Charges of Racism and its Chilling Effect on Policy Debate

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 10th, 2014

Politics 101

Flying is so Safe already that to make it any Safer is nearly Statistically Impossible

Air travel is the safest way to travel.  People are far more likely to die on the way to the airport than in an airplane.  Air plane accidents and incidents are so rare these days that when one happens it is huge news.  For weeks some networks devoted near 24/7 coverage of missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370.  Even though they had nothing to report.  But that didn’t stop them from going to air to speculate about what happened.  Because an airplane just disappearing like that is extremely rare.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigates aircraft accidents and incidents to determine the cause.  And to come up with new ways to make aviation safer.  But improving safety any more is getting difficult.  And costly.  They put a cost on the loss of life and compare that to the cost for the airlines (and the people who buy their tickets) to implement a proposed change.  And then judge the likelihood that spending that money will actually save any lives.  They could reduce the number of deaths from flying to zero simply by grounding all aircraft permanently.  But the flying public wants to fly.  And is apparently willing to fly even if there is a slim chance of dying.

When a plane crashes because of an event that is statistically likely to happen, say, one in 100 million flights it’s hard to justify the added expense.  As that cost will not make flying any safer statistically.  This is the problem with making flying safer today.  It is so safe already that to make it any safer is nearly statistically impossible.  And spending more resources to try and make it safe 100% of the time is just not possible.  And it’s just too costly to try.

Racism is so Trivial in the Aggregate that it could not prevent a Black Child from growing up to be President

There are a lot of people on the left who say we need a dialogue on race.  Because there is still racism in this country.  Not Southern Democrat Jim Crowe racism.  But systemic racism that stacks the deck against blacks.  Despite that ‘racist’ America having elected a black president.  Twice.  Who appointed a black man as attorney general.  Eric Holder.  America’s top cop.  This couldn’t have happened without a majority of white voters voting for President Obama.  As blacks make up only approximately 13.1% of the population while whites make up approximately 77.9% (see United States Census QuickFacts).

So there may be some racism in America.  But clearly not a lot of it.  For if there was a lot of it there would have been enough people to vote against President Obama.  But there wasn’t.  And he won reelection.  Even though his record wasn’t that good.  On the economy.  Or on national security.  So there would have been a lot of reasons to vote against him.  Especially if the American people were racist.  But this didn’t happen.  Suggesting that America is not as racist as those on the left would have you believe.

Sure, there is racism in America.  As there is everywhere.  And always will be.  But is it systemic?  Is it impossible for a black child to grow up to be the president of the United States?  To be the top cop in the land?  No.  Because these things have happened.  So is it necessary to focus the Justice Department only on racial injustice in the United States?  Even those on the left will concede that things are a lot better now than they ever were.  So should the Justice Department focus on removing the last vestiges of racism when if doing so will be very difficult if not impossible?  As some people simply cannot be reasoned with?  If these people were running the country perhaps it would be.  But they’re not.  These instances of racism are isolated incidents.  So trivial in the aggregate that they could not prevent a black child growing up to be president.

Despite all of their Efforts to End Racism they haven’t reduced the Need to End Racism

A lot of people voted for President Obama to end racism once and for all.  To move away from our racist past.  But it seems like the left finds more racism than ever since President Obama’s election.  In fact, they call any criticism of President Obama an act of racism.  Making it difficult to criticize the president.  As no one wants to be labeled a racist.  In fact the left uses this to try and shut down debate over policy issues.  Unable to defeat conservatives in the arena of ideas (as conservatives outnumber liberals 2-1) they are quick to try and shut down debate with charges of racism.

Even Attorney General Eric Holder responded angrily when testifying in Congress.  Later when speaking to a mostly black audience he asked was there ever an attorney general or a president treated as poorly as he and President Obama?  (Yes, there were.  Especially when they were Republican).  Implying that the people’s representatives, and, therefore, the people, were racist.  So he can stand morally indignant as he stood in contempt of Congress.  The victim.  A lot in the media have come to his support.  While few criticized him.  Because no one wants to be called a racist.  And because no one does it is a very powerful way to shift attention away from any wrongdoing by shifting the attention to those accusing you of said wrongdoing.  A tactic right from the far-left strategist Saul Alinsky’s playbook (see Corrupt AG’s Feigned Outrage Shouldn’t Be Distraction posted 4/10/2014 on Investors.com).

The NTSB is trying to remove the last vestiges of air travel deaths.  Which is more and more difficult to do these days as there are so few ways left to improve aviation safety.  There are a lot of people trying to end racism.  But if you listen to them the problem of racism has never been worse.  Despite the success of President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.  Who actually benefit from this perceived racism.  As they can discount any criticism of them because they’re black.  And the American people are racist.  Despite these same American people being responsible for their success.  For a country with a 77.9% white population could have been racist enough to prevent the election of a black president.  And they were given two opportunities to show just how racist they are.  But didn’t.  Still, the charge of racism is a powerful weapon in their arsenal.  Which is why despite all of their efforts to end racism they haven’t reduced the need to end racism.  For if they did that they may just have to answer for their policies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

When it comes to Foreign Policy we need more Team America and Less President Obama

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 20th, 2014

Politics 101

Thanks to President Obama the United States is now the Rodney Dangerfield of Superpowers

The American public is consumed with the missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370.  They can’t get enough of the news coverage that is anything but news.  With cable news delivering 24/7 coverage of nothing but speculation.  Even the networks are giving the speculation expansive coverage.  They’d never give Obamacare, Benghazi, the IRS targeting conservative groups, etc., this kind of coverage.  But they will give Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 this kind of coverage.  For apart from the insufferable despair of the families who lost their loved ones it’s a great mystery people want to see unfold.  And be the one to solve it.  But while that is going on the world is becoming a less safe place.  Thanks to Vladimir Putin.

President Obama’s ‘please like us’ foreign policy has failed.  The reset with Russia has not improved our relations.  In fact, they are about as bad as they were during the Cold War.  With Putin doing some Cold War chess playing.  Completely unimpressed with President Obama he’s making bold moves.  And when he does all he gets from the United States is talk.  He annexed Crimea without any real opposition from the Western Powers.  Especially the United States.  And he is probably looking at the Baltic States now.  Seeing no reason yet to stop in his quest to put the Soviet Union back together.  This is what the American people are missing.  For the networks are barely covering it.  And the people are blissfully ignorant of how the United States is now the Rodney Dangerfield of superpowers.  We get no respect from our enemies.  So our enemies make bold moves.  Because that’s who they are.  The creators of South Park made a movie called Team America: World Police (2004).  This followed 9/11 and the beginning of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  When the United States began its fight in the global war on terror.  Though a comedy the writers seem to have a better grasp on the real world than the Obama administration or the mainstream media.  Who think in the 21st century that war no longer exists because world leaders now discuss their differences like rational and civilized adults according to international law.  And honor their agreements.  But what they don’t understand is something that’s been true since the dawn of civilization.  There are three types of people in the world.  As a drunk in Team America: World Police explains crudely but succinctly.  (WARNING: The following video is for mature audiences only.  For it’s pretty rude and crude and completely inappropriate for the workplace.)

If you’ve watched the video you’ll understand what the three types are.  We’ll call them D, P and A (both singular and plural).  In the context of this movie America was a D.  And Kim Jong Il was an A.  As were the Islamist terrorists.  While the leftist ‘give peace a chance’ Hollywood liberals in the movie (who belonged to the Film Actors’ Guild) were P.  As was the United Nations who sent Hans Blix to inspect Kim Jong Il’s regime to make sure he didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction (WMD).  —SPOILER ALERT—  Team America, the world police, go tear-assing around the world, blowing up parts of countries as they hunt and kill terrorists.  Making the world a safer place.  While Kim Jong Il plots to set off WMDs, using the Islamist terrorists to plant his WMDs.  The F.A.G. actors publicly denounce Team America for their wanton destruction and call corporations the real enemy.  Even going to North Korea to attend a peace conference that Kim Jong Il was hosting.  Believing Kim Jong Il was a man of peace.  And were willing to kill Team America to help Kim Jong Il go forward with his peace plans.  Which was actually blowing up countries all around the world into third-world status.

Hitler promised the Naïve Chamberlain that the Sudetenland would be his last Territorial Acquisition

The movie showed the futility of diplomacy when you’re dealing with A.  Because they will lie and say anything you want to hear to shut you up and make you go away.  And when you do they’re just going to crap all over you and the world.  Because that’s what A do.  The P don’t understand that.  They think they can negotiate and arrive at an agreement with people who lie.  History is full of treaties that A have broken.  Because they don’t respect anything but strength.  And if all you got are words an A just isn’t going to respect you.  And will crap on you the first chance he gets.  Especially if you’re a P.  The Russian people understand this.  During the Sochi Olympics the Daily Show‘s Jason Jones interviewed Russians during the Sochi Games.  And a woman told him they have a saying in Russia.  Don’t be a P.  Which is why they love Vladimir Putin.  He’s not a P.  He’s an A.

Communists are A.  They just want to crap all over everyone.  During the Korean War every time they were losing on the battlefield they called for a ceasefire to negotiate a peace treaty.  Using the cessation in hostilities to reinforce their weakened positions.  Proving you just cannot trust an A.  Or negotiate with an A.  Yet the leftist ‘give peace a chance’ liberals think you can.  And that all George W. Bush did by being an A was make the world hate the United States.  Even though Muammar Gaddafi, who was a first class A, respected George W. Bush when he invaded Iraq.  Saw that strength.  Respected that strength.  And did not want to get his ass kicked by that strength.  So he gave up his WMDs willingly.  And joined the Americans in the fight against al Qaeda (Libya is a far less safe place today than it was under Muammar Gaddafi after the Iraqi invasion).  This is what A understand.  Strength.  It’s the one thing that makes them act.  Not words.  As this funny scene in Team America: World Police illustrates so poignantly.  (WARNING: The following video is for mature audiences only.  For it’s pretty rude and crude and completely inappropriate for the workplace.)

We ended the war in Iraq with a ceasefire.  Part of the terms that Saddam Hussein agreed to was to destroy his WMDs and document their destruction.  He never did.  In part because he didn’t have them anymore.  Having sent them over the border into Syria (most likely) on trucks and in two converted Iraqi Airways Boeings before the invasion.  Adolf Hitler promised the naïve Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain that the Czechoslovakian Sudetenland would be his last territorial acquisition.  Chamberlain returned to Britain with a treaty signed by Herr Hitler promising “peace in our time.”  Shortly thereafter Hitler launched World War II (the bloodiest and costliest war of all time) and removed Poland from the map.  Because Hitler was an A.  And you just can’t negotiate with an A.  Especially if you’re a P who believes we can settle all our differences if we only communicate with each other.  No.  An A sees anyone who wants to ‘open a dialogue’ as a P.  And they will laugh at how gullible they are.  Getting a lot of concessions by making promises they have no intention of keeping.  A love P.  Because they are so easy to crap all over.

The Russians like President Obama in Office because he is the Anti-Ronald Reagan

The Obama administration confuses being liked with being respected.  They think if people like America they will respect America.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  People respect people they hate.  At least, if they fear people they hate.  A key distinction.  For Vladimir Putin has no love for President Obama.  Who looks at him as a P.  Which Russians just don’t respect.  They even have a saying.  Don’t be a P.  So Putin has no respect whatsoever for President Obama.  Because he does not fear President Obama.  The recent sanctions President Obama issued by executive order only amused the Russians.  They thought they were nothing more than a joke.  Even replied with in-kind sanctions of their own.  Oh they had a good laugh at President Obama trying to act tough.  But they just don’t respect him.  But you know who they did respect?  Ronald Reagan.

During a radio check President Reagan was testing the sound levels before a radio address.  And he made a joke.  He said into the microphone, “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever.  We begin bombing in five minutes.”  This joke leaked out.  And made it to the Soviet Union.  And what do you think they did?  Did they have a good laugh like they did when President Obama tried to act tough?  No.  They didn’t.  They put their Soviet Far East Army on alert.  For they did not like Ronald Reagan.  But they sure as hell respected that crazy son of a bitch.  And feared him.  As well as the awesome military power of the United States.  Which they knew President Reagan had no problem using.  Unlike the current occupant of the White House.  Who wants to shrink the size of the military to pre-World War I levels.  Something only a P would do in the eyes of an A like Vladimir Putin.  No.  President Obama is more of an apologetic president for America’s greatness.  While President Reagan made no apologies.  He believed in American Exceptionalism.  And was damn proud of it.  The shiny city on the hill.  The beacon of liberty.  Defender of freedom.  And he would broadcast the Team America theme song proudly at our enemies.  Unlike the apologist now occupying the White House (WARNING: The following video is for mature audiences only.  For it’s pretty rude and crude and completely inappropriate for the workplace.)

America may have its faults but it is still the best country in the world.  Proven by the flow of immigrants (legal and illegal) to our shores.  We may be arrogant but that’s only because we have a right to be.  Because we are the best m-f’ing country in the world.  F*** yeah.  We’ve made the world a better place.  And the world knows this.  Which is why our enemies love having our country run by people who are ashamed of America’s greatness.  Because they can crap all over the world and get away with it.  Like Putin did by annexing Crimea.  Because they know there is no crazy son of a bitch in the White House that will use the awesome power of the United States to stop them.  Just a bunch of leftist ‘give peace a chance’ liberals who will wag their finger at them.  And if they don’t quake with fear they will wag their finger at them again.  Or write a letter.  The Russians couldn’t be happier.  And lament that if there were only people like the current administration running the United States in the Eighties the Soviets never would have lost the Cold War.  But now Vladimir Putin, former KGB officer in the Soviet Union, sees his chance.  He can put the Soviet Union together again.  As they have the anti-Ronald Reagan in office now.  And can do whatever the hell they want to.  Because they aren’t P.  They’re A.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT213: “Rich liberals support a large welfare state to assuage their wealth guilt.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 14th, 2014

Fundamental Truth

Rich People become Liberals so People don’t Shame them for their Obscene Wealth

Rich people love being rich.  They love their mansions.  Their expensive cars.  Eating at the finest restaurants.  Drinking the finest wine.  Going on lavish vacations.  Going to the best parties.  Hanging with the beautiful people.  And rich men especially like the sex with beautiful young women their wealth can make happen.  To quote the Eagles song Life in the Fast Lane rich people love having everything all of the time.

Some of the richest people in the United States are liberals.  Yes, those same people who argue for income and wealth equality.  Hollywood stars.  Televisions stars.  Authors.  And music stars.  Who are everything they stand against.  They’re part of that evil 1%.   And they live very ostentatious lives.  Their wealth is over the top.  Bling.  Cars.  Cars with bling.  Nothing but the best.  And then some.  This wealth is okay, though.  But those in the 1% other than them?  Government should raise their taxes to take as much of it away as possible.  And we should all shame them for daring to have such obscene wealth.

Of course, rich liberals like their obscene wealth.  They want to keep it.  And they want to continue their lavish lives.  But they don’t want people shaming them.  They want people to love them and adore them.  So they buy whatever they’re selling.  Movies, televisions shows, books or music.  They don’t want anyone shaming them for their obscene wealth.  So they do something very simple to avoid that shame.  They become public liberals.

Only those Businesses that Continually Please their Customers Succeed

Liberals can have the most obscene amounts of wealth without anyone shaming them for that obscene wealth.  Why?  Because they belong to the ‘right’ political party.  The one that argues against income and wealth inequality.  So they get a pass.  Which is why so many rich people are liberals.  They want to be left alone.  And their call for higher taxes on rich people?  Well, they’re so rich that they can hire the best accountants and tax attorneys to help them shield their wealth from the taxman.  There’s a reason why the tax code is so convoluted and not a simple flat tax like conservatives want.  To help rich liberals keep their money.

Then there are rich liberals who have too much of a conscious.  And they feel guilty for having obscene wealth.  But not guilty enough to give their wealth away.  These liberals are vehemently pro big government.  They want a massive welfare state.  To assuage their wealth guilt.  So they can continue to enjoy their obscene wealth.  Their 1% wealth.  Without having to feel guilty about it.  Such as, presumably, The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart.

Jon Stewart is a very well-read and intelligent man.  He knows a lot of stuff.  Unfortunately, though, he draws many wrong conclusions with that knowledge.  He favors big government.  And a vast welfare state to help those in need.  He trusts government while distrusting corporations and businesses.  Because, as he has said, we have no vote with corporations and businesses like we do with government.  Via elections.  But he’s wrong.  We do have a vote with all corporations and businesses.  The moment they stop treating their customers right those customers go to other corporations and businesses.  Most new businesses fail within 5 years.  And some big companies that have been around for years fail and go out of business.  Why?  Because their customers DO have a large vote in whether they succeed or not.  And only those businesses that continually please their customers succeed.  Something you just can’t say about government.  For no matter how much they anger the people little ever changes.

Not only is there Income and Wealth Inequality there’s also Income Tax Inequality

Fox News has been talking about people scamming the welfare state.  Highlighting a surfer dude in California as a typical welfare cheat.  Stewart lambasted Fox News for that.  Saying one person (or two or three, etc.) does not mean all people on welfare are gaming the system.  Although he uses that very logic to point at corporations caught in wrong-doing.  Saying they represent all corporations and businesses.  And he joins the choir about how rich corporations and rich people are not paying their fair share of taxes.  And how some of these rich corporations and rich people are hiding their income and wealth from the taxman.  Despite their paying the lion’s share of all taxes.

According to the National Taxpayer’s Union, when it comes to income taxes it’s rich people paying the most.  So not only is there income and wealth inequality.  There’s also income tax inequality.  Through recent years the top 1% of income earners has paid approximately a third of all income taxes.  The top 5% has paid more than half of all income taxes.  And the top 10% of income earners has paid about 70% of all income taxes.  While the bottom 50% of income earners, the people rich liberals want to help, pay about 3% (or less) of all income taxes.

You don’t have to raise tax rates on the wealthy.  They’re already paying a disproportionate share of all income taxes.  In fact, if you cut tax rates and cut business regulations to help rich business and rich people get even richer more tax revenue would flow into the treasury.  This would be a good thing.  Rich people getting richer.  And more people becoming rich.  This should be what everyone wants.  Based on the amount of taxes rich people pay.  So we should stop trying to help the less fortunate by raising taxes on the rich.  And creating more onerous regulations for businesses that benefit the less fortunate.  Like Obamacare.  For it hurts the profit incentive.  Which prevents rich people from getting richer and paying more income taxes.  As well as dissuades people from becoming business owners or expanding their businesses.  Which means fewer jobs.  Fewer hours in those jobs.  And the replacement of costly people with machines.  It’s because of these things that median family income has fallen under the Obama administration.  Which is the last thing any good liberal should want.  This is why rich liberals have got to stop supporting a large welfare state to assuage their wealth guilt.  It’s killing the middle class.  And destroying the jobs that could pull the less fortunate into the middle class.  And beyond.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Sandy Hook, Gun Control, Second Amendment, Patriot Act, Motor Vehicle Accidents and Partial-Birth Abortion

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 13th, 2014

Politics 101

(Originally published January 10th, 2013)

The Social Democracies of Europe were all Oppressive Absolute Monarchies at one Time

What happened in Newtown, Connecticut, was a tragedy.  The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary took 26 lives.  Including 20 children.  The most innocent of us.  Which has ignited a firestorm of debate over guns.  The Left blames these deaths on an epidemic of gun violence.  Caused by people having access to guns.  So the Left wants to have a real debate on gun control.  To stop this epidemic of child deaths caused by firearms.  By severely restricting access to guns.

Those on the Right, on the other hand, want to protect their Second Amendment right.  The right to keep and bear arms.  Which allowed the First Amendment.  Freedom of speech.  The British colonial governors tried hard to clamp down on the anti-British sentiment in their American colonies.  And to muzzle that anti-British speech.  They sent over British Red Coats to occupy American cities to keep order.  And to find and confiscate the Americans’ guns.  So the first few amendments of the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) protected free speech.  Gave us the power to protect ourselves from future state oppressors.  And they even included the Third Amendment.  Which states, “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”  Again, further protection from state oppression.

The nature of states is to oppress their people.  Most have throughout history.  Even the social democracies of Europe were all oppressive absolute monarchies at one time.  Where kings could do pretty much anything they wanted to.  England changed that with representative government.  America expanded on these liberties in the New World.  And ever since has been very wary of government.  Until the Twentieth century.  When the growth of government began.  Transferring ever more power to the federal government.  Everything the Founding Fathers feared would happen without a Bill of Rights.

When it comes to Restricting our Constitutional Rights Liberals Trust Government while Fearing Republicans

Those on the Left say the Constitution is a relic of a different age.  That today’s government is a kinder government.  A more caring government.  One that just wants to take care of the people.  By providing generous benefits.  Of course this is how some of the worst dictatorships started.  Nazi Germany and the USSR both put the people first.  Or so they said.  Even their names said they were putting the people first.  The Nazis were National Socialists.  And the USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  Socialism is all about taking care of the people.  Yet these nations had some the most brutal secret police that terrorized and oppressed their people.  For there is no easier way to dictatorial power than championing the people.  And once the people stop fearing their government is when the state can take away their guns.  To make that oppression easier.  The Syrian government is currently having difficulty oppressing their people because they failed to keep guns out of the hands of those they wish to oppress.

If you read a history book you will read a lot about state secret police and state oppression.  It’s more the rule than the exception.  When you grow up in a free country it’s hard to believe this.  And when you’re young you think whatever you know and have experienced is normal.  And that things have always been that way.  Which is why the younger liberals dismiss talk about the transfer of power to the federal government.  While the older conservatives who have seen great change in their lives and know history still fear their government.  While the younger liberals grow up believing that government is not to be feared but to be trusted blindly.  They even look at what China is doing with their economy with approval.  Where the government controls the economy.  They like that.  Because liberals believe we can always trust a government more than a private corporation.  Even if that government oppresses their people.  Like they do in China.  Where people still deal with famine in the country.  Rural workers are paid poorly and live in dormitories in the city factories.  And political dissidents are tortured in labor camps where they manufacture goods without pay.

So naïve liberals trust government.  Completely.  Unless it’s George W. Bush using the Patriot Act.  That they fear.  But when President Obama uses the Patriot Act liberals ask, “The Patriot what?”  When it came to secret wiretaps on people with known ties to terrorists the Left quaked with fear over where these abuses of power would end.  But when President Obama starts talking about gun control they haven’t a care in the world.  Because when it comes to restricting our constitutional rights liberals trust government while fearing Republicans.

People killed 37 Kids with Guns in 2010 while Partial-Birth Abortions have claimed some 2,000 Lives a Year

President Obama’s former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”  For the best way to advance an agenda (especially an unpopular agenda) was in the emotional chaos following a serious crisis.  Such as the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary.  The majority of Americans oppose gun control.  But in that majority are some people that they may be able to convince that some restrictions on the Second Amendment is a good thing in the emotional chaos following Sandy Hook Elementary.  Convincing them that guns are causing an epidemic of childhood deaths.  That without guns these kids simply wouldn’t be dying.  A powerful message during emotional times.  But if you remove the emotions and look at some facts you see something different (see 10 Leading Causes of Death, United States by the Centers for Disease Control).

These are deaths by unintentional injury.  Looking at the leading causes of death in 2010 (the latest year of data) for children aged 5-14 you see 1,643 deaths.  About half (809) of those are from motor vehicle accidents.  Drowning came in next at 251 (15.3%).  Then fire/burn at 135 (8.2%).  Then suffocation at 79 (4.8%).  You have to go all the way down to number 7 on the list to get to firearms.  Where we can see they killed 37 children in 2010.  Or 2.3% of the total number of kids aged 5-14 who died from an unintentional injury.  Based on an approximate population of 41 million kids aged 5-14 the total number of kids killed by firearms comes to about 0.00009% of this total.  According to the CDC’s numbers, guns aren’t killing a lot of kids.  Motor vehicles are.  But firearms are not.  So taking away our guns will probably not change these numbers much.  If at all.  So the motive can’t be saving children’s lives.  In fact, one can make the argument that there is a greater killer of children out there than anything on the above list.  Abortion.

It’s hard to get numbers on abortions.  But if you check various sources the number appears to be over a million a year.  Wikipedia shows 1,313,000 abortions in 2000.  Including 2,232 (about 0.17% of all abortions in 2000) that were partial-birth abortions.  Whatever your politics on the abortion issue are one thing regarding partial-birth abortions is clear.  These are human lives.  For the ‘partial’ part of these abortions requires terminating the life of the fetus while the head is still inside of the mother.  For if they terminated the life of the fetus outside of the mother it would be murder according to the law.  And you can’t kill something that isn’t alive.  In fact, an accidental wrongful death of a pregnant woman often results in two charges of manslaughter.  One for the mother.  And one for the unborn fetus.  Assuming there was no spike in partial-birth abortions in 2000 one can assume that number is representative of all years.  Which is far more deaths than by motor vehicle accident let alone from firearms.  Yet President Obama wants gun control to save kids lives.  When he could save even more by simply revising his stance on partial-birth abortion.  Something he argued to keep when a state senator in Illinois.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT212: “If liberals keep winning elections the United States will fall like the Roman Empire.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 7th, 2014

Fundamental Truth

The Roman Empire survived for about 1500 Years

The Roman Empire was one of the greatest empires of all time.  It lasted some 500 years in the West.  And another thousand years in the East.  Give or take.  As empires go they don’t come much bigger.  Or last longer.  The Romans ruled the world.  It stretched from Northern Africa to Britain.  And from Spain to the Middle East.  It was huge.

There have been bigger empires.  The British Empire.  The Mongol Empire.  The Russian Empire.  The Spanish Empire.  And others.  But none of them lasted as long as the 1500 years of the Roman Empire.  The British Empire lasted about 400 years.  The Mongol Empire lasted about 50 years.  The Russian Empire lasted about 200 years.  And the Spanish Empire lasted about 500 years.  Adolf Hitler said the Third Reich would last a thousand years.  But it lasted only 12.  Proving that empire building—and empire maintaining—are easier said than done.

Yet the Romans did it for 1500 years.  Give or take.  So they knew a thing or two about empire building.  And maintaining that empire.  Yet even this mighty empire fell.  Why?  Historians still debate this question today.  As do the laymen.  With a person’s political persuasion sometimes determining what they believe.

A Debased Coin and High Taxes made the Roman Citizenry very Unhappy

Empires are costly.  As Rome built her empire she paid for it by conquering new lands.  So as her borders pushed out treasure flowed back the other way to Rome.  Which paid for her massive military.  And her massive bureaucracy to govern that sprawling empire.  So the Roman people went about their business.  Shielded from the cost of empire.  Farming and taking their goods to market.  Safe within their empire.  For her enemies were outside the borders of the empire.  And those borders were pushed a very long way out.

But then something happened.  Those borders stopped moving.  They were not conquering new lands.  And there was no more treasure flowing back to Rome.  Which was a problem.  For the Roman Empire covered a lot of land that they had to govern.  And defend.  So the cost of the Roman Empire was never higher than when her borders stopped pushing out.  While her revenue to pay for that empire was never smaller.  So they had to do something.  And that something was taxes.  Lots of them.  All of a sudden the Roman citizenry was feeling the cost of their bloated bureaucratic state.  And the cost of that massive military that defended the frontier.

So taxes soared.  Making the Roman citizenry unhappy.  But the tax revenue proved to be insufficient.  So they started debasing their currency.  Adding more and more lead to their silver coins.  But not their gold coins.  For they used gold to pay the military and to pay the government bureaucrats.  So they only debased the silver coin.  The coin of the Roman citizenry.  Which, of course, resulted in inflation.  As the coins had less and less silver in them they bought less and less.  So prices soared.  As did taxes.  Making the Roman citizenry very unhappy.

The Cost of Mercenaries and the Roman Bureaucracy and Welfare State bankrupted the Roman Empire

So the Romans started building things to entertain the people.  And they grew a welfare state to help feed those who could not afford to buy food.  Public works and the new welfare state may have eased some of the animosity towards the state.  But it only increased the costs of the state.  Requiring higher taxes.  So high that people lost money on their farms and businesses.  So they quit.  Causing food and goods shortages.  So the Romans passed laws forcing them to stay in their jobs.  And forcing their children to do the same work their parents did.  Which eventually evolved into feudalism.

Eventually the Roman citizenry no longer wanted to serve the empire.  Leading to the use of mercenary armies.  Which were costly.  And only increased the cost of empire.  With the silver coin so debased the Roman government would not even accept it in payment of taxes.  So the government took a portion of the food grown and goods made.  Making it more difficult to pay for the welfare state (just imagine your employer paying you in food, toilet paper, soap, etc.).  And the mercenary armies guarding the frontier.  Which could prove troublesome.  As they had no loyalties to the Roman Empire.  They were just hired muscle.  Their blood loyalties were often to people on the other side of the border they were guarding.  Having come from those people.

So the massive cost of hired mercenaries and the massive cost of the Roman bureaucracy and welfare state basically bankrupted the Roman Empire.  Of course the American left prefers not to think about this.  As they are very fond of their large welfare state.  So some on the left often cite the decadence of the Roman Empire that caused her fall.  They talk about the feasts, the drink, the gladiators, the orgies and other acts of debauchery that caused a societal decay that eroded the empire from within.  Even while they are in the business of societal decay themselves.  Free birth control, abortion on demand, the decriminalization of marijuana, the rejection of virtue and morality, their extreme secularism to remove any vestige of restraint from their lives of excess, etc.  The kind of things a debauched Roman citizenry no doubt would have enjoyed.  So either way the Roman Empire fell because of principles the American left embraces.  Which means if liberals keep winning elections the United States will fall like the Roman Empire.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT210: “Vanity, thy name is liberalism; Liberty, thy name is capitalism.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 21st, 2014

Fundamental Truth

Christians believe in the Reward of Hard Work and Shun Idleness for it tends to Invite Trouble

Liberals are very confident people.  As well as arrogant.  Narcissistic.  And condescending.  Which is why they are so secular.  Wanting to take the separation of church and state argument to the extreme.  Attacking and mocking Christianity every chance they get.  As they don’t like anyone judging them.  Or setting some moral standard.  For liberals are a sinful people.

The Seven Deadly Sins are wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.  Christians try to avoid these.  They forgive their enemies instead of getting angry at them.  They tithe to their church instead of keeping all of their money greedily for themselves.  They believe in the reward of hard work and shun idleness for it tends to invite trouble.  They are humble and don’t strive for attention.  They have strong self-control and make sacrifices for a better future instead of giving in to current wants and desires.  They tend to be happy with what they have however modest their lives may be.  Instead of being envious of others.  They don’t eat, drink or live to excess, preferring to do everything in moderation.  Things you just don’t associate with liberals.

Now think of some liberals you know of.  Think of the vicious things liberal Democrats say about Republicans (such as a campaign commercial showing a Republican pushing ‘Grandma’ off a cliff).  The vulgar things some liberal commentators say about Republican women.  And the ridicule of conservatives on late-night television.  Rich liberals who want to raise taxes on the rich (which includes the middle class) to pay for a generous welfare state while giving little to charity themselves.  As they are far more generous with other people’s money than with their own.  And never risk their own money in risky investments such as Solyndra.  Preferring to risk the taxpayers’ money.

Liberals attack the Rich because they are Envious of their Hard Work and Success

Liberals always want a bigger federal government with an ever-growing bureaucracy.  So they can be career politicians without ever getting a real job where they have to work hard to earn a living.  Liberals like to brag about how smart they are and how brilliant their legislation is.  Taking credit for things they didn’t even do.  Such as President Obama taking credit for the surge in natural gas production done on private land by private companies.  Or boasting how their economic policies are working even though the real unemployment rate is in excess of 13% (when you count those who have left the labor force and those who can only find a part-time job).  And their refusal to admit they wrote a terrible law.  Such as Obamacare.

Liberals never want to wait for anything.  They don’t believe in hard work.  They believe in early retirement and generous pensions.  For their friends in the union.  Like the UAW.  In the public sector unions.  And those in government jobs.  They attack the rich because they resent their hard work and success.  Are envious of them.  And want to punish them because they were never as good as they are.  With higher tax rates.  And punishing regulations.  Hollywood celebrities and the Washington elite live the most extravagant lives.  In some of the most expensive homes which are filled with the finest food, drink and toys.  And when that’s not enough some further their excess with drugs.

These are things you just don’t associate with Christians.  In fact, these are things Christians frown upon.  Even telling their congregation not to live lives like these in their church services.  For these are not Christian lives.  Some people could have everything they could possibly want or desire but are still not happy.  Or are bored because it came too easily.  Or too soon.  Turning to other outlets to excite them.  Alcohol and drugs.  Drag-racing in expensive sports cars on neighborhood streets.  Partying all night in the hottest clubs.  Or blowing a lot of money gambling.  Anything to escape the boredom of an idle life.

For a Better Life we should Shun Liberalism and Embrace Free Market Capitalism

This is why liberals attack Christianity so much.  As well as one other reason.  Because they don’t like believing in a higher being.  For they are so arrogant and narcissistic that they can’t stand the thought of some being that is greater than themselves.  For they hold liberalism sacred.  And if anyone worships anything they want the people to worship them.  Because they believe they are the smartest and the most insightful people in the universe.  Yes, vanity, thy name is liberalism.  Which is why they believe they should control government.  And our lives.  Because they’re smarter and wiser than business owners.  Bankers.  Entrepreneurs.  And market forces.  For they are the higher being.  Not what those silly Christians worship.

A lot of people have felt like this throughout history.  Adolf Hitler.  Mao Zedong.  Saddam Hussein.  Benito Mussolini.  Muammar Gaddafi.  Kim Il-sung.  Kim Jong-il.  Kim Jong-un.  Fidel Castro.  Supreme leaders and ruthless dictators who preferred their people to worship them like a god.  And imposed socialism, fascism or communism on their people.  Using their supreme intelligence and insight to make the state a better place for the people.  Making the state supreme.  While subordinating the individual.  And elevating the supreme leader above everyone.  Something liberals have been trying to do all their lives.  Only without the torture and genocide.

But their efforts share a similar trend with these ruthless dictators.  The quality of life declines under their rule.  Some of the worst places to live when it comes to human rights have been in Nazi Germany, the People’s Republic of China, Iraq, Fascist Italy, Libya, North Korea and Cuba.  While some of the best countries to live in are the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and Hong Kong.  All once part of the Christian British Empire.  An empire that embraced free market capitalism.  And when people practice self-control and make sacrifices for the future engage in free market capitalism they make a better place to live.  At least this is what history has shown us.  So if we want a better life we should shun liberalism.  And embrace free market capitalism.  For liberty, thy name is capitalism.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Democrats War on Women makes Women Dissatisfied with their Vaginas

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 5th, 2014

Week in Review

Some people with big noses get nose jobs.  To reduce the size of their noses.  Pretty much the first thing you look at when you see someone with a big schnoz.  So one can understand the anxiety some people may suffer after a life of undo attention on their proboscis.  And a lifetime being called ‘big nose’.

Women are especially prone to getting plastic surgery to correct what they view as defects.  A tummy tuck so they look slimmer and more appealing.  Face lifts so they look younger and more appealing.  Boob jobs.  For a bigger rack to give the guys something to look at.  And to look more appealing.  In fact, anything that men see a lot they want to use surgery to make it look more appealing.  Even things that take some disrobing to see (see Designer vaginas are ruining our idea of what women’s bodies should look like, doctors warn by Anna Hodgekiss posted 12/31/2013 on the Daily Mail).

Women are getting increasingly distorted ideas of what their genitalia should look like, with many wrongly thinking their bodies are ‘abnormal’.

New research has found that those who looked at ‘designer vaginas’ were more more [sic] likely to consider them ‘normal’ and ‘ideal’ when later comparing them to unaltered genitalia…

The number of labiaplasties performed by the NHS has risen five-fold since 2001, according to the study’s Australian authors.

The surgery involves reducing the size of a woman’s labia minora to make them more symmetrical and smaller than the labia majora…

Generally, there are no health reasons to have the surgery – it is only for the sake of appearance. So the researchers wanted to know what drives women’s perceptions of what looks good…

‘This is due to airbrushing, lack of exposure to normal women’s genitals, greater genital visibility due to Brazilian and genital waxing and the general taboo around discussing genitals and genital appearance…’

Sarah Calabrese, a clinical psychologist at Yale University, added: ‘[These findings are] especially disconcerting given that for many women, the narrow and unrealistic range of vulvas presented in mainstream U.S. pornography may be the only images that they see,’ she said.

‘The vulva is unlike most other body parts, which remain visible even when clothed; while a woman can look around and see the size and shape of other women’s waists, breasts, and so on, they don’t have the same opportunity to view other women’s vulvas and therefore are less likely to have a realistic sense of the natural diversity of vulvas in the female population.’

The Democrats/liberals keep saying Republicans/conservatives have a war on women.  Because they don’t want to hand out free birth control.  And provide access to abortion.  While Democrats do everything within their power to make it easier for a woman to go out and have a lot of casual sex.  Apparently liberals everywhere are, too.  Turning women into such sexual objects that they watch pornography to see how men want a vagina to look.  And then have surgery to get their vagina to look like what would please a connoisseur of pornography.  Yet it’s Republicans/conservatives that have a war on women.

But the bigger question is why are women trying to make every part of their body so appealing?  Well, who finds women appealing?  That’s right.  Men.  And why do women look their best for men?  To attract a guy.  And it’s just not for a hookup (i.e., casual sex).  For there probably isn’t a guy who would refuse to have sex with a woman after getting her naked regardless of what her vagina looked like.  For if a guy is looking at a woman’s vagina he’s probably thinking it’s the most beautiful thing he’s ever seen.  Because he’s about to have sex.  And nothing short of an earthquake or a tornado is going to get him to say anything that might spoil the mood.

No.  Women try to attract men to find Mr. Right.  For despite the Democrat war on women with their free birth control and access to abortion to keep them free and single women want to get married.  They don’t want to live alone.  Just being sexual objects for men to enjoy.  So desperate to find Mr. Right they will go to any length to make their looks ideal.  Based on pornographic images.  Something else Democrats fight to protect.  For there probably isn’t a pornographer out there that votes Republican.  Yet it’s Republicans/conservatives that have a war on women.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Women will be able to be more Enlightened and Modern in Canada with Legalized Prostitution

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 21st, 2013

Week in Review

The left everywhere in the world fights back against the Old World Puritanism of conservatives.   Who want to do nothing but oppress women in monogamous marriages.  Where a man pledges to have and behold from this day on, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; until death do us part.  Need one say anymore to prove that there is a war on women?  Just imagine the difficulty of placing the wedding band on the sloped-brow Neanderthal she’s marrying.  Having to lift those scarred knuckles up from the floor.  That he just dragged across the floor to get to the altar.

It’s a frightening image.  Marriage.  A man pledging his undying love to a woman.  You can see why the left rails against such an archaic view of women.  For unlike conservatives liberals liberate women.  They give them birth control and abortion.  So a woman can go from man to man with the frequency of a cheap ham radio (a line borrowed from the Saturday Night Live Point Counter Point sketch with Jane Curtain and Dan Aykroyd).  This is the modern woman the left wants.  A sexual being.  To be enjoyed sexually.  Not oppressed in a monogamous marriage.  Where she’ll never be able to enjoy true freedom.  Like this (see Push is on for strip clubs to take advantage of Supreme Court ruling on prostitution by Daniel Proussalidis posted 12/21/2013 on the Toronto Sun).

Strip clubs smell dollars and opportunity on the heels of a Supreme Court of Canada decision Friday to strike down key Criminal Code provisions.

The Adult Entertainment Association of Canada says it’s ready to provide “enhanced” services once brothels become legal in Canada…

Women’s activist Diane Watts says she’s not surprised to see this push now that the Supreme Court has ruled Canada’s bans on brothels, communicating for the purpose of prostitution and living off its profits are unconstitutional…

Instead of new laws, Lambrinos’s group says strip clubs that are already regulated by cities quality for “enhanced licences” to allow them to offer more than naked people and lap dances.

Watts says fully legalized prostitution will mean higher demand for hookers and “increased trafficking from countries where women are more vulnerable.”

A 2010 RCMP human trafficking threat assessment found strip clubs are already part of the problem.

“Exotic dance clubs, or strip clubs, have been associated with human trafficking of foreign nationals in Canada since the late 1990s, when the number of migrant dancers from Eastern Europe increased dramatically,” said the assessment.

Little girls dream of ponies.  Prince Charming carrying her away.  And fairytale weddings.  Where a man pledges to have and behold from this day on, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; until death do us part.  Not to grow up to dance naked in a strip bar one day to entertain men.  Or to earn a living prostituting themselves as they pleasure men.  And no parent raising their daughter ever hoped that she will be able to dance naked one day for the entertainment of men.  Or to prostitute herself to pleasure men.  Not even liberals.  Yet they will create the world that makes this possible.  And likely.  For stripping and prostitution offers a way for single mothers to make a lot of money in the short working hours they have available around raising their kids.  Something else no little girl dreamed about in her childhood.

Anyone suggesting women should withhold their most intimate selves until their wedding night will be called prudes.  Anyone who urges that women at least enter monogamous relationships with someone who wants more than a one-night stand (aka a hookup) will also be called a prude.  So these young women will be sexually active.  Giving away their most intimate selves to men who think of them as only sexual objects.  Because it’s fun.  And the left has them believing that they are being enlightened and modern and so unlike their prudish parents by objectifying themselves to pleasure as many men as possible.

Yet it’s the conservatives who have a war on women.  Go figure.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT201: “War on women? Seems more like a war on men if you ask me.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 20th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Today Men smoke Marlboro Cigarettes to connect to that Rugged Cowboy on the Billboards

If you had parents or grandparents who lived through the Great Depression and World War II you’ve probably noticed something about them.  They were a hardy breed.  Especially the men.  Sure, we all know someone who changed the oil in their own car.  But back then it wasn’t uncommon to change the sparkplugs, shock absorbers, exhaust system, brakes, ball joints, etc.  They even bought new tires and put them onto the rims themselves.  As well as fixing everything that needed repair around the house.  From the furnace to the toilet to the garbage disposal to installing a new roof on the house.

And all of this after they got home from work.  Or on the weekend after cutting, edging, fertilizing and watering the grass.  So the grass was lush and green for the kids to play on with Dad.  When he wasn’t teaching them to ride a bike.  How to protect themselves in a fight.  Or helping them with their science project.  Getting so involved that their kids turned in things they knew their teachers must have known they didn’t build themselves.  But that’s how it was back then.  There was nothing too complex or too difficult that Dad couldn’t roll up his sleeves and do.  Sure, there may have been some cuss words.  But that rugged can-do attitude forged in the fires of the Great Depression and World War II provided a feeling of safety and comfort in the home whenever Dad was there.  As Dad was both provider and protector.

Today men smoke Marlboro cigarettes to connect to that rugged cowboy on the billboards.  Back then they were that cowboy.  Tough men who volunteered to fight in World War II.  The last time that this type of American man was the rule and not the exception.  But after the war the size of government grew.  With the least manly men of all, liberals, leading the way.  Bringing out the softer and more feminine side of men.  Men who cry.  And explore their feelings.  Eating quiche instead of steak.  Diluting the manliness in them.  As any form of manliness became a socially undesirable trait.

The Left’s Objectification of Women cause Men to Linger in Adolescence instead of Growing Up and Maturing

It started with the Sexual Revolution.  When we went from a family-centered society to one that viewed the idea of family itself as oppression.  Women were encouraged to be sexual things instead of a wife and mother.  Birth control and abortion made it possible to enjoy the sexual favors of a woman without being in a committed relationship.  So men did.  Using women to satisfy their lust.  And only for that.  Allowing women to go on to build a career.  While men began to degenerate into a state of permanent adolescence.  Being that young man who has but one thought on his mind all of the time.

Exit the cowboy.   And enter the government.  LBJ gave us the Great Society.  And Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).  Giving rise to absentee fathers.  And single mothers raising their children alone in government-built public housing.  For the provider and protector left the household.  As the government stepped in to take over that role.  And did a horrible job.  Destroying inner-city families.  As crime-ridden public housing pushed these fatherless boys into gangs.  And drugs.  Which migrated to and infected their schools like a cancer.  Boys who grew up seeing the new normal.  Women are only for sexual pleasure.  Not marrying and raising a family with.  As their children followed the same path.  Growing up without a father.  With the state being provider and protector.  Poorly, of course.

As men lingered in their adolescence they never fully grew up and matured.  The very people who are responsible for this—the liberal left—blamed men for their brutishness.  Saying it was the natural state of man.  And soon made the very act of responding to the attractiveness of a woman as a form of sexual harassment.  The government provides free birth control and access to abortion so women can be as sexually active as possible.  The left attacks the censors and pushes the boundaries on television and in the movies.  Today broadcast television shows often carry warnings like “Strong Coarse Language” and “Intensely Suggestive Dialogue.”  Sexual imagery bombards us.  For sex sells.  It even sells sex on broadcast television.  Such as the Victoria Secret Fashion Show.  With beautiful models dressed only in underwear strut across the catwalk for one purpose.  To bring attention to their sexual parts that their sexy underwear barely covers.  So they can sell their lingerie to spice up sex in the bedroom.  They do all of this and yet attack men as being primeval and brutish when they make inappropriate comments to women.  Such as “You’re looking lovely today.”

The Archetypical Young Man Today is a bespectacled Man-Boy in a Plaid Pajama Onesie Sipping a Hot Chocolate

It’s a confusing world today.  Women are encouraged to look as beautiful as ever while men aren’t supposed to notice.  Liberals encourage them to explore their sexuality while they condemn men for wanting to enjoy that sexuality.  Pulling them even further away from marriage and family as they turn to the world of online pornography.  Further objectifying the already objectified woman.  But in cyberspace men know their advances won’t be construed as sexual harassment.  Social media even pulls the sexes further apart.  Often the only time they get together is for sex.  The Japanese young are even turning away from sex.  As the cost of living in their nanny state is so great they don’t want to be burdened with the high cost of raising a family.  Not surprisingly, life-like sex robots are a reality now in Japan.  And elsewhere.

The left has been marginalizing the role of men in today’s society.  They get women in as many male roles as possible.  Even in the brutal sport of boxing.  Which exemplifies man’s brutish nature.  But celebrates the advancement of women in a male-dominated society.  Even same-sex marriage further and subtly diminishes the role of man as the head of the household and provider and protector of the family.  By equating the sexes.  A man can have a husband or a wife.  And a woman can have a wife or a husband.  Advancing the idea of the obsolescence of man in traditional male roles.  As President Obama’s Life of Julia showed how the government can be the provider and protector for women from 3 to 67.  And the recent ad to get the young invincibles to sign up for Obamacare.  Showing what the left considers to be the archetypical young man today.  A bespectacled man-boy wearing a plaid pajama onesie while sipping a hot chocolate.  A far cry from the rugged manliness of the Marlboro Man.

Is this the ideal man women want?  Is this the man that can put a new tire on a rim?  Is this the man that can win a world war?  Is this man going to make anyone feel safe and protected?  For when it comes to raising a family who do you want as father?  Bespectacled pajama man-boy?  Or the Marlboro Man?  Paula Cole put this well in a song during the Nineties (see Where have all the cowboys gone).

Where is my John Wayne
Where is my prairie son
Where is my happy ending
Where have all the cowboys gone…

Where is my Marlboro man
Where is his shiny gun
Where is my lonely ranger
Where have all the cowboys gone

And we have a war on women?  Seems more like a war on men if you ask me.  And, sadly, it’s one men are losing.  Sad for both men and women.  And the nation.  As real men are now the exception now and not the rule.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Is the Road to National Health Care through Incompetence or Deviousness?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 19th, 2013

Politics 101

The American Left is always trying to Expand the Role of Government in our Lives

Hillary Clinton tried it.  When her husband was president.  Give us national health care.  But there was terrific blowback.  Because people didn’t want it.  For they were afraid it would take the best health care system in the world (it’s the United States the richest people in the world go to for their more serious health problems) and do, well, what Obamacare is doing to it now.

The American left is always trying to expand the role of government in our lives.  To make people more dependent on government.  Because once they are they will soon discover something very beneficial to the left.  They will learn that they need government.  And once they do they will keep voting for the party that promises to expand government ever more.

This is why the left so wants national health care.  For it makes people need government.  To stay alive.  And that pays big dividends at those annoying things that come around every 2 years that the left hates.  And thinks is beneath them.  Elections.

The Lesson the American Left learned from the Failure of Hillarycare was to Lie Better

Liberals are a bunch of elitists.  They think they are better and smarter than the rest of us.  Which is why they feel they have the right to tell us how to live our lives.  For in their eyes we’re just too stupid to know what’s best for us.  Much like the British nobles felt about their petulant North American colonists.  They’d have preferred we appreciated all that the Crown was doing for them.  Thank them.  And shut the hell up.  This is the mindset of the American left.

The British Crown did not like their American colonists questioning the established order of power.  Neither do liberals.  For they believe that they are a privileged class.  And should live under a different set of rules.  Like they continue to show us all the time as they implement Obamacare.  As they forced the majority of Americans to lose the health insurance, doctors and medicine they liked and wanted to keep waivers went out to those connected to the liberal ruling class.  And actual members of the ruling class.  Such as those Congressional staffers getting illegal subsidies for their gold-plated health care plans while ordinary Americans lost their bare-bones plans because the Affordable Care Act made them unaffordable.

Was this an unintended consequence of the Affordable Care Act?  Well, being that the promise that if you like your health insurance, doctors and medicine and wanted to keep them but now can’t as the year’s biggest lie, it makes one think.  If they lied why did they lie?  To do what was best for the American people?  Or was it because they learned a powerful lesson from the failure of Hillarycare?  That the people don’t want national health care.  So if that’s what you want you can’t tell the American people that.  No.  You lie to them.  Which is why President Obama and his fellow Democrats lied.  Because they knew the American people didn’t want the [deleted expletive] they were shoveling.

The American Left looks upon us with the same Contempt as the British Nobility looked upon the American Colonists

Originally the Affordable Care Act included a public option.  National health care for those who opted for national health care.  But this just didn’t pass the smell test.  For there were Democrats who had one of those nasty things they hated coming up.  An election.  And these Democrats knew that their constituents, though they voted Democrat, would not go for national health care in sheep’s clothing.  So they had to remove the public option from the bill.  For it was just too painfully obvious what their ultimate intentions were.  Which left them with Plan B.

People like their health insurance, doctors and medicine.  And you’re not going to usher in national health care when they have these things.  For they know that the VA and Medicaid (examples of national health care already in America) is second-class health care.  I mean, those rich people coming to the United States for their more serious health problems aren’t demanding to get into the VA or Medicaid programs.  So to get national health care you first have to destroy the private health insurance system.  And candidate Obama told the SEIU that it may take awhile (see The Fix Is In: From ObamaCare Set-Up To Single-Payer Solution by Larry Bell posted 11/26/2013 on Forbes).

“But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out…”

So is the disastrous rollout of the Affordable Care Act just incompetence?  Or is it part of a devious plan to get what they always wanted?  National health care?  By first destroying the private health insurance that gave people the health insurance, doctors and medicine they liked and wanted to keep?  If it’s incompetence that isn’t good for the American people.  For these same incompetent people will now be in charge of our health care.  With our lives literally hanging in the balance.  Or are they just devious?  Which also isn’t good for the American people.  For it means they look upon us with the same contempt as the British nobility looked upon the American colonists.  Who only cared about what was best for their privileged class.  And not the American people.

The problem the left has is one of timing.  Yes they hold the American people in contempt and believe they are privileged.  But because of elections they have to be careful about letting these truths out.  Because if they lose the Senate and don’t get the House back in the next election it could throw a wrench into their plans.  They need to destroy the private health insurance industry.  But doing so will make people hate them.  And vote against them.  So on the one hand they have to get people dependent on government as soon as possible.  To get them to need government.  But if they move too fast they may anger the people so much that they may lose in the upcoming thing a privileged class hates.  And thinks is beneath them.  An election.  Which may cause them to lose their power.  This is the dilemma the left faces in the rollout of Obamacare.  The degree to which they [deleted expletive] the American people.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries