San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Snowflakes Are Afraid of Free Speech

I don't know who coined the word "snowflake" for today's generation of limp-wristed, homosexual-supporting, transvestite-loving, pro-feminist, anti-Trump, pro-Bernie, pro-socialism,  opponents of income inequality and the free market types but it is a great word.  They are tender, delicate and prone to melt when subjected to the slightest amount of heat.  They look nice but accomplish nothing except to make things soggy.  They also believe that sticks and stones can break their bones but words can hurt even more.  Because they are terrified of words they do not like they demand that their god of civil government create laws, rules and regulations that protect them from ever having to hear something they do not agree with.  Don't believe me?  Look at this poll from Pew Research:

U.S. Millennials More Likely to Support Censoring Offensive Statements About Minorities

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (an antiquated document used exclusively for ceremonial purposes in the new and improved Socialist Democracy of Amerika) states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  Forty percent of snowflakes (ages 18-34) want the civil government to create laws violating the First Amendment's protection of free speech.  By comparison, a whopping twenty four percent of  my generation (boomer) agree that free speech should be impeded and criminalized by the state.  I am disgusted and ashamed of my generation, but not as much as I am disgusted by the snowflakes.  Sadly, even twelve percent of the folks in this country who are over 70 years of age believe that certain types of speech should be criminalized.   What is wrong with these people?
Snowflakes have been raised and educated by government school teachers intent upon molding them in their liberal image.  As their parents increasingly abandoned their moral responsibility to teach them, they gladly turned them over to the government schools for indoctrination.  The "teachers" operating those government schools were proud to receive them.  They quickly abandoned the three Rs and initiated their programs of mind control designed to bring about their vision of a utopian society.  In their society the reality of original sin is ignored.  They believe that with proper indoctrination every person can become a proper liberal like themselves, filled with love for their fellow man and willing to spend as much of their richer neighbor's money as is necessary to help them.
One of the primary doctrines in the church of government school is the necessity and sanctity of self esteem.  Every person suffers from low self esteem, they are told, but that can be overcome by a concerted program of affirmations and support.  Deadly to the process of self esteem building is any sort of negative idea, especially if that negative idea happens to be true.  The end result is that everyone grows up believing he is great and can do anything he wants to with little or no effort.  The real world does not operate as the snowflakes have been told it does so when they run smack dab into it they end up moving back into their parent's basements where they spend their days playing video games and discussing the virtues of socialism with one another.  They especially like Bernie's proposal to eliminate all of their student debt.
In order to build self esteem in everyone it is necessary that each person be fully indoctrinated in the importance of always telling other folks only what they want to hear about themselves.  A great deal of time and energy is expended in seeking to learn how others desire to be addressed, so no offensive speech ever comes their way.  The end result is that 40% of the snowflakes living among us want their god to craft a law requiring all citizens of the SDA to only tell other people what they want to be told about themselves.  Those who do not do that will be subject to criminal prosecution and punished for their sins.
Dan Issel, former coach of the Denver Nuggets, got fired for shouting "Shut up you drunk Mexican" to a drunken Mexican-American who was taunting him from the stands.  He was labeled a racist for his actions despite the fact that the man needed to shut up, was drunk and was a Mexican.  How telling the truth ends up being an example of prohibited and criminal speech is something only a snowflake can understand.  I certainly never understood it.
This Friday is St. Patrick's Day.  Irishmen, and wannabe Irish, will flood the streets in thousands of acts of drunken debauchery this weekend.  A ski resort in Summit County, about an hour from Denver, has a run called the Drunken Irishman, or at least it used to be called that thirty years ago.  It has probably been changed since the last time I skied down that run.  I always thought it was an appropriate name for a ski run since it acknowledged the fact that the Irish are notorious drinkers.  Even the Irish themselves love to brag about how much they drink and how drunk they can get.  Why should we pretend that is not true simply to protect the sensibilities of snowflakes?
Welshmen are insulted every single day in this land.  Every time somebody says, "You welshed me," we have an example of offensive speech.  I don't understand why that phase is so offensive because the Welsh are famous for their lying and thieving ways.  We stay away from the hard drink, unlike the Irish and the Scots, in order to be completely sober when we transact business with our drunken neighbors in such a way as we come out ahead on our transactions.  King Donnie should be proud of the Welsh because they always win their business deals.  The fact that the people we were dealing with were so drunk it was easy to take advantage of them is their fault, not ours.
Next time you are in the presence of a snowflake go ahead and tell an ethnic joke.  You can even tell a Welsh one if you want to.  I won't be offended.  Ethnic jokes are almost always based upon stereotypically true characteristics.  That is what makes them funny.  Nobody ever makes jokes about the stodgy Irish or the drunken Brits because it is just not true.  So go ahead and tell your joke.  Then watch with glee as the snowflake runs away, covering her ears and crying out to her god of government to come and arrest you for your sins. 

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

The Real Deniers

The Monday edition of the Denver Post featured an editorial taken directly from the Washington Post.  Apparently the editor of the Denver newspaper was so enamored by what his counterpart in Washington had written he simply cut and pasted the editorial into today's edition.  The content of the editorial was quite straightforward.  According to at least two editors of significant newspapers in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, EPA Director Pruitt is an anthropomorphic global warming denier.  In other words, he has denied one of the fundamental doctrines of the religion of environmentalism.  For that sin he must be crucified.  The editorial, along with a cartoon, proceeded to do just that.
I have written enough in other posts to this blog dealing with the irrational and absurd positions taken by the high priests of the religion of global warming.  They have much to lose if their devoted following of true believers starts thinking for themselves and coming to conclusions other than those dictated by environmental dogma.  I have also described how environmental dogma has cast profit seeking corporations operating in our quasi-free market into the role of Satan.  It is the perfect morality play.  Satanic businessmen, who are just are seeking to serve the needs and wants of the consumers, are creating capital and engaging in voluntary transactions with the consumers when the messianic state arrives just in the nick of time to protect the mother earth from environmental devastation at the hands of those profit seeking monsters.  Perhaps most importantly, all of the activities of the messianic state are funded with taxpayer dollars.  By taxpayer dollars I, of course, am referring to just the top 49% of the income population that pays all of the expenses of the federal budget of the SDA.
I would like to leave all of that behind today and write about a true case of denial.  Most, if not all, true believers in the religion of global warming are actually in abject denial themselves.  In fact, I think a powerful case can be made that true believers in global warming have adopted their religion as a means of denying something that they all know to be true but refuse to admit to be true.  That is the essence of denial.  One does not deny something that one truly believes to be false.  I am not a denier if I truly believe the earth is flat.  Only if I know the earth is round but I still persist in asserting that it is flat am I guilty of the sin of denial.  Essential to the concept of denial is a prior knowledge of the truth.  I can't be called an anthropomorphic global warming denier for the simple fact I do not believe it to be true in the first place.  Cases where a person is labeled a denier, despite the fact he does not believe what he is denying to be true, are nothing more than personal attacks designed to bully or force a person into compliance with the stated religious dogmas.
Every person on the face of the earth who is not a Christian is in denial.  Every person who is not a Christian, thus making them a God-hater (there is no middle ground) is a denier of the truth about the God of the Bible.  Don't believe me?  Here is God's opinion on the matter:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.  For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculation, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing to be wise, they became fools..."
There are no exceptions to the rule stated in the biblical passage quoted above.  You either acknowledge that the God of the Bible is the one and only true God of the entire universe or you hate Him with a passion.  There is no neutral ground.  There are no grey areas.  Everyone who draws a breath either loves the God of the Bible or hates the God of the Bible.  Furthermore, every single person who has ever lived, or ever will live, knows that the God of the Bible exists and has made a moral claim upon their lives.  No human being can ever claim ignorance or insufficient information when it comes time to stand before God.  Everyone will stand before the judgement seat of Christ and when that happens nobody will be so stupid as to attempt to defend himself by claiming he did not know the God of the Bible existed and had a moral claim against his life.
It therefore necessarily follows that every human being who does not worship, serve, obey and submit to the God of the Bible is in denial of the fact that He exists and has a moral claim upon his life.  His will is clear. All men are to repent of their sins and obey him.  Those who refuse to repent and obey Him do so because they are denying the fundamental truth that He exists.  The real deniers in our world are not those who dispute the dogmatic claims of the religion of global warming.  The real deniers in our world are those who hate the God of the Bible with a passion and therefore deny that they know, or can know, that He exists.  All non-Christians are actively "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness" every single day.  Where is the anger about that truth?  Where are the editorials pointing out that truth?  I won't hold my breath while I wait for them.

Monday, March 13, 2017

Scientific Consensus Nonsense

In the never ending war against all the political appointments of King Donnie, the media have now savagely attacked the new director of the Environmental Protection Agency.  According to CBS news, which reported that the new director "broke from science" when he proclaimed his agnosticism in regards to anthropomorphic global warming, "The new chief of the Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday he does not believe that carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming, a statement at odds with mainstream scientific consensus and his own agency. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said measuring the effect of human activity on the climate is 'very challenging' and that 'there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact' of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. 'So, no, I would not agree that (carbon dioxide) is a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,' Pruitt told CNBC’s 'Squawk Box.'”  Let's consider this issue for a moment today.
I wrote a piece for this blog previously, found here, in which I conclusively proved that there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures.  I would strongly encourage you to read that post before you continue here.  If you decide to skip that post consider this:  CO2 and the air temperature of the earth are supposed to be directly correlated in a closed system.  I have seen no true believer in anthropomorphic global warming who does not believe this to be true.  Yet the direct correlation between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 in our closed system is nonexistent.  If you don't believe me go read that blog post.  The data in support of my view can be found there.
Pruitt is being a reasonable man when he says that he is skeptical about the connection between CO2 created by mankind and rising air temperatures.  That used to be considered good science but in this day of global warming hysteria it is deemed to be worthy of a lynching.  Pruitt received so many phone calls from religious devotees to the doctrines of man-made global warming he had to disconnect his phone number at the EPA.  Make no mistake, attacking the gods of a secular society will bring about swift retribution.  What did Pruitt do?  He "broke from science" and denied the "scientific consensus" that evil profit seeking oil companies are to blame for the fact that the temperate zones are now tropical rain forests.
The allegation that Pruitt broke from science has been equated to saying that he also believes in the flat earth theory.  An entire page of the Sunday Denver Post was dedicated to arguing that people like Pruitt must also believe in a flat earth since they so clearly have rejected the things science has proven to be unalterably correct and eternally true. By the way, right alongside the doctrine of global warming was the equally correct and eternally true religious doctrine of evolution.  Quite obviously, according to the writers in the newspaper, nobody in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika who has even half a brain (Rush LImbaugh excepted) would ever dream about believing in anything that contradicts the scientific dogma of man-caused global warming and evolution.  Well call me brainless if you must but what they are calling science is not science at all.
Science only makes progress via the pathway of skepticism and continual attempts to prove its postulates in error.  The scientific method, something unknown to today's taxpayer financed "scientists," is built upon the concept of seeking evidence that the current theory is false, not true.  The goal of all good scientists is to falsify the theory they have cooked up, not to prove it.  Today's corrupt scientific method, if it can even be called that, has turned everything upon its ear.  According to the proponents of global warming, good science consists of finding nothing but experimental evidence in support of the theory.  Evidence not in support of the theory is ignored or interpreted away.  Given the powerful nature of presuppositions it should not surprise any of us that no evidence ever arises against global warming that is capable of discrediting it.  Everything is easily explained away.
The fact that a simple statement made by Pruitt can outrage such an enormous number of people clearly indicates we are dealing with religious beliefs and not scientific facts. If the director had come out and said that he believes the earth is flat he would have either been ignored or made the butt of many jokes but he would not have been demonized as an unbeliever.  If the director had come out and said that he believes the Higgs boson is not the "God particle," he would have been ignored or, perhaps, interviewed by Scientific American to find out why he believes what he does, but he would not have been demonized as an unbeliever.
The notion of "scientific consensus" has no consensus in the scientific community.  There are very few things scientists generally agree upon.  The theory that the earth revolves around the sun can be described as a theory that most folks believe.  The theory of a round earth falls into that camp as well.  I suspect the theory of gravity would be on the list of generally agreed upon beliefs as well.  But most of the time some group of scientists start throwing around the term "scientific consensus," especially when that consensus agrees with them, we can be pretty sure they are simply trying to pull the wool over our eyes.  If there truly is a scientific consensus on something, like gravity or a round earth, nobody gets very excited about the item in question, especially when some crackpots question it.  On the other hand, when a scientific consensus is alleged but the people who make that allegation get extremely agitated when someone dares to disagree with them we can know for a fact we have moved from science to religion.
Today's scientific consensus about man-caused global warming is nothing more than a bunch of guys on the government payroll doing everything they can to keep their jobs and retirement pensions.  As long as global warming remains a hot item they will be secure in their positions as government financed scientists.  And just as the "scientists" of ancient times always found what their benefactors wanted them to find, the scientific consensus of today always finds man-caused global warming.  I don't need to know anything about the science involved in this dispute to know that global warming adherents are wrong.  The party that runs to ad hominem arguments in support of its position is always wrong and the scientific consensus argument is nothing but an ad hominem argument

Sunday, March 12, 2017

The Fundamental Question on Health Care

I was reading several letters in yesterday's "Open Forum" section of the Denver Post.  One letter was entitled "GOP health plan won't work."  Sensing a commonality with the writer, since we both agree the GOP health plan is already doomed, I settled down to read what the author had written. Jim Craft of Broomfield was the author of the letter.  Here is some of what he had to say:
"Well, House Speaker Paul Ryan has rolled out his proposed revision to the Affordable Care Act, and it's clear that it won't work.  Why?  Because it does not get all Americans, sick or well, into the health care insurance pool.  The biggest objection the GOP had to the ACA was, of course, the mandate, the requirement for everyone to get health insurance.  They've gotten rid of that, which pretty much guarantees that many Americans will not be able to afford health insurance."
Jim makes a very good point.  Jim understands that nothing in life is free.  If a person wants to have health care provided by a government licensed practitioner, or drugs provided by a government licensed pusher, or mental health care provided by a government approved shrink he must first have some sort of health insurance or he will quickly go bankrupt.  Thanks to the government monopoly on all things health, the prices for health care services are astronomically high.  Thanks to the astronomical prices on health care services the price for health insurance is astronomically high as well.  So Jim has accurately assessed the situation.  In order to have somewhat affordable health insurance rates it is necessary for the government to make a law forcing everyone to purchase health insurance.  Those who claim they can't afford it will be subsidized by those who allegedly can afford it.  The end result is a familiar one in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  Since "many Americans will not be able to afford health insurance," the top 49% of the income population will end up paying for the health insurance of the lower 51%.  Isn't democracy grand?
Jim goes on as he addresses what he calls the fundamental question in the health care debate.  I continued reading with great anticipation.  He wrote, "The fundamental question here is whether or not people should be denied adequate health care because they are poor.  Conservative Republicans apparently think that if you are poor you don't 'deserve' adequate heath care.  Shame on them!"  Although I am not a conservative Republican I am already feeling shame as a result of Jim's words.  Quick, take me to a safe place.  Quick, shield me from these truths.  Quick, enroll me in an Amerikan university where I can be protected from free speech.  Quick, give me a baby pin to wear, thus declaring that people like Jim should not be permitted to talk to me in this fashion.
Notice how Jim frames the fundamental question.  He asserts that the fundamental question is "whether or not people should be denied adequate health care because they are poor."  I believe he has misstated the fundamental question.  The fundamental question really is "should one group of people be forced to pay for the health insurance of another group of people simply because the latter group of people makes less money than the former?"  Perhaps another way of framing the question would be to ask, "Is health insurance a civil right?"  If health insurance is a civil right then it is the moral duty of the top 49% of the income population to pay for the coverages of the socialists living in the lower 51% of the income population.  That is Amerikan socialism and democracy at its finest and Jim is clearly a firm believer in Amerikan socialism.
The problem with Jim's position is that forcing one group of people to pay for the bills of another group of people is theft.  It is immoral.  It is wrong.  Those who support it are wrong.  Those who support it are immoral thieves.  Furthermore, those who believe that health insurance is a civil right are just plain stupid.  Go back and read last week's posts about "stupid week."  The idea that the god of civil government has a moral duty to purchase health insurance policies, paid for by the top 49% of the income population, for the "poor" is incredibly stupid.  If government has a moral duty to provide health insurance, where are we to stop when it comes to other necessities of life?  Should government be required to provide a minimum income, as some today are asserting?  Is government expected to provide a car, apartment, condominium, house, college education, annual vacation or a cruise around the world to each of its citizens?  If you do not believe each of the items listed in the last sentence are morally required items from the government, why not?  Where do you draw the line on what the government should be required to provide and what it does not have to provide?  I sincerely believe that those who believe in government provided health insurance do not have an answer to that question because they are blinded by their envy and love of socialism.  Indeed, I suspect most socialists have never even considered my question.
Jim thinks conservatives believe that poor people do not "deserve" health care.  He also believes that is a shameful state of affairs.  I can't speak for what conservatives believe so I won't.  I can speak for what those of us who believe in personal responsibility and freedom believe.  We think that every citizen of this land deserves the right to our lives, property and freedom.  None of us deserves anything but those three things.  Beyond those three things nobody has a civil right to anything.  I do not deserve a retirement pension.  I do not deserve good health.  I do not deserve two cars in my garage and a chicken in my pot.  I do not deserve any of your money, no matter how much more of it you make than me.  All government is required to provide for me is a defense of my life from foreign and domestic aggressors, the defense of my property via a just legal system and my right to behave freely and do anything I want to with my life and property provided it does not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of my neighbor.
Jim concludes that "the obvious solution is a Medicare-like insurance for everyone.  Medicare is a part of the health care system that works."  In other words, Jim wants to move all citizens of the SDA into a fully nationalized and socialized health care "system."  He believes that will "work."  I don't know what universe Jim lives in but I do not believe most people who are on Medicare would share his opinion that it works and serves as a fine model for fully nationalized medical care. Even if I grant his position as true,  medicare only "works" because there are still more people paying into it than people taking out of it.  Medicare only "works" because every single person who earns a measly dime is forced, by law, to contribute to it.  Medicare only "works" because the demographics have not yet caught up to it.  When they do, it is as doomed as Obamacare.
I am afraid Jim has missed the point.  The fundamental question on health care is why should people like Jim be permitted to force other people to pay his bills?  I feel no shame for my unwillingness to pay Jim's bills, just like I feel no shame for not paying the bills of anyone else.  Jim, on the other hand, attempts to shame me into feeling guilty for not wanting to pay his bills.  That is called socialism and it is growing stronger every day in this immoral and God-hating land.  Beware, your property is in danger of being stolen because your neighbor is probably a socialist.