Shutting Down Government and Taking Hostages

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 3rd, 2013

Politics 101

Democrats close National Parks and Deny Cancer Treatment for Children to win Political Contest

The politicians have shut down the government.  And the executive branch (i.e., President Obama’s branch) is really trying to make the shutdown hurt.  In fact they are gleeful.  For the president had his ass handed to him over his redline comment on Syria.  Having been ridiculed on the international stage he is trying to show how tough he is with people he can push around.  Americans.

So President Obama has closed national monuments.  To really annoy the people.  Even World War II veterans (men who know a thing or two about courage and bravery and being tough) coming to see the outdoor World War II monument.  Yes, he closed that, too.  But he didn’t stop there.  His executive branch even tried to close Mount Vernon.  The privately owned and privately operated Mount Vernon.  Proving the politics that motivate the president and the Democrats.

When a reporter asked Senator Harry Reid if he would approve a spending bill that would let children with cancer to participate in an experimental treatment program he said ‘no’.  Because if he did that would mean the other side would have won.  When you’re talking about winners and losers, though, you’re not doing what is best for the American people.  You’re doing whatever you can to win.  Regardless of what’s best for the people.

The Obama administration refused additional security in Benghazi so they wouldn’t offend their Muslim Hosts

The Democrats are playing hardball.  Acting like petulant children who can’t get their way.  And they don’t care who they hurt in the process.  Children throwing tantrums rarely do.  Pity they couldn’t show this same toughness when it comes to real enemies of America.

President Obama and the Democrats have unleashed every invective in the dictionary against the Republicans.  Calling them terrorists and their actions jihad.  Yet they bend over backwards not to offend those waging jihad against America.  To this day they still call the Fort Hood massacre workplace violence.  After the Boston Marathon bombing they held off calling it an act of terrorism.  And refuse to call the bombers Muslim even though they were Muslims fighting a jihad for Islam.

When the American ambassador in Libya requested additional security for their mission in Benghazi the Obama administration refused the request.  As they didn’t want to offend the sensitivities of their Muslim hosts in Benghazi by showing that we were worried about our safety there.  For President Obama won the War on Terror with the killing of Osama bin Laden.  So there was nothing to worry about.  And there was an election coming up.  So not only were they worried about their Islamic host’s sensitivities they were worried about how a ramp up of security in Benghazi would look back at home.  As they were getting a lot of miles out their campaign slogan.  ”Osama bin Laden is dead.  And General Motors is alive.”  Which led to four dead Americans in Benghazi.

The Democrats hold Social Security Recipients Hostage whenever they can’t get What they Want

Of course, what government shutdown would be complete without scaring old people?  Yes, they have brought up Social Security.  Because those Social Security recipients are hostages to the government.  If the government doesn’t get what they want the government threatens to take away their benefits.

The government shutdown does not affect Social Security.  But tying the current fight in with the future fight over raising the debt limit helps the Democrats.  For they buy a lot of votes.  Which isn’t cheap.  Each year federal spending increases to pay for new and/or expanded federal programs that buy votes from those they make dependent on government.  This is the Democrats’ great fear.  That they won’t be able to raise the debt limit.  So they can continue to buy votes.  Which they must do as they can’t win in the arena of ideas.

Which is why they’re already playing the Social Security card.  Taking Social Security recipients hostage.  Threatening them that if they don’t pressure the Republicans to stop trying to be responsible they will make them pay.  And stop issuing their checks.  Which further proves how political everything is.  First of all, we pay into Social Security.  There is a Social Security Trust Fund that is supposedly holding our money.  Which means one of two things.  Either they’re withholding our own money from us.  Or Social Security is really a Ponzi scheme after all.  And the Trust Fund is empty.  Filled with nothing but federal IOUs.  Yes, they’ve spent that money to buy more votes.  So not only have they spent more than the government can pay.  They’ve also raided our retirement accounts.  To buy votes.  Which is what Obamacare is all about.  Buying votes.  To get even more Americans dependent on the government.  So the government can hold them, too, hostage to get what they want.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The U.S. Killed a Marginalized Osama bin Laden before they Rebuilt the World Trade Center Site

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 7th, 2011

Despite losing the Hearts and Minds, the Violence will go On

Osama bin Laden is dead and gone.  So what is his legacy?  A great Martyr?  Or just a silly old man who lost touch with the Muslim world who did not quite want as an austere life as he thought they should have (see The Osama drama: Is the play over? by Michael Hudson posted 5/7/2011 on Al Jazeera)?

But it was not only the denial of a media platform that marginalised him. It was also his script: to most Arabs and Muslims the idea of a new caliphate enforcing an austere – and not widely accepted – form of Islamic rule was a bloodless abstraction and not very appealing at that. So, while he drew strength by articulating violent resistance against deeply held grievances, he failed to offer, as it were, a “happy ending”.

How galling it must have been for him, isolated in his Pakistani villa, to watch huge audiences across the Arab world following a new and different script. Nowhere in the wave of mass protests that began last December were there banners for bin Laden or calls for a salafi order; nowhere were there chants for violence – even when unarmed protesters were brutally attacked by regime security forces. Osama was upstaged by new actors with a new script and an audience that chose not to sit as passive observers of the political scene – but actually insisted on participation in governance and public affairs.

You can almost hear his lament.  “These kids today.  When I was out there killing people it meant something.  Today they don’t care.  It’s just a little fun for young people who love to whine about the great problems in their lives.  She doesn’t love me.  My parents won’t buy me an iPhone.  While I was trying to establish a new caliphate they just wanted to ‘friend’ others on Facebook.  Whatever that means.  *sigh*  Jihad isn’t what it used to be…Get off of my lawn you snot-nose kids!  Don’t make me come out there.”

It was a battle for the heart and minds of real Muslims.  And apparently, he lost (see Al-Qaeda is its own worst enemy by Alia Brahimi posted 5/7/2011 on Al Jazeera).

Though al-Qaeda will be temporarily re-energised by the killing of bin Laden, it will not be enough to build up the sort of momentum and broad-based sympathy that they enjoyed at the height of the US-led occupation of Iraq. Between 2003-2006 in particular, bin Laden’s poetic narrative of resistance resonated even beyond the Muslim world. A German student in my halls at Oxford once returned from a trip home sporting a bin Laden t-shirt. George W Bush’s “war on terror” did not win the struggle for hearts and minds – fortunately, however, al-Qaeda lost it.

Yes, al Qaeda lost their way.  They became ideologically soft in their brutal acts of terrorism.  Violence for violence sake.  Missing the big picture.  Like Uncle Osama preached.  To make everyone live under the most harsh and austere Sharia Law possible.  That’s why the Americans lost the Vietnam War.  They lost the hearts and minds.  The North Vietnamese never lost their faith.  Or their belief in Uncle Ho.  Of course, victory for them included a happy ending.  Which makes it easier to follow someone to the bitter end.  Because the end won’t necessarily be so bitter.

So the violence will go on.  It just won’t serve some higher purpose.

What a Terrible way to Spend a Decade

It took about 10 years to kill Osama bin Laden.  That’s a long time.  A lot can happen in 10 years.  You can build buildings.  A lot of them.  For example, they built the Empire State Building in only 410 days.  That’s about a month longer than one year.  And this during the Great Depression.  Not to mention the fact that it was the tallest building in the world at the time.  Says a lot about New Yorkers.  Even in the worst of times, they’re tough and strong and can do anything you ask of them.  So I imagine the new World Trade Center site should be showing great progress in almost 10 years.  Because some of the best people in the world were there to rebuild that site (see A World Trade Center Progress Report by Bill Marsh posted 5/7/2011 on The New York Times).

It will take much longer than that to heal the gaping wound in the Lower Manhattan cityscape. Blame politics, finances, legalities and the challenge of making the many compromises necessary for such an enormous reconstruction effort. But after spending much time on cleanup and foundation work, progress is ever more visible: The soaring 1 World Trade Center and another skyscraper are rising by about one floor per week; a spacious memorial is to open on the 10th anniversary of the attack this fall.

You know what you call an empty World Trade Center site?  A memorial to al Qaeda.  Rebuilding this site faster would have meant a lot more than a dead bin Laden.  I can’t imagine the frustration of the New York building trades this past decade.  What a terrible way to spend a decade.

A Better way to Spend a Decade

I can think of a far better way to put a decade to good use (see Whiskey is all about the waiting by Jason Wilson posted 5/6/2011 on The Washington Post).

Barrel aging is one of the most noteworthy aspects of whiskey making. It endlessly fascinates me that producers will take a clear “white dog” whiskey off the still at eyebrow-singeing proof, pour it into a barrel and let the liquid sit and mellow inside the wood — sometimes for decades.

Magical things happen inside that barrel in terms of flavor, texture and aroma. Beyond what sort of wood is used, the location of where the barrel sits in the warehouse matters greatly — a barrel sitting at ground level ages differently than one resting on a higher floor. In this way, the warehouse becomes a man-made terroir — similar to a winery, in which grapes from different geographic locations will take on different characteristics.

I’ve previously discussed the importance of aging and blending in the process of making whiskey. The craft of distillation is certainly of utmost importance — if mediocre whiskey comes off the still, it’s not going to get better after 10 years in a barrel. But how whiskey ages in a barrel is just as critical.

I’m sipping a bourbon right now as I write.  It’s not a ten-year bourbon.  But it’s okay.  There’s some texture to it.  And it warms the belly.  But I know what I’ll be buying tomorrow.

In this week’s column, I discuss Buffalo Trace’s new Single Oak Project, which is part of the distillery’s larger two-decade search for the Holy Grail of bourbon…

This happened with the bourbons I wrote about this week. The man who went into the Ozarks to choose the white oaks for the Single Oak Project was named Ronnie Eddins, Buffalo Trace’s long-time warehouse manager. If you go to the Single Oak Project Web site, you actually can see videos of Eddins chatting with the loggers of those trees. Throughout the aging process, he was instrumental in creating these bourbons. Sadly, Eddins died earlier this year. He did not live to see the Single Oak Project bottled and sent to market.

Poor Ronnie Eddins.  He didn’t live to see the day Osama bin Laden paid for his crimes.  To see new buildings rising triumphantly on the World Trade Center site.  Or taste what he so lovingly brought to market.  Rest in peace, Ronnie.  Know that you brought enjoyment to others.  And that we smile as we raise a glass in your honor.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

From Socialism to Jihad, Women just can’t Catch a Break

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 14th, 2011

Venezuelan Socialism as Unfair to Woman as American Conservatism

Conservatives want to defund Planned Parenthood because they use our tax dollars to perform abortions.  They say they don’t.  That they provide a lot of healthcare services for women.  And it’s those services they use our tax dollars for.  Not the abortions.  Of course, they don’t separate these services so it’s hard to tell.

One would expect this from someone on the political right.  But a socialist?  Never.  In socialism you’d think everything people wanted people got.  That’s the whole point of socialism.  Equal outcomes.  Anything available to one person is available to all people.  That’s why they have high taxes.  To make sure the poor can get whatever the rich can.  Unless it’s a boob job (see Chávez Tries to Rouse Venezuela Against a New Enemy: Breast Lifts by Simon Romero posted 3/14/2011 on The New York Times).

Between 30,000 and 40,000 women here undergo the procedure each year, according to estimates by the Venezuelan Society of Plastic Surgeons…

The president, however, made it clear that breast augmentation did not square well with his revolutionary priorities. He said that among the thousands of letters he receives from supporters, one arrived asking for his help for a breast lift, which could cost as much as $7,000. “Of course I had to reject it,” he said.

Who is he to say who can and cannot have a boob job?  Who made him God?  Apparently in Venezuelan socialism the rich can have things the poor cannot.  The next thing this tin-pot dictator will do is deny abortions to poor women.  Just like American conservatives.  The bastard.

Women and Christians need not Apply

You’d expect this kind of thing in the Middle East where they frown on drawing attention to female body parts.  But not from Hugo Chávez.  I mean, he’s the darling of the liberal left.  Hollywood loves him.  Feminists look to him to liberate their sisters south of the border.  And dream of seeing him without his shirt.  Yeah, they’re smitten with him, all right.  And now this?  Boy, they must be pissed.  And they’re probably not going to be much happier when they hear what the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) wants to do in Egypt (see Brotherhood sticks to ban on Christians and women for presidency posted 3/14/2011 on Al-Masry Al-Youm).

A leading figure in the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), Egypt’s largest opposition group, said on Monday that the MB’s new “Freedom and Justice Party” would continue to stick by its view that Christians and women are unsuitable for the presidency.

They’ve come a long way, baby.  Just not with the MB.  Wonder if they’ll let them get a boob job.  Or an abortion.  Probably not.  At least, I don’t think the MB will foot the bill.  Should they rise to power, that is.  Could be worse, though. 

They Like to Keep them Barefoot and Pregnant, Too

Pretty woman.  Fascinating.  Are a wonder.  Sipping coffee.  Dancing.  How they make, a man sing.  Proof of heaven, as you’re living.  Pretty woman.  Yes.  Pretty woman.

That’s how Stephen Sondheim feels about them.  In song, at least.  (If you don’t recognize the lyrics, they’re from the 1979 musical Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street.)  And most of us in the West.  We’re smitten with them.  And, really now, who isn’t?  For Sondheim’s lyrics ring true.  It’s universal.  Why, they’re even softening up in the most conservative parts of the Middle East.  Al Qaeda is launching a fashion magazine for the woman who has nothing and should be happy about it (see Al Qaeda Launches Women’s Magazine posted 3/14/2011 on The Daily Beast).

Probably won’t find this at your local newsstand: Al Qaeda’s media network has launched a new magazine called Al-Shamikha—”The Majestic Woman”—which bears some similarities to popular glossies like Cosmopolitan and Glamour…

Al-Shamikha offers plenty of advice, including how to find the right man (by “marrying a mujahideen”), how to take care of your skin (by staying inside and covering your face at all times), and touches a bit on health and the importance of good manners.  But while Cosmo’s cover might have a woman in some fashionable garb, Al-Shamikha features a niqab-clad woman clutching a sub-machine gun… It has all the attractions of a traditional women’s magazine, mixed in with strict lessons in jihad, like “not [to] go out except when necessary.”

Substitute ‘a man with a good job’ for ‘mujahideen‘ and lose the sub-machine gun and it sounds like they’re describing the pleasant life of June Cleaver or Donna Reed.  Of course, the left hates these women.  Because they were subservient to their men.  Just cooks in the kitchen.  And whores in the bedroom.  Barefoot and pregnant.  Guess they must hate the ladies of Al Qaeda, too.  For staying home instead of leaving the house to pursue a career.

And you just know that none of these women have access to a boob job.  Or an abortion.  The horror.  The horror.

The Real Oppressor and Degrader of Women Please Stand Up

The feminist left will support a Hugo Chávez every day of the week because he hates American conservatives.  And they will support Islam every time over Christianity, too.  Because in their eyes Christianity has oppressed and degraded women.  And denied them abortions.  But the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  So they support Islam whenever it’s up against Christianity (such as the Muslim community center near Ground Zero controversy).  And it doesn’t matter if it’s the most hard-line conservative branch of Islam to ever come down the pike.  Because they just so hate Christianity.  And all the June Cleavers and Donna Reeds in the world.

Remember Carrie Prejean?  Christian?  Miss California?  Topless photos on the Internet?  Oh, yes, that Carrie Prejean.  Not too shabby for an oppressed Christian society, is it?  I mean, women just don’t have the freedom to get into a scandal like that in other countries around the world.  Especially some countries with a non-Christian religion that really frown on that kind of thing.  But given the choice, the feminist left will always side with that non-Christian religion against Christianity.  No matter how much more oppressive it can be.

And the international sisterhood suffers for their myopic political agenda.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Ground Zero Mosque – Right but Wrong

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 15th, 2010

All this talk about them, the Muslim community, having the right to build a mosque near Ground Zero reminds me of a scene from the movie Monty Python’s Life of Brian.  One of the men wants to be a woman.  So he can have babies.  Of course, a man can’t have babies.  But a man can have the RIGHT to have babies.  The dialogue went something like this:

Rogers: Why are you always on about women, Stan?

Stan: I want to be one.

Reg: What?

Stan: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta.

Reg: What?

Loretta: It’s my right as a man.

Judith: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?

Loretta: I want to have babies.

Reg: You want to have babies?!

Loretta: It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.

Reg: But…you can’t have babies!

Loretta: Don’t you oppress me!

Reg: I’m not oppressing you, Stan. You haven’t got a womb.  Where is the fetus going to gestate? You’re going to keep it in a box?

Loretta: Sniff.

Judith: Here, I’ve got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’, but that he can have the right to have babies.

Rogers: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister! Sorry.

Reg: What’s the point?

Rogers: What?

Reg: What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can’t have babies?

Rogers: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

Reg: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

The people who are still debating the Ground Zero mosque are having their own struggle against reality.

Yes, Islam is a religion of peace.  America holds dear our right to religious freedom.  And Muslim Americans are Americans first.  But you can’t build a mosque near Ground Zero, whatever you call it.  Yeah, you can call it outreach to the Muslim community.  But the Muslim community it reaches out to are those few who pervert this great religion of peace.  The jihad bunch.  Who come, conquer and build mosques.  To enshrine their victories over the infidel. 

If you build a mosque near Ground Zero, some may see it as outreach.  But our enemies, those few who pervert, will see it as the ultimate American humiliation.  It will give them strength.  And it will recruit more to the cause.  How could it not?  The greatest ‘battlefield’ success against the world’s most powerful nation?  You know they relish and savor that victory.  And they do.  They want that mosque there.  They need that mosque there.  For the glory of Islam.  To mark the day that they (the few who pervert) brought America to her knees.  Spread fear throughout the country.  Emptied American airspace.  And made people afraid to open their mail or drink their tap water. 

I, as well as most of rational thinking people, would rather fight for Stan/Loretta’s right to have babies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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