The changing of the Benghazi Talking Points for Political Reasons was not Political according to CIA

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 5th, 2014

Week in Review

Susan Rice said it.  Hillary Clinton said it.  And President Obama said it.  Over and over again.  The attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was due to a YouTube video that incited a spontaneous protest that resulted with an attack on the mission with assault weapons and pre-sighted mortars.  Highly improbable but that’s what they said.  Over and over again.  It wasn’t a terrorist attack.  Because President Obama killed Osama bin Laden and won the War on Terror.  The 2012 campaign slogan was Osama bin Laden is dead.  General Motors is alive.  And al Qaeda is on the ropes.  On the run.  No longer a threat to the United States.  That’s why we had to reelect President Obama.  For he sure couldn’t point to any successes when it came to the economy.

Of course beefing up security in Benghazi would have harmed that narrative.  So while the British were pulling out of Benghazi because a resurgent al Qaeda was making it too dangerous the U.S. State Department denied Ambassador Steven’s request for additional security.  Because a resurgent al Qaeda was making it very dangerous in Benghazi.  But the American people didn’t hear that.  No.  All they heard was that Osama bin Laden is dead.  General Motors is alive.  And al Qaeda is on the ropes.  On the run.  No longer a threat to the United States.  Of course the murder of four Americans in Benghazi said otherwise (see Former CIA official: No politics in Benghazi memo by DONNA CASSATA, AP, posted 4/2/2014 on Yahoo! News).

The CIA’s former deputy director said Wednesday he deleted references to terrorism warnings from widely disputed talking points on the deadly 2012 Benghazi attack to avoid the spy agency’s gloating at the expense of the State Department…

Morell, a 33-year veteran of the agency who has served six Republican and Democratic presidents, insisted that politics had no bearing on the revisions to the talking points and said he was under no pressure to protect either President Barack Obama or then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton…

The White House, wrapped up in a fierce presidential campaign, made only minor editorial changes to the talking points, according to the onetime CIA official.

The intelligence community’s talking points, compiled for members of Congress, suggested the Sept. 11 attack stemmed from protests in Cairo and elsewhere over an anti-Islamic video rather than an assault by extremists.

Republicans have accused the Obama administration of trying to mislead the American people about an act of terrorism in the final weeks before the November election.

Morell deleted references to extremist threats linked to al-Qaida in versions of the talking points that were used by Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, in a series of Sunday talk show appearances. Morell said his actions were driven by the information provided by intelligence community analysts and the Defense Department.

The deleted references to terrorism in the talking points were not political?  His revisions to the talking points were not to protect either President Barack Obama or then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton?  Funny.  As that’s exactly what they did.  They protected President Obama and helped him win reelection.  And they protected Hillary Clinton.  Who is now the Democrat frontrunner for 2016.  Well, so far, at least.

The left is still trying to blame 9/11 (the first one in 2001) on President Bush and Condoleezza Rice.  For missing the signs that al Qaeda was a threat.  And that something big was coming.  Can you imagine the fury over Benghazi had it happened under President Bush’s watch?  While they were in a campaign season?  There would be no talking point revisions.  They would have lambasted President Bush and Condoleezza Rice.  The press would have torn into this story like a pack of hyenas tearing into a gazelle.  The media would have crapped all over the Bush administration.  But the Obama administration?  When the president, Hilary Clinton and Susan Rice all lied about a YouTube video?  Over and over again?  When the CIA revised the talking points so it didn’t sound like there was a problem with terrorism anymore?  All lies.  And a huge cover-up.  But we hear nothing but the sound of crickets from the media.

Sure, they can say it wasn’t political.  But the result of those revisions was very political.  It helped President Obama win reelection.  Because he had al Qaeda on the run.  Which he didn’t.  In fact, his foreign policy has made the world a more dangerous place.  For al Qaeda is resurgent everywhere.  In Egypt.  Libya.  Syria.  Iraq.  Afghanistan.  Yemen.  And elsewhere.  Oh, and Iran is working on a nuclear bomb.  And Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea to Russia.  Because he could.  This stuff is happening in part because people voted for President Obama believing the lie that al Qaeda was on the run.  When it wasn’t.  And because we reelected President Obama his failed foreign policy continues.  As the bad people of the world stand up and take notice.

The United States of America under President Obama is weak.  It may talk the talk but it sure doesn’t walk the walk.  So the bad guys are getting bolder.  Knowing the time is right to push the United States around.  For we are a sleeping bear that just can’t be wakened.  Apparently.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Those in Power use Climate ‘Science’ to Expand their Power and Accumulate Wealth

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 29th, 2014

Week in Review

We are continually told that there is a consensus among climate ‘scientists’ that global warming is real.  And that man is causing it.  It’s settled science they say.  But have you ever wondered how real scientists do things?  The kind that don’t take a vote on whether something is settled science?  Here is a look into the world of theoretical physicists.  A group of people that theorize about things far bigger than mere climate (see Physicists say Big Bang theory revelation may be premature by Liat Clark posted 3/25/2014 on Wired).

Three theoretical physicists have penned a paper suggesting last week’s announcement that cosmic ripples from the Big Bang have been identified may have been premature.

The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announcement rocked the scientific community with the revelation the South Pole BICEP2 telescope had captured twisted patterns in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) left behind after the Big Bang. The Smithsonian team believes these are a glimpse of the gravitational waves that were generated by cosmic inflation — an epic distortion of space-time just after the Big Bang when the universe expanded in a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second.

James Dent of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University and Harsh Mathur of the Case Western Reserve University have argued on the open access platform arxiv.org that the claim of definitive proof should not be made until all other possibilities have been ruled out.

Even after a paper has been published claiming definitive proof the subject is still open for debate.  Now that’s science.  And note that part about ruling out ALL OTHER possibilities.  You never hear that kind of language from the climate ‘scientists’.  Have they done that in their research?  Or did they only look at selective data to prove what they want to prove?  Did they rule out sunspot activity and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation?  A warming of the oceans that shifts the jet stream?  Or did they ignore this because it contradicts what they want the data to show?  There is a correlation between the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and recent warming periods.  Which would be one other possibility they need to rule out.  But can’t.  So they simply ignore it.  Proving that ‘climate science’ is more politics than science.  A tool for big-government leftists around the world to do what they’ve always wanted to do.  To use the power of government to create a ruling class.  Of a small group of people that has power over the masses.  And who live quite comfortably while telling us what we must go without.

It’s nothing new.  Since the dawn of time there have been those who seek power.  To create a small ruling elite that lives better than everyone else.  Much better.  As every dictator in history has shown.  North Korea still suffers from famine.  But the ruling powers (currently Kim Jong-un) ate so well that they suffered from a little obesity.  Kim Jong-un lives a privileged life.  He has the best of everything while his people still go hungry.  If that country were free, however, Kim Jong-un would live a less extravagant life.  Perhaps even doing manual labor.  For his only skill was having the right last name to become dictator.

This is why people want power.  For even in the poorest countries those at the top live like kings.  And those on the left, rabid anti-capitalists that they are, have no skill other than political skills.  They want to live like kings.  But they don’t want to work hard to earn it.  So they use politics.  Expand the size of government.  To create as many high-paying posts that do nothing worthwhile as possible.  So there is a place for these people.  Where they can live better than everyone else without having earned it.  This is why they want to nationalize health care.  For that can create many levels of high-paying bureaucratic positions.  And if they can get the economy of every country to bow down to their climate panels they can live better than kings.  They can live as emperors.  Over a vast empire they control.  Living in the lap of luxury.  Accumulating great wealth.  And drunk on the power they can wield.  Where they can get back at anyone that was ever better than them if they don’t bow down and kiss their fanny.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Corporate Politics, Bureaucracy and Obamacare

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 5th, 2013

Politics 101

(Originally published April 4th, 2013)

You won’t find many Union Workers filling out TPS Reports

In the movie Office Space we see how frustrating it is to work in a big corporation.  The office politics.  The bureaucracy.  The policies and procedures.  The frustration of having to answer to 8 different bosses after making a mistake.   Bumping heads with management at all levels.  And the mind-numbing frustration of getting your paperwork right.

Anyone who has ever worked in an office no doubt had their own TPS report moments.  And dealt with their own Bill Lumbergh.  So we laugh at poor Peter.  For we’ve been there.  And know his frustration.  For there is nothing worse than trying to work through a company’s bureaucracy.  Or dealing with layers of management that often appeared to be working at cross purposes.  And suffering under bad bosses.

Which is the whole purpose of labor unions.  To protect their workers from a business’ management.  And bad bosses.  Because unions say if they don’t management will just abuse their workers.  So unions shield workers from these unfeeling and inefficient bureaucracies.  Who are always introducing new policies and procedures to improve business efficiencies.  Things like TPS reports.  Which unions say only makes things worse for the worker.  So you won’t find many union workers filling out TPS reports.  Just the non-union office workers.

Dealing with a Bureaucrat is like a Grizzled Sergeant with 20 Years Experience reporting to a Junior Officer

Junior officers get no respect.  Comedian George Carlin served in the Air Force.  And said a common joke was to say when someone broke wind, “Captain who?”  They get no respect because they are bureaucrats.  They come out of their officer training with only book-learning.  While enlisted people have been gaining experience and learning how to do things on the job.  Then these junior officers come in with their book-learning.  And start telling these enlisted people how to do their jobs.  Despite these junior officers having never done their jobs.  Or understanding how to do their jobs.  But they will tell these people how to do their jobs better.

This is less of a problem in combat.  As junior officers typically have a short lifespan in combat.  For all the book-learning cannot replace the experience gained in actual combat.  Which is why lieutenants may command units but it is the grizzled sergeants with the combat experience that lead men into battle.  And a smart junior officer will learn everything he can from his senior sergeants.

Small business owners feel the same way about government.  For a lot of small business owners often go into business after working for someone else.  They’re like those grizzled sergeants in the military.  They’ve learned and done pretty much everything in a business.  Then decided to quit and start their own business.  And one of the first things they have to deal with is the mind-numbing bureaucracy of government at all levels.  City, county, state and federal.  A bunch of bureaucrats who never ran a business.  Who have no experience in their field.  And here they are.  Telling them how to run their businesses.  Like a junior officer out of the academy trying to tell a grizzled sergeant with 20 years experience how to do his job.

Under Obamacare Professional Bureaucrats will tell our Doctors how to administer our Health Care

In these complicated times if there is one thing everyone can agree on it’s this.  Bad managers, bosses, and officers are insufferable.  No one likes putting together ‘TPS reports’.  Or being told by 8 different bosses that they did something wrong.  And they sure don’t like people who don’t understand the first thing about their job or business telling them how they should do their job or run their business.  They especially hate people that can cite rules and regulations by chapter and verse who mete out some penalty or fine because they can’t cite those same rules and regulations by chapter and verse.

This will be the world of Obamacare.  And as much as EVERYONE hates these things at their workplace there are some who still want these same clueless bureaucrats and politicians to take over health care.  As if somehow these people who don’t know the first thing about treating sick people can do a better job than the grizzled veterans working in the health care industry.  Who spend more and more time filling out paperwork these days than actually seeing patients.  And the last thing they want is an even more bureaucratic system where they will have to report to 8 different people and agencies to treat a patient.  Where bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services as well as the IRS will have their own coversheets for their ‘TPS reports’.

In the movie The Usual Suspects the character played by Kevin Spacey said, “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.”  For if you don’t fear the devil you may live a life more in line with the devil’s wishes.  Making it easier for the devil to get your soul.  Government is a little like that.  For it has a horrible track record of doing anything right.  Even in the finest military in the world the bureaucrat side of the military pays $100 for a $15.00 toilet seat.  And yet the government has tricked so many people into believing they want more government in their lives.  Even though government is nothing but the managers and bosses people hate where they work.  Bureaucrats who tell others how they should do their job by citing rules and regulations by chapter and verse.  But who really don’t know what you do.  Or how you do it.  Now these professional bureaucrats will tell our doctors how to administer our health care.  And God help you if you get sick and put the wrong coversheet on your Obamacare health care services requisition form.  Or leave an important income tax field blank.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Liberals have a Distinct Advantage when it comes to Embarrassing Nude Selfies in Cyberspace

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 4th, 2013

Week in Review

A lot of people in their teens and twenties may not be thinking about running for public office.  A senate or a presidential campaign may be the last thing on their mind as they are partying on some college campus.  Finally away from their parents.  Able to do the things they couldn’t do with their parents around.  Like get drunk.  And have some grownup fun.  Even taking naughty pictures of themselves and sending them to their fellah.  Never thinking that it would end up a permanent fixture on the Internet.  Besides, how could that ever come back to haunt them (see When Will We Get a Female Pol’s Crotch Shot? by Lizzie Crocker posted 8/1/2013 on The Daily Beast)?

Leave it to Gloria Steinem to raise the million-dollar question out of all the media gold that has been spun out of Anthony Weiner’s latest sexting scandal:

“I mean, just imagine if there were a woman who had photographed her pubic area and sent it out on the phone,” Steinem recently told The Cut. “Would she be a candidate..?”

Let’s face it: any female politician whose vagina was splashed all over the Web would have a hard time weathering the derision that image would inevitably generate.

The sad thing is a woman’s political orientation will determine the derision that would follow.  Not to mention the shame and embarrassment.  The media coverage would portray the Democrat as a victim.  While portraying the Republican as a hypocrite.  Family values?  Yeah, right.  While late night television would have a field day.  “I’m sorry, I didn’t recognize you with your clothes covering your vagina.”

Kids do stupid things in their youth.  In the old days these were things done and forgotten.  Where mothers today may blush as they remember something they did in their youth.  But that’s where it ends.  Because there was no permanent record of it floating in cyberspace.  Unlike today.  Where if these women don’t go on to a career in porn those pictures will come back and haunt them.  Forever.  Perhaps even destroying their political aspirations.  If those aspirations include joining the Republican Party.

It leaves one to wonder about the left’s objectification of women.  Their turning women into sexual objects for men to enjoy.  Perhaps they want these young women to upload embarrassing nude photos of themselves.  So they can store them on some server farm.  Just in case they decide to go into politics.  On the wrong side.  At which time they can dig these pictures up.  And throw them back out onto the Internet.  So they can use them to destroy the political opposition.  For they know that can’t win in the arena of ideas.  No.  The way they win is with vicious personal attacks on the opposition so that they rue the day they ever entered the political area.  And nothing could help them more than some nude selfies from their youth.

And the saddest thing of all is that it is the conservative cause that will suffer the most.  An adulterous affair with an intern young enough to be his daughter in the Oval Office?   What business is that of ours?  What people do in their private lives has nothing to do with their ability to expertly execute the duties of their office.  A crotch shot from a drunken teen on spring break?  Obviously a sign of a deep character flaw.  And clearly someone who has no right to talk about family values.  The exhibitionist hypocrite.

You know this is what will happen.  And why some of America’s best and brightest may never run for public office.  Because of something they did when they were a young silly liberal that’s come back to bite them in the ass when they’ve grown up into a mature responsible conservative adult.  For conservatives will have shame for something so embarrassing in their past.  Unlike some liberals.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT181: “Slavery in America is the best thing that ever happened for today’s black Americans.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 2nd, 2013

Fundamental Truth

To become the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit the Man Jesus had to Die

There are some Christians who still have bad feelings towards Jews.  Who they blame for killing their Lord and Savior.  Jesus Christ.  Even though Christ died for man’s sins.  He knew the state was going to execute Him.  But He did not try to save Himself.  He accepted His fate.  Because His death was preordained.  It was all part of God’s plan.  For Jesus’ ascension into heaven.  To become the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit He had to die.  And He had to be crucified.  As horrible as that was.  To give the religion that would follow their most sacred icon.  The crucifix.  Or cross for the non-Catholics.

God’s will was done.  And because of it the Christians got a new religion.  Based on the life and death of a Jew.  The Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth.  Which is why the Christian Bible includes the Old Testament.  To include the Mosaic teachings that Christ Himself taught.  So for Christians to hold a grudge against Judaism is illogical.  Especially when the ultimate instrument of Jesus’ death was politics.  Not religion.

The Jews lived under a Roman occupation.  An uneasy Roman occupation.  The Jews were a thorn in Rome’s side.  As they were quite burdensome.  With their not knuckling under as willingly as others.  So to keep the peace they allowed the Jews to keep their religion.  Or rather, they tolerated it.  Something the high priests and Pharisees were very conscious of.  And they didn’t want any trouble that would cause them to lose their privileges.  Like this young whippersnapper coming around and riling up the masses.  For they knew it wouldn’t take much for the Romans to lose their tolerance of them.  And they especially didn’t like His way of not revering them.  That especially cheesed them off.  So the high priests and Pharisees went to the Romans and said this guy, Jesus, is calling Himself king of the Jews.  Something they were sure would not please Caesar.  Emperor of them all.  Well, one thing led to another and they crucified Christ.  Because of politics.  Not Judaism.

Some of the Countries today enjoying the Greatest Liberties and Highest Standards of Living have a Christian Past

Jesus has done more to bring peace to the world than anyone else.  The golden rule?  It has done more to let people live peacefully together than any government law.  It made people kind to each other.  Instead of the brutes we once were.  Religion civilized us.  And Jesus did more than most to make that happen.  Would that have happened if the Romans hadn’t crucified Him?  Of course this is a moot question.  For it was God’s will.  What happened had to happen.  And we are better off because it happened.  (When people use religion to justify violence it’s a different story.  The horrific wars between Catholics and Protestants had nothing to do with the golden rule.  But people who in their zealotry forget the golden rule.)

Death by crucifixion was a long, painful death.  People hung by their arms until they could hang no longer.  Then they transferred their weight to their legs.  Standing up.  And this went on until death mercifully came.  So Jesus hung by His arms with His weight pulling His tissue and tendons against the nails through His hands.  And when He stood the weight of his body forced His tissues and tendons against the nail through his feet.  And up and down he went.  Forcing those nails through His flesh.  A horrible death.  But a death He did not try to avoid.  People make Him out as some hippy peacenik.  But He had guts.  Though it’s easy for a God to have that kind of guts.  Jesus was just a man when He died.

So something good came from something horrible.  The world became a better place.  Yes, there were a lot of religious wars when some bastardized Jesus’ teachings.  But some of the countries today enjoying the greatest liberties and highest standards of living have a Christian past (and are still predominantly Christian).  Like those that were once part of the Christian British Empire.  Where the rule of law and the respect for the individual—not the ruling powers—rule supreme.  And that would not have happened without Christ.  For even the atheist among the Founding Fathers—Thomas Jefferson—thought that Jesus’ teachings were the greatest in the world.  So good things can come from bad things.  Like another good thing that came from one of the worst things there ever was.  Slavery.

There’s a Prosperous Black Middle Class and Black Millionaires in America thanks to Slavery

Africa is a horrible place.  Sadly.  In any metric you use Africa measures horribly.  More people live in poverty in Africa than they do anywhere else in the world.  Africa has the world’s highest infant mortality rates.  Africa has the lowest life expectancy rates in the world.  Africa has the highest homicide rates in the world.  Africa has the lowest per capita GDP in the world.  And Africa has the lowest Human Development Index in the world.  Which basically says that Africa is the worst place in the world to live.  Whereas Europe and the countries that were once part of the Christian British Empire consistently have the best numbers in all of these metrics.  Making them some of the best places to live.  Unlike Africa.

Of course, the slaves who traveled in the hellish conditions of the slave ships to the New World would have preferred to have remained in Africa.  In the world they knew.  With the family they knew.  Without suffering the horrors of that Atlantic crossing.  The slave markets.  And their brutal overseers.  But something good came from all that suffering.  Unfortunately it was not for them.  But their distant ancestors.  Who today can live in a prosperous black middle class.  Where they don’t have to live in poverty.  Where their children are likely to survive their childhood.  And grow up to live a full life.  Where they have a lesser chance of being murdered.  Where they can have a much higher standard of living.  And a higher Human Development Index.  Unlike in Africa.

Slavery in America is the best thing that ever happened for today’s black Americans.  Ironically, the ancestors of those who were lucky enough to escape the slave traders don’t live as good a life as those who did not.  Today blacks in America are CEOs.  Athletes.  Movie stars.  Hip hop-stars.  Doctors.  Lawyers.  Even president of the United States.  So in addition to a prosperous black middle class there are black millionaires in America.  Blacks who started with nothing.  And earned a champagne and caviar life.  Something that just isn’t happening in Africa.  Sadly.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Figures don’t Lie but Liars Figure when it comes to the Economy and the Patriot Act

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 6th, 2013

Politics 101

Politicians Lie because they don’t want you to see how Wrong their Economic Policies Are

If you’re objective you look at the facts to form an informed opinion.  If you’re subjective you form the facts to support your opinion.  If you’re objective the facts mean the same thing to you as the next guy.  If you’re subjective they don’t.  Water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit.  That’s an objective fact.  The post-impressionists (such as Vincent van Gogh) are better than the impressionists.  That’s a subjective opinion.  For not everyone will agree with that statement.  As a lot of people are wrong about art.

Politics is subjective.  Because politicians selectively take facts and ‘spin’ them.  Which means they take what supports their political views and hype them.  While downplaying or ignoring those things that do not.  For example, take the monthly reports on the economy.  They hype the new jobs the economy created.  And the fall in the unemployment rate.  But continually downplay the shrinking labor force.  Which is the only reason why the unemployment rate fell.  The government quits counting the unemployed once they quit looking for a job.

Do politicians lie?  Of course they do.  All of the time.  Because they want to deceive you.  When they are talking about the economic numbers they may not be technically lying.  But they are deceiving you.  Because they don’t want you to see how wrong their economic policies are.  So they spin the facts.  Like that expression many attribute to Mark Twain.  “Figures don’t lie but liars figure.”

Objectively Harding’s, Coolidge’s, JFK’s and Reagan’s Economic Policies were Very Successful

When it comes to economic policies Democrats and Republicans have very different beliefs.  Democrats believe in an activist government intervening in the private sector.  Like FDR did when he turned a recession into the Great Depression.  Like Jimmy Carter did when he gave us terms like economic malaise and the misery index.  And like President Obama did when he turned a recession into the Great Recession.  Whereas Republicans believe in a limited government that stays out of the private sector economy.  Like Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge did when they gave us the Roaring Twenties.  Like JFK did when his policies gave LBJ a robust economy.  (Until his Great Society gave Jimmy Carter economic malaise and misery.)  And Ronald Reagan did when he gave us one of the longest and strongest economic expansions of all time.

Objectively Harding’s, Coolidge’s, JFK’s and Reagan’s economic policies were very successful.  Conservatives in the Republican Party want to implement similar policies today.  While Democrats want to continue the failed economic policies of FDR, Carter and Obama.  Because they prefer them for subjective reasons.  As they require an activist government intervening in the private sector.  And they don’t care that these policies have a long record of failure.  For they are more interested in growing the size of government than they are in the economy.

So the Democrats spin the economic news to deceive the American people.  And they spun their deception well.  For President Obama won reelection despite his policies giving us the worse economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  Despite 4 years of failure the American people believe that he cares more than anyone else.  And continues to work harder than anyone else to fix the economy.   Despite his policies proving otherwise.

It was Wrong when George W. Bush used the Patriot Act but it is Perfectly Acceptable if President Obama uses It

So Democrats will ‘figure’ with the economic data to deceive the people so they can advance their agenda.  Making the federal government larger and more powerful.  Hyping the fall in the unemployment rate even though the labor force participation rate has fallen to Jimmy Carter lows.  They may deceive and they may destroy when it comes to the economy but one thing they are is consistent.  Which is more than you can say when it comes to national defense.  Or spying on Americans.

Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks the Bush administration passed the Patriot Act.  This law allowed warrantless wiretaps on international calls to people having suspected ties to terrorist activities.  The Democrats railed against the Patriot Act.  For it was turning the United States into a police state.  Where Big Brother was spying on our every movement.  If those movements were an international call to a person having a suspected tie to terrorist activities.  Even President Obama himself railed against the Patriot Act.  Saying in the 2008 presidential campaign that he would repeal this and every other Bush law that violated our Constitutional protections.  Of course, when he became president it was a different story.

Not only did the Obama administration keep the Patriot Act law they used it for far more than the Bush administration ever used it for.  The UK’s Guardian recently reported that the Obama administration was collecting and storing information on every Verizon phone call.  Not just people making international calls to people with suspected ties to terrorist activities.  But every man, woman and child that has a Verizon phone.  And probably every man, woman and child using every other cellular carrier.  You see, President Obama said it was wrong when George W. Bush used the Patriot Act.  But it is perfectly acceptable if he uses the Patriot Act.  As being able to spy on every American can go a long way in furthering the Democrat agenda.  Making the federal government larger and more powerful.  Showing how the Patriot Act is not an objective violation of our Constitutional rights.  But a subjective instrument of good.  As long as Democrats are wielding this awesome power over their political enemies.  And anyone who may become their political enemy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT171: “The IRS scandal shows why conservatives must hide in the closet while liberals enjoy their free speech.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 24th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

There is no Free Speech in the Workplace these Days unless You’re a Liberal

You’ve probably noticed something in today’s workplace.  You can tell who the liberals are.  And you have a pretty good idea who the moderates and conservatives are.  How?  Easy.  Liberals are very outspoken in the workplace.  They have no problem talking politics.  Or making nasty comments about conservatives.  Especially the Tea Party conservatives.  Who they will openly disparage in the most vulgar terms.  Especially when talking to fellow liberals.  And they will always have a snide remark for the conservatives in the workplace.

Moderates, on the other hand, are friendly and easy going.  They prefer to avoid politics.  And will be friendly with people on both sides of the aisle.  While conservatives will be polite and respectful to their coworkers.  Avoiding politics for the most part.  But when they do talk politics they will lower their voice, look to see who is within earshot and will only talk politics with a fellow conservative.  Why is this?

Because there is no free speech in the workplace these days.  Unless you’re a liberal.  For a liberal can call George W. Bush an idiot.  They can call the American people who elected him idiots.  And can say that he was an illegitimate president because of that fiasco in Florida and those hanging chads.  Which, incidentally, had Al Gore won they would never have counted hanging chads to determine how many votes to reverse because they thought the voters were confused.  But if you call President Obama an idiot in the workplace they will call you a racist.  And they may discipline you for a hate crime.  They may even do this if you criticize his failed Keynesian economic policies.  Which they will still call racist.  And a hate crime.

Liberals believe that their Stubbornness and Narrow-Mindedness is Open-Minded and Enlightened

And it’s difficult for a conservative to have liberal friends.  For if they know you are conservative it won’t be long before one of them will say something about how you want to take food away from children.  Or how you want to screw the working people to give rich people a tax break.  Or how you’re a racist.  They’ll say it in a joking manner.  Drawing laughs from others in the group.  But you don’t dare criticize them.  You don’t ask them to explain why they hold a particular view or opinion.  Not if you want to keep them as a friend.  For they can joke about how uninformed and out of touch you are.  But they’ll never be able to explain why they hold a particular view or opinion.  For they are most likely just repeating what they heard or saw in the popular culture.  Or heard in a union meeting.

You may have all the history in the world on your side.  You may be current with all the economic and financial issues of the day.  You may even have a degree in history or economics.  It won’t matter.  You can cite Adam Smith, Montesquieu, David Ricardo, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc., all day long.  But it won’t matter.  You can explain Say’s law and prove it in contemporary terms how supply creates its own demand.  For example, no one was demanding the Internet.  In fact, when it first came around it took a long time to convince people of its value.  The supply (the Internet) came first.  Then the demand (our enjoyment of the World Wide Web) followed.  Eventually.  Proving Say’s law.  But it just won’t matter.  Because your liberal friends will just laugh with all-knowing condescension at how uninformed and out of touch you are.  Then they may just get mean.  And start with the name calling.

Which is why there are closet-conservatives.  While there is no such thing as a closet-liberal.  Because a liberal doesn’t have to be guarded about what they say.  But a conservative does.  A conservative cares deeply about where the country is heading by following the failed Keynesian policies of the past.  They would like to engage in the political process.  To engage their friends in debate.  To try and persuade them to change their political views.  But their friends don’t want their views or opinions challenged.  And will resent you for even trying.  While being exasperated that you won’t change your views and opinions to match theirs.  Calling you stubborn and narrow-minded.  While they believe that their stubbornness and narrow-mindedness is open-minded and enlightened.

Does the IRS’ Suppression of the Conservative Voice during the 2012 Election make the Obama Presidency Illegitimate?

A conservative cannot win by coming out of the closet.  Not in today’s workplace.  Or in his or her circle of friends.  Even if you have a good liberal friend where you can both speak your minds because your liberal friend will have liberal friends.  How many times have you been at a party with your liberal friend and all of a sudden year hear a snide remark about your political beliefs from a complete stranger?  It makes you wonder how that even came up in conversation.  And you wonder what else your friend told this stranger about you.  And who else knows your ‘dirty little secret’.  That you are a conservative.

This is where it gets a little scary.  For in your liberal circle of friends there could be some government workers.  Maybe an IRS agent.  And the last thing you want to make public is that you’re a Tea Party conservative making donations to conservative candidates.  Because when it comes to party politics it’s a little like living in a police state if you’re a conservative with money.  For money equals free speech today.  Because money pays for political ads.  Like those ads the Democrats flood the airwaves with during an election campaign.  For they are well funded.  They have rich Hollywood elites at thousand-dollars-a-plate fundraisers.  Public school teachers.  And public sector union members.  Who all send a portion of their union dues to Democrat coffers.  Whether they want to or not.  So some conservatives want to donate money, too.  To level the playing field.  And get their voice heard against this well-funded liberal drumbeat.  But making political donations can bring an unpleasant spotlight on you.

Case in point Frank Vandersloot.  CEO of Melaleuca.  Which made a million dollar donation to a super PAC supporting Mitt Romney in the 2012 election.  Just as liberal Bill Maher made a million dollar donation to a super PAC supporting President Obama.  Soon a Democrat website for the reelection of President Obama published Vandersloot’s name.  And unleashed a personal assault on him.  And his business.  Business then suffered.  Soon after the IRS audited him.  Twice.  And the Department of Labor audited him.  Something Bill Maher did not suffer for his million dollar donation to a super PAC.  It cost him almost $80,000 in legal fees.  But the audits came up empty.  No fines.  Or penalties.  In fact the IRS owes him a refund.  Which he was still waiting for as of May 2013.

Was this harassment of Vandersloot just a coincidence?  The recent IRS scandal suggests that it wasn’t.  And shows why conservatives must hide in the closet while liberals enjoy their free speech.  For when conservatives donate to super PACs they don’t get treated like Bill Maher.  They get treated like Frank Vandersloot.  Which really dissuaded other conservatives from coming forward to exercise their free speech.  Resulting in suppressing the conservative voice during the 2012 election.  And suppressing, as a result, conservative voter turnout.  Suggesting that the Obama presidency is the illegitimate presidency.  Not the Bush presidency.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Corporate Politics, Bureaucracy and Obamacare

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 4th, 2013

Politics 101

You won’t find many Union Workers filling out TPS Reports

In the movie Office Space we see how frustrating it is to work in a big corporation.  The office politics.  The bureaucracy.  The policies and procedures.  The frustration of having to answer to 8 different bosses after making a mistake.   Bumping heads with management at all levels.  And the mind-numbing frustration of getting your paperwork right.

Anyone who has ever worked in an office no doubt had their own TPS report moments.  And dealt with their own Bill Lumbergh.  So we laugh at poor Peter.  For we’ve been there.  And know his frustration.  For there is nothing worse than trying to work through a company’s bureaucracy.  Or dealing with layers of management that often appeared to be working at cross purposes.  And suffering under bad bosses.

Which is the whole purpose of labor unions.  To protect their workers from a business’ management.  And bad bosses.  Because unions say if they don’t management will just abuse their workers.  So unions shield workers from these unfeeling and inefficient bureaucracies.  Who are always introducing new policies and procedures to improve business efficiencies.  Things like TPS reports.  Which unions say only makes things worse for the worker.  So you won’t find many union workers filling out TPS reports.  Just the non-union office workers.

Dealing with a Bureaucrat is like a Grizzled Sergeant with 20 Years Experience reporting to a Junior Officer

Junior officers get no respect.  Comedian George Carlin served in the Air Force.  And said a common joke was to say when someone broke wind, “Captain who?”  They get no respect because they are bureaucrats.  They come out of their officer training with only book-learning.  While enlisted people have been gaining experience and learning how to do things on the job.  Then these junior officers come in with their book-learning.  And start telling these enlisted people how to do their jobs.  Despite these junior officers having never done their jobs.  Or understanding how to do their jobs.  But they will tell these people how to do their jobs better.

This is less of a problem in combat.  As junior officers typically have a short lifespan in combat.  For all the book-learning cannot replace the experience gained in actual combat.  Which is why lieutenants may command units but it is the grizzled sergeants with the combat experience that lead men into battle.  And a smart junior officer will learn everything he can from his senior sergeants.

Small business owners feel the same way about government.  For a lot of small business owners often go into business after working for someone else.  They’re like those grizzled sergeants in the military.  They’ve learned and done pretty much everything in a business.  Then decided to quit and start their own business.  And one of the first things they have to deal with is the mind-numbing bureaucracy of government at all levels.  City, county, state and federal.  A bunch of bureaucrats who never ran a business.  Who have no experience in their field.  And here they are.  Telling them how to run their businesses.  Like a junior officer out of the academy trying to tell a grizzled sergeant with 20 years experience how to do his job.

Under Obamacare Professional Bureaucrats will tell our Doctors how to administer our Health Care

In these complicated times if there is one thing everyone can agree on it’s this.  Bad managers, bosses, and officers are insufferable.  No one likes putting together ‘TPS reports’.  Or being told by 8 different bosses that they did something wrong.  And they sure don’t like people who don’t understand the first thing about their job or business telling them how they should do their job or run their business.  They especially hate people that can cite rules and regulations by chapter and verse who mete out some penalty or fine because they can’t cite those same rules and regulations by chapter and verse.

This will be the world of Obamacare.  And as much as EVERYONE hates these things at their workplace there are some who still want these same clueless bureaucrats and politicians to take over health care.  As if somehow these people who don’t know the first thing about treating sick people can do a better job than the grizzled veterans working in the health care industry.  Who spend more and more time filling out paperwork these days than actually seeing patients.  And the last thing they want is an even more bureaucratic system where they will have to report to 8 different people and agencies to treat a patient.  Where bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services as well as the IRS will have their own coversheets for their ‘TPS reports’.

In the movie The Usual Suspects the character played by Kevin Spacey said, “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.”  For if you don’t fear the devil you may live a life more in line with the devil’s wishes.  Making it easier for the devil to get your soul.  Government is a little like that.  For it has a horrible track record of doing anything right.  Even in the finest military in the world the bureaucrat side of the military pays $100 for a $15.00 toilet seat.  And yet the government has tricked so many people into believing they want more government in their lives.  Even though government is nothing but the managers and bosses people hate where they work.  Bureaucrats who tell others how they should do their job by citing rules and regulations by chapter and verse.  But who really don’t know what you do.  Or how you do it.  Now these professional bureaucrats will tell our doctors how to administer our health care.  And God help you if you get sick and put the wrong coversheet on your Obamacare health care services requisition form.  Or leave an important income tax field blank.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Climate ‘Scientists’ have found Proof that Climate Change causes Humanitarian Disasters

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 3rd, 2013

Week in Review

Now we have proof that global warming causes humanitarian disasters.  Well, not proof in a real scientific way.  But in the kind of way that you have to note with asterisk.  With the asterisk denoting that this science is not real science.  But climate science.  Where the science is more politics than science.  As evident by the vast majority (if not all) the climate ‘scientists’ are anti-capitalists and/or favor more restrictive business regulations.  This is the ‘science’ that has found proof that climate change has led to a humanitarian disaster (see Humanitarian disaster blamed on climate change by Michael Marshall posted 3/1/2013 on New Scientist).

For the first time, we have proof that climate change has led to a humanitarian disaster. The East African drought of 2011, which resulted in a famine that killed at least 50,000 people, was partly caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

For the first time the climate ‘scientists’ have proof that all the climate doom and gloom they’ve been preaching the last few decades is for real?  That until now it was at best a hunch?  They didn’t say that then.  In fact they spoke then with the same certainty that they now speak with.  So why should we believe this now?  How do we know that they won’t say in the future that they can finally, for the first time, actually prove something?  And it won’t be different from something they told us in the past?

Humanity’s activities had no effect on the short rains – they failed because of a strong La Niña in the Pacific. “That’s natural,” says Stott.

But climate change did affect the long rains, making them more likely to fail (Geophysical Research Letters, doi.org/kmv). The model could only reproduce the scale of the drought if it included greenhouse gas emissions.

I have a model, too.  A formula.  It’s one that predicts the future economy.  Here it is.  EO=If(P=EC, good, bad).  Where P=President, EC=Economically Conservative and EO=Economic Outlook.  And it works as a standard ‘if’ function on a spreadsheet program.  If the president is economically conservative then the economic outlook is good.  If the president is NOT economically conservative then the economic outlook is bad.  And it is a proven formula.

The economy has been bad under President Obama who is not economically conservative.  But good under President George W. Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush, and Ronald Reagan.  Who were all economically conservative.  At least to a certain degree.  It was bad under Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon.  Who weren’t economically conservative.  With Republican Richard Nixon even calling himself a Keynesian after he decoupled the dollar from gold.  It went from good to bad under JBJ.  Who wasn’t economically conservative.  It went from bad to good under JFK who was economically conservative.  We call the Fifties Happy Days because the economy was pretty good under Eisenhower.  Who was economically conservative (his foreign policy dwarfed any interest in meddling with the domestic economy).  Truman and FDR were New Dealers.  Who weren’t economically conservative in the least.  And neither was Herbert Hoover.  Whose non-conservative economic policies helped to kick off the recession that FDR transformed into the Great Depression.  Both Calvin Coolidge and Warren G. Harding were economically conservative.  And their policies gave us great economic prosperity.  And so on.

I’d have to modify the formula to account for President Clinton.  For though the economy did well while he was in office it is a little more complicated with him.  Who kind of fell ass-backwards into some good economic times.  First of all he was still riding the wave of Reaganomics.  He had a peace dividend from Ronald Reagan winning the Cold War.  Asia was suffering a financial crisis.  Japan was just beginning their Lost Decade.  And after only 2 years in office Clinton lost Congress.  Forcing him to scale back on his liberal agenda.  Also, it was under Clinton that we got the dot-com boom (and irrational exuberance) and the subsequent subprime mortgage crisis.  Making a lot of Clinton’s economic growth, then, artificial.  A bubble.  The dot-com bubble bursting just after Clinton left office.  The subprime mortgage housing bubble bursting in 2007.  So Clinton, who was not economically conservative, made a mess of things but was lucky enough to be out of office when the train wreck of his administration’s policies hit.  Especially those initiated by his Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending that gave us the subprime mortgage crisis and the Great Recession.

So my model works.  History supports it.  Yet which model will be taken more seriously?  The one that is so complex with so many variables that no one can be sure what’s going on with it.  The one that took a lot of fine-tuning to get it to explain anything the way they wanted it to explain it.  Which is why it took until now to prove something for the first time.  Unlike mine.  Which has been proving things for decades.

The team calculate that climate change is responsible for between 24 per cent and 99 per cent of the risk of long rains failure.

Further proof that climate science is not real science.  Proving something is 24-99% responsible is not scientific.  I know.  I was marked down for something 4 places PAST the decimal point while in college.  When I protested that I was close enough the professor said that isn’t how science works.  Being close enough just doesn’t work.  You may eat food that is 99% salmonella-free.   But you sure aren’t going to eat food that is only 24% salmonella-free.

Although Stott’s findings add to the evidence that East Africa will face more droughts as the climate warms, for now, the region is slowly recovering from 2011. The short rains at the end of 2012 were good, and the latest forecasts suggest that the long rains will be roughly normal, or at least not far below that.

If the climate is warming because of man-made global warming how can the model show East Africa is cooling now?  Climate ‘scientists’ have been saying that if we don’t act NOW we’re doomed.  Because it could take decades to reverse the damage we’ve caused.  If so how is it that East Africa is reversing the damage in little over a year?  Despite the world NOT taking urgent measure to reverse global warming?  Or is what happening the normal ebb and flow of warming and cooling periods of climate that has little if anything to do with whatever man is putting into the atmosphere?

In the long run, studies that attribute blame in this way could be used by people attempting to sue for damages relating to climate change. A number of such cases are currently moving through US courts, spearheaded by the Alaskan village of Kivalina. The village is threatened by increased storm surges that may be linked to climate change, and its residents are suing major energy companies for the cost of evacuating.

Such cases still face significant challenges, says environmental lawyer Tracy Hester of the University of Houston in Texas. Anyone trying to bring one to court will have to link the damages they have suffered to a particular source of emissions.

How about that?  The ultimate use for such a model is for someone to sue some business.  Just as an anti-capitalist is wont to do.

I have another model.  This one points to who is responsible for global warming.  And who we should be suing.  Before global warming there was global cooling.  Climate ‘scientists’ were warning us about the coming ice age.  That changed sometime during the late 20th Century.  When the climate ‘scientists’ changed their minds and said the planet was warming.  Without really giving a good reason why they switched from cooling to warming.  But as they warned us they got the politicians to write new environmental laws.  To prevent warming.  And to save the planet.  Adding emission controls on our cars and power plants.  Launching their war on coal.  And what happened?  Temperatures continued to rise.  To the highest they had ever been.  As they continued to urge us to take even more drastic actions.  Before it was too late.

If the temperatures are still rising even after reducing harmful emissions what can one rationally conclude?  This temperature rise must be man-made.  The climate ‘scientists’ caused it.  (And should be the ones we’re suing.)  By forcing us to cut back on the cooling emissions of our coal-fired power plants.  For they put the same things into the atmosphere an erupting volcano does.  And erupting volcanoes cool the planet.  Which brings me to my other model.  It, too, is a simple equation.  CC=If(DIF=L, warming, not warming).  Where DIF=Dominant Influential Force, L=Liberal and CC=Climate Change.  If the dominating influential force is liberal they will restrict cooling emissions that are similar to what volcanoes produce, causing global warming.  If the dominating influential force is not liberal then cooling emissions may increase and not warm the planet.

Noting that people who are economically conservative are not liberal you can combine my two equations into one with some simple substitutions.  Which reduces down to an even simpler formula.  If you want a healthy economy and a healthy planet vote conservative.  Which the empirical data supports.  As President Obama’s policies are doing little to fix the economy or the environment.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

President Nixon helped President Clinton despite what Hillary Clinton Did

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 16th, 2013

Week in Review

Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State when terrorists killed four Americans in Benghazi.  Ambassador Stevens had requested additional security as the safety of Westerners in Benghazi was tenuous.  The British had already left after an attempt on their ambassador’s life.  But Secretary Clinton denied Ambassador Stevens’ request.  For it didn’t look good politically.

All during the 2012 campaign the Democrats repeated over and over how Osama bin Laden was dead.  And General Motors was alive.  Not only that al Qaeda was on the ropes.  Because President Obama defeated them.  Making them an empty shell of what they were when President Bush was president.  This is why we needed to reelect President Obama.  Because only he could defeat al Qaeda.  And did.  After winning the War on Terror it just wouldn’t look good to be beefing up security to defend against a resurgent al Qaeda.  Because that would go against the narrative that President Obama defeated al Qaeda.  So Ambassador Stevens and the Americans in Benghazi were left to fend for themselves so they wouldn’t reflect adversely on the president’s reelection campaign.  And then came 9/11/2012.

Four Americans died so as not to be a political inconvenience to President Obama.  And Secretary Clinton let that happen.  For their safety was her responsibility.  And it was no secret that Benghazi was not a safe place.  Which is why the British left.  When Secretary Clinton finally appeared before Congress to explain how four Americans died under her watch she got indignant and simply yelled “what difference does it make” to their questions.  Refusing to answer them.  Angry and annoyed that these Republicans even dared to ask her these questions.  Why wasn’t security beefed up?  Why didn’t we send help when they were under attack?  Why did she lie about it being a spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video?  Who edited the talking points given to Ambassador Rice?  She did not like these questions.  And she made her resentment clear.  Funny when the shoe is on the other foot (see Documents show Bill Clinton’s close dealings with Richard Nixon on Russia, foreign affairs by Michael R. Blood, The Associated Press, posted 2/13/2013 on The Vancouver Sun).

Richard Nixon, in the final months of his life, quietly advised President Bill Clinton on navigating the post-Cold War world, even offering to serve as a conduit for messages to Russian President Boris Yeltsin and other government officials, newly declassified documents show.

Memos and other records show Nixon’s behind-the-scenes relations with the Clinton White House. The documents are part of an exhibit opening Friday at the Nixon Presidential Library, marking the centennial of his birth.

Clinton has talked often of his gratitude to Nixon for his advice on foreign affairs, particularly Russia. In a video that will be part of the exhibit, Clinton recalls receiving a letter from the 37th president shortly before his death on April 22, 1994, at a time when Clinton was assessing U.S. relations “in a world growing ever more interdependent and yet ungovernable.”

What really makes this remarkable and relevant to Hillary Clinton is this.

Clinton in his younger days was no fan of Nixon — as a college student in the 1960s, he opposed escalation of the Vietnam War. And his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, was a young lawyer advising a House committee when she helped draw up impeachment papers against Nixon.

Hillary Clinton helped draw up the impeachment papers against President Nixon which led to his resignation.  For Watergate.  Which amounted to a burglary.  And some wire-tapping.  There was no loss of life.  President Nixon’s crime, the cover-up, didn’t kill four Americans.  Yet Hillary Clinton helped to destroy President Nixon.  Even though he was a good president when it came to foreign policy.  At least, according to Hillary Clinton’s husband.  President Clinton.  But when she’s on the hot seat she responds with righteous indignation.  Even though her actions, or her lack of action, caused the death of four Americans.

So what can we learn from this?  President Nixon was a good president that put his country first.  Even helping the man whose wife destroyed his career.  President Clinton was not as good a president as President Nixon was.  And Hilary Clinton ruined a good president who didn’t do anything as bad as she did.  Allowing four Americans to die on her watch.  Because she put politics first.  Instead of her country.  Just as she did when she helped to destroy President Nixon.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries