The Usefulness of Same-Sex Marriage to the Left

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 21st, 2013

Politics 101

The Clintons and President Obama opposed Same-Sex Marriage when Campaigning because of Blacks and Hispanics

Hillary Clinton is now in favor of same-sex marriage.  After being against it when running for president.  Just like her husband.  Who was against it while running for president.  Even signing the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 into law while he was president.  This Clinton-era law defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  But Bill Clinton now supports same-sex marriage.  President Obama made it categorically clear when campaigning that he believed marriage was the union of one woman and one man.  But he has since changed his mind, too.  Why?

The Williams Institute looked at five surveys that show anywhere between 1% and 2.5% of the population is gay or lesbian.  It’s about twice this number if you include bisexual people.  Which we can ignore when it comes to marriage.  For if you identify yourself as bisexual it pretty much excludes marriage from your future.  For a marriage is the union of two people.  And the only way to be a practicing bisexual in a marriage is to cheat on your spouse.  Or have an open marriage.  Because your spouse can be only one sex.  Which is not really a union between two people.  Just a loose association.  So with only 1-2.5% of the population being gay or lesbian why the full-court press by the Left?

More times than not when the issue gets on a ballot the people vote it down.  So same-sex marriage is not a burning issue with the people.  Which explains why the Clintons and President Obama were opposed to same-sex marriage when they were seeking elected office.  And why they changed their position only after it wouldn’t affect their campaign.  For they needed the help of two blocks of voters to win their elections.  Blacks.  And Hispanics.  Two very religious blocks who oppose same-sex marriage.  So not only does the general populace oppose same-sex marriage so do two critical constituencies of the Left oppose it.  So I ask again.  Why the full-court press by everyone on the Left?

The Left exploits the LGBT Community just like they exploited the Black Community for Political Gain

The Left hates Christianity.  And Republicans.  Because a lot of them are Christians.  They hate the Religious Right.  Who moralize.  Who oppose free birth control for our kids in high school.  And abortion.  The Left says Christianity oppresses women.  Forcing them into marriages instead of having a career.  And they hate the institution of marriage.  Some on the far Left go so far as to call sex in marriage rape.  Because a married woman is a second class citizen in a male-dominated society.  Mere chattel.  With no rights.  There is no love in marriage.  Only subjugation.  The Left can’t fathom the idea of any woman choosing to be a stay at home mom.  Yet they’re all for same-sex marriage and the adoption of children by same-sex couples.  For apparently there is no oppression of a stay-at-home spouse raising babies if that person is in a same-sex relationship.  For if it’s a same-sex marriage then all the traditional trappings of marriage apply.  And it’s a beautiful thing.

And now we see what the big deal about same-sex marriage is.  It’s not about that 1-2.5% of the population.  It’s about using the issue to destroy the Republican Party.  And Christianity.  For Republicans and Christians don’t oppose same-sex marriage.  They oppose lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) people.  At least that’s the message the Left is putting out there.  Especially to our young people.  Who overwhelmingly vote Democrat.  Who when asked what percentage they think the U.S. population is LGBT they respond with numbers as high as 20%.  Or 30%.  Something the Left doesn’t discourage.  In fact, they encourage this false understanding.  By pushing the boundaries in entertainment wherever they can.  Like that story about a real estate agent who has only two properties listed for sale. One on the road into town.  And one on the road out of town.  Because everyone driving on that road sees his signs they assume he is the biggest agent in town.  Because his signs appear to be everywhere.  So when LGBT appear on television and in the movies people see them everywhere.  And assume a large percentage of the population is LGBT.  So they feel that the opposition to same-sex marriage is not about legal and tax issues as much as oppressing a large percentage of the populace.  They see the Religious Right not as a defender of traditional marriage but something akin to the Nazi Party trying to purge undesirables from their good Christian society.  In addition to them to being evil rich people who want to take food away from hungry children.  And, of course, racists.

So the Left exploits the LGBT community for political gain.  Just like they exploited the black community for political gain.  After being the party of slavery and Jim Crowe Laws the Left changed their image.  From hating blacks to loving them.  Especially with their Great Society.  In particular with Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).  Which disintegrated the black family.  The state replaced the father in the black family.  Removing the positive male role model from these kids’ lives.  Moved these single mothers into projects in the inner city.  Which became rife with drugs and crime.  Problems that soon found their way into the schools.  Making it a struggle for a kid in these schools to get the education they needed to get a job or go on to college.  Which is why crime is rampant in the inner cities.  And unemployment is highest among black young men.  This is what the state did to the black community.  It’s horrible.  But it did accomplish their objective.  The black community tends to vote Democrat.  Because the Democrats are always looking out for them.  Giving them things like AFDC.  While Republicans are racist Nazis who want to take things away from them.  Just because they are black.

The Left paints Republicans as Nazis trying to Purge Undesirables from their Good Christian Society

The Left wants to give out free birth control to high school kids.  And provide access to abortion.  Because there are few things kids want to do more than have fun grownup style.  And few things let them do that like free birth control and abortion.  Now with the popularizing of the LGBT lifestyle the Left is encouraging kids to be open and to explore bisexuality.  That there is nothing wrong with this lifestyle.  Or experimenting.  Which is tragic.  Because being LGBT is not like trying a different type of food for a little variety in life.  It’s not a causal dalliance.  Kids growing up gay struggle with their sexual identity.  And they try to hide it.  Because kids can be cruel.

A college student secretly recorded a gay encounter of his roommate and made it available for anyone to see.  It was so horrible an experience to live with that the kid didn’t live with it.  He committed suicide.  Which isn’t uncommon in the LGBT community.  For being LGBT is not just a lot of sex and fun.  It can be a living hell coming to terms with who you are.  And then telling your friends and family.  It’s one thing if you’re a celebrity in today’s pop culture.  But it’s another story when you’re just some kid already feeling isolated and alone.  Even though today’s culture is more accepting than it ever has been there are still a lot of cruel people out there.  And a lot of digital recording devices.  A woman who lets loose on spring break only to have a perspective employer pull up pornographic images of her when Googling her name is bad.  But being thrown out of the closet at the same time?  Try imaging that hell.

So the Left wants to do for LGBT people what they did for blacks.  Get as many of them as possible to fear and/or hate Republicans.  So they vote Democrat.  Even if it destroys these people.  For they don’t care about these people.  All they care about is politics.  And power.  Which is why they had no qualms over destroying the black family.  Or encouraging a lifestyle of anything goes.  Because who are we to say what is right or wrong?  Kids are going to have sex no matter what we say.  So we should do the only responsible thing we can do.  Help them to have sex.  And, yes, we can warn them about that sex resulting in an unplanned pregnancy or the myriad venereal diseases they could catch as long as it’s in the context of using birth control or having an abortion.  And we don’t moralize.  But we have to be a little more careful about warning them that their sexual life could end up on some pornographic website.  Because that would just be fear-mongering.  And that’s not what the Left wants people to fear.  They want them to fear Republicans.  And Christians.  Who are little more than Nazis trying to purge undesirables from their good Christian society.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Far Left Hates Christians more than Radical Muslims

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 26th, 2011

No Morality Police under 20 Years of Republican Presidents

The far Left hates conservatives.  And Christians.  They don’t want them shoving their morality down their throats.  Like conservatives do in some countries (see Iran’s Hardline Fashion Police by Babak Dehghanpisheh posted 6/24/2011 on The Daily Beast).

It’s that time of year again. As summer temperatures soar in Tehran and other large Iranian cities, the morality police, or gasht ershad as they’re called in Farsi, come out in droves to make sure the citizenry isn’t flashing too much skin or acting in other inappropriate ways. The activities of the gasht ershad ramped up after the election of hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005, but it seems this year they’re going for broke: since mid-June, 70,000 morality police have been sent out into the streets of Tehran alone.

Ronald Reagan was president for 8 years.  George H.W. Bush for 4 years.  George W. Bush was president for 8 years.  That’s three Republicans occupying the Oval Office for 20 years.  All the while the far Left was attacking them for being too close to the Religious Right.  Trying to scare everyone into believing that they would set up a Spanish Inquisition-like morality police to punish people misbehaving.  But in those 20 years let me ask you this.  Did any of these Republican presidents ever send 70,000 morality police to any American city?  No.  In fact, by my recollection, during those 20 years we still had pornography.  Women were still wearing bikinis in public.  Birth control and abortion were still available legally.  And guys were able to do whatever they wanted to with their hair.  Even wear gold chain necklaces if they wanted to.  But in Iran…

No more mullets (a move even some Tehran fashionistas applauded), ponytails, or a popular hairstyle called the rooster, which swoops up in a faux-hawk in the front and flares out at the back. And there’s a new restriction for men this summer: no necklaces.

During those 20 years of Republican presidents there was no morality police.  There was no one saying what fashion was and was not permissible.  As I think parachute pants and the mullet attest to. 

The government has not only spelled out the crackdown in legal terms, but has also tried to make the case that inappropriate clothing can be directly linked to damnation. Last week, an analyst named Ali Akbar Raefipour, appeared on state television and claimed that the word “jeans” actually comes from the word “jinn,” which are supernatural beings that can fly and take the form of animals. He took it a step further by comparing women’s high heels to the hooves of demons. And if that wasn’t enough, Raefipour said that numbers and symbols on some t-shirts can be read as “spells or satanic slogans.”

After only a week of the crackdown, Tehran police chief Hussein Sajedinia held a press conference and claimed resounding success, citing a 50 percent drop in the harassment of women on the streets (without a hint of irony)…

Who would have known?  That wearing blue jeans will send you to hell.  That high heels are the sign of the beast.  And writing on t-shirts is satanic.  If I’m not mistaken, though, during 20 years of Republican presidents I’m pretty sure I saw women in high heels, in tight denim jeans and in shirts with stuff written on them stretched taut across their bosoms.  Not that I looked.  I wonder why the Religious Right allowed this to happen during those 20 years of Republican presidents.

Anyway, it’s good to know that Iranian women are now safe.  Free to walk along the streets.  Without any men harassing them.  Just by exercising a little more modesty in their appearance.

For ordinary Iranians, the evidence of the crackdown is in plain sight. Checkpoints run by the morality police have mushroomed all over Tehran and, residents say, it’s not uncommon to see women getting stuffed into one of their ubiquitous vans…

Soheila, a 28-year old Tehran resident, has had enough. “I was even with my husband one time when a policewoman gave me a warning about bad hijab,” she says. “‘[I’m] going to start wearing the chador [a head-to-toe cloth covering] because [I’m] afraid of the morality police.” 

Exercising a little more modesty in your personal appearance.  And by living your life in absolute fear and oppression.  Again, I lived through 20 years of Republican presidents yet don’t recall any such oppression of women.  Guess there’s a difference between Islam and Christianity.  And women have more freedoms under Christianity.

One thing you have to say about Muslims living under Sharia law, though.  They must really love, honor and respect their women.

Al Qaeda has a PR Problem because they’re Killing Muslim Men, Women and Children

Actually, they don’t.  Which is really a puzzling thing about the far Left’s open hostility towards Christianity and absolute tolerance for anything Islamic.  Christians don’t physically and/or brutally oppress their women.   Or use them as suicide bombers (see Taliban say husband and wife in Pakistan suicide attack posted 6/26/2011 on the BBC).

A husband and wife carried out a suicide attack that killed eight people at a police station in north-western Pakistan, the Taliban has said…

The BBC’s Orla Guerin, in Islamabad, says that the use of a husband and wife suicide squad by the Pakistani Taliban is a new tactic, and a new threat.

Already, our correspondent adds, the militants have resorted to using children as human bombs. And a suicide attack in Pakistan’s tribal areas last December was blamed on a woman bomber.

I don’t think this is the kind of gender equality women living under Sharia law want.  To be sacrificed like men. 

You just don’t hear about Christians doing things like this.  Or Jews for that matter.  Judeo-Christian societies treat women better than this.  They can show a little skin.  Wear high heels.  Even smile at passersby.  Including men they don’t even know. 

With feminists populating the far Left it just boggles the mind that they fear and hate Christians.  While no such vitriol is ever directed against anything Islamic.  And yet it’s elements in Islam that are doing some of the worse things imaginable against women.  And children (see Afghanistan: Eight-year-old girl ‘used in attack’ posted 6/26/2011 on the BBC).

An eight-year-old girl has been killed after insurgents used her in a bomb attack on police in southern Afghanistan, the government has said.

The interior ministry said insurgents gave the girl a package and told her to take it to a police vehicle, detonating it as she approached…

Correspondents say insurgents have recruited both adult women and recently male children to carry out suicide attacks, though the Taliban denies recruiting children.

According to letters seized during the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda has a marketing problem.  For there was no religious element in the name ‘Al Qaeda’.  And they were losing the PR war with the Americans.  Because Al Qaeda was killing more Muslims than the Americans were.  So bin Laden wanted to change the name to stress the holy war element in the war against the Americans.  But that didn’t happen because of his ‘untimely’ death. 

Apparently he was alone in this view.  Because giving an 8 year girl a package and telling her to take it to the police station without telling her what’s in the package and then detonating the bomb in that package while hiding from a safe distance away doesn’t exactly help put a positive spin on the holy war against the Americans.  Especially when you’re killing Muslim men, women and children by blowing up a bomb being held by a Muslim child.

The Far Left Hates Western Civilization

Islam is a religion of peace that some twist the meaning of to do unspeakable things.  Christianity is a religion of peace, too.  And some may twist the meaning of it to do some unspeakable things.  But if you’re tallying these unspeakable things you’re going to see the tally far greater for one religion than the other.  Unless you don’t consider putting bombs on women and children as unspeakable.

Western societies tend to be Judeo-Christian societies.  And in these societies women have a lot of freedoms.  They can do anything they want.  Have a career.  Go into politics.  Become presidents.  Prime ministers.  Or be porn stars.  They can eat and drink anything they want anywhere they want.  They can go to a movie, a bar or a dance club.  Women have come a long way in Western Civilization.  Nowhere are they empowered more.  And nowhere are they empowered less than in Islamic society.

And yet, despite all of this, the far Left attacks Christianity.  They will say some of the most vile and vicious things.  Insult their institutions.  And openly mock them.  But they don’t do this with Islam.  In fact, if anyone says anything critical of Islam the far Left calls that hate speech.  While their criticism of Christianity is merely free speech.

This makes no sense.  Unless the far Left hates Western Civilization.  Then it makes perfect sense.  The far Left is the liberal Big Government left.  Who wants more government in our lives.  Telling us what’s best for us.  Regulating us.  Controlling us.  And this they have in common with radical Islam.  Because they, too, want to tell their people what’s best for them.  To regulate them.  To control them.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Will Arizona Shooting Rampage, Giffords near Mortal Wound Save the Left’s Liberal Agenda?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 9th, 2011

The Left is Giddy with the Possibilities of the Arizona Shooting Rampage

We haven’t buried any of the victims yet.  Giffords is still fighting for her life in the hospital.  The government hasn’t put a case together yet against the shooter, Jared Loughner.  But the Left has pointed the finger of blame.  J’accuse!  Tea Party.  J’accuse!  Second Amendment.  J’accuse!  Talk radio.  J’accuse!  Sarah Palin.  J’accuse!  Republicans.  J’accuse!  First Amendment.

All I can say is what a load of merde.

Will the actions of one lone nutcase change the political landscape?  Will it nullify the 2010 midterm election results?  The mandate for limited government?  And lower spending?  Perhaps.  And the Left is just giddy with the possibilities of the Arizona shooting rampage.

Did the Arizona Shooter Advance the Liberal Agenda?

Remember that other nutcase?  Timothy McVeigh?  Who blew up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City?  He was a guy that went a little cuckoo after Ruby Ridge.  And the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco, Texas (where he watched the buildings burn in person).  Yeah, he was nuts.  Probably wore aluminum foil in his hat (to shield himself from the government brainwashing waves) and feared those unmarked black helicopters.  He was another one of those consummate losers.  No girlfriend.  Bullied as a kid.  Suicidal.  And pissed off at the government.  Who was just another bully.  Nay, the biggest bully of them all.  Who was out to get him.  So he had two burning ambitions.  To get even with bullies.  And to die.

He was not a rank and file member of the Republican Party.  He was, what’s the word?  Yes.  Insane.

But the Left said he blew up the Murrah Building because of the vitriol on talk radio.  In particular, Rush Limbaugh.  Of course, Rush, being born some 17 years before McVeigh, there was no way that he could have bullied McVeigh in school and sent him down that road to the Murrah building.  But that didn’t matter.  The Left didn’t like Rush.  And they needed something.  And this was better than anything they could have ever hoped for.  So they politicized it.

And here we are.  With another lone nutcase who wasn’t loved enough in his childhood.  And now here they are.  Again.  The Left.  Ginning up fear of our fellow citizens (those in the Tea Party, that is).  And trying their best to make us ask them for more government.  It has even delayed the vote to repeal Obamacare.

What the hell?  Is the shooter a liberal Democrat?  Did he want the liberal agenda to advance?  Because that’s exactly what his actions have done.  Giving that failed agenda new traction.  If I was a conspiracy nutcase I’d say something.  But I’m not.  So I won’t.

The Left Parades out the Usual Suspects

It doesn’t come as any surprise.  It’s probably standard operating procedure whenever a nutcase does something stupid.  Whenever they can make a connection between a nutcase and conservatives.  No matter how tenuous the connection is.  And here are some of the usual suspects:  Tea Party, Talk radio, Religious Right, Guns, Sarah Palin, Republicans.

The Tea Party?  Those people upset with the government because they are constantly overstepping their constitutional authority?  Come on.  These are Rule of Law people.  They don’t break the law.  They obey the law.  With extreme prejudice.  And they just want everyone else to, too.

Talk radio?  Rush Limbaugh has some 20 million listeners tune in each week.  And have you ever listened to those who call in?  A lot of small business owners and heads of households.  They’re law abiding citizens concerned about their business and/or family’s future.  They, too, just want everyone to live within the Rule of Law.  Including their elected representatives.

The Religious Right?  Those people who want the Ten Commandments posted in our public buildings?  Come on.  These people don’t kill.  It’s one of their Commandments.  Thou shall not kill.  Their religion is a religion of peace.  Really.  Unlike that one that guy followed who went on a shooting spree on Fort Hood shouting “Allahu Akhbar!”  But he’s just a sick man.  While those in the Religious Right are people to be afraid of.

Gun control?  You know, you didn’t have these problems in the Wild West.  If some nutcase started shooting women and children, he wouldn’t have gotten too far.  Because other people with guns would have shot his ass.  To protect the women and children.  See?  People can use guns in two ways.  It all depends on the people with the guns.  Are they good people?  Or bad?  If you make them illegal, only the bad people will have them.  Which explains why the bad people are all for gun control.  Because it makes easier victims.

Sarah Palin?  Because she used words like ‘lock and load’ and put crosshairs on maps of districts to target for campaign challenges?  That’s bad?  But movies about how to assassinate George W. Bush are just art.  And protected by our First Amendment.  Go figure.  Come on.  Palin is a Tea Party gal.  And Tea Party people are all about the Rule of Law.

Republicans?  Those people who have for years cowered as the Left’s bitch?  Who for decades have asked the Left meekly to let them participate in Congress?  Please?  Which the Left replied, “Sure, we’ll listen to you.  Humor you.  But don’t get your hopes up.  Because elections have consequences.”  The people who capitulate so fast after gaining power because they don’t want to offend and be removed from the ‘invite’ list for all those Washington parties?  Give me a break.  Self neutering people just aren’t a threat.

Another Oklahoma City Bombing?

Yada, yada, yada, the Left hates conservatives.  And will use any crisis or incident to further their hate against conservatives.  Especially when the people have rejected them and their liberal agenda at the polls.

There are some who said what Obama needed was another Oklahoma City bombing to reinvigorate his liberal agenda.  And he got it.  Thanks to this pathetic loser nutcase who feared the government’s manipulation of grammar.  And the Left is running with it.  Shame on them for doing so.  Then again, it is hard for anyone to feel shame when they have no shame.  It’s like trying to punish a lion for killing a zebra.  It’s just who a lion is.

Let us just pray that the victims’ families can escape the politicizing of this terrible tragedy in their lives.  Let them mourn their losses with their families.  Alone.  And in peace.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #23: “Those who seek a third party cede the election to the opposition.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 20th, 2010

THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES are often election spoilers.  Dissatisfied with the direction of their party, they leave that party to form a new party.  This, of course, will split the party they left.  Some may follow.  Most will probably not.

Third party candidates have small followings.  They typically have a single issue that pushes them to leave their party.  That single issue, though, may not be as important to those they leave behind.  And this one issue may be anathema to the opposition.  Guaranteeing very few, if any, will follow that candidate into a third party.

The Green Party, for example, is an environmental party.  Environmental issues, then, dominate their political agenda.  Environmental policies typically do not result in jobs or economic prosperity.  They will draw some people from the Democratic Party.  But only those with extreme environmental views.  They will draw no one from the Republican Party which is more associated with jobs and economic issues than environmental issues.  They, then, would have little impact on the party they oppose.  But they may have a negative impact on the party that they would have otherwise supported.

And then you have your core voters.  They have and always will vote for their party.  Populist movements rarely change the way they vote.  Populist movements may be single-issue.  They may be more of a subset of an existing political party.  Or they may be vague on details completely.  They may be many things but the paramount thing they are is popular.  And they pander to the people that are demanding something.  And whatever that is, they say they will give it to them.  Populist trends, though, don’t sway core voters.

SO WHO ARE in the two core parties?  The liberals?  And the conservatives?

Liberals are pseudo-intellectuals who want to tell others how to live.  Because they are ‘smarter’ than everyone else.  Most have never held a real job.  They inherited their money or made it big in Hollywood or in some other entertainment genre (the guilty rich), are college professors, sponged off of government (the self-proclaimed political aristocracy) or are in the mainstream media. 

Conservatives typically have jobs.

Few people agree with liberals so they have to offer special privileges in exchange for votes and political power.  They get the support of the poor because they get the poor dependent on their charity.  They get the entertainment elite by stroking their intellectual vanity.  They get the various minorities and single-issue groups by throwing a few bones to them (i.e., by buying their votes).  They get Big Business with crony capitalism.  They get the unions in exchange for anti-business legislation.  They get the young by being weak on drugs and morality.  They get a lot of women because of their abortion stance.  They get the illegal immigration community because they dangle citizenship in front of them while getting as many as they can addicted to welfare (so when they do become citizens they will become good Democrats.  Of course, with the majority of illegal immigrants in question being Hispanic, it will be interesting to see how that loyalty will play out.  A lot of Hispanics are practicing Catholics.  Will they continue to support the party that attacks their religion and religious values?  After all, they’re leaving a corrupt nation where only the ruling elite live well.  They come here for a better life for themselves and their families.  And many work hard for it.  With their religious values being a strong part of their lives.  Will the liberals tempt them with their welfare state after citizenship?  Time will tell).

Many agree with conservatives because they, too, just want to work and provide for their families.  And they would like their children’s future to be a good one.  (Again, the Hispanic question is interesting.  For they have conservative values, too.  Amnesty for illegals may be a Faustian bargain, but wouldn’t be ironic if it’s the Democrats who are selling their souls?  I mean, this large bloc of Catholics could very well vote for the religious right after citizenship.)

So liberals must appeal to their base during the primary election to get their party’s nomination.  Once they have that, they then must start lying about who they really are during the general election.  Because their views and opinions are minority views and opinions. 

The conservatives just need to be themselves.  When Ronald Reagan did just that, he won in a landslide.  Twice.

LET’S CRUNCH SOME numbers.  Some simple numbers.  Let’s say there are only 11 voters.  America is a center-right country based on honest polling.  So let’s say that 4 voters are conservative and 3 voters are liberals.  The 4 in the middle are independents and moderates.  So what happens at an election?

If all of the independents and moderates do not vote, conservatives win (4-3). 

Liberals cannot win unless some moderates and independents do vote.  So liberals must encourage the moderates and independents to vote.  And, of course, to vote for them.  While making sure their base votes (‘vote early and often’ is their mantra).  As well as some criminals.  And some dead who haven’t been purged from the election rolls.

Independents and moderates, therefore, determine elections.  And the general election is all about getting these votes.  Both sides turn down the volume on the ‘extremist’ positions they held during the primaries.  Conservatives talk about bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle.  Liberals campaign as conservatives.  (Bill Clinton ran as a new kind of Democrat with some very conservative planks in his platform.  When he won, though, he moved so far back to the left that he lost the House and Senate at the midterm elections, proving once again America is a center-right country.)

So back to our little example.  If the conservatives get 2 of the 4 independent and moderate votes, they win (6-5).  Liberals need 3 of their votes for the same winning margin.  Advantage, conservatives.

Now let’s look at a rift in the conservative party.  Two leave and form a third party.  And take 2 votes with them.  For the sake of argument, let’s say these two call themselves the Anti-Abortion Party.  It is doubtful that any liberals will leave their party to join them.  And it is doubtful that independents and moderates would make overturning a Supreme Court decision a key voting issue.  They tend to tack to a centrist course through the prevailing political winds.

So the Anti-Abortion Party candidate will only get 2 votes.  This candidate will not win.  That leaves only 9 votes in play.  Which means getting only 5 votes will win the election (less than a majority of the total 11).  All the third party candidate did was to make it easier for the liberals to win.  They only need 2 of the 4 of the independent and moderate votes.  Conservatives now need 3.  The third party took the conservative advantage (only needing 2 additional votes to win) and gave it to the liberals.

THE MORAL OF the story here is that a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the opposition.  The lesser of two evils may still be evil, but it is still ‘less’ evil.  You should never lose sight of that.  If a political statement is only going to result in the greater evil, it is better to be more pragmatic than idealistic when voting in a general election. 

The energy of a third party or third party-like movements (such as the new Tea Party) should be marshaled during the primary election.  To get good candidates who can win general elections.  And who will remember that they are the people’s representative, not a member of a privileged, ruling elite.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

LESSONS LEARNED #9: “Liberal politicians have more fun because their licentious behavior is more readily forgiven.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 15th, 2010

THOSE WHO LIVE in glass houses shouldn’t through stones.  And as far as the Democrats are concerned, the Republicans live in glass houses.  Especially those associated with the Religious Right.  They don’t like these people.  At all.

The Left likes to bring the fun in.  The Right tries to keep it out.  Since the sixties, the Left has been liberalizing their behavior.  Drugs and free love came from the sixties.  And the uptight, sexually repressed Right has been dogging them ever since.  The Right will point at the rise in crime rates and venereal diseases this liberalization gave us.  The Left will then say something derogatory about Ronald Reagan and call your mother a whore.

So there’s a little animosity between the Left and the Right.  The Left doesn’t like moral crusaders.  The Right doesn’t like Sodom and Gomorrah.  And when someone on the Right is caught doing something they say the Left shouldn’t be doing, look out.  It’s payback time.  And payback is a bitch.  Especially if you dwell in a glass house.

BARNEY FRANK ADMITTED to paying a male prostitute for sex.  He later hired this man as a personal assistant.  While Frank was away, his assistant may have used Frank’s apartment to see clients while plying his trade. 

Frank wrote letters to his assistant’s parole board (he had a record).  He fixed some parking tickets, too.   The House reprimanded him for that.  But he remained in office.  There were those who tried to censure him and expel him from the House.  That didn’t happen.  Ethics-wise, it just wasn’t that big of a deal.  I mean, paying for sex.  Who hasn’t done that?  And fixing a parking ticket or two.  In Washington?  Come on.  It’s Washington.

One Republican was especially earnest in trying to remove Frank from office.  Larry Craig. 

FAST FORWARD A couple of decades.  Larry Craig was in an airport men’s room.   There had been complaints about gay men using the public toilets to hook up with each other to have sex.  This is not something you necessarily want to be around when you take your son into the men’s room.  Hence the complaints.  So there Craig was, apparently using the signals to initiate a hook-up.  And the guy on the next toilet turns out to be a cop.

Now, instead of compassion for a man struggling with his sexuality (if in fact he was trying to engage in homosexual behavior), there was no love shown to Craig.  Even within his own party.  They gave him a choice.  Either resign.  Or resign.  Which he did.  Then he changed his mind.  He finished his term but didn’t run for reelection.  His political career was over.  Lewd behavior with a consenting adult (albeit in an inappropriate place) is apparently worse than buying sex from a prostitute.  And worse than fixing tickets.  At least, as far as Congress is concerned.

Instead of embracing him for letting loose and exploring his sexuality, the Left pilloried him.  Called him a hypocrite.  Didn’t care about the turmoil of emotions he was feeling.  Gay or not he was a bad man.  They remembered his role in the Barney Frank affair.  And it was time for a little payback.

BARNEY FRANK ENTERED into a relationship with Herb Moses.  It lasted approximately from 1987 until 1998.  This is interesting.  Do you know where Moses worked from 1991 until 1998?  I’ll give you a hint.  Think subprime mortgage crisis.

Moses was an executive at Fannie Mae.  Guess what he did there.  He worked on programs to help credit-challenged people buy new homes.  Now guess what Barney Frank was doing during this time.  He worked on the House Banking Committee.   It was his committee’s job to keep Fannie Mae (and Freddie Mac) from doing anything stupid.  But he didn’t.  Frank pushed to loosen regulations.  In fact, he fought against Republican attempts to strengthen regulations on Fannie and Freddie.

Now, we can’t be certain what was happening between Frank and Moses.  But we do know this.  During their relationship, Fannie Mae prospered.  They did this by growth.  Much of that growth came from the subprime mortgage business.  Despite high default percentages, Congress allowed Fannie and Freddie to buy riskier mortgages.  The Frank-Moses relationship ended in 1998, a few months AFTER Moses left Fannie Mae.  The cause of the financial meltdown in 2008 resulted from all those high-risk subprime loans that Frank and Moses made possible in the previous decade.

Some would say it would be reckless and irresponsible to draw any conclusions from this.  Others would say, “What are you?  Blind?”

FEW DISPUTE THAT Fannie and Freddie caused the financial crash.  But few blamed Frank.  And Frank blamed Republicans.  And Wall Street.  No one questioned Frank’s actions on the House Banking Committee.  No one questioned the very obvious conflict of interest between the legislator writing the law and the Fannie Mae executive profiting from the law.  No ethics investigation.  Why?

That’s easy.  Just ask yourself this.  What do you think would have happened if Larry Craig had played the role of Barney Frank?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #9: “Liberal politicians have more fun because their licentious behavior is more readily forgiven.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 13th, 2010

LORD ACTON SAID, “Power tends to corrupt.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  And it’s true.  When you’ve acquired god-like powers, it is very difficult to restrain the use of that power. 

In Mel Brooks’ History of the World: Part I, French King Louis the XVI said it was good to be king as he fondled and made love to any woman he pleased.  Though perhaps a little light on historical accuracy, the French monarchy was an absolute monarchy (whereas Great Britain’s was a constitutional monarchy with a Parliament to check the king’s power).  The French king could in theory do anything he wanted to.  Well, until the sans-culottes stormed the Bastille.  This was the point of no return in the French Revolution.  And we all know what happened next.  (The revolutionaries beheaded King Louis XVI and his queen, Marie Antoinette).

America didn’t have any kings.  But we did have a royal family.  And a royal court.  Camelot.  Our queen was Jackie.  Her king, JFK, enjoyed the trappings of court life.  For it was good to be king. 

The hottest, sexiest and most voluptuous woman in America was the blonde bombshell Marilyn Monroe.  Every man fantasized about having sex with her.  JFK didn’t have to, though.  He was boinking her.  Yes, he cheated on his queen, America’s most perfect wife in the most perfect family.  Monroe would later commit suicide.  No one knows if that had anything to do with the affair she was having with the unavailable JFK.  Whatever the sad truth is, posterity has forgiven this Democrat.  And JFK remains a Democrat icon.

Bill Clinton had a political hero.  JFK.  He even met him.  A highlight of his nascent political career.  He worshipped him.  Wanted to be like him.  And he was to an extent.  He couldn’t keep it in his pants either.  He, too, found it was good to be king.  The fun you can have with interns.  Not sex, mind you.  Just oral-genital stimulation to, um, issue.  And that was his undoing.  That…issue…landed on a blue dress.  It proved he committed perjury during grand jury testimony.  This led to impeachment.  But he survived the Senate vote and remained president.  Clinton supporters derided the whole episode as ‘just sex’.  They didn’t need to forgive this Democrat.  Few found any fault in his actions.  People liked Clinton.  He was cool.  Why, he even talked about his underwear on MTV.

WHEN WE TALK about politicians, it is important to note that there are two kinds.  There are the decent, honest, trustworthy, selfless representatives of the people and the ones with an ‘r’ next to their name.  At least, that’s the common misperception.  Apparently, power does tend to corrupt.  And, apparently, absolute power does corrupt absolutely.  But only if you’re a Republican.

We often attack Republicans for trying to force their morality on us.  Live and let live, we say.  The Democrats, on the other hand, have the reputation of being nonjudgmental.  Anything goes.  Because they don’t judge us for any of our social behavior we don’t judge them.  And are quick to forgive them.  And always ready to pounce on any moral lapse of anyone who dares to criticize our own social behavior.

What does this mean?  The Left has carte blanche on licentious behavior and can pretty much do whatever the hell they please.  If they get caught all they have to say is, “Sorry.”  And then it’s like it never happened.

TED KENNEDY HAD a ‘d’ following his name.  He was a big time liberal.  So liberal that his ‘brand’ of Catholicism had no problem with abortion.  A member of Camelot, he enjoyed some king-like behavior.  He didn’t preach morality to anyone and no one preached it to him.  He lived life.  And his partying lifestyle brought him one day to a small island near Martha’s Vineyard in 1969.   His pregnant wife was home in bed.

Chappaquiddick.  We all know what happened there.  A young woman would die.  And a presidential hopeful would be hopeful no more.

Mary Jo Kopechne left a party with Ted Kennedy who was ‘driving her back to her hotel’.  About midnight.  Kennedy could have had his chauffeur drive her.  But he didn’t.  He drove her himself.  So there they were, the two of them, alone, driving on unlit, deserted roads.  They stopped on one road.  Someone approached.  The car backed up and sped away.  Towards a narrow bridge with no guardrails.  A bridge that veered slightly left from the path of the road approaching it.  Kennedy didn’t.  He tried to stop but it was too late. 

The car skidded off into the water, coming to rest upside down.  Kennedy got out.  He didn’t contact authorities until the following morning.  That’s when they removed Kopechne.  Some reports stated her body was in a position with her head bent backwards with her mouth reaching up to what may have been an air pocket in the upturned car.  She may have been breathing until her exhaled carbon dioxide eventually suffocated her.

Authorities didn’t file charges.  They did suspend his driver’s license for 6 months.  He paid Kopechne’s family about $100,000.  His insurance company paid them another $50,000.  Kennedy’s wife miscarried.  And he remained in the Senate for another 40 years.  We forgave this Democrat.

HOUSE DEMOCRATS FILED eighty four ethics violations against Republican Newt Gingrich in 1997.  Only one held.  The House of Representatives fined the Speaker of the House $300,000 for ethical wrongdoing.  This was over the tax-exempt status of a college course that he was involved with that had ‘political purposes’.  The IRS found no tax violations. 

The fallout from this helped push him out of his Speaker position by pressure from within his own party.  They saw his public image as too much of a liability.  He ultimately resigned.  We did not forgive this Republican.

THE KENNEDY FAMILY has a reputation.  There’s talk about a curse.  But is there a curse or is it just a reckless lifestyle by people who feel they can do whatever they want?  Imagine if someone else was driving that car that night.  Do you think it would have ended differently?  Do you think there would have been some criminal charges?  Negligent homicide?  Probably.

Newt Gingrich didn’t commit tax fraud.  But there were questions about the tax-exempt status he claimed which violated House rules.  And that reckless disregard of House rules could not stand.  Gingrich’s political career was over. 

Compassion appears to be the rule when a Democrat falters.  Vengeance appears to be the rule when a Republican falters.  There are exceptions, of course.  But, in general, if you really want to have fun while in Congress, it would be prudent to have a ‘d’ next to your name.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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