FT206: “If we got rid of Jim Crowe Laws we can get rid of another bad law like Obamacare.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 24th, 2014

Fundamental Truth

Colorado has allowed Recreational Use of Marijuana even though Federal Law prohibits its Sale and Use

Everyone on the left is saying it.  Those in the mainstream media are saying it.  Even some on the right are saying it.  Obamacare is the law of the land.  And it isn’t going away.  As no law ever goes away.  So get used to it.  And quit your bitching, conservatives.  Especially you radical Tea Party extremists.  With all of your Constitutional this and Constitutional that.  If you’re all about the rule of law then follow the rule of law.  And quit trying to repeal Obamacare.

Marijuana is a class one narcotic.  Federal law prohibits its sales and use.  Yet those on the left have tried long and hard to decriminalize it.  Comparing it to alcohol.  Which is not a class one narcotic.  For the left does not like the law criminalizing the sale and use of marijuana.  And have bitched so much about it that at first states have allowed medical marijuana.  And now Colorado has allowed recreational use of marijuana.  Washington, too.  Even though federal law prohibits the sale and use of this class one narcotic.

There are millions of illegal aliens in the United States.  Who are in the country illegally.  But those on the left want to change our laws so they aren’t here illegally.  They want to grant them amnesty.  Forgive their law-breaking.  And give them citizenship.  Because they are sure that if they do they will then thank those on the left (i.e., the Democrat Party) by voting Democrat.  Especially when they’re telling them that the only reason why they are illegal is that Republicans hate Hispanics.

The Supreme Court made Law the People or Congress would not by Decriminalizing Abortion

The Second Amendment to the Constitution grants the people the right to keep and bear arms.  The left doesn’t like guns.  And they especially don’t like people owning guns.  So the left hates the Second Amendment.  Have long campaigned to curb gun ownership.  And have used every opportunity to advance new gun control legislation.  Whenever a mentally troubled individual goes on a shooting spree they blame the gun and not the mentally troubled individual.  Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner and Seung-Hui Cho were all mentally troubled people.  Yet the discussion is always about taking guns away from law-abiding gun owners.  Not identifying these mentally troubled people before they hurt someone.  Which they could still do even if you take other people’s guns away.

Abortion was illegal everywhere in the United States.  The left did not like this.  So they campaigned long and hard to decriminalize abortion.  Which they could not do.  At least, in Congress.  Because the majority of the people opposed decriminalizing abortion.  And they never had the votes in Congress to pass a law allowing abortion.  Which is why there has never been an abortion debate in Congress.  Not liking their odds in Congress they turned to the courts.  On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court made law the people or Congress would not.  And decriminalized abortion.

The progressives in the early 20th century saw the people were just not smart enough to know what was best for them.  And drinking was not.  Husbands drank away their paychecks, came home drunk and beat their wives and gave them (and their unborn children) the syphilis they caught from prostitutes hanging out in saloons.  So the progressives got a new amendment added to the Constitution to prohibit the sale and transportation of alcohol.  The Eighteenth Amendment.  A law the people didn’t like.  And they repealed the Eighteenth Amendment with the Twenty-first Amendment.  The only Constitutional amendment to be repealed.

The Left tries to Change or Go Around via the Courts Laws they Don’t Like

During the 1950s and 1960s Jim Crowe laws kept America segregated.  Separate but equal went the mantra.  The Southern Democrats made it difficult for blacks to vote.  And treated them as second class citizens.  Giving us race riots in the Sixties.  And a civil rights movement.  From the Montgomery Bus Boycott to Martin Luther King’s I have a Dream speech in Washington the movement grew in intensity.  Leading to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Overturning the Jim Crowe laws and desegregating America.  Thanks to a united Republican Party that was able to overcome Democrat opposition in Congress to pass the bill.

The Southern Democrats did not lose the American Civil War well.  They did not like the Fifteenth Amendment allowing their former slaves to vote.  And they did not like the Thirteenth Amendment freeing their slaves.  So the planter elite and their fellow Southern Democrats created the KKK.  And began passing Jim Crowe laws to keep the defeated South racially segregated.  The way it was written into the U.S. Constitution.  The way it had to be written into the Constitution to get the Deep South to join the new United States of America.  As the planter elite made clear.  If there was no slavery there would be no United States.

We’ve had a lot of bad law in this country.  Laws that we’ve repealed.  Sometimes even over Democrat opposition.  In fact the Southern Democrats pulled the southern states out of the union and into civil war with the northern states to defend the planter elite’s right to own slaves.  Just as the planter elite forced those who wrote the Constitution to leave slavery alone if they expected their states to join the new union.  And we’ve had laws the left just doesn’t like.  Laws they’ve worked long and hard to change.  Such as criminalizing gun ownership and decriminalizing marijuana.  Or to get around them via the courts.  Such as abortion.  So the argument to just accept Obamacare because it’s the law of the land is a pretty weak argument.  And chastising Republicans for not accepting laws they don’t like is hypocritical to say the least.  We should be able to get rid of bad law.  And Obamacare is a bad law.  As it is doing the opposite of what it was supposed to do.  So why not repeal it?  I mean, if we were able to get rid of Jim Crowe Laws we should be able to get rid of another bad law like Obamacare.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Hollywood may hate Law-Abiding Gun Owners but they love Gun Violence

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 17th, 2013

Week in Review

Liberals win elections because they have friends in powerful places.  Our public schools.  Our universities.  The main street media.  Television.  And, of course, Hollywood.  As a percentage of the population we’re only talking about 21% of the people.  But these friends have powerful soapboxes.  Making their minority views sound like majority opinion.  Such as their hatred of gun ownership.  And their desire for gun control legislation.  Despite their love of guns.  And gun violence (see Blame Washington, Not Hollywood, For R-Rated Violence In PG-13 Films by Scott Mendelson posted 11/14/2013 on Forbes).

“If (studios) are prevented from freely advertising R-rated films, they will simply find ways to allow more and more “objectionable” material into PG-13 rated films.” – Me, in May, 2001

Well, it’s finally happened.  After over a decade of studios stuffing more and more R-rated content, specifically R-rated violence, into PG-13 movies, we’ve reached the point where PG-13 films actually have more gun violence than R-rated films. There has been a lot of hand-wringing about the study which will be published in the December issue of Pediatrics, but almost none of them are looking at the real issue. This isn’t some conspiracy by Hollywood to fill our kids’ heads with images of no-harm/no-foul gun play. It’s the logical end-result of a 2001 bill spearheaded by Joe Leiberman and nearly passed into law that would have given the Federal Trade Commission the power to regulate how R-rated films were marketed. And frankly I tried to warn anyone who would listen nearly thirteen years ago.

They may want to take away guns from law-abiding gun owners but they sure love to play with them in the movies.  A lot.  For there is nothing more fun than shooting up people.  Apparently.  And their gun fun on screen has inspired videogames where kids can mimic what they see in the movies.  And go on shooting sprees of their own.   Sometimes, though, they do it in real life.  Why?  Is it because law-abiding people can buy and own guns?  Or is it because they like what they see in the movies so much that they want to do the same in their videogames?  And when that bores them, a few of them want to do it for real?  To bring that movie or videogame to life?

Those who do typically suffer from some mental health issues.  But that doesn’t stop them from enjoying those gory movies.  And those gory videogames.  For many of our mass shooters were avid gamers.  Hollywood and videogames may not be totally to blame.  But they are probably more to blame than law-abiding gun owners.  So if they really want to end gun violence perhaps they should look at what they’re doing more and at responsible gun owners less.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

President Obama’s Anti-Business Economic Policies Responsible for Rise in Gun Crime

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 6th, 2013

Week in Review

Following the Sandy Hook Shooting, the Aurora movie theater shooting, the shooting of Gabriella Giffords in Tucson, etc., there has been a movement by those on the left to push for gun control.  Because guns were to blame for all of these shootings.  Not the shooters.  President Obama and other Democrats said it was elementary.  Get rid of the guns and you get rid of these crimes.  For without these guns these shooters would have been placid and congenial members of their community.  Greeting their fellow citizens with friendly salutations and helping little old ladies cross the street.  Yes, that’s the world we could have.  According to Democrats.  If only we get rid of our guns (see Wave of street violence shakes Baltimore by Justin Fenton, Justin George and Luke Broadwater posted 6/29/2013 on The Baltimore Sun).

The ongoing violence — three more shootings, one of them fatal, occurred Saturday — is calling attention once again to Baltimore’s homicide rate and gun violence problem, which had been in decline in recent years. Last year, however, the number of people killed in Baltimore increased 10 percent. And at the midpoint of 2013 the number of homicides — 117 — is the highest in six years, raising questions about whether the city is backsliding.

Other cities have seen a similar trend, though crime rates have dropped significantly in Washington, New York and Dallas. Last year, violent crime rose in the United States for the first time in six years, with the largest increases occurring in cities like Baltimore with populations between 500,000 and 1 million, where homicides increased 12 percent. Among cities in that population range, Oklahoma City, Louisville, San Francisco and Memphis saw significant percentage increases, though none has a murder rate approaching Baltimore’s…

So there had been a decline in gun crime in “recent years.”  Odd.  I don’t recall any new gun control legislation in “recent years” to account for that decline in gun crime.  If guns cause gun crime than any fall in gun crime must correspond to new laws restricting gun ownership.  At least, according to those on the left.  Yet we’ve had a decline in gun crime without a corresponding rise in restrictions to gun ownership.  Puzzling.  Because those on the left say that this is just impossible.  For if we can have a fall in gun crime without new gun control legislation then all of their arguments to pass new gun control legislation are nothing but lies.  Which they probably are.  For there are other reasons for a rise in crime.

“We can’t stop, we can’t let up, because I know there’s still a lot of active gangs, and as long as those gangs are still in business, you have the potential for crime,” [Jim] Graham [Washington City Councilman] said…

And it’s not just because of job growth in those cities, Roman suggested. Huge surges of immigrants filling those cities have contributed to lowering crime, he said. Immigrants move into blighted areas and create cohesive communities with low crime — contrary to stereotypes that such communities cause societal problems, he said.

“It’s about racial and economic segregation,” Roman said. “It’s about immigration and gentrification…”

So it’s not guns but racial and economic segregation.  And gentrification.  In other words government is the cause for this rise in gun crime.  For their anti-business economic policies cause unemployment.  Especially for the unskilled.  And the young.  These policies are responsible for urban decay.  They first chased businesses out of their cities.  And those who did not follow the jobs went instead on government subsistence.  Giving these people little reason to get out of bed in the morning.  Little reason to work on any job skill.  But they only subsist on government subsistence.  While having a lot of spare time on their hands.  Where they spend time thinking about a better life.  A better life that takes more money than the government gives them.  So they turn to gangs.  And the drug trade.

Meanwhile immigrants move into little pockets of distressed areas.  Because it’s all they can afford.  And they work hard.  Building a business.  And a community.  Among themselves.  Leaving those on government subsistence on the outside looking in.  Meanwhile affluent middle class move into areas with great potential.  Areas on the water.  Old warehouse districts.  Etc.  Build them up.  And push their little borders out.  Displacing those remaining in what little was remaining of their old neighborhoods into other distressed neighborhoods.  Creating that racial and economic segregation.  And gentrification.

Ander said [Chicago] appears to have headed off a sustained increase in gun violence by broadening its approach to include funding for school-based programs for at-risk youth and a private-sector fundraising drive to expand other youth programs.

“If you rely only on the police to suppress and reduce crime, there are other unintended costs,” she said, referring to policies that strain relations with the public…

Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League and mayor of New Orleans from 1994 to 2002, said Baltimore’s crime is an economic problem that many cities struggle with. One in four residents in Baltimore lives under the poverty line, and the unemployment rate was 10 percent at the end of May.

A major factor is unemployment among youth and young adults, Morial said. “So when you take the illegal narcotics and trafficking in dope, and on top of that you have easy access to guns combined with high unemployment and very difficult economic conditions, it exacerbates the problem.”

In these cities with high rates of gun crime it is often black on black crime.  Those left behind by any urban renewal.  Some who have nothing but gangs and drugs to turn to.  So you have armed gang members on the streets.  Often of one racial group.  But police don’t dare be proactive.  Trying to ward off potential crime.  With programs like ‘stop and frisk’.  Because that will only strain relations between the police and the communities they’re trying to protect.  For these people have enough to deal with without turning their communities into police states.

Easy access to guns?  Yes.  That is a problem when criminals have easy access to guns.  But taking away the guns will not prevent people from becoming criminals.  If it did they would not be broadening their approach to reach at-risk youth.  Which is clearly an admission that it is not the guns.  But an environment that places youth at risk.  An environment created by anti-business economic policies.  Especially since President Obama entered office.  For his policies have given us the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  With Obamacare being at the top of the list of those anti-business policies.  With his energy policies a close second.  Causing businesses to stop hiring people.  The source of all these cities’ crime problems.

So who is responsible for this rise in gun crime?  Those who have put forward anti-business economic policies.  That have left our cities with high unemployment rates.  Giving these gangs a lot of recruits.  So it is President Obama who is responsible for the rise in gun crime that occurred during his administration.  Those who campaigned for him.  The mainstream media who protected him and dispensed his propaganda.  And those who elected him to office.  All share responsibility for the economic decline during the Obama presidency.  Which has caused this increase in gun crime.  For there is no better way to help at-risk unemployed people than by giving them jobs.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Cars and Drugs kill more People than Guns

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 4th, 2013

Week in Review

The Obama administration and those on the left are making a full-court press to enact some kind of gun control legislation.  Because of the epidemic of gun violence.  As proven by the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.  The Aurora movie theater massacre.  The Virginia Tech massacre.  Etc.  It’s a killing field out there.  All because of guns.  The deadliest threat people face today.  Or so they would have you believe (see Highway Deaths in U.S. Rise After Six Years of Declines by Angela Greiling Keane posted 5/3/2013 on Bloomberg).

The number of people killed on U.S. highways rose in 2012 to end a run of six consecutive declines, the longest streak in the nation’s history.

Crash fatalities rose 5.3 percent to an estimated 34,080 from a year earlier, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said today in a report.

If you do the math that comes to 32,365 deaths in 2011.  According to the CDC this exceeds the number of deaths by firearms in 2011 (the latest numbers available—see Table 2. Deaths, death rates, and age-adjusted death rates for 113 selected causes, Injury by firearms, Drug-induced Injury at work, and Enterocolitis due to Clostridium difficile: United States, final 2010 and preliminary 2011, page 19).  Deaths by firearms in 2011 totaled 32,163.  Cars killed more people than guns in 2011.  Yet all we hear about is restrictions in gun ownership.  Even limiting the capacity of magazines to make guns safer.  But we hear nothing about making cars bigger, heavier and safer to protect their occupants in a car crash.  Why?  Apparently the government doesn’t care about 32,000+ dying a year in car crashes.  Seeing that as a small price to pay to make cars more environmentally friendly.  These people are just collateral damage in the war to save the planet from carbon emissions.

Killing even more people in 2011 were drugs.  Drugs killed 40,239 people in 2011.  And here we are.  Decriminalizing marijuana in a few of our states.  Which may be only a prelude to decriminalizing harder drugs.  For drugs like prostitution is a victimless crime, yes?  If people want to use drugs in the privacy of their own home what business is it of government?  So what if drugs kill more people than cars.  Or guns.  It’s time we stop passing judgment on others.  Unless, that is, they want to own a gun.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Political Promises, Lies and the Advancement of an Political Agenda

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 11th, 2013

Politics 101

Government Helps the Poor by Keeping them Poor so they Remain Dependent on Government

Politicians lie.  Everyone knows this.  It’s a running joke in comedy movies and television programs.  And a common plotline in dramas.  Because politicians will say and promise anything to get elected.  Which is their primary and only objective.  Winning an election.  And the needs and wants of the people are secondary.  Things they can easily brush aside once ascending to elected office.  Because they don’t really care about the people.  At least, they don’t care for them as much as they care for themselves.

And once they’re in office the promises keep coming.  To help them win the next election.  And to keep the size of government growing.  As well as the amount of taxes they collect.  Which gives them wealth.  And power.  The ultimate goal in running for elected office.  That’s why they sneer at the concept of limited government.  And tax cuts.  Because the less government we have the less wealth and power they enjoy.  For if we really are the self-reliant people of the Founding what need do we have for an expanding government?

Of course the answer to that question is we would have little need for an expanding government.  For we can earn our pay and take care of ourselves.  And our families.  The way Americans did before Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ and Barack Obama.  Men who do not like that independent spirit.  And will use a host of arguments to condemn it.  It’s not fair being their favorite.  Because who can argue against being fair?  So everything they do is about leveling the playing field.  To make sure the rich pay their fair share.  And to help the little guy.  By making him dependent on government.  And perpetually poor.  So they will remain dependent on government.  So they can keep taking care of these poor.

Government rarely chooses Tax-Cutting for Stimulus as Cutting Taxes doesn’t Increase the Size of Government

LBJ declared a War on Poverty.  Justifying a huge increase in federal spending starting the Sixties.  And after spending untold billions to eradicate poverty what did we get?  Not much.  We still have poverty.  And the government spends more with each passing year to alleviate the suffering of the impoverished.  But it never goes away.  Poverty.  And the government nurtures it.  Protects it.  By making it more attractive to stay on a meager government assistance instead of going to work.  And building a career.  Doing something you love.  While leaving your mark on the world.  Instead we get ever increasing federal spending.  And a permanent underclass the government can be savior to.  You see they don’t want to win the War on Poverty.  Because if they win it then we won’t need them anymore.

The greatest killer of poverty is a job.  People gainfully employed can provide themselves food, shelter, etc.  They can have clean drinking water.  And heat in the winter.  It’s only the unemployed who look at food, shelter and heat as sought after luxuries.  For people with jobs are those self-reliant people.  Who provide tax dollars instead of consuming them.  This is no secret.  So it would follow that the best thing to do during a recession is to make it as easy as possible to create jobs.  You do that by lowering taxes.  And cutting regulations.  Not by raising taxes.  Or adding regulatory costs.  And you sure don’t pass a quasi national health care plan like Obamacare.

Also, history has shown that Keynesian stimulus spending does not pull economies out of recession.  If it did Ronald Reagan would not have won in a landslide against Jimmy Carter.  And Europe would not be in a sovereign debt crisis.  Keynesians know this.  But they can’t pass up the opportunity to increase federal spending.  So they promise lower unemployment rates and higher GDP numbers if only Congress does the right thing and “pass this stimulus bill.”  And when it doesn’t work they have two predictable explanations.  They didn’t spend enough.  And that even they didn’t realize how bad their predecessor destroyed the economy.  Calling the recession du jour the worst since the Great Depression.  Covering their lies about ending the recession with statements like “things would have been worse if we didn’t act.”  And though they didn’t reduce unemployment they’ll make incredulous claims like “we saved 800,000 jobs with this bold action.”  Predictable.  For their primary objective isn’t to end any recession.  It is to exploit the crisis to advance their agenda.  Basically, increasing the size of government.  And we know this because there are two ways to put more money into people’s pockets to stimulate the economy.  You can cut taxes so they have more money to spend.  Or you can tax, borrow and print money so the government can spend more.  Very rarely do they ever choose the tax-cutting route.  Because the tax-cutting way works against their agenda of increasing the size of government.

Politicians Promise and Lie to the Young and Naïve to Advance a Political Agenda

And speaking of Obamacare President Obama promised the American people that if you liked your private health insurance plan you could keep it.  And the cost of that health care plan would go down.  Because they had a massive convoluted health care plan that was going to give health care to everyone.  Increase the quality of health care from what it is now.  And it was going to be less expensive.  Which was a lie.  Because you can’t have more of anything for less money.  Life just doesn’t work that way.  As they implement Obamacare its taxes and regulations are forcing business owners to push people from full-time to part-time.  So they aren’t forced into providing mandated health insurance plans.  Some even have no choice but to drop their health care coverage for all of their employees.  Because their health care costs went up.  Not down.  And they’re predicting doctor shortages.  Because the only cost savings they can get is by forcing people to work for less in the health care industry.  So they’re leaving.  Under Obamacare there will be higher costs, longer wait times, rationing, denial of services and lower quality.  Everything they promised wouldn’t happen.  And everything critics said would happen.  So are the proponents of Obamacare just so utterly ignorant?  Or were they lying through their teeth because they just wanted to take over one-sixth of the U.S. economy?  With an agenda to increase the size of government one has to go with lying through their teeth.

President Obama blamed George W. Bush for the world hating America.  When he became president he no longer projected American power.  Instead he wanted to talk to our enemies.  To negotiate with them.  He even dropped words from official usage.  Like the War on Terror.  To make our enemies like us.  Because people like people who aren’t bullies.  And that was what George W. Bush was.  A bully.  So President Obama warmed up to the Islamic world.  So the Islamic world would warm up to us.  Even announcing withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan early in his administration.  Ending the war on you-know-what.  So he could use that money for Obamacare.  Promising the American people the world would be a safer place.  Even passing on an opportunity to help overthrow the government in Iran.  America’s greatest enemy.  Instead, he helped people overthrow a couple of our allies.  Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.  And Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.  Who since the Iraq war had been an ally in the War on Terror.  And the thanks for this new Islam-friendly American policy?  They killed our ambassador in Benghazi along with three other Americans.  Al Qaeda is now in Libya.  And the Muslim Brotherhood is in Egypt.  And it looks like al Qaeda is now in Syria.  Another enemy of the United States the people were trying to overthrow that President Obama chose not to help.  The Middle East may burn now.  Making the world a more dangerous place.  But the president got what he wanted.  All that money we were spending overseas they can now spend at home.  Rewarding friends and campaign contributors.  As well as buying votes.

And now they are calling for tighter gun control measures.  Greater background checks.  And a national gun register.  To protect the kids they say.  So another Newtown massacre doesn’t happen.  Even though they themselves will admit that every measure they proposed thus far would not have stopped the shooter at Newton.  Aurora.  Tucson.  Virginia Tech.  Or any other shooting where some mentally unsound person killed random strangers.  These people didn’t kill because guns made them kill.  They killed because they were sick.  And we didn’t protect society by institutionalizing these people.  The only thing we could have done to stop them once they started shooting we didn’t do.  Having someone armed in these ‘gun-free’ zones.  For these sick people shoot unarmed innocents until someone with a gun arrives on the scene to shoot back.  So arming teachers may save children from another Newtown.  While everything they proposed thus far will do absolutely nothing to prevent a future Newton.  Yet they press for further restrictions on gun ownership.  And if it won’t make children safer one wonders why they want to exploit these shootings to advance their anti-gun-ownership agenda.  As they are interested in acquiring greater wealth and power one would have to assume it’s the power.  Perhaps making them feel more all-powerful if they can actually nullify the Second Amendment.

So politicians promise and lie to advance an agenda.  Which is why the young typically vote for those who promise and lie so much.  The liberal Democrats.  As the young are naïve and easy to lie to.  While older people tend to vote Republican.  For they are older.  They have heard all of the promises and lies before.  And they’re wiser.  Which comes with age.  Which is why the liberal Democrats get them while they’re young. For it’s hard to keep them once they gain knowledge and experience.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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