FT208: “Good liars can make anyone like them while those who don’t lie can’t.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 7th, 2014

Fundamental Truth

Having Government remake our Health Care System is not the Limited Government of our Founding Fathers

According to a Gallup poll approximately 38% of people identify themselves as conservative while only 23% identify themselves as liberal (see Liberal Self-Identification Edges Up to New High in 2013 by Jeffrey M. Jones posted 1/10/2014 on Gallup).  With most of the rest (34%) identifying themselves as moderate.  Or, in other words, 77% of the people do NOT identify themselves as liberal.  That’s over three-quarters of the population.  Which means if you were in a group of four people only one of the four would be a liberal.

And yet we have Obamacare.  Thanks to the Affordable Care Act passed on partisan lines when the Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress.  The most liberal change to our health care system (the government will charge people a fine/tax if they don’t buy health insurance).  The only time in history that government has forced people to buy something against their will.  Without having any kind of say in the matter.  Like we do with car insurance.  If you don’t want to buy car insurance all you have to do is NOT drive a car.  But with Obamacare there is no choice.  Everyone has to buy health insurance.  Period.

Having government remake our health care system is not the limited government of our Founding Fathers.  It is actually more in keeping with a royal decree issued by the king the Founding Fathers fought for their independence from.  Ye shall do this.  For the ruler has spoken.  And ye shall pay more taxes to fund this huge growth of government.  Another thing not in keeping with our Founding Fathers.  Higher taxes.  So how have we come to this when 77% of the people don’t want any of this?  Because liberals are some of the best liars in the world.  That’s how.

Discounted Reimbursements are causing Doctors and Hospitals to leave the Obamacare Network

To make Obamacare work they needed to get people to pay more for their health insurance.  So they could raise a lot of money to subsidize health insurance for those who could not afford to buy it.  Which they couldn’t do if people kept the policies they liked and wanted to keep.  Especially those lower-cost ones.  So they made the policies people liked and wanted to keep noncompliant with the Affordable Care Act.  Forcing their insurers to cancel them.  And forcing people to buy more costly policies.  This providing the subsidy money Obamacare needed.

So this was the plan.  To cause mass cancellations.  And then force those people with cancelled policies to buy more expensive policies.  But this was only part of the formula.  To keep more of those higher insurance premiums they also raised deductibles.  So not only did people pay more for their health insurance policies.  Those policies paid for less.  Forcing people to spend a lot more out-of-pocket before their insurance kicked in.

We have huge budget deficits.  And growing national debt.  A big part of that debt is from Medicare and Medicaid (and Social Security).  Getting people to pay for other people’s health insurance won’t cut these costs.  But there is something that will, though.  The same thing the government is doing with Medicare.  Pay doctors and hospitals less.  By discounting their reimbursements.  It worked pretty well with Medicare.  So they were sure it would work well with Obamacare.  Of course, health care providers overcharged private insurers to recoup what the government didn’t pay.  So this will no longer be an option under Obamacare.  Which has caused a lot of doctors and hospitals to already leave the Obamacare network.

People would rather hear a Pleasant Lie than an Unpleasant Truth

There was a lot if opposition to the Affordable Care Act.  For the people did not want national health care.  And they felt that was where Obamacare would lead to.  So President Obama told people in person.  And looked into the camera.  Making a promise to the American people.  “If you like your health care plan you can keep your health care plan.  If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.  If you like your hospital you can keep your hospital.  Period.  No one was going to take these away from you.  All we’re going to do is give you better health insurance while saving the average family $2,500 on their annual insurance premium.”  None of which was true.

Of course, had the president told the truth he would only have confirmed everyone’s fears.  Which is why he lied.  A lie so big PolitiFact named it the Lie of the Year.  And he told the lie so easily.  He was so reassuring that the people believed him.  In fact, they wanted to believe him.  For they liked this president.  And they trusted him.  Despite his economic policies having failed to produce a strong economic recovery.  For even when polls showed the people thought his policies were taking the country in the wrong direction the people still liked him.  Because he tried.  Always saying things the people wanted to hear.  A lot of feel-good things.  Affordable health care for everyone.  Leveling the playing field.  Making the rich pay their fair share.  Free birth control.  Not enforcing federal drug laws in Colorado and Washington.  With talk like that no wonder the people liked him.  And why it was so easy for him to lie to the people.  As they were willing to believe just about anything he said.

President Obama is everything our parents aren’t.  Who tell us what we need to do.  What we should do.  And what we shouldn’t do.  Regular killjoys.  Unlike the president.  And the Democrats.  Who don’t mind people having a little fun in their lives.  Unlike the Republicans.  Who are as bad as our parents.  Always telling us things we don’t want to hear.  Like truths.  Facts.  And how things are.  Reality.  While the president and the Democrats tell us how things could be.  How life can be more fun and more carefree their way.  Whereas life requires a lot of hard work and sacrifice the Republicans’ way.  Because reality can suck.  Which is why some people use intoxicants to escape it.  Or vote Democrat.  Willing to accept on faith their fictional
alternative to escape reality.  For it turns out people would rather hear a pleasant lie than an unpleasant truth.  And people will like you if you tell them pleasant lies.  While they won’t like you very much if you tell them unpleasant truths.  Which is why good liars can make anyone like them while those who don’t lie can’t.  This is why people didn’t like Mitt Romney.  He told the truth.  And why people liked President Obama.  Because he told them what they wanted to hear.  Such as things like the Lie of the Year.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Funding Gaps and Government Shutdowns

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 15th, 2013

History 101

The Constitution prevented the Executive from Ruling Arbitrarily and becoming Judge, Jury and Executioner

There have been funding gaps.  And there have been government shutdowns.  But not always both.  For once upon a time the executive branch stayed open for business even when the House of Representatives did not approve their bills for payment.  But that all changed in 1980 thanks to Jimmy Carter’s attorney general.  Benjamin Civiletti.

Civiletti wrote two opinions as attorney general changing the way government spends money.  The first said the executive can’t spend any money without the House of Representatives’ approval.  A strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.  His second opinion softened the first.  Giving the executive power to spend money the House of Representatives doesn’t approve of when necessary to protect life and property.  Such as funding the military.  And so grew the delineation between essential and nonessential spending.  Or what some would say essential spending and pork.

The Founding Fathers saw the damage absolute monarchies could do.  Even a constitutional monarchy with too much power.  So they separated powers.  They created three branches of government.  The executive, the legislative and the judiciary.  One branch to write the law (the legislature).  One branch to enforce the law (the executive).  And one branch to interpret questions in the law (the judiciary).  Thus preventing the executive from ruling arbitrarily and becoming judge, jury and executioner.  Like a king.

The Founding Fathers gave the Power of the Purse to the House to rein in Executive Spending

The Founding Fathers took the separation of powers further.  The House of Representatives was the people’s house.  Where the people voted in their representatives by popular vote.  But to keep a check on federal power the Senate was the states’ house (since changed by constitutional amendment, thus greatly increasing the power of the federal government over the states).  Each state in the union had an equal voice.  Thus requiring not only a majority of the people it also required a majority of the states to pass federal law.  To keep the larger urban populations from dictating policy to the lesser populated rural areas.

The Founding Fathers took the separation of powers even further.  Giving the power of the purse to the House of Representatives.  So the executive couldn’t wage costly wars.  Or expand bloated bureaucracies to reward campaign donors with patronage.  Or expand a welfare state to buy votes.  Especially since Alexander Hamilton opened Pandora’s Box with his interpretation of the necessary and proper clause.  Which expanded the scope of the federal government to include whatever it thought was necessary and proper.  Giving rise to the progressive/liberal state.  Something that would have horrified Alexander Hamilton if he were alive today to see the behemoth the federal government became.  And had he known then what would become of the federal government today he would have been a Jeffersonian.  Jefferson and Hamilton would probably still have hated each other but they would have agreed on keeping limited government limited.

Civiletti understood that the Founding Fathers meant to rein in the spending powers of the executive branch.  To meet the intent of the separation of powers they felt was essential for representative government.  A government of the people, by the people and for the people.  As Abraham Lincoln so eloquently said in the Gettysburg Address some 76 years later.  Hence his first opinion.  Which he softened with his second when it hurt his boss and the Democrat cause.  For Civiletti was a Democrat.

The Democrats want to Break the Republican Opposition and Govern Against the Intent of the Founding Fathers

Before Civiletti’s opinions there was little urgency to settle funding gaps between what the executive branch wanted and what the House would approve.  So at the end of a fiscal year the executive often continued to operate without spending authority.  Letting the durations of these funding gaps last for a week or more.  With no interruption of government services.  But after Civiletti’s opinions the government shut down nonessential services.  Which did speed up the closing of the funding gap.  For when the funding gap included a government shutdown resolving the funding gap went from a week or more to a few days.

Funding Gaps and Government Shutdowns

To date there have been 18 funding gaps that went unresolved into the new fiscal year.  One of which is still ongoing.  In the table you can see how much quicker the House and the executive branch resolved their differences with the threat of a government shutdown.  The exception to that being the longest shutdown during the Clinton administration.  Which ultimately led the way to welfare reform.  Which greatly dampened President Clinton’s costly liberal agenda.  And was the law of the land until President Obama used sweeping powers he does not have to roll back some of that legislation.

President Obama and the Democrats have called the House Republicans about every derogatory name in the book for dare trying to enforce the Founding Fathers’ separation of powers.  Saying that never before has a radical fringe held a gun to the head of the executive, took hostages, demanded ransom, etc.  But that’s not true.  Of the 18 funding gaps where the House of Representatives did not give the president all the money he wanted that president was a Republican 55.6% of the time.  So Republican presidents got their way fewer times than Democrat presidents.  And as far as hostage takers, the Democrats held the power of the purse 15 of those 18 funding gaps/shutdowns.  Or 83.3%.  So the president and the Democrats aren’t telling the truth when it comes to the historical record.  Who seem to be more interested in swinging public opinion to their side.  So they can break the Republican opposition.  And govern against the intent of the Founding Fathers.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT170: “If liberals believed in being bipartisan they wouldn’t harass conservatives with the IRS.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 17th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

The Right should Rubberstamp Everything the Left wants Just like the Left did for George W. Bush

If you ever have watched the Daily Show with Jon Stewart you’ve probably noticed a recurring theme.  He gets exasperated.  A lot.  When it comes to the lack of bipartisan cooperation on the side of the Republicans.  And by bipartisan he means just giving the Democrats what they want.  Just to give up their core beliefs.  And vote for things that violate everything they stand for.

It’s the conservatives that really annoy him.  And Democrats in general.  Especially Tea Party conservatives.  Who just won’t buckle under.  And give the Democrats what they want.  Like the Republican establishment.  RINOs.  Who like the ruling class in Washington.  And want to be a part of it.  Unlike those Tea Party conservatives.  Who sound like a broken record.  We need limited government.  And lower tax rates.  Not an expanding federal government.  Paid for with higher tax rates.  And their opposition to Obamacare despite it being law really gets stuck in their craw.

President Obama’s reelection was a mandate.  At least that’s what the Democrats thought.  That the people approved of the president.  And everything he did in his first term.  That shellacking the Democrats took in the 2010 midterm elections?  Causing the rise of the Tea Party in the first place?  Because of those backroom deals?  That the Democrats made to pass Obamacare into law?  That was just an anomaly.  It meant nothing.  That was only some tin-hat wearing crazy people.  Tea-baggers, they called them.  No.  Real America reelected President Obama.  Because they wanted him to do more.  So the conservatives should just accept that.  And rubberstamp everything the Democrats want.  Just like they did for George W. Bush.

Based on the Demographic Numbers one Must Question if the Obama Presidency is Legitimate

Oh, wait a minute, they didn’t do that.  They fought him relentlessly.  Especially after the Democrats won big in the 2006 midterm elections.  Taking back both the House.  And the Senate.  For they hated George W. Bush.  And never accepted him as legitimate.  What with the debacle of the 2000 election.  Where to this day they say the Republicans stole that election.  Thanks to the Supreme Court.  Making Al Gore a millionaire in the process.  Peddling his global warming fear.  But poor Al Gore got robbed in 2000.  Because the Republicans cheated.  And suppressed voter turnout.  The only way Republicans can win elections.  Or so say the Democrats.

Of course the numbers don’t agree with that.  The demographics.  Then.  And now.  In 2001 liberals were at 17%.  Moderates at 38%.  And conservatives at 43%.  Today liberals rose to 20%.  Moderates fell to 32%.  And conservatives rose to 46%.  Conservatives are the majority.  Then.  And now.  (See In U.S., Nearly Half Identify as Economically Conservative posted 5/25/2012 on Gallup).  So conservatives can win elections.  Based on these numbers.  And should be able to do so easier than liberals.  So it must be the liberals.  They must be the ones cheating.  And suppressing voter turnout.

So Bush was legitimate.  Based on the numbers.  And it is doubtful the people want the Republicans to rollover.  Or rubberstamp the Democrat agenda.  For they did retain the House in 2012.  As they should have won the Senate.  And the White House.  Based on the horrible economy.  The killing of 4 Americans in Benghazi.  And Obamacare.  That the majority just doesn’t want.  Which begs the question.  Is the Obama presidency legitimate?

This Bipartisan Spirit of the Left is Fear and Intimidation of their Political Opponents

So how did President Obama win reelection?  And how did the Democrats hold onto the Senate?  Well, there was the mainstream media.  Which is liberal.  Following in the tradition of their godfather.  Walter Cronkite.  Only out of the closet.  For there are no closet liberals these days.  There’s Hollywood.  Television.  The music industry.  The public schools.  And our universities.  All liberal.  Just a small sliver of the population.  But a highly leveraged sliver.  As they have greatly amplified voices.  Which gives them legitimacy.  As television and movies sway a lot of people.  Especially the young.  Who our teachers program in our public schools.  And our professors brainwash in our universities.  Despite all of this, though, we’re still a conservative people.  While liberals still hold at 20%.  So there must be something else.

Which brings us back to cheating.  And voter suppression.  Liberals hate the Tea Party.  And conservatives.  Blaming them for their loss of the House.  In that 2010 shellacking.  Ever since then liberals have slandered the Tea Party.  Called them racists.  And every other dirty name in the book.  Including tea baggers.  They hated these people.  And were not going to allow a repeat of 2010.  With President Obama in the White House it put the liberals in charge of the executive branch of government.  Giving them power.  Which they used.  By having the most feared agency of the federal government harass the conservatives.  Especially the Tea Party.  As groups applied for tax-exempt status the IRS harassed them.  Asking them for a lot information.  Personal information.  That they could use against them.  Such as releasing the names of their major donors to liberal websites.  Who destroyed and intimidated these donors as best as they could.  Some of these people faced costly audits by the IRS.  Even suffered through costly audits from the Labor Department.  The message was clear.  If you tried to exercise your First Amendment right against the Obama administration beware.  For you will feel the wrath of the federal government.  Muzzling the opposition.  Making it easier to win.  Despite the horrible economy.  Benghazi.  And Obamacare.

This is the bipartisan spirit of the left.  Fear and intimidation.  And when that doesn’t work they speak in an exasperated voice.  Of Republicans.  And their refusal to work with the Democrats.  In a bipartisan manner.  Expressing their frustration.  That 46% of the population won’t just give in to 20% of the population.  Giving up their core beliefs.  And to just vote for things that violate everything they stand for.  Something the Democrats never did for George W. Bush.  But it is a moral outrage when the Republicans won’t do it for President Obama.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Left Politicizes Atrocities to Attack Conservatives

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 18th, 2013

Politics 101

Democrats Quickly Politicized the Boston Marathon Bombings to attack Conservatives

What’s the difference between conservatives and liberals?  Well, for one, they respond to horrific tragedies differently.  Conservatives are sickened and saddened.  While liberals salivate with a potential opportunity to blame conservatives for these horrific events.  Which they are quick to do.  Even before the dead are identified and laid to rest.  As we can see in the Boston marathon bombings.

We don’t know anything yet.  But the media has been reporting on what we don’t know 24 hours a day since the bombings.  And on the day of the attack there have been those in the media already making the case that the bomber is possibly a ‘radical’ conservative.  Because it happened on April 15.  Tax Day.  During the Patriots’ Day holiday in Boston.  Not far from the anniversary of the fiery end of the Waco siege.  Even someone in the media wrote that they were hoping that it was the actions of an angry white man.  So it wouldn’t hurt the liberal political agenda.  More gun control.  And less restrictions on immigration.  So if the bomber(s) entered the country illegally (i.e., they’re not angry white men) that could hurt their attempts at creating new Democrat voters by giving illegal immigrants amnesty.

Former Democrat Congressman Barney Frank was quick to politicize the bombings, too.  He said the response of the first-responders proves the value of big government.  For no tax cuts or limited government would have made the response any better.  Another Democrat Congress person blamed the bombings on the sequester.  The cut in federal spending allowed these bombers to detonate these two bombs.  So on the one hand you have one Congress person saying how well the government handled the situation because we don’t have limited government or tax cuts while you have another saying the government was so weakened by the sequester that they were unable to stop these bombers.  Positions on opposite ends of the spectrum.  But with one thing in common.  They both attack conservatives.

The Left Gleefully reports a Conservative Connection in any Horrible Act of Violence even when there is None

They blamed the massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, on radical gun-toting conservatives.  Anxious to prove that the shooter was a card carrying member of some conservative organization.  And were quite disappointed to find the shooter was just someone with mental health problems who the state should have institutionalized.  Who lived in his mother’s basement playing violent video games and earning high-scores with high kill numbers.  Some have even suggested that he was living in the fantasy world of the videogame when he started shooting.  Scoring points with each kill.  Reloading even before his magazines were empty (like during lulls in a videogame so you had a full magazine for the next shooting encounter).  And killing himself before the cops could kill him, resetting his game points to zero.  There are a lot of theories.  But with his suicide we can’t know for sure his motive.

Nothing would have prevented this shooting other than locking him up in an institution while he was learning about past mass shootings.  Planning his crime.  And playing hours of video games in his basement.  Adam Lanza was sick.  He was mentally unsound.  He had trouble interacting with people.  And separating the real world from the fantasy world of his video gaming.  But one thing he wasn’t was a radical conservative.  But it didn’t stop the liberal Democrats from blaming the Sandy Hook massacre on a conservative gun culture.  And using it to try and pass long-desired gun control legislation.  Instead of addressing mental health problems.  The cause of the Sandy Hook massacre.  In fact, during the last few decades the Left has made it more difficult to commit someone who is a danger to society.  And they exploded the use of drugs to treat a laundry list of childhood developmental problems.  Such as drugging a generation of kids for having attention deficit disorder.  Trusting in medication to make them safe and well behaved.  Leaving dangerous people free to hurt people.  Dangerous people like Adam Lanza.

Mental health problems are a main theme in many mass killings.  Before Newtown there was the 2012 Aurora theater shooting.  Where the shooter was a mentally sick individual.  James Holmes.  Who the state should have institutionalized.  As soon as his name was released a person in the media reported he was a member of the Tea Party.  Because he found a James Holmes in Aurora that was a member of the Tea Party.  Which they gleefully reported so they could show this horrible act of violence was by some gun-toting conservative.  Only it wasn’t THAT James Holmes.  The Aurora shooter had no connection to conservative politics whatsoever.

When Emotions are Running High the Left can Pass Legislation they’ve never been able to Pass Before

In Tucson in 2011 Jared Loughner went on a shooting spree.  Killing six.  And shooting Representative Gabrielle Giffords in the head.  The media immediately started blaming conservative Sarah Palin for inciting this rampage.  Because she had a bulls-eye on her website showing certain Congressional districts in the cross hairs.  Including Giffords’.  But was Jared Loughner incited to his crime by Palin?  No.  For he wouldn’t have gone on her website.  He was a registered Independent.  He hated George W. Bush.  He even believed that 9/11 was a government plot.  And was a paranoid schizophrenic who abused drugs and alcohol.

Nidal Malik Hasan shot and killed 13 people and wounded 30 at Fort Hood in 2009.  He was a major in the Army who had recently converted to Islam.  Was in communication with Yemen-based cleric Anwar al-Awlaki who was a known security threat.  And reportedly shouted what Islamist terrorists shout before they start killing.  Allahu Akbar!  Which translates to “God is great.”  But instead of calling this an act of terrorism President Obama called it workplace violence.  Because he was trying to wind down the War on Terror.  So he could use that money to pay for Obamacare.  And having an act of terrorism on a U.S Army post didn’t help with that agenda.

Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people and wounded 17 at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in 2007.  He also suffered from mental disorders going back to middle school.  Who had problems similar to Adam Lanza.  Something his college knew nothing about because of federal privacy laws.  Laws that protected the individual by putting the public at risk.  As an adult Cho chose to discontinue his therapy.  And his behavior became similar to how James Holmes would later act when he was in college.  Which is when the state probably should have committed him.  After the shooting rampage the Left blamed easy access to guns as the cause of the shooting.  Not their failed mental health policies.

One can see a general pattern.  The Left likes having these atrocities happen.  At least based on how they politicize these atrocities.  And why do they politicize these atrocities?  Because they can’t beat their political opponents in the arena of ideas.  So they turn to character assaults.  To destroy their political opponents.  By trying to blame these atrocities on conservatives.  And their cruel and unfeeling policies.  That kill school children.  And when emotions are running high they can pass legislation they’ve never been able to pass before.  Like gun control.  And they don’t run higher than when children die.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

2012 Endorsements: James Madison

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 22nd, 2012

2012 Election

The Father of the Constitution nudged the Father of the Country out of Retirement

The Confederation Congress did not work as well as some had hoped.  Despite having won their independence from Great Britain there was still no feeling of national unity.  Sectional interests prevailed over national interests.  Greatly affecting the ability of the national government to function.  Negating the benefits of union.  And offering little respect for the young nation on the world stage.  The new nation simply was not taken seriously at home.  Or abroad.  Prompting a meeting of states delegates in Annapolis in 1786.  Twelve delegates from five states showed up.  The states just didn’t care enough.  The convention adjourned after only three days.  But not before Alexander Hamilton put a plan together for another convention in Philadelphia for the following year.

The states were happy with the way things were.  They did not want to give up any of their powers to a new central authority.  But the problem was that the states were fighting against each other.  Trying to protect their own economic interests and their own trade.  Some could extend this behavior out into the future.  And they did not like what they saw.  States with similar interests would form regional alliances.  And these alliances would ally themselves with some of the European powers who were also on the North American continent.  The northern states (having industry and commerce) would join together and ally with the industrial and commerce powerhouse Great Britain.  The agrarian southern states would join together and ally with Great Britain’s eternal enemy.  France.  And the western territories dependent on the Mississippi River to get their agricultural goods to marker would ally with the European power in control of the Mississippi River.  Spain.  Who were both eternal enemies of Great Britain.  And the centuries of warfare on the European continent would just extend to North America.  Some saw this as the American future if they didn’t unite and put the nation’s interests ahead of sectional interests.

The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 almost didn’t happen.  For there was as much interest in it as there was in the Annapolis Convention in 1786.  James Madison, the father of the Constitution, made the meeting in Philadelphia a reality.  By his persuasive efforts with his neighbor.  George Washington.  Father of our Country.  Then in retirement at Mount Vernon with no interest to reenter public life after resigning his commission following the Revolutionary War.  He could have been king then but declined the numerous offers to make him so.  Happy that they won their independence he just wanted to live out his years on his farm.  Like Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus.  Who left his plough to become dictator of the Roman Republic.  To defend the Roman Republic.  He defeated the enemy.  Resigned his dictatorship.  And returned to his plough.  Earning a cherished place in our history books.  Something Washington had just done.  Only taking some 8 years instead of 16 days like Cincinnatus.  His place in history had come with a far greater price.  And he did not want to risk losing what he had earned after paying so dearly for it.  But Madison knew that it would take Washington’s presence to get the other states to send their delegates.  So Madison was persistent.   The Father of the Constitution nudged the Father of the Country out of retirement.  And made the retired general do the last thing he wanted to do.  Return to public life.  As he was already an old man who outlived the average lifespan of Washington men.

Madison didn’t believe a Bill of Rights would Stop a Majority from Imposing their Will on the Minority

It took four long, miserable months to produce the new constitution.  It was a hot and insufferable summer.  And they kept the windows of Independence Hall closed to block out the city noise.  And prevent anyone from hearing the debates.  So the delegates could speak freely.  And after those four long months the delegates signed the new document.  Not all of them.  Some hated it and refused to sign it or support it.  And would actively fight against it during the ratification process.  As they did not like to see so much power going to a new federal government.  Especially as there was no bill of rights included to help protect the people from this new government.  The document they produced was based on the Virginia Plan.  Which was drafted by James Madison.  Which is why we call him the Father of the Constitution.  So Virginia was instrumental in producing the new constitution.  And the delegates finally agreed to it because of another Virginian.  George Washington.  Making Virginian ratification of the new constitution conditional for other states to ratify it.  So all eyes were on Virginia.  For without Virginia all their efforts in Philadelphia would be for naught.  Because if Virginia did not join the union under the new Constitution that meant George Washington would be ineligible to be president.

Of course getting Virginia to ratify was another story.  Because George Washington and James Madison were not the only Virginians in politics.  There was also George Mason.  Who wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776).  Which Thomas Jefferson may have borrowed from when writing the Declaration of Independence.  And Mason also wrote the Virginia State Constitution (1776).  Mason opposed granting the new federal government so much power and refused to sign the Constitution in Philadelphia.  And then there was Patrick Henry.  Perhaps the greatest Patriot orator.  And of “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!” fame.  Which he shouted out during the Stamp Act (1765) debates.  He was also Virginia’s first governor under the new state constitution.  Mason and Henry were Patriots of the 1776 school.  The kind that hated distant central powers.  Whether they were in London.  Or in New York.  Mason wanted a bill of rights.  Henry, too.  As well as amendments transferring a lot of power from the federal government back to the states.  Or, better yet, no federal constitution at all.  Which Henry would work towards by leading a fierce ratification opposition.

Perhaps the greatest flaw of the new constitution as many saw was the lack of a bill of rights.  This was a contentious issue during the convention.  It was the reason why Mason refused to sign it.  As there was nothing to check the powers of the new government and protect the people’s liberties.  So why did they not include a bill of rights?  Because it was not necessary.  According to Madison.  Who fought against it.  Because the new federal government was a government of limited powers.  It wasn’t like the state governments.  The new federal government only did those things the states didn’t do.  Or shouldn’t do.  Like treat with other nations.  Provide a common defense.  Regulate interstate trade.  Things that expanded beyond a state’s borders.  And what powers it had were enumerated.  Limited.  It did not repeal individual rights protected by state constitutions.  And had no authority over those rights.  Whatever rights a person enjoyed in their state were untouchable by the new federal government.  Therefore, a bill of rights was not necessary.  Which actually protected rights greater than listing them.  For whatever rights they forgot to list the federal government would assume were fair to abuse.  Finally, Madison didn’t believe a bill of rights would stop a majority from imposing their will on the minority.  A tyranny of the majority.  Something he saw firsthand as a young man returning from college.  Where the state of Virginia harassed and imprisoned Baptist ministers for holding Baptist services in Anglican Virginia.  Something he didn’t forget.  Nor did the Baptists.

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

Patrick tried hard to prevent the ratification of the constitution in Virginia.  But failed.  When it came time for the Virginian legislature to elect their federal senators Henry campaigned hard against Madison and saw him defeated.  When it came to the federal House elections Henry drew the new Congressional districts that made Madison campaign in a district full of people that mostly disagreed with him.  Which it took a change of his position on adding a bill of rights to the Constitution to overcome.  His position gradually changed from opposed to being lukewarm to being a strong supporter.  In part due to some correspondence with Thomas Jefferson then serving in France.  And the Baptists’ concerns over rights of conscience.  Something Madison had longed believed in.  Believing religious liberty was essential to a free people.  As the Constitution stood there were no safeguards specifically against the oppression like that the Anglicans imposed on the Baptists earlier.  What the Baptists wanted was a bill of rights.

Madison promised, if elected, to introduce an amendment to the Constitution addressing their concerns.  In fact, a bill of rights would be the first Constitutional amendment.  And he would introduce it and fight for it until it was ratified.  Based on this promise the Baptists threw their support behind Madison.  Got him elected to the House of Representatives.  And Madison delivered on his promise.  Championing a bill of rights through Congress.  The Father of the Constitution also became the Father of the Bill of Rights.  And then it was a knockdown drag-out fight in the Virginian legislature to get the new Bill of Rights ratified.   Where the opposition to ratification was led by none other than Patrick Henry.  But he would lose that fight, too.  And the nation would have a federal government with limited, enumerated powers.  With individual liberties protected by a bill of rights.  Providing a federal government powerful enough to do the things it needed to do like treat with other nations, provide a common defense, regulate interstate trade, etc.  Those things that expanded beyond a state’s borders.  And in the following decade we would be prosperous because of it.

None of this could have happened without Virginia’s ratification of the Constitution.  Which opened the door for George Washington to be our first president.  And helped New York ratify the Constitution.  With the ratification in Virginia.  And the letter writing campaign in support of ratification.  Which appeared in newspapers.  Articles written by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton (mostly) and John Jay.  Now published as the Federalists Papers.  Thanks to the tireless efforts of Madison and Hamilton the nation had a new form of government.  But Madison and Hamilton would soon part ways once Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury.  And took great liberties with the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution.  Expanding the power and scope of the federal government far beyond what Madison had ever envisioned.  Which moved Madison into closer company with George Mason and Patrick Henry.  Desperately trying to hold onto states’ rights and oppose the expansion of the federal government.  Like he would oppose the great overreach of the federal government today.  The transfer of power from the states to the federal government.  And the expansion of suffrage to include those who don’t own property or pay taxes.  Leading to mob rule at times.  Populism.  And a tyranny of the majority.

Madison suffered ill health most of his life.  Stomach disorders and dysentery.  Brought on by the pressures of public service.  If he were alive today he probably wouldn’t remain alive long.  Seeing what has happened to his Constitution would probably kill him.  If he had the chance to vote today he would vote for the party that championed limited government.  The party that would stop the growth of the federal government.  And reduce its size.  The party that governed for all people and not the will of the populist mob.  The party that did NOT govern through class warfare but through sound principles.  If James Madison were alive today he would likely endorse the Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

2012 Endorsements: Thomas Jefferson

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 17th, 2012

2012 Election

When the Radicals attacked Parliament and the King’s Ministers Jefferson’s Summary View attacked King George

When Thomas Jefferson entered politics he was still a quiet and shy awkward young man.  He was not the public speaker Patrick Henry was.  And did not enjoy being in the spotlight.  That said he was incredibly book smart.  When he was in college he spent up to 15 hours a day reading.  And another 3 hours practicing his violin.  Which probably explained why he was quiet and shy.  And not a real lady’s man.  His first love was and always remained his books.  And it was this insatiable thirst to read and learn that made him one of the greatest writers of the Revolutionary era.  It was also where he was most comfortable.  For it was something a quiet and shy young man could do best in his solitude.

After earning a law degree he went into law.  Then he won a seat in the Virginian House of Burgesses.  And joined the opposition against the taxing efforts of British Parliament.  As well as their regulation of trade.  Going so far as to join a boycott of British imports.  Unless it was something really nice that he really, really wanted.  For he was a bit of a dandy who enjoyed the finest fashions, furnishings, wines, pretty much anything French, etc.  If it was fashionable in high society Jefferson probably had it.  But you wouldn’t believe he was a dandy by his writing.  For he wrote some powerful stuff while still in the House of Burgesses.  Especially his A Summary View of the Rights of British America (1774).  Published at a time when there was a lot of friction between the colonies and the mother country.  As furious debate raged about Parliament’s right to tax and regulate trade in the colonies.  To summarize his Summary View Jefferson stated, “The British Parliament has no right to exercise authority over us.”  Like many of the Revolutionary generation, Jefferson did not like some distant central power imposing their will on them.  But Summary View went even farther.

At the time most British Americans still wanted to be subjects of Great Britain.  They just wanted the same rights subjects living in England had.  Namely, representation in Parliament.  Denied that they attacked the dictatorial powers of Parliament.  And the king’s ministers.  But they didn’t attack King George.  Jefferson did.  When the other radicals attacked Parliament and the king’s ministers Summary View attacked King George.  While the other radicals wanted fair and equal treatment as subjects of the British Crown Jefferson was already moving beyond that.  He was ready for independence from the British Crown.  For he had no love of monarchy.

The States drafting their own Constitutions was a de facto Declaration of Independence

Much of the trouble in the colonies began with the Stamp Act of 1765.  But in Summary View Jefferson said their problems went further back.  To 1066.  To the Norman Conquest of England.  A time when, according to the Whig interpretation of history that Jefferson had read, things changed.  All land belonged to kings after 1066.  Not to the people.  But before the Norman Conquest there was the Saxony model of government.  Tracing its lineage back to Saxony Germania.  Along the North Sea.  Where once upon a time in a mystical place the good people of Saxony enjoyed representative government.  A beautiful system of government under which people lived in harmony and bliss.  Until feudalism came along.  And kings arose.  Who snuffed out these old ways.  So Jefferson hated all monarchies.  The nobility class.  And birthrights.  He didn’t believe in the divine rights of kings.  To him they were just a bunch of bullies who came along and changed the rules of the game by force for personal gain.  And King George III was no different.

When Peyton Randolph left the Continental Congress Jefferson replaced him.  At the time he was a very minor player in Virginian politics.  But his Summary View created a reputation that preceded his arrival.  And he was warmly welcomed.  Especially by the more radical elements.  The Americans had not yet declared their independence but they were already at war with Great Britain.  Blood was spilled at Lexington and Concord.  And General Washington was now in command of the Continental Army then laying siege to the British in Boston.  More importantly, some states were already drafting their own constitutions.  To form new governments to replace the royal government.  Which to many (including Jefferson) was the most pressing business.  As it was a de facto declaration of independence.  Which was even more important than the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.  Something the more senior members delegated to the junior member from Virginia.  Because they had more important things to do.

In May and June of 1776 Jefferson’s mind was back in Virginia.  And he wrote three drafts of a new constitution for Virginia.  His constitution was similar to the future U.S. Constitution.  It included a separation of powers.  A 2-house (i.e., bicameral) legislature.  An independent judiciary.  And, most importantly of all, a WEAK executive.  Leaving political power in the hands of the people via their representatives in the legislature.  There would be no royal governors or kings in the new state government.  Just pure self-government.  Just like in that mystical place where the Saxons lived in harmony and bliss.  And so it would be in Virginia.  There would be democracy.  At least for the people who owned property and paid taxes, that is.  For if you wanted to tell government what they could do you had to have skin in the game.  And pay taxes.  But after taking care of this Virginian business he got around to writing the Declaration of Independence.  And that thing that no one wanted to waste their time doing?  It became the seminal document of the United States.  Making Jefferson a superstar among the Founding Fathers.  In posterity John Adams regretted that he didn’t waste his valuable time to write it.

If Jefferson were Alive Today he would likely Endorse the Republican Candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan

After the Americans won their independence Jefferson accepted a diplomatic post in France where he accomplished little.  Jefferson championed open markets and free trade.  And he worked tirelessly with the French to adopt a free trade agreement.  So cheap raw materials (like Virginian tobacco) could flow to France.  And cheap manufactured goods could flow to the United States.  But the political reality in France stymied him.  The French refused to lower tariffs so they could protect their domestic markets.  Not to mention that those high custom duties allowed corrupt officials to pocket more for themselves.  His only success in France was a Dutch loan John Adams secured while Jefferson was tagging along.  Adams understood the complex world of international finance.  Jefferson did not.  Other than large sums of money tended to corrupt people.  Custom agents.  And governments.  So it was a wise thing to keep the centers of finance apart from the center of government.  Which is why the federal capital is in Washington DC and not in New York City.

Jefferson was in France during Shay’s Rebellion.  An armed protest against new taxes imposed by Boston.  Those in the fledgling government worried about suppressing this uprising (the Continental Congress had few resources other than to ask states for contributions) to prevent the collapse of the new nation.  While Jefferson said, “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive…I like a little rebellion now and then.”  And, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.  It is its natural manure.”  Later, serving as Secretary of State in the Washington administration, he battled with Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton over the size of government and the meaning of the Constitution.  Hamilton wanted to expand the power of the federal government to help jumpstart America into becoming a mighty empire like the British Empire.  With the government partnering with the private sector.  Pooling great amounts of capital together to build incredible things.  While Jefferson wanted all Americans to be yeoman farmers physically working their own land.  With as small a federal government as possible.  And one that spent as little money as possible and remained debt-free.  In fact, when he was president he slashed spending so much that the nation could barely afford the navy to protect its shipping from the Barbary pirates.

So it is pretty clear that Thomas Jefferson hated big government.  He spent his entire political life trying to limit the power and scope of government.  To make government as impotent as possible.  To the point where he even supported a little rebellion every now and then to keep government in its place.  What would he think of the federal government today?  It would probably make him physically ill.  The spending?  The debt?  The federal register?  These would make him long for the responsible governing of King George.  And his pro-American policies.  If he were able to vote today he would vote for the lesser of two evils.  And that would be the party of limited government.  To stop the out of control growth of the federal government.  And hopefully reduce its size.  If Jefferson were alive today he would likely endorse the Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan for president and vice president.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

2012 Endorsements: Benjamin Franklin

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 15th, 2012

2012 Election

Franklin understood Wealth was not Money but the Talent and Ability of the Entrepreneurs and Artisans

Benjamin Franklin was born into the middle class.  A proud member of what he called the middling people.  Entrepreneurs.  And the very definition of what it meant to be American.  Hard-working people.  Who built success based on diligence, frugality and honesty.  People who strived to live a virtuous life.  Even if they sometimes faltered.  Franklin believed doing good works led to salvation.  He believed in God and was tolerant of all religions.  Especially if they were charitable and helped others, making the world a better place.  So when he could he gave back to his community.  And to his country.  He would die a famous rich man.  But he always thought of himself as that middle class printer.  Who worked hard.  And tried to be virtuous.  Sometimes he failed.  But he did a lot of good along the way.

When he arrived in Philadelphia he had only one Dutch dollar.  He secured employment with a printer where he worked with industry and frugality.  From his first days as an apprentice.  To when he was a small business owner.  Later, on a return trip from London, he came up with four resolutions to live a better life.  1.) It is necessary for me to be extremely frugal for some time, till I have paid what I owe.  2.) To endeavor to speak the truth in every instance; to give nobody expectations that are not likely to be answered, but aim at sincerity in every word and action—the most amiable excellence in a rational being.  3.) To apply myself industriously to whatever business I take in hand, and not divert my mind from my business by any foolish project of suddenly growing rich; for industry and patience are the surest means of plenty.  4.) I resolve to speak ill of no man whatever.

When Franklin opened his own business with a partner he put in long hours.  He worked late into the evening (even working overnight when the work required it).  And started work before most others started their workday.  Being a businessman he understood money.  And the cost of borrowing.  He favored the expansion of the money supply to lower interest rates to lower the cost of borrowing for business.  However, he also understood wealth was not money.  But the talent and ability of the entrepreneurs and artisans.  Those middling people who worked with industry and frugality who offered goods and services for sale.  Purchased largely by other middling people.  The basic barter system improved by money.

Franklin believed in Limited Government and worried about too much Social Engineering

When Franklin became a newspaper publisher (i.e., writer/printer/marketer of a newspaper) he refused to become partisan.  In part because he didn’t want to limit his income.  But also for another reason.  He believed in free expression.  And said, “Printers are educated in the belief that when men differ in opinion, both sides ought equally to have the advantage of being heard by the public; and that when Truth and Error have fair play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter.”  Words framed and hung in many a newsroom since.  But he wouldn’t print everything.  He refrained from printing things that were scurrilous.  Immoral.  Or might hurt someone personally.

Franklin believed in rugged individualism.  He worked hard to acquire wealth.  And after he did he helped his community.  He helped organize volunteer fire companies.  Suggested a progressive tax on property to pay for a full-time police force.  Improved the post office.  Organized the Pennsylvania Militia during King George’s War against the French and their Indian allies in America.  (The local militia company elected Franklin to command it but he declined, saying he was unqualified and, instead, served as a common soldier.)  He retired from his printing and media empire at 42.  Set for life financially.  Then he became a scientist.  An inventor.  Then statesman.  With always an eye to detail.  And favored being practical over being rigidly dogmatic.

Franklin believed in limited government.  And had a problem with authority.  But he also believed in order.  And a place for government.  He believed in public-private partnerships and created the matching grant (matching a sum raised privately with an equal sum from the government).  He believed in charity.  Offering a helping hand.  And he was a civil activist.  Always tried to improve his community.  However, he worried about too much social engineering.  And unintended consequences.  Even worried that by helping the poor too much government could make them dependent.  And lazy.  For he built his wealth after arriving in Philadelphia with one Dutch dollar in his pocket.  It was hard work that made his success.  Not charity or dependence.

If Benjamin Franklin were here Today he would likely Endorse the Republicans in the 2012 Election

Franklin would go on to be one of the strongest supporters of Independence from Britain.  He helped edit the Declaration of Independence.  Sat in the Constitutional Convention.  And signed both documents.  As well as the Franco-American treaties bringing the French into the American Revolution.  And the Treaty of Paris officially ending the American Revolution.  He was a Founding Father.  Perhaps as indispensable as George Washington.   So if Franklin were here today what would he think about the country he helped create?  And who would he endorse in the 2012 election?

First of all he would be appalled at the size of the federal government.  Which would be unrecognizable to him from the limited government he helped create.  He would find the taxes and regulations on business suffocating to the entrepreneurial spirit.  Dissuading who knows how many from working those long hours.  Like he did.  He spent his time doing what he loved.  Printing, publishing, writing, etc.  Not hiring lawyers and accountants to help him pay his taxes and comply with regulations.  He would like the cheap credit available to business but he would have been shocked by the level of government spending and the level of the federal debt.  For the federal government is anything but frugal.  And the size of the welfare state, the amount of people receiving federal benefits, would have confirmed his fears about too much social engineering.  The blatant bias in the media would have disturbed his nonpartisan senses greatly.  Finally, being someone who rose from the middle class and built his own wealth he would have been greatly offended by the class warfare in politics today.

So who would Franklin endorse in the 2012 election?  Well, the Democrats want to make government bigger.  They want to increase taxes and regulations.  With Obamacare being a big one that will discourage many small businesses from growing.  The current Democrat administration has been the least frugal of all administrations.  Their spending having even caused a credit downgrade.  Their stimulus bill did not benefit the middling people.  Instead, most of that money went to rich Democrat donors.  They want to increase an already immense welfare state.  Which under the current administration has set a record for the number of people on food stamps.  Other than one cable channel (FOX News) and talk radio most media has a liberal bias.  Where truth and error do NOT have fair play.  And it’s the Democrats that push class warfare.  Who want to transfer even more of the tax burden to the wealthy.  Even though the top 10% of earners are already paying about 70% of the taxes.  While the Republicans want to cut taxes and regulations.  Cut spending.  Shrink the size of government.  And provide a business-friendly environment.  So others may start a business and rise up from the middle class.  Who can then give back to their community.  Like Franklin did.  So it is likely that if Franklin were here today he would endorse the party that was closer to his political and business philosophies.  The Republicans.  And the Romney-Ryan ticket.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT96: “The Left uses propaganda more effectively than the Right uses the truth.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 16th, 2011

Fundamental Truth

Liberals lie because only about 20% of the People are Liberal Democrats

Politicians lie.  On both sides of the aisle.  Democrats lie because they always want to raise our taxes.  And campaigning to raise your taxes just doesn’t win a lot of votes.  So they lie.  Republicans lie, too.  Especially those that want to act like Democrats.  And join the Washington elite where you go to the best of parties and rub shoulders with the best of A-list celebrities.

So that’s why politicians lie.  To fool you into voting for them.  So they can live a far, far better life than you can ever imagine.  Some have grown pretty adept at it.  In particular liberal Democrats.  Who have taken the lie and elevated it to pure party propaganda.   Again, because they have too.  With only about 20% of the people being liberal Democrats, there aren’t enough people out there buying what they’re selling.  So they have to lie about what they’re selling.

And what, exactly, are they selling?  Privilege.  For themselves.  And their friends.  Which they give themselves after winning elections.  Power, control and money.  The usual things a privileged class covets.  Like in the good old days.  In the Old World.  Where a good last name set you apart from the rabble.  And let you live the good life without working.

The more Wretched and Impoverished the Poor get the Better it is for Big Government

Today’s aristocracy is Big Government.  For those in it have power, control and money.  Just like a Baron in medieval Europe.  Except for one thing.  This nobility never has to put on armor and mount his steed and fight for the king.  So it’s even better.  Of course, in the Old World, there were oaths of fealty.  The price of privilege was the possibility of fighting, even dying, for your king.  A liberal Democrat has no such thing to fear.  Hell, they can break the law even and nine times out of ten they’ll get away with it.  Because their kind takes care of their own.  And doesn’t let a little thing like the law get in the way of their good life.

So how does one get to live better than everyone else?  Even being above the law at times?  Simple.  You champion the little guy.  The poor.  The downtrodden.  Those at the bottom of the ladder.  You take care of these people.  At least, you say you are.  By expanding the size of government to, say, alleviate poverty.  Then you raise taxes and expand government again and again.  And again.  And because you do this with the best of intentions no one ever points out that everything you’ve done has failed.  There’s still poverty.  In fact, it seems that every year more people are living below the poverty line.  At least according to government statistics.  Or should I say Big Government statistics?  Convenient, yes?  A little of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse, isn’t it?

Of course, that’s the plan.  Because if you got rid of poverty you’d put Big Government out of a job.  I mean, if everyone was living happily ever what would you need them for?  Happiness is not good for Big Government.  That’s right, the more wretched and impoverished the poor get the better it is for government programs that ‘care’ for them.  And spend more money on them.  Which means more taxes, more control and more positions within the new aristocracy for more of their own.

JFK and Ronald Reagan were both Tax-Cutting Supply-Siders

To keep raising taxes and to keep creating new government programs you have to demonize tax cuts and limited government.  Which is important because history has shown that everyone lives better with lower taxes and a more limited government.  Except, of course, the new aristocracy.

Liberals refer to the Kennedy White House as Camelot.  They absolutely loved JFK.  But they carefully guard his legacy.  Why?  JFK was a tax-cutter.  He believed in supply-side economics.  What the liberal Democrats dismiss snidely as trickle-down economics.  But Kennedy’s tax cuts worked.  They caused an economic boom.  Which the Left is very hush-hush about.  Because they can’t have their hero known as a tax-cutter.  But they have no problem belittling another Kennedy-esque tax-cutter.  Ronald Reagan.

Reagan cut the top marginal tax rate.  The Big Government liberals called him mad.  Out of touch.  Said he hated the poor.  And wanted to starve government programs ‘vital’ for the poor while rewarding rich people.  But like Kennedy, his cut in the tax rates caused an economic boom.  And tax receipts (tax money collected by the IRS) nearly doubled.  None of which was supposed to happen according to the liberals.  So they lied about it.  Said, “yes, there was increased economic activity, but at what cost?  Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts gave us huge deficits that exploded the federal debt.”  Yes, there were huge deficits.  But that’s beside the point.  The cut in the top marginal rate nearly doubled tax receipts.  That’s the key point.  The Reagan tax cuts worked.  The government just spent this new tax revenue faster than they could collect it.

Liberals are such Good Liars that few know the Successful Track Record of Tax Cuts

Cuts in tax rates have a successful track record.  That’s fact.  The Republicans could run on this truth.  But they do such a pathetic job in telling the truth that no one knows about this successful track record.  The liberal democrats, on the other hand, lie through their teeth about this record.  And they’re so good at lying that it’s what most people believe.  Tax cuts explode the deficit.  Grow the debt.  Take money away from the poor.  Gives it to the rich.  While the poor and downtrodden wait for all that wealth to trickle down to them.  But it never comes.  All lies.  But told so well that it’s what most people believe.

JFK was a tax cutter.  A lot like Ronald Reagan.  There were others.  And they all proved that tax cuts increase economic activity.  Which is always good.  Because more economic activity means more jobs.  And more tax receipts.  Which is bad for a caring and nurturing Big Government.  Because if free market capitalism can do this then there is no need for Big Government.  And this is something the new aristocracy just can’t have.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Republican (rĭ-pŭb’lĭ-kən), n., One who belongs to the Republican Party, the more conservative of the two major political parties in the United States.

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 10th, 2011

Politics 101

Republicans can Trace their Lineage back to Abraham Lincoln, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith and John Locke

The Republican Party was born in the 19th century.  As the anti-slavery party.  Their motto was “free labor, free land, free men.”  They opposed concentrated wealth (i.e., land) in the hands of an aristocracy such as the planter elite in the South.  And the slavery that made that system work.  They were the party of the middle class.  Independent artisans.  Small farmers.  Entrepreneurs.  And businessmen.  In other words, free market capitalists.  To a point, at least.  They wanted to industrialize America.  But they wanted to protect these emerging industries with import tariffs.  And they wanted to pay for this industrialization with public money.  Neither of which is very capitalistic.

Republicans can trace their lineage back to the Whig Party.  Abraham Lincoln, our first Republican president, was a former Whig.  Whig political philosophy goes back to Great Britain.  Which built on the philosophy of some of the greats.  Edmund Burke.  Adam Smith.  And John Locke.  To name a few.  The Whigs formed the opposition to absolute monarchial rule.  Supporting constitutional monarchy.  With ultimate power lying in Parliament.  Not the Crown.  Or with the landed aristocracy allied to the Crown.  Which greatly influenced the American Founding Fathers.  Putting them on the path to independence from the Crown.

The Whigs supported the manufacturers and the merchants.  The thriving and prosperous middle class.  And the wealthy.  Which all threatened the power of the Crown.  Because it made the Crown less important.  The privileged class owed their privilege to the king.  The industrialists and merchants did not.  Their wealth was self-made.  And they further threatened the Crown by supporting free trade, the abolition of slavery and expanding the vote to more people.  Which gave people more individual liberty.  A say in their government.  And allowed them to be whatever they wanted to be.  Even wealthy.  If they worked hard to become wealthy.

The Republican Party is the Party of Conservatism in the U.S. but not all Republicans are Conservatives

The modern Republican Party shares much of the same philosophy.  They abolished slavery in the U.S.  Even deployed the Union Army to the South to protect the freed slaves during Reconstruction.  And went on later to fight Jim Crowe laws and the segregationist policies of the Southern Democrats.  Being instrumental in passing much civil rights legislation over Democrat opposition.

They believe in limited government.  And capitalism.  But they’re opposed to tariffs these days.  And favor true free trade.  As well as lower taxes.  Fewer regulations.  Less government spending.  And sound money.  They disapprove of loose monetary policy.  Playing with interest rates and/or printing money.  For an activist, tax and spend government.  Where the government picks winners and losers.  Instead they prefer that government stays out of things economic.  And let the private sector pick winners and losers.    Because the private sector has a record of success.  And government does not.

But some in the party have drifted from their philosophical roots.  Corrupted by power.  Enjoying the privilege of being part of the ruling elite.  They have earned the moniker RINO (Republican In Name Only).  And even though the Republican Party is the party of conservatism in the U.S., not all Republicans are conservatives.  There are a lot of moderates.  And a few downright liberals.  The heretofore mentioned RINOs.

Ronald Reagan got Social Moderates and Even Democrats to vote Republican

There is a schism in the modern Republican Party.  Between God and economics.  You probably have heard someone say that they are a fiscal conservative.  But they’re a social moderate.  This is someone turned off by the God stuff.

Christians tend to be conservative and vote Republican.  Those who aren’t so devout religiously and/or want to keep abortion legal have difficulty voting Republican.  Because of the God stuff.  Which explains why liberals often win elections over conservatives even though they’re outnumbered nearly 2 to 1.  Because the social issues win out over the fiscal issues and these fiscal conservatives vote Democrat.

At least during good economic times.  But when the economy is not doing well their fiscal side wins out.  Especially when you have a great presidential candidate.  Like Ronald Reagan.  Who not only got social moderates to vote Republican.  He even got Democrats to vote Republican.  So remarkable a phenomenon that we call them Reagan Democrats.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

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

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 27th, 2011

Politics 101

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries