FT165: “Republicans vote as responsible adults while Democrats vote as selfish children programmed to hate and fear Republicans.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 12th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Our Public Schools teach our Children that Capitalism is Bad and Government is Good

The Democrats want some form of national childcare.  President Obama just said that he wanted 4 year olds in preschool.  Some political operative just made a video saying that we need to destroy the notion that children belong to their parents.  And get people thinking more collectively about their children.  That they belong to the community.  Not to their parents.  So why this push to take children away from their parents and place them into institutions more controlled by the state?  For one reason.  To make them think ‘correctly’.

Our public schools teach our children at an early age about global warming.  Why?  There’s nothing children can do about it.  And it’s likely not man-made.  For the glaciers moved their farthest before man ever put warming emissions into the atmosphere.  So why scare them of an impending global warming apocalypse?  Filling their heads with things to give them nightmares?  Because it is useful to make them fear global warming.  Useful how?  Well, who is it that is supposedly causing global warming?  Businesses.  Corporations.  In general, capitalism.  In particular, unfettered capitalism.  Which teaches children what?  That if left to its own devises unfettered capitalism will destroy the world.  So we need government to act like cops.  To protect these children, their families and the world from these evil and greedy corporations that are trying to kill people with global warming.  Just so they can make a buck.

This is what they’re teaching our children in the public schools.  That unfettered capitalism is unfair.  Cruel.  And will kill us to make a buck.  So our children learn the evils of the profit incentive.  And the goodness of government.  They teach our children how FDR, LBJ and President Obama made the country better.  By preventing the evil corporations from running wild in pursuit of profits.  They don’t teach them how America became the world’s number one economy with the greatest liberty and highest standard of liberty because of unfettered capitalism.  Or why this was the reason people immigrated to the United States.  No.  Instead they teach them to fear corporations.  And support unions.  Because unions like government stop the evil corporations from hurting people to make a buck.  They’ll even hold picket signs for their teachers when they go on strike.  Teachers repeat this lesson over and over again.  Corporations bad.  Capitalism bad.  Unions good.  Government good.  So when they start voting they will vote ‘correctly’.

Someone has to Teach People to have Negative Views of Republicans because they’re not Born with Them

So this is why the Democrats want to take children away from their parents.  So they can start teaching them how to think ‘correctly’.  So they will vote ‘correctly’.  And when our kids get to college they take it up a notch.  Back in the Sixties radicals protested at college campuses.  Protested the Vietnam War.  Wearing shirts with pictures of communist icons like Chairman Mao and Chez Guevara.  They wanted to establish communism in the United States.  They hated the profit-incentive.  And corporate America.  They wanted to abolish private property.  Make everything communal.  They even lived in communes.  Just like the communists they so admired.  Even though the communist utopias in the Soviet Union and The People’s Republic of China oppressed and killed their people if they didn’t think ‘correctly’.

They wanted a world where everyone had whatever they needed without having to work for the man.  So they could spend their days the way they believed people should pass their days.  Getting high, engaging in free love and singing songs about love.  These radicals then changed their tactics.  Instead of fighting the system from the outside they began fighting it from the inside.  By becoming college professors.  Now they are teaching our kids.  And writing the curriculum.  Even those who went to jail for acts of domestic terrorism are joining the faculty at our colleges.  And those who avoided jail on a technicality.  Liberal Democrats revere these people.  And the students they’re programming to become good liberal Democrats love them.  For they, too, want to enjoy a life full of drugs and sex.  They see these radical professors as enlightened.  For they find nothing wrong with enjoying the moment.  Instead of sacrificing for the future.  Like their parents did.  Who always frowned on their having a good time.  Most colleges today lean left.  And the radical Left keeps out the riff raff.  Conservatives.  Who are just too much like these students’ parents.  And bestows tenure on those who think as radically as they do.  While denying it to those who don’t.  Those conservatives.

Conservative students have recorded some of these classes.  Where we can hear liberal professors telling their captive audience that Republicans are all racist white men.  And are the most inflexible in their thinking.  Stubborn.  And mean spirited.  That they hate minorities, the poor and women.  Even want to prevent them from voting.  They want to put blacks back at the back of the bus.  And women back into the Fifties where they’re barefoot and pregnant.  Are these isolated incidents?  Or is this what they teach all of our children?  Well, if you watch the Daily Show, Saturday Night Live, most any television sitcom, most any Hollywood movie or watch the network news you have to believe this teaching is pervasive.  As no one is born with political views someone had to teach these people to have these negative views of Republicans.  And who teaches our kids?  Our public schools.  And our colleges.

Liberal Democrats don’t Engage in Debate but Instead Lie and Launch Personal Attacks

The liberal viewpoint is a minority viewpoint.  Only about 21% of the people identify themselves as liberal.  While 35% identify themselves as moderate.  And 40% identify themselves as conservative (see Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S. on Gallup).  So those wishing to implement a liberal agenda have their work cut out for them.  Because about 75% of the people don’t think like they do.  That is, not yet.

This is why the president wants to get 4 year olds into state-paid childcare.  And why liberals want to take our children away so the state can raise them.  So the liberals can get them while they’re young.  And diminish the influence of their parents.  Especially when those parents are conservatives.  Who resist the liberal indoctrination of their children.  And undo some of the hard work they’ve done in getting these children to think ‘correctly’.  Which is a big problem for liberal Democrats.  Because they can’t win on the merits of their policies.  Not when 75% of the people don’t think like they do.

So liberal Democrats teach our kids to fear and hate those who don’t think like they do.  And they mock, belittle, disparage, demean, deride, etc., these people who don’t think like they do.  They don’t engage in debate.  They lie.  And launch personal attacks.  Which our high school and college kids find so entertaining.  They fill the audience at the Daily Show and the Late Show with David Lettermen.  They may not understand the issues.  But they know that they should laugh.  And how they should vote.  For they know that corporations are bad.  Capitalism is bad.  While unions are good.  And government is good.  The cool people they admire so much are liberal Democrats.  So they, too, are liberal Democrats.  And until they learn from age and experience to vote like adults they will continue to vote as self-indulgent children.  Living to maximize the pleasure of the moment.  No matter the long-term consequence of their actions.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Liberal (lĭb’ər-əl), n., One who adheres to the social and political philosophy of (neo) liberalism.

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 27th, 2011

Politics 101

The Single Goal of Liberalism is to Transfer as much Wealth and Power from the Private Sector

The Founding Fathers were liberals.  They believed in individual liberty.  Personal responsibility.  The Rule of Law.  And limited government.  Very limited government.  Very, very limited government.  Not something you associate with liberals today.  Which is why we must call the Founding Fathers classical liberals.  Because liberalism today isn’t our Founding Fathers’ liberalism.  In fact, it’s what they rebelled against.  Privilege.

Liberals today are a small sliver of the population.  About 20%.  And they’ve been around forever.  They’ve just had different names.  The nobility.  The aristocracy.  The planter elite.  Those born of privilege.  And who live off of the wealth created by others.  Through inheritance.  Through land ownership.  Or via taxation.  This privileged class does not work.  No.  They get others to create wealth for them.  And their tool is class warfare.

Their single goal is to make government as large as possible.  For the larger it is the more wealth and power they can transfer from the private sector.  And there is nothing more effective for growing government than pitting one group of people against another.  Rich against poor.  Employees against employers.  Labor against capital.  Consumers against corporations.  And, of course, racism, sexism, ageism, whateverism.  Whoever you are they’ll find someone who has discriminated against you.  And they’ll use that to their advantage.  To legislate a new law in Congress.  Or from the bench in the judiciary.

Liberals get us Accustomed to Living on the ‘Kindness’ of Government and Terrified of Losing the Government Way of Life

Liberals don’t see individuals.  They see the group the individual belongs to.  And how they can use one group to agitate another.  To advance their agenda.  To increase taxation.  And regulation.  To grow government.  To extend their power and influence over the private sector.  So secure their position of privilege.

They once called themselves the ruling elite.  And ruled accordingly.  Until the inconvenience of elections.  Representative government.   And a Constitution that limits their power.  Now they have to be stealthier.  And hide who they are.  What they truly believe.  And use the courts to make law that they can’t legislate in Congress.  How do they do this?  By dumbing down our public education.  Changing the meaning of words.  And by fooling us.  By hiding in a ‘benevolent’ Big Government.  A government that protects the poor.  The disadvantaged.  The little guy.  When in fact they use the poor, the disadvantaged and the little guy to secure their position of privilege.  For if they actually helped these people their work would be done.  And that’s the last thing they want.  To lose their expanding powers to regulate and tax.

So they extend their power and control over us.  While telling us it’s for our own good.  And make as many of us dependent on them as possible.  By providing generous welfare programs.  Social Security.  Medicare.  And now Obamacare.  Getting us accustomed to living on the ‘kindness’ of government.  And making us terrified of losing our government way of life.

Liberals Consume Tax Dollars and Benefit from a Growing Government that Increases Taxes and Regulations

Liberals consume tax dollars.  They don’t pay tax dollars.  The private sector taxpayers pay the salary and benefits of all politicians.  Public sector employees.  Public school teachers.  And college professors.  Via ever escalating tuition prices that no liberal ever objects to.  (Unlike rising prices in the private sector.)  Either paid for by rich parents.  Or student loans.  Once backed by the government.  Now issued by the government.

Liberals enjoy generous pay and benefit packages courtesy of the taxpayer.  In return liberals in education advance the liberal agenda.  (Ask a kid to explain global warming and capitalism and guess which one he or she will be able to explain).  Liberals in unions repay that government kindness (such as favorable legislation that restricts competition) through generous contributions from their union dues.  And agitate, organize and vote for the liberal agenda.  To keep the spigot of that government kindness open.

And then you have the guilty-rich.  People who try to assuage their guilt of inheriting their wealth.  Those who made it rich in the movies.  In music.  In sports.  As an author.  Anyone who got obscenely wealthy.  But doesn’t want to be attacked for being obscenely wealthy.  Like those on Wall Street.  And those corporate CEOs.  So they, too, advance the liberal agenda.  While sheltering their wealth from the greedy hands of government.

Then there’re the pseudo-intellectuals.  Those who advance the liberal agenda to sound smart.  Or to be included in the inner circle of the elite.  Those in the mainstream media.  And celebrities.  Who cry out desperately for affirmation.  That they are more than just someone pretending to be someone else.  Or simply someone reporting on the exciting lives of others.

Finally the young.  The uneducated.  Or poorly educated.  Who don’t understand capitalism, economics, history or public policy.  And they don’t care.  As long as they get something.  Government benefits.  Or fun.  Whether it be sex and drugs.  Or the thrill of protesting.  Anything to escape living in the real world.  Those who just don’t want to grow up.  And become responsible adults.  Like their parents.  Until they start raising a family.  Then they are exactly like their parents.  So the liberals have to get them while they’re young.  And keep them woefully ignorant about the real world for as long as possible.

The Liberal Social and Political Philosophy has the Simple Goal of Securing their Position of Privilege

The liberal social and political philosophy is simple.  Everything they believe, everything they do, has but one goal.  Securing their position of privilege.  Which explains a record of contradiction and failure.  Such as ‘working hard’ to create jobs while the economy wallows in recession due to an unfriendly job-creating environment.  Because of their high taxes.  Costly regulations.  And the great uncertainty of what will come next.

But when you understand their goal it makes perfect sense.  High taxes and regulation extends their control over the private sector.  And recession sets the stage for Keynesian stimulus spending.  Which creates more government programs.  Paid for by higher taxes.  Which is more wealth transferred from the private sector.  Further extending their control over the private sector.

Liberal policy, then, makes perfect sense.  When you understand its goal is to expand their control over the private sector.  To secure their position of privilege.  Because when you do you’ll see that this policy has never been contradictory.  And it has never failed.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When Democrat Policies Fail and they Fall in the Polls they Scramble to Endorse Reaganomics

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 5th, 2011

Democrats have Blamed every ill known to Mankind on Reaganomics

The Left hates Ronald Reagan.  Proclaimed the era of Reagan was over.  No more were these Reagan Republicans going to screw over the poor so the rich can live a better life.  Yes, they hated this man with a passion.  And everything he stood for.  This supply-sider of the Austrian School.  He and is unfunny Laffer Curve.  This cold-hearted tax cutter.  But now they love him.  Why?  Because he supported taxing the rich.

I’ll pause a moment for those of you who have fallen out of your chairs.  Ready?  Good.

You know Congressional Democrats are grasping at straws to promote their policies when they claim their archenemy would have supported them, too.  You know why they’re trying, though, don’t you?  If you listened to the protesters on Wall Street you should know.  With their control of public school teachers and college professors (both dependent on taxpayer money for generous pay and benefit packages), they can revise history.  And keep kids ignorant.  Hopefully keeping them oblivious of things they don’t want them to know.  Such as the true legacy of Ronald Reagan (see MILLER: Ripping off the Gipper by Emily Miller posted 10/4/2011 on The Washington Times).

Liberals are trying to twist Ronald Reagan’s words to muster support for raising taxes. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s press office sent a memo on Monday to congressional Republicans claiming they’d found evidence proving that President Reagan was the real inspiration for President Obama’s tax-the-rich “Buffett Rule.” The California Democrat posed the question: “What would Reagan do?”

The correct answer is: He would cut taxes. Mrs. Pelosi’s memo sends people over to the liberal Think Progress website, where a video montage interweaves clips of Mr. Obama and Reagan saying apparently similar things about tax rates. “We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,” said the Gipper.

You’re supposed to think that’s just what Mr. Obama is doing, but the liberals edited out the context of the 40th president’s remarks. In a June 1985 speech at an Atlanta high school, he called for a total overhaul of the tax system. He wanted loopholes closed to lower the tax rates for everyone, for a net reduction in the tax burden. Congressional Republicans point out that’s precisely the opposite of what the Democrats are now trying to do.

You see, the Democrats can’t rely on telling the truth to pass their policies.  Because their policies only benefit those in government.  And those who live like parasites on the wealth creators.  Such as those protestors on Wall Street.  Who want the wealth of the wealth creators.  But want no part of capitalism which created that wealth.  And are too ignorant to understand that you can’t have one without the other.

Thank you public school teachers and college professors.

So they must lie.  Revise history.  To try and fool people into believing that their policies are just like Ronald Reagan’s.  And apparently hoping people don’t remember that Democrats have blamed every ill known to mankind on these very same policies.  ReaganomicsTrickledown economics.  The scourge of mankind.  But the majority of Americans apparently love the big lug so they’ll swallow back their bile and say, hey, we love him, too.  And hope that the grimace on their face doesn’t look as bad or as painful as it feels.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created America’s Financial Mess, not Wall Street

So where did these Wall Street protests come from?  Where did the primary impetus come from?  Apparently Canada.  Thanks, Canada.  As if the corrupting influence of Terrance and Phillip wasn’t enough already.  So I guess we have to Blame Canada (Warning:  Blame Canada contains adult content) for this, too (see Occupy Toronto leaderless, unfocused but hopeful by Dana Flavelle posted 10/4/2011 on the Toronto Star).

The Wall Street protests were inspired by Canadian anti-consumer magazine Adbusters.

Editor in chief and co-founder Kalle Lasn said he’s been calling for this kind of protest movement for 20 years.

It’s finally happening because people are angry with the financial fraudsters on Wall Street who created America’s economic mess and largely went unpunished, he said in a telephone interview from Vancouver.

But that isn’t who created America’s financial mess.  It was government.  Specifically the government sponsored enterprises (GSE) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  If it wasn’t for them buying and/or guaranteeing risky subprime mortgages there would have been no subprime mortgage crisis.

That was government policy.  Putting as many people into houses as possible.  Even if they couldn’t afford them.  That wasn’t Wall Street.  Wall Street was merely an accessory after the fact.  Aiding and abetting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  By selling those toxic subprime mortgages in collateralized debt obligations (CDOs).  Promoting them as high yield yet low risk.  Because they were backed by mortgages, historically the safest loans in all of America.  So investors bought these.  Not knowing how risky they were.  But you know who knew how risky they were?  The GSEs Fanny and Freddie.  Because they bought them.  And remember what the ‘G’ stands for in GSE.  Government.

If you removed government from this equation mortgage bankers would not have approved these risky subprime mortgages.  Because that risk would have been on their books.  But when government said ‘don’t worry  we’ll take that risk off of your books’ what did they have to lose in approving risky subprime mortgages?  Less harassment from the government for not approving mortgages for the poor and minorities who didn’t qualify?  Yeah, like they were going to miss that harassment.

If these protestors want to protest those responsible they should protest government.  Not Wall Street.

Damn Canadians.  If it’s not making our kids fart and curse they’re getting them to protest the wrong people.  (Editor’s note:  We like Canada and Canadians.  And mean them no disrespect.  We’re just having a little fun with the movie South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut.  In which incidents lead to war between Canada and the U.S.  A premise so ridiculous that it’s funny.  For Canada and the U.S. have been the best of friends.  And will always be the best of friends.)

The more Public Sector Union Employees paying Dues the more Money is collected for Democrat Coffers

Perhaps that’s the problem.  Too much government.  The federal government has grown into a behemoth.  On top of thousands and thousands of local governments throughout the country (see Infographic: Local government by the numbers by Mary Mahling and Carla Uriona posted 10/4/2011 on Stateline).

There are 89,476 local governments in the United States. They include counties, cities, villages, towns and townships, as well as special districts that handle utilities, fire, police and library services.

That’s a lot of government.  And there’s only one way to pay for a lot of government.  With a lot of taxes.

So we have government upon government upon government.  Surely with all that government we must be getting some value for all of these taxes.

More than two centuries of American democracy have resulted in a profusion of governments at the local level, not only cities and counties but villages and townships, park districts and sanitary districts and a host of others. To those trying desperately to bring a state’s budget into balance, many of these are useless anachronisms incapable of providing any service that could not be provided higher up the governmental chain. But to the tens of thousands of people who hold office in these local entities — and to millions of citizens who live within them — multiple local governments are a crucial piece of evidence that American democracy reaches down to the grassroots level.

Apparently not.  And don’t call me Shirley.

They just provide a lot of jobs for the unemployable.  By taxing the wealth creators.  And redistributing it to people whose job is a duplicate of one at another level of government.

They do serve a purpose, though.  Being totally funded by taxpayers, they have a vested interest to keep raising taxes on the taxpayers.  Which is, of course, helpful to Democrats.  So the more local governments the better.  The more public sector union employees paying dues the more money finds its way into Democrat coffers.

Any Attempt to Quantify Human Behavior will Ultimately Fail

And then you have academe.  And Keynesian economists.  Furthering the growth of government with their government-spending Keynesian economics (see Tis The Gift To Be Simple by Paul Krugman posted 10/5/2011 on The New York Times).

To be sure, IS-LM is an attempt to squeeze a dynamic economy into a static model, which is why people like me usually cross-check our conclusions with something intertemporal. But it’s actually a pretty darn sophisticated approach — as demonstrated by the fact that economists who dismiss or attack IS-LM as too simplistic or something almost always end up making assertions that are much more simplistic than IS-LM, if not falling into outright logical fallacies. In fact, I can’t think of a single exception to this rule: every attack on IS-LM I’ve ever seen (as opposed to suggestions that we should also look at more complex models) was followed by some kind of empirical or logical howler.

I have a criticism.  Any attempt to quantify human behavior will ultimately fail.  Because you can’t quantify human behavior.

Economics belong to the branch of science we call social sciences.  That is, it’s not real science.  Because the wildcard is that human behavior can always produce some unintended consequence to government action.  Such as Prohibition giving us organized crime.  Whereas the equations of science typically don’t.  We can use science to build bridges, buildings and airplanes.  And they work pretty much as planned.  Without any unintended consequences.

You can’t represent human behavior by mathematical formulas.  We know some behavioral responses.  Such as sex in advertising gets men’s attention.  But that’s a base primeval instinct.  There’s not a whole lot of thinking going on.  Not so in a complex economy.  Where there is a lot of thinking going on.  Keynesians like to think the economy is as simple as impulse buying at the point of sale checkout aisle.  Put more candy on display and you sell more candy.  Not so with buying a house.

Everyone will like to own a beautiful home.  But people won’t buy a house on impulse.  Not when there’s record unemployment.  And talk of a double-dip recession.  Because if you learned anything from the subprime mortgage crisis it’s this.  Too much debt is bad.  And there is no such thing as a guaranteed job.  Playing with interest rates won’t change that.  Only time will.  When enough time has passed to let people feel secure in their jobs again.  Then and only then will they consider taking on debt again.  No matter what the IS-LM model predicts.  Because you can’t quantify human behavior.

The Wall Street Protestors with Student Loan Debt Probably don’t have Science or Engineering Degrees

All government policy is social science.  It’s not an exact science.  That’s why strange things happen.  Unintended things.  Whenever government tries to influence behavior.  And when government tries they have a track record of failure.  Which is why they don’t run for reelection on the success of their policies.  They run on the success of someone else’s (Ronald Reagan’s) policies.  And say that their policies are the same.  And they are except with a few minor changes.  And by ‘few’ I mean they couldn’t be any more different.  So they lie.  Or they just demonize their opponents.

But our kids are blissfully ignorant.  Thanks to public school teachers.  And college professors.  Who care more about improving their taxpayer funded pay and benefits than education.  That’s why government grows.  And why we have degrees like women’s studies.  And poetry.  Degrees that offer no hope for employment in a capitalistic economy.  For what business that relies on pleasing their customers (like Apple does consistently) need people with these skills?

No.  They need people with science and engineering degrees.  You know, the hard ones.  So the kids who took the easy route in college must depend on teaching others their worthless knowledge.  Or get a government job.  Which has a lot to do with the anger of these protestors who have huge student loan debt.  And no job.  Because if they hate capitalism you can guess what their degrees are in.

(Editor’s note:  This was written before news of Steve Jobs’ passing broke.  Our condolences go out to his family.  We decided to leave the Apple reference in as a tribute to Steve Jobs.  He was one of America’s greatest entrepreneurs.  The world is a better place because of him.  For the gifts he gave us.  And the inspiration he gave to the next generation of great entrepreneurs.)

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Protesters on Wall Street haven’t a Clue of what they’re Protesting About

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 1st, 2011

Why are they Protesting?  Because Protesting is Fun.

They’ve gathered on Wall Street.  And they will be heard.  That is, if they had anything to say (see Occupy Wall Street protesters driven by varying goals by Tina Susman posted 9/29/2011 on the Los Angeles Times).

“At a certain point, there’s a valid criticism in people asking, ‘What are you doing here?'”

What are they doing there?  I think that’s pretty clear.  They’re protesting.  Why?  Because protesting is fun.  That’s why.

They may not know why they’re there.  Or understand how the free market economy works.  Have the foggiest idea of what capitalism really is.  All they know is that they had some Leftist high school teachers and/or some Leftist college professors who told them how much fun protesting was.  How much they enjoyed it all those years ago.  When they were dirty, filthy, stinking hippies.  Enjoying the college ‘education’ that Daddy paid for with his capitalistic career.  And how much they hated their fathers.  For being capitalists.  Which allowed their parents to give these spoiled little brats whatever they wanted.

Funny how some things never change.

The Man Sure gets Around; of course he was a Much Younger Man during the Vietnam era Protests.

But surely they must have a reason for being there?  Other than sticking it to the man (see Wall Street protest’s success not easily measured by the Associated Press posted 10/1/2011 on TRIBLIVE).

It all has the feel of a classic street protest with one exception: It’s unclear exactly what the demonstrators want…

“It’s time for us to come together to realize we are the masses, and we can make things happen.”

But he couldn’t say what, exactly, he wanted to happen. Handmade signs carried by some of the demonstrators — “Less is More” and “Capitalism is evil” — hardly make it clearer…

… the group’s lack of specificity serves a purpose because it invites outrage over a full spectrum of societal grievances. Indeed, some demonstrators say they are against Wall Street greed, others say they are protesting global warming and still others say they are protesting “the man.”

Yes.  The man.  I remember first hearing about ‘the man’ during the Vietnam era protests.  The man sure gets around.  Of course he was a much younger man in those days.  But just as oppressive.  He had a job.  He paid taxes.  Saved for retirement.  And saved for the college education for the next generation of protestors.  That vicious, selfish bastard.

The Protestors have no Leader or Message but have the Support of Teachers and Transport Workers

But these protestors are not alone.  Other anti-capitalists have come out to support them (see Wall Street protesters set to march on police by Ray Sanchez posted 9/30/2011 on Reuters).

… a unionized subway worker, said, “Last year we had 900 of our members laid off … These are our issues too: Wall Street, the banks, layoffs, the struggle that these young people are spearheading is our struggle too.”

Among those pledging solidarity were the United Federation of Teachers and the Transport Workers Union Local 100, which has 38,000 members. The unions could provide important organizational and financial support for the largely leaderless movement.

It was the high unemployment that cut the tax base of the city that required them to lay off some of their employees.  Because they couldn’t pay them and those generous pensions and health care benefits for their retirees.  And that didn’t have anything to do with the Wall Street banks.

It is interesting that the teachers and the transport workers are supporting a movement that has no message.  At least when the unions protest you know what they want.  Money.  And benefits.  But these protestors have no leader.  And no message.  But the teachers and the transport workers will be right there with them to help them win what they want.  More fun protesting.  I guess.

Corruption is Initiated by Government because they have the Power, they Write the Laws

Perhaps we should listen to the protestors themselves.  Let them tell us why they’re protesting.  Bill O’Reilly sent Jesse Watters to Wall Street.  To find out.  And here is what he learned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Crl31Xgc3_w

Well, that clarifies everything.  These people are demonstrating how poor our educational system is.

What they’re complaining about is not capitalism.  It’s crony capitalism.  Crony capitalism is when politicians sell themselves to the highest bidder.  They say if you give me lots of money I will write laws that favor you.  This is the corruption.  And government initiates it.  Because they have the power.  They write the laws.  And set the rules of the game.  And if you want to play you have to pay.

Not all corporations do.  Microsoft didn’t.  Until they were called to Congress in a huge antitrust case.  Because they were giving consumers something free.  The Internet browser Internet Explorer.  Microsoft has since learned their lesson.  And now lobby accordingly.

Democrats need the Youth Vote because the Young stay neither Young nor Ignorant Forever

There are some older people in these protests.  But the vast majority are college age kids.  Many of who will grow up and raise families.  Have a career.  And will think about other pressing issues of the day other than legalizing pot.

Yes.  These kids today?  A lot of them will be ‘the man’ tomorrow.  And some punk kids will demonize them in a similar protest some 10-20 years in the future.

This is why the Democrats work so hard on getting the youth vote.  Because the young stay neither young nor ignorant forever.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #69: “Democrats bank on the youth vote because they’ve lost the wise vote.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 9th, 2011

When America Changed

The youth movement during the Vietnam War destroyed LBJ.  And lost the Vietnam War.  The college protests.  The explosion in drug use.  Free love.  Race riots.  American terrorists bombing government buildings.  Timothy Leary.  Rock stars promoting drug use.  Dying from drug use.  And leading the youth movement in their anti-war, anti-establishment protests.  This youth was everything their parents weren’t.  It changed America forever.  And not for the better.

The problem with the youth is that they’re young.  They are inexperienced.  And don’t know much.  But when they learn a few things, look out, they then think they now know everything.  Thanks to some manipulative college professors who fed these kids’ intellectual vanity.  Told them that they could make a difference.  And then these kids set out to change the world.  Often with violent protest.  Mob violence.  Which was new in America.  The youth protested the Vietnam War because they were drafting the youth to fight it.  Or just because protesting was fun.  But their protests only extended the war.  For the Tet Offensive almost ended the war in 1968.  The Americans hammered the NVA and the Viet Cong.  Everywhere.  And yet Walter Cronkite took to television and said the war was lost.  Further inflaming the anti-war youth movement.  Riots at the 1968 Democratic Convention.  Protests at Kent State that ended in the shooting of 4 students by national guardsmen.  Sparking violent protests on college campuses everywhere.  Our enemies in Vietnam saw this and couldn’t believe what they were seeing.  And they learned something.  They didn’t need to win the war.  They just needed not to lose the war.  So they adopted a Fabian strategy.  And sacrificed their people until the Americans grew weary of killing them.  Which they did.  Some 7 years later.

These college students grew up and became teachers.  College professors.  And have been trying to change the world ever since.  By teaching their students to be like them.  Feeding these kids’ intellectual vanity.  Making them feel important.  That they, too, can change the world.  If they do as they did.

Tell the Youth what kind of Underwear you Wear and they’ll Vote for You

Walter Cronkite eventually admitted his liberal bias.  He was probably the first that went from reporting news to influencing events.  At least, the first that mattered.  For he was the most trusted man in America.  The transformation of the mainstream media soon followed.  Gone were the days of Brinkley and Huntley.  The days of passive news coverage was over.  And the point of no return was the Watergate scandal.  Never before did the media destroy a presidential administration.  Like they did with the Republican Richard Nixon.  The media bias was set.  And became a part of liberal politics.

It was a perfect match.  The youth movement.  And the media.  Together they would advance policy and influence elections.  The media would control the message.  And advance the liberal bias of public education.  Instilled by those radicals of the Sixties.  And you can see it really come together in the 1992 presidential campaign.  Where Bill Clinton ran against the incumbent George H.W. Bush (Read my lips; no new taxes).  Who had record approval ratings a couple of years earlier with the Gulf War victory.  He was so unbeatable that no ‘first string’ Democrat candidates entered the race.  Then a few things happened.  He made a deal with the House to raise taxes in exchange for future spending cuts.  The boob.  Democrats never follow through on spending-cut promises.  And Ross Perot.

Now, according to the exit polling, Ross Perot took an equal amount of votes from each candidate.    Maybe he did.  Maybe his third-party candidacy didn’t help Clinton by taking votes away from Bush.  But he did do something else.  There was a reason Clinton wasn’t a ‘first string’ candidate.  He was flawed.  There was some dirt in his past.  Some scandal.  But no one heard about.  Because the little guy with the big ears who talked funny and had all those charts and graphs just fascinated everyone.  It took the attention away from Clinton’s past.  With a kind assist from the media.  Who with their liberal bias helped their liberal candidate.  And then Clinton went on MTV and told the kids what kind of underwear he wore.  And played the saxophone on the Arsenio Hall Show.  He was a hit with the kids.  The 18-24 demographic made up 11% of the votes.  And that 11% split 46%-33% in favor of Clinton with 21% going to Perot.  Did the youth vote push Clinton over Bush?  They definitely helped.  But more important is the lesson learned.  There are a lot of youth voters.  Historically it hasn’t been easy getting them to the polls.  Because they’re kids who don’t think about politics or elections.  They’re thinking about having fun.  But if you can get them to the polls, and if you can get them to vote for you, they can make a difference.  And Clinton showed how to do it.

Organizing the Youth Vote to Compensate for a Lack of Qualifications

In 2008, the Democrats ran the most unqualified candidate for president they ever ran.  Barack Hussein Obama.  A man that never had a real job.  Or any executive experience.  He had no foreign policy credentials.  The only thing on his resume was a partial term as a U.S. senator.  And a stint as a state senator.  Oh, and he was a community organizer.  Young, inexperienced and wholly unqualified, he was the man to beat.  It should have been an easy task.  But the Republicans let the media pick their candidate.  During the primaries the media gave John McCain glowing coverage.  Said he was what the Republican Party needed.  Someone who can reach across the aisle.  And govern as a moderate.  Of course, they were just blowing smoke.  Because the last thing they wanted was a conservative running against Obama.  Because they were sure that in a campaign between two moderates, they could get their moderate elected.

What Obama lacked in experience and qualifications he made up in organizing a campaign.  He was an excellent candidate.  And ran an excellent campaign.  He tapped into that youth vote.  Who were fed up.  Never in all of their 18-24 years were they as upset as they were during the 2008 campaign.  The economy.  Affordable housing.  Jobs.  Health care.  The Iraq War.  Things that didn’t touch their lives at all while they were ensconced in their cozy college utopias, living off the generosity of mommy and daddy.  But Obama heard them.  And told them that he heard them.  Finally, someone who cared.  And someone who wasn’t George W. Bush.

The youth would be his foot soldiers.  Coming from Chicago, that’s something you need.  He called for volunteers.  And got volunteers.  Some 4 million.  And being the kids they were they knew how to use the Internet.  They knew how to surf.  How to design websites.  How to ask for donations.  And boy did they.  They left the old man (McCain) in the dust.  The Obama campaign was awash in cash.  Even after beating a very well connected Hillary Clinton in the primary.  It may have been her turn.  But Obama never got that memo.  Besides she was old.  And had baggage (i.e., Bill Clinton).  Obama was young.  And new.  He was everything and a bag of Skittles.  First time voters turned out in droves.  And voted for him 68% of the time.  In a year with a record turnout of youth voters.

Young and Dumb wins Elections

It’s difficult to teach an old dog new tricks.  So it’s important to teach the young what you want them to know.  For once they’re thinking ‘correctly’ it’ll be hard to change their mind.  Oh, sure, it’ll happen.  As they grow up and mature.  But you’ll get a few elections out of them before that happens.  And, if you’re lucky, maybe they’ll become a teacher.  Or a public sector worker.  Or a journalist.  But the sad reality is that a lot of these people will get jobs in the private sector.  Raise families.  And eventually become conservative. 

That’s why in every election there is a ‘get out the vote’ campaign.  To get as many fist time voters as possible.  Kids who are politically unaware.  Who know nothing about history or economics.  Blank slates.  Just waiting to be initiated.  Indoctrinated.  To become good Democrat voters.  Because America is a center-right country.  And the majority of people work in the private sector.  Are politically aware.  They know history and economics.  And vote conservative.  Which is why the Democrats don’t want to campaign against a conservative candidate.  And will use the media to get as many John McCains as possible as their Republican candidate.  Because history has proven that a John McCain and a large youth vote will get a Democrat candidate elected.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #47: “Liberals crave attention because that’s what narcissists do.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 6th, 2011

Walter Cronkite Turns the Tet Offensive Victory into Defeat

Walter Cronkite didn’t have a clue about combat in Vietnam.  The Tet Offensive was a disaster for the Viet Cong.  But you wouldn’t know that listening to Cronkite.  The war was now unwinnable.  And he said this after the biggest military defeat the North suffered.  (The north were the bad guys).

The plan was to cause a general uprising throughout South Vietnam to overthrow the South Vietnamese government everywhere.  It failed.  We killed senior and experienced soldiers in the Viet Cong wholesale.  And the Viet Cong ceased to exist as an effective army.  From Tet forward they would only use hit and run ambush attacks.  A Fabian strategy.  Like Washington did during the American Revolution.  When he, too, was up against a military superpower.

The key to using the strategy of Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus is simple.  But costly.  You got to be willing to endure a lot of hardship for a long time.  This means a lot of your soldiers will die.  And your people will suffer for the want of the basic necessities of life.  It’s a war of attrition.  You just have to be willing to sacrifice a whole lot.  By extending the war indefinitely, you make the war more costly than your enemy is willing to endure.  When they reach the breaking point, they quit.  And you win.  It’s an effective strategy.  But, like I said, costly.  They tend to be long wars.  The American Revolution lasted 8 years.  Vietnam lasted some 10 years (America’s combat operations).

Imagine a World where there are no Possessions

There was division in the North Vietnamese government.  There was Soviet influence.  Chinese influence.  And Vietnamese resentment of outside influence.  First it was the Japanese.  Then the French.  Then the Americans.  And now the Soviets and Chinese.  Luckily for us, big combat won out as a strategy.  Hence the Tet Offensive.  And utter failure.  When some were ready to sue for peace, Walter Cronkite threw them a lifeline.

The liberal left holds up this period of history as a time when they changed the world.  When young people participated in the national debate.  Well, they did.  And really [deleted expletive] things up.  These young heard a few things from some radical college professors and thought they knew everything.  But they were still a bunch of ignorant hippies.  Ignorant hippies, that is, with Walter Cronkite now on their side.  The counterculture was in full swing.  These kids attacked everything American.  Supported communist leaders (Che Guevara, Mao Tse-tung, Fidel Castro, etc.) and tried to start a communist revolution in America.  Really.  Imagine a world where there are no possessions.  Power to the people.  That was John Lennon pining for a communist utopia.  Our enemies couldn’t ask for anything more.  Cronkite and these kids emasculated America.  And we would pay dearly for it in blood and treasure.

These liberals got the attention they craved.  And they were so sure they were right.  About everything.  Infallible.  And wanted to tell others what to do.  Well, these hippies did.  They went on to become university professors.  And they’re now teaching our kids.  Vietnam was the turning point.  It’s when the world lost respect for America.  Not for the reason the Left would have you believe, though.  They lost respect for us because it was the first time we tucked up our skirt and ran away from a fight.  Vietnam would forever be the war we gave up on.  Poor JFK.  The hero of PT-109.  His war in Vietnam would not go into the win column.  Because of a bunch of stupid, long-haired, stoned hippies.  He must be spinning in his grave.

Jimmy Carter’s Détente Almost Assured Nuclear Destruction

The Seventies were a bleak decade.  Because these hippies came of age.  Still full of themselves.  Believing they were making the world a better place.  But they were only making it more dangerous.

After our humiliation in Vietnam our enemies saw us as a paper tiger.  Who didn’t have the nerve to stay in the fight.  Or the will to get into a fight.  The world never came closer to ending when the liberals were in power during the Seventies.  The Soviet Union was getting away with murder.  Jimmy Carter was attacking our allies in Central America.  While kissing Soviet and Chinese ass.  He never attacked their human rights violations.  And no one committed more human rights violations.  But he attacked our allies.  Who committed a negligible amount of violations compared to the two big communist powers.

Jimmy Carter’s détente was a joke.  The Soviets had no respect for him.  To them Carter was a strategic opening.  They concluded that Carter wouldn’t launch his nuclear missiles until after the Soviet missiles hit their U.S. targets.  Reagan they feared.  They had no illusions that he would launch his missiles as soon as we detected Soviet missiles inbound to the U.S.  But not Carter.  This changed nuclear doctrine for the Soviets.  They went from Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) to a first-strike doctrine.  Because they were sure they could beat Carter in a nuclear war.  Never before has the world come closer to nuclear annihilation.  And we didn’t even know it at the time.

The Social Sciences were Made for and by Hippies

What the counterculture hippy left did during the Vietnam War extended the war, damaged the prestige of America and almost gave us nuclear annihilation.  And if that wasn’t bad enough (and don’t you think it should be?) they did even more damage domestically.  Successfully humiliating us on the national stage only empowered them.  The hippies of the Sixties became college professors, journalists, movie stars, television stars and politicians in the Seventies.  Now think about this.  What did the hippies do in the Sixties?  Think Woodstock.  Sex, drugs and rock and roll.  These hippies were stoned all of the time while they were in college.  (If you don’t believe me Google Timothy Leary, Haight-Ashbury, flower children, psychedelic rock, counter culture, or any other Sixties icons.)

And these hippies just weren’t smoking pot.  They were doing some hardcore drugs.  The big one was LSD.  A hallucinogen.  It’d really [deleted expletive] you up.  So you know these hippies weren’t studying to be brain surgeons or rocket scientists.  No, those degrees required advanced math.  And studying.  Which they couldn’t do when they were [deleted expletive] up all of the time.  So they took some of those easier degrees.  One of those social sciences.  Like black studies.  Or women’s studies.  Or Native American studies.  Or communications.  Where all you had to do was bitch about white men on your exams and they’d graduate your ass.  Of course, there wasn’t much you could do with these degrees.  Except teach at a college.  And that’s what a lot of these hippies did.  And destroyed generations of kids.

Well, after being on top of the world during the Sixties a little reality settled in during the Seventies.  Some realized they were about as useful as a paperweight.  And they couldn’t stand that.  They believed they were smarter than everyone in their youth.  Now they were realizing they were dumb as posts.  And it’s hard to feel superior to others when you’re dumb as a post.  So you do something about that.  You become active.  In something.  You show off that brain.  That college degree.  You support a cause.  Or go into politics.

Journalists and Celebrities Just want to be Loved

That’s the path a lot of liberals took.  But not all.  Some are too young to have lived through the Sixties.  But their college professors no doubt did.  So they keep the spirit of the Sixties alive.  Though a little lighter on the drugs these days.  Some don’t need mind altering drugs to get high.  Love of self is enough for some.  Which is the drug of choice for a narcissist.  Journalists and politicians in particular love this drug.

Dan Rather appeared to have a personal vendetta against George W. Bush.  He referenced documents on air critical of Bush’s Air Force service before the presidential election.  He said on air that experts at CBS authenticated the documents.  Well, they didn’t.  Worse, they were forgeries.  Rather, who appeared to be envious of Cronkite’s fame, wanted a little fame for himself.  He wanted that big story.  To influence a presidential election.  Instead, he ended his journalism career.

Celebrities are narcissists.  They have great big egos.  And a lot of fame.  But it’s an empty fame.  Most make a living by pretending to be other people.  Or they can sing.  Or look good while just standing still.  It’s nice but eventually they want more.  To be more than a pretty face.  A pretty voice.  A good pretender.  So they flex their minds to show off their all around superiority.  Ted Danson warned us that the oceans would be ‘dead’ in 10 years…20 years ago.  Cher warned that George W. Bush would force all the gays and lesbians into New Jersey should we elect him.  Cameron Diaz said Bush would legalize rape.  (Last I checked he didn’t do either.)  Sean Penn praises Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez while their people suffer some of the worst human rights violations.  Does he do this because he favors human rights violations?  Or is he so smart that he can’t believe he’s ever wrong?  (For the record, Penn doesn’t choose to live in Cuba or Venezuela.  So it would appear that although he speaks out in favor of Marxism over capitalism, he prefers the comforts of capitalism for himself.  So I think it’s fair to conclude that he is at least a hypocrite.)

Elite Intellectuals with an 8th Grade Education

The Vietnam War to liberals was like Christ’s crucifixion to Christians.  It defined them.  Made them.  It was the first inklings of their powers.  And they liked that power. 

They prolonged the war and killed hundreds of thousands more (Americans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, etc.).  They had something to protest for almost a decade.  This empowered them and made them feel invincible.  The world was theirs.  They could do anything.  And some did.  Some even became terrorists (e.g., the Weather Underground). 

They were elite intellectuals.  Elite intellectuals with maybe an 8th grade education.  They knew nothing.  But believed they knew everything.  They destroyed a decade.  While their heads were filled with dreams of sugar plum fairies and illusions of grandeur.  Virtually unemployable in the real world, they took these feelings of superiority to our colleges, Hollywood, newspapers and television networks.  Where they lived insulated from the real world.  And continued their destruction.  Craving attention.  Constantly shouting ‘look at me’.  Never caring about the consequences of their actions.

Liberals are not inherently evil.  The destruction they cause is not on purpose.  They’re just a bunch of idiots.  They typically lived isolated from the real world.  In positions that can influence the masses.  And they tend to be charismatic.  Of course, there are exceptions to this rule.  Such as Al Gore.  Who you would find in the dictionary if you looked up ‘not charismatic’.  But he craves that attention more than most.  And is one of the biggest idiots out there.  He still believes in global warming even though those emails leaked from the University of East Anglia showed they were manipulating the global warming data. 

But Al Gore is not an idiot.  Idiots don’t make enough money to buy mansions on the ocean.  But he did.  While warning people about the danger of global warming.  And rising sea levels.  That will flood our seashores.  Like the seashore he just moved to.  You see, even he doesn’t really believe in global warming.  So he’s not an idiot.  He’s just a charlatan.  Praying on the people’s gullibility to make himself a millionaire.  He may not know anything about science, but he’s highly skilled in the arts of fleecing.  While making himself feel important.  Giving himself value (in his own mind).  Stroking that ego while he spends his days just dicking around in his big, empty mansion.  And this is liberalism at its best.  Empty shells of people.  Trying to feel good about themselves.  By pretending to do good for others.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #47: “Liberals crave attention because that’s what narcissists do.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 4th, 2011

People Need to Feel that they have Value

I’m not one to quote Stephen King.  Well, not often.  I’m not a big fan of his books.  He creates good characters.  But sucks at plot.  Even he admits this.  (Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m sure I read something he wrote admitting this).  But his books are easy to read.  Entertaining.  Even if he does take a couple of potshots at capitalism in each book.  Yeah, he’s a regular bleeding heart.  What did you expect?  College student.  Teacher.  Then filthy rich novelist.   He earned it.  But his wealth allows him to escape the real world.

Anyway, I had a friend that read every novel he could get his hand on.  A mentor, really.  He’d knock out one or more a week.  He read all the Stephen King novels.  King’s not his favorite author, but he really enjoyed all the books in Magnus Opus.  The Dark Tower series.  When he finished one book, he’d hand it off to me.  I’d read it, offering my commentary along the war.  Noting the anti-capitalist parts.  I then passed the book off to another friend.  Then we’d discuss over lunch.  I enjoyed that time.  And The Dark Tower.  Except the silly, anti-capitalist parts.

Like I said, I’m not one to quote Stephen King, but he did say something very profound in one of The Dark Tower books.  One of the characters was basically a loser in life.  Whatever he tried he failed at.  But it turned out that he had one gift.  Something few people could do.  Unfortunately, that skill would bring about the total destruction of the world.  But it was the only thing he was good at.  So he did it.  The protagonist asked why.  Because he would die, too, along with everyone else.  And he said something like, “People need to feel that they have value.  To feel useful.”

How true.

If we Have no Value, All we do is Dick Around

Sparks has a song called Dick Around.  It’s about a guy that climbs the corporate ladder to great success.  He’s at the top of his game.  Then his girl dumps him.  And it devastates him.  He loses his motivation and resigns his big corporate job.  Without the girl he sees no point.  (Yeah, guys can be like that).  And he struggles to understand why she left him.

Why the hell, why the hell, why the hell, why the hell?
Why the hell did she desert you when you were so influential?
Why the hell, why the hell, why the hell, why the hell?
Why did she desert you when you told her she was so essential?

And he goes downhill from there.  After losing his girl he can’t continue on in his job.  And without the job he loses all feelings of self-worth.

Look at me, look at me, look at me, look at me,
Knowing that from now on what you do is strictly non-essential
Look at me, look at me, look at me, look at me,
Knowing that from now on no one wonders if you’ve got potential

So he putters around in the garden.  And just kills time.

But all I do now, is dick around
All I do now, is dick around
Dick around

People need to feel that they have value.  To feel useful.  Like Stephen King wrote about.  And once you feel you don’t have value, you wander aimlessly through life.  And dick around.  Anyone going through a prolonged period of unemployment no doubt can relate to this.

Oh, what the hell.  Here’s a video of the song.

Liberals have Ability Envy

All right, let’s assume.  Even if it makes an ass out of you and me.  (Yeah, funny.)  Above are two examples.  Let’s assume one guy is a liberal.  And the other is a conservative.  Which is which?  Well, you know the corporate guy has to be the conservative because liberals hate the corporate world.  And that means the loser must be the liberal.

The conservative guy had value.  He was good at things.  A lot of things.  So good that he advanced up the corporate ladder.  But then he lost his girl.  And, with her, his mojo.  The liberal, on the other hand, never had any value.  He was never good at anything.  Except destroying the world.  If you want to count that.

This loser describes many liberals today.  I mean, when you look at them, what ability do they have?  (I’m talking about the far left.  That 20% of the population.  Not rank and file Democrats.  Or moderates/independents.  Just that 20%.)  They’re not entrepreneurs.  They’re not small business owners.  They’re not the people with real jobs.  No, they can’t do any of these things because they lack any ability.  All the while growing up.  In high school.  College.  They were never as good as those people with real ability.  Those over-achievers.  Which left them embittered.  Jealous.  Envious.  Desperate that somebody, anybody, would recognize some special talent in them.  So they could feel useful.  And, in time, people would.  Find that special talent.  Destroying the world.

Look at me, Look at me, Look at me, Look at me – I’m Important                                          

They don’t set out with the goal of destroying the world.  They just do.  Because their actions have consequences.  Big consequences.  You see, these liberals find themselves in positions of prominence that require no ability.  But these positions exert influence.  Big time.  It’s like that thing with a butterfly flapping its wings.  The Butterfly Affect.  The slight movement of a butterfly’s wings can ripple through the atmosphere and influence the weather.  Or something like that.  The idea is that something small can have big consequences.  And this is how liberals, small people, can have such a large impact on the world.

These people of no ability go to college and get worthless social ‘science’ degrees.  Some love college so much they never leave.  They become professors in worthless social ‘science’ programs.  They feel important.  And don’t have to work anymore (that’s what TAs are for).  College professors are frat boys that never grow up.  They still want to stick it to the man.  Party.  Agitate.  And they’re teaching our kids.

Journalists are no longer journalists.  They’re not objective.  These pompous elitists come out and say they are shaping the news.  To help us think correctly.  They do so because they truly believe that they are superior to us.  And who are these people?  Take away FOX News, talk radio and the Internet, they’re all liberal.  And there are people out there who still think that the network news, The New York Times, NPR, etc., are objective news sources.  So they believe the liberal spin.

Movie and television stars get rich and famous by pretending to be people they are not.  After awhile, they start getting that empty feeling.  People love some of the characters they’ve played.  Smart.  Courageous.  Powerful.  Politically savvy.  People transfer these feelings of admiration onto the actors playing these roles.  And the actor wants to believe this admiration.  So they try to prove they can do more than pretend to be someone else.  Like Milli Vanilli who wanted to prove they could sing and put out an album where they did in fact sing, some of these actors want to prove that they’ve got brains, too.  So they adopt a cause.  Get politically active.  But they often don’t have a clue what they’re talking about.  Take Charlie Sheen, for example.  Great actor.  At least on Two and Half Men (funny show).  But he speaks out about 9/11.  Calling it an inside job.  Because of how the buildings imploded.  Even though he’s not a structural engineer.  Or understood the radical design that gave that great open floor space in those towers that ultimately proved to be their Achilles heel.  But he’s a big star.  When he speaks a lot of people will hear him.  Giving credence to whatever he says.  Especially if people are putting a microphone in front of him.  People assume he must know what he’s talking about.  Because they’re putting a microphone in front of him.

Rich people that inherited their wealth don’t want to be pariahs.  Rich people are evil.  We’re to scorn them.  Well, they want us to like them.  And they want to enjoy their obscene, unearned wealth without having to feel guilty for being rich.  So they champion liberal causes.  The Left then loves them.  They no longer scorn these rich people.  And they speak out.  For liberal causes.  To get more of that love that eases their rich guilt.  And people believe them.  Because they’re rich.  And rich people can do whatever they want.  So if they’re supporting some cause instead of yachting or something, they must really believe in that cause.  They must know something.  Because you have to be smart to be rich.  So people do likewise.  And support their causes.  Because it seems like the right thing to do.

And then you have politicians.  These people who have but one skill.  They lie.  And they lie very well.  They can manipulate people to vote for them.  And once the people elect them, they finally get the validation they’ve always craved.  They feel special.  And it soon goes to their head.  These little people finally get their revenge.  They have power.  They can get back at all those over achievers that mocked them all their lives.  And do.  By writing anti-business legislation.  By taxing away as much of their wealth as they can.  To pay themselves well.  And to show the world who’s better.  To satiate those great big egos.  And to make sure we all know whose bitch we are.  They’re better than us.  We serve them.  And must applaud them.  For they live on props.  Like the narcissists they are.

Laughing all the way to the Bank on the Taxpayer’s Dime

While brilliant people go on to become entrepreneurs, small business owners, captains of industry, etc., the liberal develops illusions of grandeur.  Because of circumstance, they find themselves in positions of prominence.  And it goes to their head.  They meddle in things they shouldn’t.  And more times than not make a mess of things.  Whether they’re writing bad legislation or influencing people to support bad legislation, the end result is the same.  Congress passes bad legislation.  And we, the people, have to pick up the pieces.  Those unintended consequences.

But they don’t care.  Especially the politicians.  Even if we vote them out of office.  Because they get pensions for life.  You see, the elite take care of their own.  And even if we do boot them out of office, they’ll still live better than we do.  They’ll still get those paychecks.  They just won’t go to the office anymore.  Instead, they’ll just dick around.  Their new métier.  While laughing all the way to the bank.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Rise and Fall of Liberalism – A Study in Deviousness

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 5th, 2010

The Young and Ignorant are a Key Liberal Demographic

America is a center-right country.  In fact, the liberal left is a minority of the population.  They sound bigger than they are because their minority are in very strategic parts of the population. 

Liberals include college professors (who hide from reality on college campuses where they teach the young and ignorant).  College students (the young and ignorant).  The mainstream media (who spread the liberal propaganda, giving it legitimacy).  Celebrities (who laugh at and belittle conservatives).  The poor and government-dependent (who live in fear of losing their Big Government benefits).  The blue-blood rich (who feel guilty for inheriting their money).  Unions (who seek government protection to get better wage and benefit packages than the majority of American workers).  Government workers (high-pay and benefit-heavy work for the unemployable). 

Taken together you’re looking at about 20% of the population.  But thanks to college professors, the media and celebrities, they seem like they’re everywhere.  Especially to the young and ignorant.  Who typically vote Democrat until they get a real job.

From FDR to JFK to LBJ

The key to liberal success has been the ability to deceive.  They have to lie about who they are.  Because their numbers have been dwindling since the New Deal (see Liberalism: An Autopsy by R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. posted 12/4/2010 on The Wall Street Journal).

In the tumultuous history of postwar American liberalism, there has been a slow but steady decline of which liberals have been steadfastly oblivious. The heirs of the New Deal are down to around 20% of the electorate, according to recent Gallup polls. Conservatives account for 42% of the vote, and in the recent election the independents, the second most numerous group at 29% of the electorate, broke the conservatives’ way. They were alarmed by the deficit. They will be alarmed for a long time.

The key to winning elections, then, is lying to independents.  For if the independents didn’t vote, Conservatives would never lose an election.  And if there is one thing liberals are good at, it’s lying.  Which is how they win elections.

Liberalism’s decline might appear, at first glance, to have begun with the 1961 inauguration of President John F. Kennedy—when historians noted the first glimmerings of what was to become liberalism’s distinctive trait, overreach. Kennedy’s soaring oratory was infectious and admirable and even impressed a later generation of conservatives. But it was a bit dishonest. There never was a missile gap with the Soviet Union, as he claimed, or any other cause for histrionics. On the domestic side, the oratory set in motion President Lyndon Johnson’s catastrophic War on Poverty.

The Big Government of FDR had failed.  The necessity of war stopped most of the New Deal nonsense.  Big Government released their oppressive hold on business to let them do what they do best.  Pure, unfettered capitalism.  And the Arsenal of Democracy won World War II.

After the Great Depression, World War II, and a couple of standoffs in the new Cold War, Ike wanted to let America be normal again.  To enjoy life a little.  Instead of facing Armageddon time and time again.  Ike had no illusions of grandeur.  Nothing to prove.  No ego to stroke.  America paid a hefty price to win World War II.  It was time to enjoy a peace dividend.

JFK’s stirring language represented a break with the Burkean understanding of President Dwight Eisenhower. Ike, whether he articulated it or not, wanted to put the Great Depression and the dangerous confrontations of the early Cold War period behind us. He wanted to return to normalcy. Yet Kennedy’s inaugural put America on a different path, one that led to the Cuban missile crisis and ultimately to Vietnam. It fixed America’s stance in the world, and with that stance we were on the road to Iraq and Afghanistan. Domestically it set us on the path to a behemoth big government.

The Ike years were good years.  Prosperous years.  Happy years.  Everything a liberal hates.  Because there’s nothing for government to fix.  So to trick people into thinking things are bad and need to improve, you need to do 2 things.  You need to lie.  And you need good oratory.  And JFK did both well.

Never let a Good Crisis go to Waste

The country changed in the 1960s.  And liberals reached far.  Too far.  Conservatives pushed back.

LBJ’s Great Society caused even some liberals to warn against the “unintended consequences” of government programs. These were to be the first new recruits to modern conservatism. Jeane Kirkpatrick, Irving Kristol and, for a time, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, were in Kristol’s words liberals “who were mugged by reality.” The radicals were seeking refuge from reality in a self-regarding fantasy. Only a crisis in the leadership of President Richard Nixon, Watergate, allowed them to hide from the American electorate their fantastic delusions.

Few shared the liberals’ vision for America.  Even in the 1960s.  Other than the hippies on college campuses, the ‘silent majority’ was still conservative.  But liberals are devious.  And they never let a good crisis go to waste.  They had two big ones during the Nixon administration.  Vietnam.  And Watergate.

Liberals and Ronald Reagan both Campaigned as Ronald Reagan to win Elections

The problem with liberalism?  It’s sort of like that question ‘why climb Mt. Everest?’  Because it’s there.  Liberals want to amass power and control things.  To tax and spend.  And when you get right down to it, it’s not a popular political platform.  We want to tax and spend because we want to tax and spend.  There are no lofty philosophical ideals.  No charismatic liberal leaders advancing the cause of tax and spend.  Instead, liberalism is a vacuous abyss hidden by lies and doublespeak.

The conservatives, on the other hand, have a philosophical basis.  They are proud to quote previous conservatives.  And try to continue their work.  The best liberals can do are to point to Karl Marx’s socialism (i.e., Marxism) or the Soviet Union’s communism.  And being that this ideology (Marxism/communism) has killed more people than any other ideology in history, they offer little political capital for someone wanting to expand government power.

Conservatives have had Edmund Burke and the Founding Fathers as their cynosures. Sometimes they have provided discipline; sometimes conservatives have followed their own star. The problem for liberals is they have been denied a cynosure. Some had looked to the British Fabian Socialists and some to Karl Marx, but since the late 1940s liberals became coy about their intellectual mentors.

And because liberals have no political philosophy people want, they lie about who they are.  They run as conservatives during elections.  Bill Clinton.  Barack Obama.  They campaigned on a center-right platform.  Sometimes even quoting Ronald Reagan.  But once they won the election, they swung hard to the left.  They governed as liberals.  The electorate felt betrayed.  And at the first opportunity (i.e., the first midterm election in their administrations) their parties lost power in Congress.  Rejecting, once again, their Big Government tax and spend policies.

In 1992, after 12 years of conservatives in the White House, Bill Clinton beat George Herbert Walker Bush. Yet he too ran as a moderate. Once in office he tried to push a big government agenda and was trounced in the midterm election.

The rest of Clinton’s presidency was defined by his pronouncement that “The era of big government is over.” The Reagan revolution was secured. In 2000, Clinton’s vice president lost to the governor of Texas despite prosperity and peace. George W. Bush won the midterms in 2002. Then came the Republicans’ wilderness years in 2006 and 2008—but not conservatism’s. Conservatives remained more popular than liberals by about a 2-1 margin.

A Crisis and a Moderate Republican Candidate help Liberals win Elections

George W. Bush served two terms.  His popularity soared after 9/11.  So the liberals went to work.  All through his second term, they hammered away at the economy.  They said it was worse since the Great Depression.  (Of course, unemployment now under Obama is about twice the rate it was under Bush.  But things are better now.  Remember that lying thing about liberalism?)

And then they had a crisis.  A great big, beautiful crisis.  The Left was just ecstatic.  Their policy of putting people into houses they couldn’t afford triggered the subprime mortgage crisis.  When a Republican was in office.  It just didn’t get better than this.

The media went into overdrive by endorsing the moderate McCain for the Republican candidate.  It leveled the playing field.  Instead of choosing between conservatism and liberalism, the choice was between two moderates.  And the Left was able to hide Obama’s liberal past and radical associations to fool the moderate and Independent voters.  Obama won.  He swung hard to the left.  And loss the midterm election.  Because America is a center-right country.

Conservatism has steadily spread through the country since its larval days in the 1950s, and the reason is that the vast majority of Americans favor free enterprise and personal liberty. Note the tea party movement. The Republicans just took the House of Representatives by over 60 seats and gained six seats in the Senate. The social democrat in the White House has been routed.

Over the past two years the Democrats showed their true colors. Faced with an entitlement crisis, they rang up trillion dollar deficits. We now face an entitlement crisis and a budget crisis—and liberals have no answer for it beyond tax and spend. They still have support in the media, but even here they are faced with opposition from Fox News, talk radio and the Internet.

America is a Center-Right Country

The only way a liberal wins an election in a center-right country is by deception.  That’s why they pray on the young and ignorant.  It starts in the public school system.  And continues in our colleges.  The young are seduced.  By our educational system.  The mainstream media.  And the celebrity left.

It’s a tenuous coalition.  At best 20% of the population.  But that 20% is sometimes enough to fool the moderates and the independents who haven’t been lied to yet.  And this is nothing against the moderates and independents.  The Left are just good liars.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #34: “Sure, until you win the lotto you’re all for sticking it to the rich.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 5th, 2010

Money Envy

Class warfare is a different kind of warfare.  During the English Civil War, the Protestants and the Catholics were trying to kill each other.  They didn’t want to have anything to do with each other.  Protestants didn’t want to be Catholic.  Catholics didn’t want to be Protestant.  But in class warfare, it’s a little different.  The poor want to be rich.

The poor hate the rich because they have it so much better than the poor.  But they don’t hate the idea of being rich per se.  Just who gets to be rich.  Because, given half the chance, they’d choose to be rich if they could.  Why?  Because the rich typically don’t go wanting for food, shelter or clothes.  They also get to have all the neat toys to play with.  And they wear some nice bling.

So the poor don’t really hate the rich.  It’s just money envy.  After a child grows up he or she may notice that they like money.  They see they have no money of their own.  So they want their mother’s or father’s money.  Because there are limits, and sometimes outright rejection, they seek money elsewhere.  As they grow up, they may get a job.  Sell drugs.  Prostitute themselves to conventioneers.  Marry into it.  Steal it.  Become a ward of the state.  Or play the lotto.

Whose Money is it Anyway?

During this phase in their life, politicians, college professors and the media bombard them with messages of income redistribution.  Fair share sacrifice.  Taxes on the rich.   And all around fairness.  It all sounds good.  And right.  Those damn rich people.  How dare they?  Why them?  Why not me? 

Well, some inherited their money.  Like the Kennedys.  Some married into it.  Like John Kerry.  They live like rich royalty from days of old.  When there was a true aristocratic class that could actually own people.  But they are there, fighting for you.  Liberals.  Taking away other people’s money and giving it to the more deserving.  And the poor are all for that.

A luxury tax?  Yeah, stick it to them.  An inheritance tax?  Sounds good to me.  How about taxing their assets?  Their net wealth?  Because some of those rich bastards don’t even work.  They invest their money.  Sure, they pay a confiscatory capital gains tax on their earnings, but their earnings pale in comparison to their overall wealth.  We need to go after that pile of wealth.  Redistribute it.  Along egalitarian principles.  Level the playing field.  Close the gap between the rich and the poor.  The way the liberals look at it, it’s the government’s money anyway.  So the government can spread it around as they damn well please.

Poor/Rich – It’s All Relative

Most of these rich bastards are not Kennedys or John Kerrys, though.  Most are self-made.  Through hard work.  And personal sacrifice.  Most are small business owners.  They borrowed everything they could.  They mortgaged their homes.  They risked their children’s college funds.  And they made something.  A small business.  Created jobs.  They hired people.  Something the Kennedys and the John Kerrys of the world don’t do.

Most of these small business owners are ‘S’ corporations.  They aren’t big corporations with corporate officers.  No finance or a legal department.  They’re just people who work 80+ hours a week.  They may never see a million in annual revenue.  But they’ll probably make more than $250,000.  And, being an ‘S’ corporation, that makes them rich.  Even if they leave the money in their business to grow it.  But the IRS still taxes them like they’re rich fat cats lighting their cigars with $20 bills. 

Yes, they’re small business owners.  But they’re still pretty much middle class people.  Do the poor hate them, too?  Sort of.  Simply because they have more than they do.  And the politicians, college professors and the media point out how wrong that is.

Congratulations.  And Thank You

And then one day you buy a lotto ticket and, overnight, you become rich.  Congratulations.  It’s nice to have another rich person to tax.

Yes, you won the lotto and now you’re rich.  How does that feel?  Are you looking forward to redistributing your winnings?  For egalitarian principles?  Help close that gap between rich and poor?  Or have you become a greedy rich bastard?  Like all those others you used to hate until you became one of them?

Whether you do or not doesn’t matter.  For the IRS will be coming after you.  With their hand out.  For their share, a sizeable chunk of your winnings.  Your windfall will push you into the highest tax brackets.  And, guess what?  If you don’t pay your ‘fair share of taxes’ willingly, they’ll come after you.  Or seize your wealth.  And as sad as that may be, few will pity you.  Just as you did not pity those before you were rich.

Be Careful What You Vote For

Class warfare is good for politics.  Because there are always more poor people than rich.  And poor people are useful to someone running for public office.

But they don’t like you.  They don’t really care about you.  They care about only one thing.  To keep you poor.  For should you win the lotto, the chances of you voting for high taxes and income redistribution are slim to none.  Your egalitarian principles will fly out the window.  Which won’t help them.  So should you become rich, they will vilify you.  Come after you with a vengeance.  To take your wealth.  And return it to the rightful owners.  Themselves.  The government.  So they can use it as they please.  To buy votes.

And how will you feel then?  You might want to think about this ‘what if’.  Because you could win the lotto one day.  Inherit wealth.  Marry into it.  Or even earn it.  I mean, be careful what you vote for while in college.  One day you might make something of that education.  You may very well become rich one day.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Who’s a Bigger Crook? Christine O’Donnell or Your Typical Senator?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 22nd, 2010

Christine O’Donnell, Republican candidate for the Joe Biden’s Senate seat in Delaware, is apparently a crook.  Or so says Melanie Sloan, executive director of the nonpartisan Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).  According to Sloan she embezzled campaign funds and evaded taxes.  Like Timmy Giethner.  Charlie Rangel.  And [enter any Democrat or RINO here].  Oh my.

Sloan said, “…Republicans and Democrats don’t agree on much these days, but both sides should agree on one point: Thieves belong in jail, not the United States Senate.”  (See O’Donnell embezzlement accusation called ‘frivolous’ on the Washington Times website).   She’s a little late.  The Senate is a den of thieves.  If O’Donnell is a crook, she’ll fit right in.  If not, maybe she can make a difference.  Make the business of the Senate about the people and not the Senators’ pockets.

Yes, embezzlement is bad.  But the rape and pillage of a nation is a tad bit worse.  And by a ‘tad’ I mean whole frickin’ lot.

Perhaps I’m not being fair.  I mean, both congressional chambers are corrupt.  It was their legislation, after all, that caused the current recession/depression.  The subprime mortgage crisis.  Putting people into houses who had no chance in hell of paying off their mortgages.  The whole point of a subprime mortgage was to help unqualified people get qualified for a mortgage.  Why?  The government was reviewing their books.  And if they didn’t like what they saw, well, they made it known.  And, of course, any deficiency in minority approvals guaranteed a visit from Jesse Jackson or some other fair housing advocate.  The message was clear.  Approve.  Or else.  And they did. Then all those ARM interest rates reset.  And, well, you know the rest of the story.

It’s kind of funny.  Not in a ‘ha ha’ kind of way but more of a tragic, ironic way.  By trying to put more people into houses we may end up making more people homeless.  Which sometimes happens when a long-ass recession turns into depression.  Funny.  That wacky government.

I don’t know much about Christine O’Donnell.  But she has an ‘R’ next to her name.  And if we get enough ‘R’s in the Senate perhaps we’ll be able to return to the good old days.  When gridlock ruled.  Remember those days?  Good times.  One thing you can say about gridlock.  It’ll be a whole lot harder to create another subprime mortgage crisis if the government can’t conspire against the people.

It’s hard to take an attack on a Republican serious anymore.  With the biased media and their talking points, the Hollywood elite and the college professors corrupting our youth, it’s worse than the fable of the boy who cried wolf.  After awhile you just lose credibility.  When you know what they will say before they say it, what they say just doesn’t matter anymore.  We get it.  Republican bad.  Why?  Because they’re Republican.  ‘Nuff said.

I don’t know about you, but that’s just a weak argument.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries