Mohamed Morsi takes Egypt One Step Closer to Radical Islamic Theocracy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 25th, 2012

Week in Review

Hosni Mubarak kept the Muslim Brotherhood out of power when he ruled Egypt.  Suppressing Iranian influence in Egypt.  He even jailed Mohamed Morsi.  A leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood.  When the Arab Spring came along President Obama stated that long-time US ally Mubarak had to go.  Even though the only organized opposition was the brotherhood.  With their Iranian ties.  And their ties to Hamas in the Gaza Strip.  That terrorist group and branch of the Muslim Brotherhood that likes to fire missiles into Israel.  Threatening regional stability.

So abandoning Mubarak was risky business.  For the likely power to fill the resulting power void in Egypt would not be friendly to Israel, the US or regional stability.  But the naysayers, and President Obama, brushed those concerns aside.  For this wasn’t their fathers’ Muslim Brotherhood.  This was a peace-loving brotherhood.  Who wanted only democracy.  Just like those Iranians who seized power in Iran after the 1979 Revolution.  And installed a radical Islamic theocracy.  But that wasn’t going to happen in Egypt.  No, the Arab Spring was making the Middle East and North Africa safe for democracy.  At least according to President Obama.  Of course, those on the ground in Egypt would beg to differ (see Egypt’s President Morsi faces judicial revolt over decree by Tom Perry, Reuters, posted 11/24/2012 on The Vancouver Sun).

Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi faced a rebellion from judges who accused him on Saturday of expanding his powers at their expense, deepening a crisis that has triggered violence in the street and exposed the country’s deep divisions.

The Judges’ Club, a body representing judges across Egypt, called for a strike during a meeting interrupted with chants demanding the “downfall of the regime” – the rallying cry in the uprising that toppled Hosni Mubarak last year.

Morsi’s political opponents and supporters, representing the divide between newly empowered Islamists and their critics, called for rival demonstrations on Tuesday over a decree that has triggered concern in the West.

Issued late on Thursday, it marks an effort by Morsi to consolidate his influence after he successfully sidelined Mubarak-era generals in August. The decree defends from judicial review decisions taken by Morsi until a new parliament is elected in a vote expected early next year.

It also shields the Islamist-dominated assembly writing Egypt’s new constitution from a raft of legal challenges that have threatened the body with dissolution, and offers the same protection to the Islamist-controlled upper house of parliament.

Guess it’s their fathers’ Muslim Brotherhood after all.  Boy, what a mistake it was throwing Hosni Mubarak under the bus.  We should have worked with other Arab states friendly with Egypt who oppose the Iranian threat in the region to find a better solution than giving Egypt to Iran.  For people may have complained about the restrictions of their freedoms under Mubarak but they haven’t seen anything yet.  Just ask the Iranians who lived through the 1979 Revolution now living under a radical Islamic theocracy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Sad Times for Egyptian Women as Islamic Shariah Law is coming to Egypt instead of Democracy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 3rd, 2012

Week in Review

George W. Bush was criticized severely for nation building and trying to spread democracy.  Those who criticized Bush praise President Obama for bringing democracy to Egypt.  Of course, it’s not quite the same democracy Bush was trying to spread in Iraq.  He wanted a democracy that wouldn’t vote in a theocracy like they did in Iran.  Some 30 years on Iran still does not have a democracy because of that oppressive theocracy they voted in.  Now Egypt appears to be heading down the Iranian road (see Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood says new constitution must be based on Islamic Shariah law by Associated Press posted 10/31/2012 on The Washington Post).

Egypt’s powerful Muslim Brotherhood says Islamic Shariah law must be the basis of Egypt’s new constitution, and legislation must be based on Islamic penal code.

The Brotherhood said in a statement Wednesday that a country ruled by Shariah would not become a theocracy. President Mohammed Morsi comes from the Brotherhood.

This is not good for the US.  It will be good for Iran.  But is sure won’t be good for the US.  Or Egyptian women.  Just ask the Iranian women.

Given the choice between oppression under Hosni Mubarak or oppression under a theocracy I think most democracy-loving people would choose the Mubarak oppression.  For few will argue that life for women in Mubarak Egypt was far better than it was/is in theocratic Iran.

Democracy fails when the wrong people rise to power and vote it away.  Which is what happened in Iran.  And looks like it may happen in Egypt.  And with the al Qaeda-trouble in Benghazi it may be well underway there.  Ultimately it may turn out that the Arab Spring was not good for democracy.  It just threw out the dictators who oppressed those who wanted to make their countries even more oppressive.  And the biggest losers in all of this?  The women in the Middle East.  Who yearn for the freedom and values they enjoy in the West.  Like they enjoyed under the 8 years of George W. Bush, the 4 your years under George H.W. Bush and the 8 years under Ronald Reagan.  Something these women would gladly trade for every chance they got.

You want to talk about a war on women?  I give you the Arab Spring.  And the march towards Iranian theocracy.  Something the policies of the Obama administration have helped along with their foreign policy decisions in Egypt and Libya.  And their snubs to Israel.  The country with by far the greatest women’s rights in the Middle East.  A country that already had a woman, Golda Meir, serve as the leader of their country.  Perhaps if the women of the Middle East were demanding birth control and access to abortion (women’s rights American style) the Obama administration would not advance policy that is so detrimental to women there.  Such as helping to make the way clear for a theocracy in Egypt.  But as these women want things that are not vagina-centered (freedom of speech, escape from second-class status, the right not to be beaten or murdered for not behaving, to be able to go to school, get a job, etc.) this war on women is not heard here by the Obama administration.  And these women will probably soon have the same fate the Iranian women had.  Another country where a poor foreign policy decision (not to support the Green Revolution) has condemned women to further oppression there.  While making the world a less safe place.  As the Iranians are moving closer to having a nuclear weapon.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

2012 Endorsements: John Adams

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 24th, 2012

2012 Election

John Adams was descended from the Puritans who landed at Plymouth Rock

John Adams was the Rodney Dangerfield of the Founding Fathers.  He got no respect.  However deserving he was of respect.  The man was brilliant.  Well read.  Honest.  Virtuous.  But irascible.  And vain.  He knew he was right when he was right.  And was more than eager to argue with anyone that was wrong.  Which was most of the time.  Tending to make most people not love him.  A lot.  Earning him monikers like His Rotundity.  Because he was portly.  Irascible.  And not really loved.  Which bothered Adams.  For he was one of the greatest of the Founding Fathers.  But others got all the love.  Such as Thomas Jefferson.  The junior Congressman they delegated the writing of the Declaration of Independence to after Adams did all the heavy lifting in Congressional debate to lead the nation to declare their independence.  While Jefferson sat through all those heated debates silently.  For, unlike Adams, Jefferson did not like public confrontations.  He preferred stabbing people in the back through surrogates.  Or in the press.  As Adams would learn firsthand during the 1800 presidential election.

Adams was a very religious man.  His family descended from the Puritans who landed at Plymouth Rock.  Who stressed filling your day with hard work and going to church.  And if you had any time left in the day you might get a little eating or sleeping in.  Adams was a farmer.  And had the hands of a working man.  But he was also a lawyer.  A very good lawyer.  Who had as much reverence for the law as he did for his religion.  So much so that he represented the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre.  After the Stamp Act (1765) things were getting a little heated in Boston.  Adams then wrote the Braintree Instructions in response to the Stamp Act.  Stating that there should be no taxation without representation.  Calling for trial by jury.  And an independent judiciary.  Things the British denied the good people in the American colonies.  But things Adams insisted that the Americans shouldn’t deny to the British soldiers who shot those Americans in Boston.  So he represented the British on trial when no one else would take the case.  And he got a jury of Bostonians to acquit all but two who they found guilty of manslaughter.

Just about every Bostonian wanted the British soldiers found guilty of murder and hung.  Bu the rule of law prevailed.  As Adams convinced  the jury that the British did not just open fire on innocent bystanders.  There was a mob harassing the British.  Throwing snowballs and chunks of ice.  And other projectiles.  Someone knocked a British soldier to the ground.  While the mob grew in size.  And in intensity.  Provoking the British to discharge their weapons.  As much as the British killing these Americans bothered Adams so did an unruly mob.  His religious teachings emphasized hard work and prayer.  Not drunkenness and mob violence.  However, Boston had always had drunken, unruly mobs.  But they didn’t always get shot by British redcoats.  So why did they this time?  Because British redcoats were quartered within the city of Boston.  This was the kindling that led to the mob action.  Which was yet another British violation of the good people of Boston.

A Strong enough Naval Force acts like an Impregnable Fortress Wall to any Hostile Power

When the British marched to Lexington and Concord to seize some weapons in 1775 and exchanged shots with the Americans a state of war existed.  The Revolutionary War had started even though their declaration of independence was another year away.  Up to this time most of the trouble with the British was in Massachusetts.  And some states wanted to leave it in Massachusetts.  Which was a problem for Massachusetts.  For they couldn’t take on the British Empire by themselves.  But if the states united together they had a chance.  Adams understood this.  So when it came time to choose a commander for the Continental Army he looked to a Virginian.  George Washington.  After they voted to declare their independence he looked at another Virginian to write the Declaration of Independence.  Thomas Jefferson.  Understanding that they had to make this an American Revolution.  Not just a Massachusetts one.  For only a union of their several states could withstand the mightiest military power on the planet.  But not just any union.  One that would release all the latent energies of the several states.  A republican union.

After declaring their independence the first order of business for the states was to replace the British governing structure.  And that started with the writing of new constitutions.  To make those new state governments.  That could join in a republican union.  Something Adams had given much thought and study to.  He believed in the separation of powers between the executive, the judicial and the legislative branches.  To provide checks and balances.  And a bicameral legislature.  A lower house to represent the common people.  And an upper house to represent the rich people.  With an executive to represent the state.  Such that the interests of the many, the few and the one were all represented.  Similar to Great Britain’s two houses of Parliament (House of Commons and House of Lords) and the king.  Though, of course, having versions of these that weren’t corrupt.  Thus not allowing one group of people (or person) to dictate policy to the other group of people (or person).  Thereby avoiding a pure democracy and mob rule.  A characteristic of a single-house legislature.  As France would demonstrate during their French Revolution.

After delegating the busy work of writing the Declaration of Independence to the junior member from Virginia, Thomas Jefferson, Adams dove into the work of building a navy.  What he liked to call ‘wooden walls’.  For a strong enough naval force acted like an impregnable fortress wall to any hostile power.  The British Empire ruled the world because the Royal Navy was the most powerful navy in the world.  She could protect her coasts.  Prevent the landing of armies.  Keep foreign warships out of canon range of her cities.  And even protect her trade routes.  In a day of competing mercantile empires dependent on their shipping lanes having a navy to protect those shipping lanes made the difference between empire and former empire.  As few picked fights with the nations with the big navies.  Adams understood this.  And he believed in it.  Peace through strength.  For a strong navy was a deterrent to aggressive nations.

If John Adams were Alive Today he would Likely Endorse the Republican Candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan

But Adams was no warmonger.  During his presidency Napoleon came to power in France and was waging war across Europe.  And against American shipping.  Once again Adams fought to build up the navy.  To erect those wooden walls.  To be able to protect American shipping on the open seas as France and Great Britain returned to war.  President Washington maintained a policy of neutrality in their latest war.  Adams continued that policy.  Which infuriated the French.  And the American people.  As the French had helped the Americans win their revolution the French and the American people believed the Americans should help the French win theirs.  So the French seized American shipping.  And demanded tribute from the American ambassadors in France before beginning any peace discussions.  When news of this leaked out to the American people (known as the XYZ Affair) the public sentiment on France changed.  And soon everyone was demanding a declaration of war on France.  Adams tried one more peace commission while at the same time the growing American navy fought back against French naval aggression in an undeclared war.  The Quasi-War.  Eventually peace came.  Through strength.

Adams was pretty much everywhere in the making of the American nation.  From the Braintree Instructions to supporting George Washington to winning the debate for independence to the writing of states’ constitutions to building a republican union.  He helped build American naval power.  And he avoided war with France when just about everybody wanted war with France.  But one place he was not was in Philadelphia in 1787.  Even though his constitution writing skills were second to none he did not help draft the U.S. Constitution.  For he was busy in Holland.  Getting the first foreign power (the Netherlands) to recognize the United States following their victory in the Revolutionary War.  He negotiated a Dutch loan.  Negotiated a treaty of amity and commerce with the Dutch.  And established the first American-owned embassy on foreign soil.

If Adams were alive today he probably would not be a fan of the Democrat Party.  And their constant use of class warfare.  Especially when the top 10% of earners pay about 70% of all federal income taxes.  While about 50% of the population pays no federal income taxes.  This does not represent the interests of the many, the few and the one.  The few pay the majority of tax revenue and have the least say in how that money is spent.  Taking the nation closer to a pure democracy.  And mob rule.  While at the same time the Democrats use the courts to write unpopular legislation they want but can’t pass in Congress.  Where a few judges can write law through court opinions.  A great offense to a pure jurist like Adams.  And transforming ‘the one’ into a leviathan of special interests and cronyism.  Knowing how hard it was to secure loans to pay the nation’s war debt in his day he would be appalled at the size of the annual deficits and the accumulated debt today.  And the constant refrain that the rich need to pay their fair share even though about 10% of all Americans are already paying approximately 70% of the tax bill.  The character assassination of Mitt Romney by the Obama Campaign would be too reminiscent of the abuse he suffered through in the 1800 election.  And as a firm believer in the policy of peace through strength he would not like the massive cuts in defense spending.  Which will only encourage more attacks like the one on the American embassy in Benghazi.  An obvious sign that our enemies don’t fear us.  And are not deterred by our strength.  No, if John Adams were alive today he would likely endorse the Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Since the Arab Spring in Egypt Women have been Attacked, Groped and Stripped of their Clothes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 21st, 2012

Week in Review

In 1979 Iranian college students, including women, overthrew the Shah of Iran.  For these young women who were going to college, or recently graduated from college, thought the world looked bleak under the Shah of Iran.  So they had a mini Arab Spring.  To help sweep in democracy.  To throw out the tyrant.  So these women living in a fairly Westernized Islamic Arab country could more fully enjoy their lives.  Well, they got their wish.  They deposed the Shah.  And within a year or so found themselves in an Islamist nation living under Sharia law.  The Western freedoms they once enjoyed were gone.  And here we are some 30 years later and Iran is still an Islamist nation living under Sharia law.  Where women enjoy no Western freedoms like going to college.  Or wearing blue jeans.  No doubt those former college protesters regret their actions of some 30 years ago.  Because truth be told things were not that bad under the Shah of Iran.  Especially if you were a woman.  For it sure was a lot better than what women enjoy today in Iran.

Fast forward to 2011 in Egypt and the exact same thing happened.  College students, including women, in a fairly Westernized Islamic Arab country did exactly what the college kids did in Iran.  Even President Obama asked our staunch friend and ally, Hosni Mubarak, to step down from power.  For it was the Arab Spring.  And democracy was flourishing.  Abandoned and isolated and not wishing to turn his army on his people like Muammar Gaddafi did in Libya or Bashar al-Assad has and is doing in Syria, Mubarak stepped down peacefully.  And now the Muslim Brotherhood is in power.  And they’re talking about installing an Islamist government ruled under strict Sharia Law.  Just like their friends did in Iran some 30 years earlier.  No doubt these college protesters regret their recent actions.  Because truth be told things were not that bad under Hosni Mubarak.  Especially if you were a woman.  For it sure was a lot better than what women enjoy today in Egypt.

So exactly how are things for women in Egypt these days?  Not great (see Female reporter ‘savagely attacked and groped’ in Cairo during live broadcast for French TV news channel by Daily Mail Reporter posted 10/20/2012 on the Daily Mail).

A correspondent for France 24 TV was ‘savagely attacked’ near Cairo’s Tahrir Square after being seized by a crowd, the network said on Saturday.

The news channel said in a statement that Sonia Dridi was attacked around 10:30pm on Friday after a live broadcast on a protest at the square and was later rescued by a colleague and other witnesses.

It was the latest case of violence against women at the epicenter of Egypt’s restive protests…

Tahrir Square was the main hub of a popular uprising that toppled longtime Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak last year. Since then, it has seen numerous other protests staged by a range of groups.

At the height of the uprising against Mubarak, Lara Logan, a correspondent for U.S. network CBS, was sexually assaulted and beaten in Tahrir Square.

She said later that she believed she was going to die. After being rescued, Logan returned to the United States and was treated in a hospital for four days.

The square has seen a rise in attacks against women since protesters returned this summer for new rallies, including incidents of attackers stripping women – both fellow demonstrators and journalists – of their clothes.

No official numbers exist for attacks on women in the square because police do not go near the area and women rarely file official reports on such incidents, but activists and protesters have reported an increase in assaults against women.

And although sexual harassment is not new to Egypt, suspicions abound that many of the recent attacks are organized by opponents of various protests in a bid to drive people away.

Amnesty International said in a report in June that such attacks appeared designed to intimidate women and prevent them from fully participating in public life.

Islamist nations that have or are trying to implement Sharia law don’t like women having any freedoms they enjoy in Western nations.  This is no surprise.  And was no secret.  Abandoning Mubarak was a great foreign policy blunder.  Leaving the Middle East a more dangerous place.  Ditto for Libya.  Muammar Gaddafi was no longer a great threat to US security interests.  And was even suppressing radical Islamist elements within Libya.  Supporting the al-Qaeda connected opposition in the Libyan civil war was another US foreign policy blunder.  Leaving Libya a more dangerous place.  Resulting in the death of the US ambassador and three other Americans.  Who were left in a hostile and dangerous country without adequate protection we’ve recently learned.  Who asked for more security forces but were denied.  As it wouldn’t look good for a president running for reelection on a foreign policy success of killing Osama bin Laden and defeating al Qaeda.

Bad foreign policy.  Driven by domestic politics.  Not the reality of geopolitics.  Four Americans are dead.  And millions of women in the Middle East are condemned to a life of subservience and oppression.  Where a 14 year old girl in Pakistan gets shot in the head because she wants to go to school and get an education.  So she can be something other than subservient and oppressed.  But the Taliban saw it differently.  And shot her as a message to other women who dared to think they had a choice in their life.

Compare this life to the brutal war on women in the United States.  As the great misogynist, Mitt Romney, shows his hatred and utter contempt for women by keeping resumes for women that were seeking a position is his administration when he was governor of Massachusetts in a binder.  Shocking, yes?  A binder!  And you thought the Taliban/al Qaeda war on women was bad.  Yes, they may beat, strip, rape, shoot and kill women.  But they don’t organize resumes in a binder.  Not like Republican Mitt Romney.  Who they will attack as if he is evil incarnate.  But they won’t say a word about the Islamist war on women.  Or the bad American foreign policy that just condemned more of their Muslim sisters to further subservience and oppression.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT113: “In the liberal war on women their number one enemy are stay-at-home mothers not on welfare.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 13th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

Plato’s Perfect State included Selective Breeding, State Rationed Health Care and Euthanasia

Liberals are fans of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato.  And his utopian idea of the perfect state.  Which he passed down to us in his Republic.  His book of fictional conversations where Socrates engaged in dialogs to develop and advance his philosophy.  His utopia?  A totalitarian state.  Where everyone sacrifices for the good of the state.  Sound familiar?  Think of Marxism, socialism, communism, fascism, National Socialism, Islamism, etc.  Where the state provides the basic necessities of life.  And frowns on luxuries, liberty and free speech. 

In Plato’s world everyone is equal.  Only some people are more equal than others.  The Guardians of the state are the wisest and brightest and make all the decisions of this perfect state.  These are the most equal.  Then came the state bureaucracy.  Those who manage things for the Guardians.  Then came the reeks and wrecks of society.  The expendables.  The undesirables.  Who are little more than slaves.  Or are slaves.  The workers who get their hands dirty while providing for the state.  The Guardians maintain these divisions through selective breeding and propaganda.  Making the people believe the separation of these classes is just and right.  And nothing to question.  Even to accept the selective breeding to produce a super race.  Or to learn not to question it.  The perfect state includes a national health care system.  To manage the super race.  That determines who to treat based on their usefulness to the state.  And who to euthanize because they have no state value.

Plato’s perfect state destroyed the family.  People lived communally.  The state took away babies from mothers and raised them ‘correctly’ to grow up to best serve the state.  Determining their level of ‘equalness’ and placing them accordingly.  Educating the children in the public education system.  Where the most equal make it to the Academy.  The state-run college.  Where the wisest philosophers of the state indoctrinated the new Guardians.  And educated the state bureaucrats.  To ensure that only the best stock entered their schools they managed the mating between men and women and forbade cross-class mating.  To maintain the purity of the classes.  Especially the higher classes.  A society where all children grew up loyal to the state.  Not to their parents.  To promote the superiority of the state.  And the subjugation of the people. 

Abortion and Birth Control helps the State Limit the Birth of People they Deem less Desirable

This is the liberal utopian view they see for America.  Where a kind and just government grows to protect the people.  Where the smartest people run things.  Who know what’s best for the people.  And decide for the people.  For the people aren’t wise enough to know what’s best for them.  Just like in Plato’s perfect state.  The wisest and brightest advance through the most prestigious of America’s universities.  And enter leading positions in the government.  After learning what the ideal state should be.  Progressive.  And subjugated to the state.  Lower universities train future state bureaucrats to embrace the ideal state.  Emphasizing fairness and justice.  And shared sacrifice.  Pointing out the cruel unfairness of capitalism.  And the kind, loving care of the government.  They will manage the state for the enlightened leaders.  While the lower classes are kept uneducated.  And dependent on the government.  Where they provide a critical service for the state.  By making the government necessary for most to survive.  To get around the repugnant restraints of democracy.  By having people continuously vote for the state to subjugate them.  Thus disciplining the masses.  And keeping them in their place.  At the lower end of the social strata.  And away from the upper classes.

The Holy Grail of large, interventionist government has always been national health care.  For it extends the state’s control to almost every facet of the people’s lives.  For they can tie anything into being health related.  And thus subject to the state’s regulation.  Also, this power over life and death serves another purpose.  Spreading limited resources over a larger group of people requires rationing of health care treatment.  As determined by the wisest and the brightest.  Who will direct their bureaucrats in the rationing of health care treatment.  Determining who’s too sick for treatment so they can use that treatment, instead, on someone more beneficial to the state.  A passive euthanasia policy.  Until the people will not object to a proper active euthanasia policy.

At the other end of the spectrum is abortion and birth control.  Which they make plentiful and easy to get.  Especially for the lower classes.  To limit the birth of people the state deems less desirable.  Those who give in to their animal passions instead of sacrificing for the state.  A common problem with the people in the lower classes.  Who lack a proper college education indoctrinating them into the proper behavior that best serves the state.  These lower class people are useful to the state by keeping the government necessary.  But at the same time they upper classes of government don’t want to be overrun with these people they see as inferiors.  Birth control and abortion helps the state to keep the births of this class at more acceptable levels.

Liberals hate Stay-at-Home Mothers because they Sacrifice for their Family and not the State

But this causes a bit of a problem.  By limiting the birth of the state-deemed undesirables they are also limiting the number of voters who will ask the state to subjugate them.  Which is a problem because the upper classes aren’t having a lot of kids themselves.  Women are too busy with their careers for the inconvenience of family.  Unless they’re rich and can afford to nanny it out.  As the properly educated higher classes enjoy sex without the consequence of children they cull the stock of the higher classes.  Leaving only one group embracing the family and having children.  Those who reject the state’s view of the perfect society.  Enjoy sex.  And like making babies.  Who they raise.  Some even becoming stay-at-home mothers.  Devoting everything to their families.  While their husbands provide their financial needs they take on the full-time job of parenting and managing the household.  On call 24/7.  Even taking their work with them on vacation.  And all without any help from the government.  Fully independent.  Responsible.  And free.  Which is a great threat to the ideal state as envisioned by Plato.  And every totalitarian state since.  These people who put family first instead of the state.  These people who don’t even need the state.

The state wants women to work.  If they have children, they want these women to return to work as quickly as possible.  To break up the family.  To separate their children from their parents as soon as possible.  Putting their children into state-sponsored childcare.  To begin the indoctrination process.  To make them loyal to the state and not their parents.  Which is why they love the two-parent income required to raise children today.  It helps to separate children from their parents.  Putting kids into after-school programs to further their indoctrination.  Better yet are the single mothers.  Who become fully dependent on the state.  And teach their children to love the state.  Because only the state provides.  Unlike the father that abandoned them.  These single mothers are the most likely to vote to further their state of subjugation.  To become fully dependent on the state.  And forever obedient.

This is why liberals today have a war on women.  In particular, the stay-at-home mother.  Who they hate.  And attack at will.  For choosing to be a stay-at-home mother.  For focusing too much time on their children.  For being too involved in their children’s education.  And for teaching their children to be independent and responsible.  Undoing years of the state’s indoctrination in the public school system.  These women are enemies of the perfect state.  Because they sacrifice for their families.  Not the state.  Worse of all, these most disobedient of women are having too many babies.  The real reason why the state hates them so.  Because if they can’t get rid of that problem they call democracy they will need to keep winning elections.  Which will be harder to do when each subsequent generation of like-minded voters is smaller than the last.  So their super race will disappear over time.  As will the perfect state.   For selective breeding will only work when people breed.  But not just any people.  It has to be the right people.  Not these stay-at-home mothers.  Who don’t sacrifice correctly.  And don’t subjugate themselves to the state.  As liberals believe they should.  Because liberals love Plato.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Electoral College

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 22nd, 2011

Politics 101

The Founding Fathers put Responsible, Enlightened and Disinterested People between the People and their Government

The Founding Fathers were no fans of democracy.  Election by popular vote was little more than mob rule.  It would lead to the tyranny of the majority over the minority.  And as Benjamin Franklin warned, once the people learned they could vote themselves money from the treasury, they would.

These feelings extended to the states as well.  The small states did not want to be ruled by the large states.  This is why every state had two senators in the Senate.  To offset the influence of the big states in the House of Representatives.  Where the people voted for their representatives by direct popular vote.  And to offset the influence of the new federal government, the state legislatures would elect their senators.  Giving the states a large say in federal affairs.

Knowing history as they did, this was all very purposeful.  Indirect elections.  Putting other people between the people and the power of government.  And the treasury.  The people would vote for responsible, enlightened and disinterested people to represent them.  Then these responsible, enlightened and disinterested people would make policy.  And by doing this the Founding Fathers hoped that the new republic would survive.

The Founding Fathers set up the United States as a Federation of Independent States

Blacks make up about 12% of the population.  Gay and lesbians less than 1.5%.  In a true democracy it would not be difficult for the majority to win a popular vote to make these people illegal.  As crazy as that sounds a democracy could do that.  If that was the way the mob felt at the time of the vote.  This was the kind of thing the small states worried about.  As well as the Founding Fathers.  A tyranny of the majority.  Where anything goes.  As long as the majority says so.

Interestingly, a popular vote could have freed the slaves.  Which was a concern of the southern states.  The Three-Fifth Compromise was yet another provision the Founding Fathers included in the Constitution.  To get the southern states to join the new union.  This counted 3/5 of a slave as a person to determine representation in the House of Representatives.  Which would offset the numerical superiority of free people in the northern states.  And prevent them from ruling the southern states.  Which is pretty much what happened after the Civil War.  As the freed slaves tended to vote along with their northern liberators.

The Founding Fathers set up the United States as a federation of independent states.  For before there was a United States of America there were independent states loosely associated together.  Coming together only when they needed each other such as winning their independence from Great Britain.  Even during the Revolution the states were still fiercely independent.  And getting these fiercely independent states to join together in a more perfect union required a lot of checks and balances.  A separation of powers.  And indirect elections.  Which the Founding Fathers dutifully included in the new Constitution.  It wasn’t perfect.  But it was the best such a diverse group of people and beliefs could produce.

The Seventeenth Amendment Destroyed a very Large Check on Federal Power

Of course, this leaves the presidential election.  And the Electoral College.  Which grew out of the same concerns.  Of trying to prevent the large states from ruling the small states.  The Electoral College blended together the popular vote of the House of Representatives.  And the indirect vote of the Senate.

Each state had electors who actually voted for the president.  The number of electors in each state equaled that state’s representation in Congress.  The number of representatives in the House (population-based).  And the number of senators (state-based).  The electors typically cast all of their electoral votes based on the outcome of the popular vote of their state.  Which is why sometimes presidents win elections even though they lose the national popular vote.  An outcome designed by the Founding Fathers.  To prevent a tyranny of the majority from ruling over the minority.

Some things have changed since the Founding.  We extended the right to vote to black men.  And then later to women.  Both good things.  But not all changes were good.  Such as the Seventeenth Amendment.  Perhaps the biggest change from the intent of the Founding Fathers.  Ratified in 1913, it changed the election of Senators from a vote by the state’s legislature to a popular vote like that for the House.  Destroying a very large check on federal power.  Creating a much more powerful central government by transferring power form the states to the federal government.  What the Founding Fathers tried to prevent in the original Constitution.  With their checks and balances.  Their separation of powers.  And their indirect elections.  Including the Electoral College.  Which, if eliminated, would give even more power to the federal government.  And a greater ability for the majority to rule unchecked over the minority.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Time names Organized Protesters Masquerading as Spontaneous Democracy Person of the Year

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 17th, 2011

Week in Review

There are two sides to every issue.  Take the Occupy Wall Street movement.  Time Magazine has made these protestors their Person of the Year.  While Investors.com calls these maggot infested hippy, communist-loving, capitalist-hating pond-scum something else (See “Occupy” A Media Creation Unworthy Of Time’s Person Of The Year posted 12/16/2011 on Investors.com).

Occupy Wall Street — the unkempt campout of the same old rent-a-radicals calling for redistribution of wealth — was largely a media-generated phenomenon whose significance ends there.

Unlike the far larger and more politically potent Tea Party movement, which Time often ignored, Occupy is the thin gruel of radicalism writ large by unwarranted media attention.

It has no demands other than socialist utopia, has elected no one, has failed to draw support from middle Americans and has proven itself mainly a public nuisance. Had the media not showered Occupy with attention, it wouldn’t be news at all.

How do we know? Polls show that the public remains intensely opposed to the Occupy media circus. If that’s not clear enough, the Democratic Party did its utmost to distance itself from Occupy once it learned its support would cost them votes.

That’s why Democratic city machines in the political downstream, after weeks of kowtowing to the protesters, shut down their camps all at once. They know a political liability when they see one…

In its Man-of-the-Year edition,Time calls Occupy a mass movement as significant as those of 1848, while ignoring what the public is noticing — the disease, rape, freeloading, filth, depravity, stench and murder rampant in the camps.

Time tried to tie Occupy’s irrelevant protests in with the flash Arab protests that have fueled Islamofascism as well as the tantrums of economically illiterate youth in Spain, Greece and the U.K.

But far from being spontaneous rage, Occupy’s protests were fully planned over the summer by radical groups like MoveOn.org and Adbusters, a Canadian cabal that thrives on attention.

See?  There are two sides to every issue.  In the case of Occupy Wall Street there is the truth.  As reported by Investors.com and other news organizations.  And the propaganda spread by the mainstream media.  Spreading the lie that this political movement organized by radical groups was actually spontaneous democracy.  All to help an unpopular president win reelection.  By spreading the flames of class warfare.  So President Obama can run against the greed of Wall Street instead of his record.  Because his record is not the kind that lets presidents win reelection.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Libya going the Way of Iran is not good for Libya, Israel, the Middle East or the United States

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 29th, 2011

Week in Review

How’s that democracy in the Arab Spring?  Good.  As long as you’re a man.  And are a devout Muslim.  Because they’re starting to head down the Iranian road.  Following their Islamic Revolution (see Libya’s new leaders say they will make Islamic Sharia law main source of legislation by Associated Press posted 10/24/2011 on The Washington Post).

Libya’s new leaders said they intend to make Islamic Sharia law the main source of legislation and will nullify any laws that contradict its tenets, giving the country a more Islamist character in the post-Moammar Gadhafi era…

However Libya is not headed down the same path as Saudi Arabia and Iran, which follow a stricter interpretation of Sharia — cutting off the hands of thieves, the heads of murderers and stoning adulterers to death. Those who drink alcohol are publicly flogged.

They won’t be like Iran?  Yeah, right.  This is exactly how things happened in Iran.  When they overthrew their secular leader.  Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi.  The Shah of Iran.

You cannot lump Saudi Arabia and Iran in the same category.  Iran hates us and wants to kill us.  Saudi Arabia is a friend and ally.  Even though this brings a lot of hate onto the House of Saud.  Both from within the kingdom.  And without.

The one area where Islamic law is nearly universal is in personal status law — rules concerning marriage, divorce and inheritance. Sharia allows men to marry up to four women, without the approval of one another even without their knowledge. Men are also allowed to divorce their wives by proclamation.

Women have the right to ask for a divorce under any circumstances, without the man’s approval, but in such a case the woman foregoes rights to alimony. Islamic law also stipulates that married daughters receive half the inheritance that sons receive and insists that women have the right to a dowry upon marriage.

Christianity treats women a lot better than Islam.  Yet liberals attack Christianity.  And bend over backwards to explain, excuse and forgive the harsh treatment of women under Sharia law.  Even though the liberals are the party of the feminists.  Funny how that is.

Egypt got warm and cozy with Hamas.  Threw open the border to Gaza.  Even though Hamas is warm and cozy with Iran.  Hates Israel.  And has it in their charter to destroy Israel.  Now it looks like Libya is moving more into the Iranian orbit.  Just like Egypt.  Humph.  Anyone see this coming?  When we all threw in with the Libyan rebels?

Libya going the way of Iran.  Not good.  For Libya.  Israel.  The Middle East.  Or the United States.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

No Arab Spring Democracy in Yemen yet, just All Out War

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 29th, 2011

Week in Review

Still no democracy in breaking out in the Arab Spring.  Just more violence.  And a preview of violence to come (see Yemen’s Embattled Government Calls Cease-Fire That So Far Fails to End Violence by LAURA KASINOF posted 10/25/2011 on The New York Times).

The northern part of the capital city has turned into a virtual war zone in recent days, and even as the government announced a cease-fire on Tuesday, explosions boomed across the city.

The failure to end the bloodshed was another sign that fighting has intensified between the nation’s elites, a dynamic that began to unfold when antigovernment protests began months ago, inadvertently aggravating longstanding rivalries between heavily armed groups. The largely peaceful protesters still camped out in the streets, calling for democracy, remain a vulnerable backdrop to an armed conflict that has defied resolution…

Then, The Associated Press reported that Mr. Saleh had met with the United States ambassador to discuss stepping down, a statement that, like the cease-fire announcement, may prove to lead nowhere.

Why would he step down?  Bashar al-Assad saw what happened to Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.  No exile.  Only jail.  If he’s lucky.  So Assad has no incentive to step down in Syria.  And neither does Saleh in Yemen.  Of course, if he doesn’t step down, the images of a dead Muammar Gaddafi must surely come to mind.

Also, if he’s talking to the Americans you just know that it won’t end well for him.  Because it hasn’t helped our other allies in the Middle East and North Africa.  Unless you call these countries going Islamist a good thing.  Lest you forget, the Islamists are the ones who have been trying to kill Americans and Jews wherever they can.

The Arab Spring is not being very good to America.  Or Israel, for that matter.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Another terrorist attack in Nairobi, Kenya

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 29th, 2011

Week in Review

More trouble in the greater Middle East.  Well, more around the Horn of Africa.  But it’s an Islamic problem (see Second big blast heard in Kenyan capital; injuries by Reuters posted 10/24/2011 on the Chicago Tribune).

A large blast was heard in the Kenyan capital Nairobi on Monday evening, a Reuters witness reported. Kenyan media said the blast had been at a bus stop, and that people had been injured.

Earlier on Monday a grenade exploded in a Nairobi bar, wounding 13 people, two days after the U.S. embassy in Kenya warned that an attack was imminent as the east African nation fights Islamist militants in neighboring Somalia.

The U.S. pulled out of their aid mission to Somalia back in 1995.  Islamist terrorists bombed the U.S. embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, in 1998.  And Somali pirates are menacing the waters off the Horn of Africa.  Not quite the stable area.

We demanded that Hosni Mubarak step down in Egypt.  During the Arab Spring.  The supposed dawn of democracy in the region.  But we’re not seeing democracy.  Yet.  Muslims are attacking Christians.  And the government doesn’t do much to stop it.  That didn’t happen under Mubarak.

Not learning the lesson of Egypt, we went into Libya.  And supported the rebel opposition.  Even though we did not know who they were.  And after learning that there are elements of extreme Islamism in the opposition.  And so Gaddafi is dead.  Killed without a trial by the rebels.  (Saddam Hussein got a trial).  So what’s next?  Democracy?  Like in Egypt?

Pulling out of Iraq?  Cutting military spending?  Put it all together and one thing is for sure.  It doesn’t give you a warm fuzzy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries   Next Entries »