that if an advisor earns a commission on a product it is impossible for that product to be in the client's best interest.  They also claim that they make less money than commission based brokers because commission rates are higher on inferior investments, thus enriching unscrupulous brokers and harming Mom and Pop investors. Let's consider this alleged fact for a while today.
I just finished a long conversation with my broker.  I asked him to give me some hypothetical situations that would illustrate his brokerage business so I could run some comparisons of what it would cost me to follow his advice.  Here are the parameters he gave me for an average broker who has been in business for a while and has built up a nice clientele.  In this case, like my broker, he has not been following the Fiduciary rule and has derived all of his compensation from the commissions he charges customers like me.  His average rate of commission for all sales in 2016 was 2.5%.  In addition, he received an annual trail commission, paid quarterly, of 0.25% of all assets invested with his firm that had been there for at least a year.  Those two commissions were the sole source of his income and they were paid directly by his clients.  I have never objected to paying those commissions and am quite satisfied with the qualify of the advice I have received from him over the years.  I would be most upset if he is forced out of business by the application of King Obama's Fiduciary rule.
In contrast to the allegedly immoral commission based brokers, the fee only advisors earn no commissions.  They are compensated by fees charged against the value of their client's accounts, on a percentage basis.  According to my broker, the overwhelming majority of fee based investment advisors charge an annual fee of 1% of the value of the client's account for their "objective" investment advice.  Let me construct a six year model of the total fees I will pay to my two different brokers, one fee based and one commission based, on a $250,000 IRA rollover I would like to make tomorrow.  Let's see who is giving me the best deal.  In the first scenario I will assume that my investment realizes zero return over the next six year period.  In the second scenario I will assume that my investment realizes 12%/year in total return over the next six years.

Commission Based Broker:  Zero Return
  • 2.5% commission on the $250,000 initial investment is $6,250
  • 12b-1 trail commissions on a static $250,000 investment account would be $625/year or $3,750 for the six year period.
  • After six years I have paid $10,000 in commissions to my broker and my account is worth $240,000.
Fee Based Broker:  Zero Return
  • 0.0% commission on the $250,000 investment is $0.
  • Annual 1% fee on the $250,000 investment is $2,500 or $15,000 for the six year period.
  • After six years I have paid $15,000 in fees to my broker and my account is worth $235,000.
In the above illustration the break-even point between the two types of brokers took place between the third and fourth years.   Up until the third year I paid less money to the fee based broker.  After the third year I paid more money to the fee based broker for his services.  At the end of six years I had paid 50% more to the fee based broker for the exact same level of service as the commission based broker.  Moreover, the longer I would stay with the fee based broker the greater the disparity in my total costs would become.  That 1% annual fee is a very steep price to pay for "objective" investment advice.

Commission Based Broker:  12%/year Return
  • 2.5% commission on the $250,000 initial investment is $6,250.
  • 12b-1 trail commissions on an investment that grows at 12%/year for six years total $6,447.
  • After six years I have paid $13,322 in commissions to my broker and my account is worth $427,263.
Fee Based Broker:  12%/year Return
  • 0.0% commission on the $250,000 investment is $0.
  • Annual fee of 1% on an investment that grows at 12%/year for six years total $20,291. 
  • After six years I have paid $20,291 in fees to my advisor and my account is worth $420,294. 
In the above illustration the break-even point between the two types of brokers took place between the second and third years.  Up until the second year I paid less money to the fee based broker.  After the second year I paid more money to the fee based broker for his services.  At the end of six years I had paid 52% more to the fee based broker for the exact same level of service as the commission based broker. In addition, the disparity in my total costs paid between the fee based and commission based broker would continue to widen as the impact of the 1% annual fee charged by the fee based broker did its magic.  It is not hard to see why investment advisors are flocking to the fee based system.  They make considerably more money than commission based brokers and they do so while telling their clients that they are on their side.  What a scam it all is. 

Monday, February 6, 2017

It Is Time To Tax Churches Into Oblivion

King Donnie has sputtered and huffed and puffed and made some comments about his desire to abolish the Johnson Amendment.  The Johnson Amendment, for those of you like me who have no idea what it is, was created by former King Lyndon Johnson and it prohibited churches, and other non-profit organizations, from endorsing political candidates under punishment of losing their tax exemption status if they did so.  In the case of churches it was generally argued that the strict wall of separation between church and state requires the law, thus ensuring that no political speech emanating from preachers is ever subsidized by the taxpayers.  Certainly a more heinous criminal act cannot be conceived of, can it?
Gary Schluter of Fort Collins believes that King Donnie is way off base with his comments about ending the Johnson Amendment.  He writes this to the Denver Post:  "President Donald Trump wants to repeal the 'Johnson Amendment' and allow churches to become more political in backing candidates directly from the pulpit.  I say that we take this even further and repeal churches' tax exemptions as well.  If the churches can get involved in politics, then the very ground they sit on should be taxed. Talk about a way to give a huge tax boost to struggling cities, counties and states."
Gary hates the God of the Bible with a passion.  Gary loves civil government, especially cities, counties and states.  God will deal with him as He sees fit.  Gary also wants to punish the people who believe in and follow the God of the Bible for their belief that they have a right to talk about politics in their churches.  Gary, like almost all God-haters in this God-hating country, believes that Christians have no right to enter the public square and voice their opinions about political matters unless they first promise to never refer to anything God has said about any matter as found in the Bible.  They call this being "neutral" and require it of all Christians who dare to say anything of a political nature.  Sadly, many Evangelicals have adopted Gary's myth of neutrality and agree to never say anything that comes from the Bible in the public square.  Of course that makes Christians totally culturally irrelevant, which is precisely what Gary desires.
Gary understands nothing about the doctrine of taxation.  That does not make him unique. Scarcely one in a million citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika understands what a tax is.  Allow me to enlighten him, and millions of others.  A tax is a statement of authority over another entity or group of people.  When the civil government properly tells me that it has the right to take 10% of my income to support its activities, it is asserting its God-given authority over me to do so.  When the civil government improperly tells me that it has the right to take some percentage greater than 10% of my income to support its activities, it is asserting an illegitimate authority over me and will be punished by the God of the Bible for doing so.  When the church tells me that I must tithe (a tithe is 10%) my income to the church it is asserting its legitimate authority over me by demanding that precise amount of money from me to finance its activities.  When the church, more precisely its leadership,  asserts that God has no opinion about how much its members should give it is abrogating its responsibility to inform its membership precisely what God requires of them.  In all cases the right to tax is a God-given right established to finance the activities of each group.
Nobody ever considers the nature of the war that has been fought between the Church and the State over the centuries.  Ever since the establishment of the Christian Church as the official church of the Roman Empire, the Church and the State have fought over which institution is superior to the other.  Although considered laughable by modern men, God's opinion on the matter is that the Church is the superior institution and that the State should submit to its moral declarations.  The God-hating citizens of the SDA reject God's Word on the matter and establish themselves, by the illegitimate and immoral means of democracy, as the final authority in all matters, thus declaring themselves to be gods.  God will deal with all believers in the doctrines of democracy as well.
The reason the State has no right to tax anything that belongs to the Church is simple.  The State is inferior to the Church and an inferior institution has no legitimate right to tax a superior one.  The fact that churches are still tax exempt in this country is a historical accident that has come down to our age from a time when people actually believed what I just wrote.  At the same time however, modern men will have no tolerance for the Church when it comes to people from within the Church instructing them about how they should behave.  Hence we have the Johnson Amendment and the prohibition against engaging in political speech from the pulpit.  The Johnson Amendment is a stark testimony to the fact that tolerance, inclusiveness and unity are hollow words used by God-haters to persecute the Christian Church. 
I agree with Gary.  I believe it is time we recognize the fact that the SDA is a post-Christian society, if it was ever a Christian society to begin with.  The God-haters have won and they control the show.  Let's give them what they want.  Along with Gary I would support a confiscatory real estate tax upon all Church property.  Something double the current rate for residential property would be nice.  In addition I support a 50% income tax on all church receipts.  Moreover, no contributions to the church should ever be tax deductible.  By imposing just these three simple tax laws, that recognize what most people already believe about the church anyway, the civil government could effectively drive the Christian Church in the SDA underground.  It is time for the gloves to come off.  It is time for the State to show its true colors.  It is time for the State to tax churches into oblivion.  And may the State, in all its power and glory, be praised forever and ever, amen.