FT195: “Democrats ridicule Sarah Palin because we elected a far less qualified Sarah Palin—Barack Obama—twice.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 8th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Democrats don’t want to face Conservatives in General Elections because when they do they Lose

Democrats want to win elections.  They spend enormous amounts of money to make that happen in tight races.  Which limits the amount of money they can spend elsewhere.  So they don’t want to spend any more money than they absolutely have to.  Which tells us one thing.  Whoever they say should be the Republican candidate and is the one that will take the Republican Party in the right direction is actually the candidate they want.  Because he or she is the candidate they think they can defeat easiest.

The Democrats loved John McCain.  They loved how he reached across the aisle.  How he could work with Democrats.  Always willing to compromise to give them what they wanted.  Without demanding hardly anything in return.  In fact, he valued his ability to compromise with Democrats more than any conservative principle.  Democrats like that.  And told Republicans that McCain was their candidate.  Nay, should be their candidate.  For this is the direction the people want the Republican Party to move in.  The Democrat direction.

So with John McCain in the general election the voters had a Democrat candidate (Barack Obama) and a Democrat-lite Candidate (John McCain).  Which is what the Democrats want.  Because it helps Democrats.  They don’t want a conservative that can get Democrats to cross over and vote Republican.  Like the Reagan Democrats.  While at the same time invigorating the conservative base.  That’s the last thing they want.  For when they have that in a general election (like with Ronald Reagan) they lose in landslides.

Whenever Republicans nominate a Candidate the left approves of they NEVER win General Elections

When the Republican candidate is a Democrat-lite candidate it will discourage the conservative base.  Which is what the Democrats want.  Fewer Republicans voted in 2012 than they did in 2008.  This decline in Republican turnout helped win the election for Obama.  So that’s what a Democrat-lite candidate does for Republicans.  And when it comes to Democrat voters they will never vote for Democrat-lite when they a full-blown Democrat to vote for.

This is why the Democrats praised John McCain during the 2008 Republican primary.  And why they praised Mitt Romney during the 2012 Republican primary.  Both moderate Republicans.  More importantly, neither was a conservative.  One (Mitt Romney) even gave Massachusetts universal health care.  Making it difficult for him to attack Obamacare without sounding like a hypocrite.  So the left loved both of these moderate non-conservatives.  Right up until the general election.  When they tore each of them a new you-know-what.

Watching Republicans campaign is like watching Gilligan’s Island.  Where each week we tuned in to see if this was the week they would finally get rescued from that deserted island.  And just when rescue seemed imminent Gilligan would do something to ruin everything.  While viewers never noticed the recurring theme.  They NEVER get rescued.  Just as it is with elections.  Every election the Republicans listen to the Democrats.  As if they are really interested in helping Republicans win elections.  Instead of doing everything within their power to win themselves.  And whenever Republicans nominate a candidate the left approves of they NEVER win general elections.

Being Likeable was Enough to get one of the most Unqualified Candidates elected President of the United States

The Democrats got John McCain for the Republican candidate.  Which they went on to defeat in the general election.  Just as they had planned.  But they got something else they hadn’t planned on.  Sarah Palin.  No one saw that coming.  No one even knew who she was when McCain announced her as his running mate.  But she was someone.  She served on the Wasilla City Council in 1992.  Became mayor of Wasilla in 1996.  She was chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conversation Commission.  And governor of Alaska in 2006.  Then, of course, Republican vice presidential candidate in 2008. 

She was dangerous.  A young and accomplished woman.  With real governing experience.  And a folksy charm.  She was likeable.  And she was conservative.  This to the left was a greater threat than al Qaeda.  They had to destroy this woman.  Lest she become more influential in Republican politics.  So they ridiculed her night and day.  From politicians to policy wonks to the mainstream media to late night television.  It was open season on Sara Palin.  And they had good reason to fear her.  For when the 2010 midterm elections came around she was part of a new political movement.  The Tea Party.  The movement was so strong that the Republicans took the House of Representatives back in 2010.  And the left did not want that to happen again.  So they attacked her.  And the Tea Party.

The Tea Party and Sarah Palin are the worst enemies the left can have.  Conservatives.  A recent Gallup Poll showed that only 21% of the electorate call themselves liberal while 40% call themselves conservative.  And 35% call themselves moderate.  Which means the majority of the electorate agree with the Tea Party.  And Sarah Palin.  Which is why Sarah Palin is so dangerous.  She has governing experience.  The majority of the electorate agrees with her.  And she’s likeable.  They just don’t want anyone like that on the ticket if they can help it.  Especially if they’re likeable.  So the Democrats ridicule Sarah Palin.  Because they saw how easy it is to get a far less qualified ‘Sarah Palin’ elected.  Barack Obama.  Who had no governing experience.  And shared an ideology with only 21% of the electorate.  But he was likeable.   And being likeable was enough to get one of the most unqualified candidates elected president of the United States.  Twice. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT192: “One of the worst things about being conservative is enduring the unfunny comedy on liberal television.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 18th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Marijuana and Youth make Juvenile Humor Funny

When I was a wee little one I used to read Mad Magazine.  Granted, most of the political humor was over my head.  But there was a lot of stuff in that magazine that made me laugh.  Many years later I can still remember some of that humor.  Including a piece about two sober people attending a George Carlin standup comedy show.

Marijuana had just migrated from the counterculture to the general population.  And into our schools.  A lot of school kids were getting high.  Which is what people did back then at concerts.  Rock concerts.  And standup comedy.  Especially with a counterculture icon like George Carlin.  With his seven dirty words you can’t say on television.  And all his trouble with ‘the man’ because of those seven dirty words.

At a George Carlin comedy show in that Mad Magazine piece they showed a crowd laughing their behinds off.  While the two sober people aren’t even cracking a smile.  Finding nothing funny.  What they hear is juvenile humor that might make a child laugh.  But not a mature adult.  Then the punch-line is something like this.  One of the two sober people says, “This is the last time we come to one of these concerts without getting stoned first.”

Liberal Audiences are like Children in Grade School who will laugh if someone calls their Teacher a Poopy Head

Smoking marijuana tends to make people laugh.  Almost without being able to stop laughing.  For everything is funny when high.  The more juvenile the funnier.  Where poopies and passing gas are just plain hilarious.  As their state of mind is not exactly at its sharpest level.  Regressing back to childhood.  And laughing at the same things they laughed at as a child.  Among other things.  Kids will always laugh when someone rips a loud one.  While adults are typically disgusted and just want to move away.

The young typically vote liberal.  And enjoy the liberal television shows.  The people laughing in the audiences of Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show are either young or liberal.  Or both.  Who don’t need to be stoned to laugh.  As long as it’s juvenile.  And it attacks conservatives.  Which they find funny.  Or know the proper thing for a liberal to do is to laugh whenever anyone makes fun of a conservative.

Liberal audiences are like those stoned people watching George Carlin in that Mad Magazine.  While conservatives are like those two sober people trying to figure out what’s so funny.  Those liberal audiences are like children in grade school who will laugh if someone calls their teacher a poopy head.  Only on liberal television they’re calling conservatives poopy heads.  While the grownups find little humor in this or being the butt of a joke.  And a bad joke at that.

It was really only in the Last Year that Liberal Late-Night Television made fun of President Obama

One of the worst things about being conservative is enduring the unfunny comedy on liberal television.  A lot of us grew up watching Saturday Night Live.  And laughed our asses off when Dan Aykroyd called Jane Curtain an ignorant slut on Point Counterpoint.  When poor Mr. Bill got squashed by Mr. Hand.  When Phil Hartman did Frank Sinatra in the Sinatra Group (I got chunks of guys like you in my stool).  Christopher Walken saying he needed more cowbell.  And so many more classic moments.  Over time, though, the show wasn’t as funny as it once was.  Especially for conservatives.

During the George W. Bush administration SNL was brutal.  They hated Bush.  And the writing showed it.  It was funny if you hated Bush, too.  But if you were a conservative you basically were insulted for 90 minutes of television.  And then there was Tina Fey.  And her Sarah Palin impersonation.  Where all the SNL viewers heard Fey say as Palin that she knew all about foreign policy because she could see Russia from her porch in Alaska.  Something Sarah Palin never said.  But the world believed she did after watching SNL.

Parody is one thing.  And SNL did it better than most.  With cast members like Phil Hartman, Will Ferrell and Darrell Hammond giving us some of the most memorable impersonations.  But through the years those parodies got ruder and meaner when it came to skewering those on the right.  But treaded lightly when it came to those on the left.  It was really only in the last year that liberal late-night television made fun of President Obama.  Causing those on the right to laugh their asses off.  Because for once liberals are not mean and rude but truly funny.  For it no doubt pains them to even lampoon those on the left.  And they only will do it when the comic material is just too good to pass up.  Unlike their attacks on the right.  Where Jon Stewart on The Daily Show calls those on the right the most vulgar of names.  While his audience laughs their asses off.  Just as if some kid called their teacher a poopy head.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

As the Economic Carnage Piles Up the Left Worries about the Tea Party and Michelle Bachman

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 14th, 2011

Liberal Pollsters have been Known to Over Sample Democrats and Under Sample Republicans

You have to be wary of pollsters these days.  Often times their numbers seem to be as partisan as the politicians (see Tea Party’s heyday may be coming to an end, say political experts by Alexander Bolton posted 8/14/2011 on The Hill).

Two national polls released this month by CNN and The New York Times in conjunction with CBS News showed the Tea Party’s unfavorable rating at an all-time high.

Political scientists say the data shows a backlash of independent voters against conservative lawmakers who have taken a hard line against bipartisan compromise in Washington.

Funny how only the Republicans are hard line.  Government spending is growing unsustainable.  S&P warned that this could not continue.  They wanted to see $4 trillion in spending cuts in the next decade.  And a serious response to the explosion in future health care spending (Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare).  The Democrats were so hard line that they said any cuts in these programs was not an option.  Period.  So the one thing they absolutely had to do they refused categorically to do.  You can’t get more hard line than that.

They included no links to the polls cited.  And it’s no secret that CNN, The New York Times and CBS have a liberal bias.  They’ve be known to over sample Democrats and under sample Republicans in their polls.  Not saying that they did that here.  But without the date available for review, anything is possible.

Michelle Bachman gets the Sarah Palin Treatment on CNN

And if the Tea Party was falling in such disfavor, would a Tea Party favorite win the Ames straw pollMichelle Bachman won in Ames.  So one has to be wary of media reports trying to disparage the Tea Party.  Because the Tea Party is a huge grassroots movement.  That doesn’t like government as usual.  So the mainstream media takes every opportunity to belittle them.  And their candidates (see Bachmann downplays Perry’s bid, says she can win over independents in 2012 by Meghashyam Mali posted 8/14/2011 on The Hill).

CNN host Candy Crowley called on Bachmann to address concerns about her experience by naming her greatest legislative achievement.

I can think of a previous candidate for president who had far less experience that CNN never treated like this.  Then Senator Barack Obama.  Perhaps the most inexperienced candidate of all time.  But they never pressed him on his lack of experience.  Instead, they teamed him up with an old guy.  Joe Biden.  Who looked like he had enough experience for the both of them.  So Obama got a pass.  While the Republican vice president candidate, Sarah Palin, who had more experience than Barack Obama, got the Michelle Bachman treatment.  (Or, rather, Michelle Bachman got the Sarah Palin treatment.)

The Obama Recession Succeeds, Americans are using Less Oil

And how is the Inexperienced One doing on the economy?  Not good.  But Obama is achieving his green policy agenda with every further drop in GDP.  And uptick in the unemployment rate (see Analysis:Recession could tip U.S. oil use into permanent decline by Joshua Schneyer posted 8/14/2011 on Reuters).

Until recently, most analysts believed a healthier economy would push U.S. oil use higher this year and next, before tighter environmental regulations, increased use of biofuels, and tougher fuel-efficiency standards kick in later this decade to lower demand permanently.

Instead, a sour economy may turn last year’s demand growth into a one-off. With U.S. manufacturing and service sectors slowing, a recent S&P downgrade on U.S. debt, and a series of stock market falls that have rattled consumer confidence, the odds are tilting toward short-term declines as well.

Now it has been the agenda of the Obama administration for Americans to use less oil.  And here he has been successful.  For his economic policies have done nothing to alleviate this insufferable recession.  And as oil is the lifeblood of a healthy economy, a sick economy is one that uses less oil.  So here’s one for the win column for the president.  And the price to achieve this green energy goal?

Higher unemployment since 2007 has cut U.S. vehicle miles traveled by about 2 percent, said James Coan at Rice University’s Baker Institute in Houston. Americans without jobs drive about 55 percent less, Coan said.

Make as many Americans as miserable as possible.  Work less.  Buy less.  Drive less.  Enjoy life less.  Yeah, it sucks, but it’s for a good cause.  You’re saving the environment.  And, yes, it’s bad now.  But look at the bright side.  At least it can’t get any worse.

Save the Planet, Screw the People

Oh, yes, but it can.  Because we are using less oil and driving more fuel efficient cars, gasoline taxes are down.  So now they want to put a device in our cars to track us.  And charge for every mile we drive (see More states considering pay-by-the-mile car taxes by Chris Woodyard posted 8/14/2011 on USA Today).

Mileage fees would take the place of gasoline taxes, which will decrease as more fuel-efficient and electric cars are introduced. The Detroit Bureau says the typical American motorist getting a combined 25 mpg today pays just under 2 cents a mile in gas taxes.

So on top of all the misery we have to pay more to drive.  It’s because of those damn electric cars.  It’s one of those unintended consequences.  We’ll save the planet.  Reduce our consumption of foreign oil.  “Um, sir, if no one buys any gasoline we won’t collect any gas taxes.”  “What?  Oh, yeah.  Didn’t think about that.  Well we’ll just have to figure out another more costly and more intrusive way to get our money then, won’t we?”

Save the planet.  Screw the people.

The Left  was going to unleash an Economic Explosion with Higher Taxes and more Regulations

The Tea Party appears to still be ascendant.  Michelle Bachman won the Ames straw poll.  People finally got their representatives to stand up against government as usual during the debt ceiling debate.  Those on the Left are stepping up their attacks on one of the few forces that dare to oppose them.  All while the economy is swirling like a flushed toilet.

This isn’t how it was supposed to be.  When the Left won the White House in 2008 after winning the House and Senate in 2006, everything was supposed to be swell.  They were going to unleash an explosion of economic activity with higher taxes and more regulations.  To finally put the ‘myth’ of Reaganomics down for good.  But their policies haven’t worked.  And they can’t understand why.

Of course, they’ll never consider that they were wrong.  Instead they’ll say to just give it more time.  And that apparently George W. Bush made things worse than even they ever had imagined possible.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Mass Murder and a Fallen Democrat Provide an Opportunity to Reenact the Fairness Doctrine

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 10th, 2011

The Left wants a Fairness Doctrine to Stifle Political Dissent

And here it is.  The big one.  What the Left really wants.  The ability to censor the opposing viewpoint so they can easily advance their agenda without political dissent.  You know what it is.  It’s called the Fairness Doctrine.  To stifle that vitriol we call free speech.  Our First Amendment right.  Which some are saying caused the Arizona Shooting rampage (see Clyburn: Words can be danger by Yvonne Wenger posted 1/10/2011 on The Post and Courier).

U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in Congress, said Sunday the deadly shooting in Arizona should get the country thinking about what’s acceptable to say publicly and when people should keep their mouths shut.

Clyburn said he thinks vitriol in public discourse led to a 22-year-old suspect opening fire Saturday at an event Democratic U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords held for her constituents in Tucson, Ariz. Six people were killed and 14 others were injured, including Giffords.

Clyburn thinks wrong.  From what we’re learning, it sounds like the shooter wasn’t even aware of reality let alone the public discourse.  Of course, you wouldn’t know this if you rush to some kind of judgment.  Or are just using the tragedy to advance a stalled agenda.

The shooting is cause for the country to rethink parameters on free speech, Clyburn said from his office, just blocks from the South Carolina Statehouse. He wants standards put in place to guarantee balanced media coverage with a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, in addition to calling on elected officials and media pundits to use ‘better judgment.’

The Fairness Doctrine.  Statutory censorship.  You see, back then there were only three networks and PBS.  And the Fairness Doctrine was to keep them fair and balanced.  If they aired a story favoring one viewpoint, they then had to give time for the opposing viewpoint.  Or face a fine.  Sounds fair, doesn’t it?  But it’s just a fancy way to enact state censorship.

Here’s how.  Who’s to determine what programming meets the balancing requirement of the Fairness Doctrine?  The FCC.  Which is part of the executive branch of the government.  So the president had the power to determine what was appropriate speech.  And what wasn’t.  That’s a lot of power.  And JFK and LBJ put that power to good uses.  They used it to harass their political enemies.  Made it so costly to air a point of view opposing theirs that stations would refuse to air them.  It really stifled political dissent.  And made it a lot easier to pass the Great Society legislation.

Ah, yes, those were the good old days.  When you didn’t have all that messiness we call free speech.  The 1960s and 1970s were Big Government decades.  Times were good for the liberal left.  That is until Ronald Reagan came along to spoil everything.  For it was Reagan who repealed the Fairness Doctrine.  And ever since the Left has wanted it back.

The Left wants a Fairness Doctrine to Hush Rush

The party really ended in the 1980s.  Not only did they lose their beloved doctrine, but there was a new kid on the block.  Talk radio.  It was bad enough not to have ‘fairness’ as they saw fairness, but now there was more than three networks and PBS.  There was content all over the place that they couldn’t control.  And it really pissed them off.  Especially a guy by the name of Rush Limbaugh.  He was such a thorn in Bill Clinton’s side that some called the Fairness Doctrine the ‘Hush Rush’ bill. 

You have to remember how Bill Clinton won the election.  He won with one of the lowest percentages of the popular vote.  Ross Perot was a third-party candidate that drained votes away from both candidates.  But, more importantly, he turned the election into a media circus.  Everyone was following what wacky thing he would say or do next that few paid attention to Clinton’s less than spotless past.  And people were spitting mad about George H.W. Bush‘s broken pledge not to raise taxes.  You take these two things away and Bush the elder would have been a two-term president.  So Clinton wasn’t very popular with the people to begin with. 

During the Nineties, some 20 million people a week were tuning in to listen to Rush.  Why was he so popular?  For the simple reason that he held the same views as some 20 million people in the country.  And these people were tired of the media bias.  For them Rush was a breath of fresh air.  His radio show was the only place this huge mass of people could go and not hear the Democrat spin on everything.  And this was a real threat to the Left.  They blamed him for their failure to nationalize health care.  And the Left blamed Rush for Whitewater, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, the blue dress, etc.  Hillary Clinton called the Lewinsky affair a vast right-wing conspiracy.  And if it wasn’t for Rush and talk radio, those things would have remained hidden. So you can see why they hated him.

The Shooting of a Democrat Allows the Left to Attack Conservatives

It was bad for Bill Clinton.  But President Obama has it even worse.  The FOX News channel has blown away the cable competition.  The Internet has come of age.  There’s more content out there than ever before.  And the old guard (the three networks, PBS and the liberal newspapers) are losing more and more of their influence.  In other words, they need the Fairness Doctrine like never before.  Because there is way too much free speech for their liking.  It’s just not a good time if you’re trying to be devious.

So when a mass murder comes along and a Democrat is shot in the head, they pounce.  Representative Clyburn uses this tragedy to advance the Fairness Doctrine.  Even though he knew little at the time.  But that didn’t stop him.  They have no evidence, but the Left has blamed the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, FOX News, and anyone else who has ever held a contrary viewpoint.

So, what, then, motivated this killer in Arizona? 

Who is Jared Loughner

Well, let’s hear what a close friend of the shooter, Jared Loughner, says.  Bryce Tierney knew him since high school.  Even went to college with him.  And from what he says, Loughner doesn’t sound like he was influenced by anyone on the right (see Exclusive: Loughner Friend Explains Alleged Gunman’s Grudge Against Giffords by Nick Baumann posted 1/10/2011 on Mother Jones).

Tierney tells Mother Jones in an exclusive interview that Loughner held a years-long grudge against Giffords and had repeatedly derided her as a “fake.” Loughner’s animus toward Giffords intensified after he attended one of her campaign events and she did not, in his view, sufficiently answer a question he had posed, Tierney says. He also describes Loughner as being obsessed with “lucid dreaming”—that is, the idea that conscious dreams are an alternative reality that a person can inhabit and control—and says Loughner became “more interested in this world than our reality.” Tierney adds, “I saw his dream journal once. That’s the golden piece of evidence. You want to know what goes on in Jared Loughner’s mind, there’s a dream journal that will tell you everything…”

But the thing I remember most is just that question. I don’t remember him stalking her or anything.” Tierney notes that Loughner did not display any specific political or ideological bent: “It wasn’t like he was in a certain party or went to rallies…It’s not like he’d go on political rants.”  But Loughner did, according to Tierney, believe that government is “fucking us over.” He never heard Loughner vent about the perils of “currency,” as Loughner did on one YouTube video he created… 

Once, Tierney recalls, Loughner told him, “I’m pretty sure I’ve come to the conclusion that words mean nothing.” Loughner would also tell Tierney and his friends that life “means nothing…”

Tierney believes that Loughner was very interested in pushing people’s buttons—and that may have been why he listed Hitler’s Mein Kampf as one of his favorite books on his YouTube page. (Loughner’s mom is Jewish, according to Tierney.) Loughner sometimes approached strangers and would say “weird” things, Tierney recalls. “He would do it because he thought people were below him and he knew they wouldn’t know what he was talking about.”

In college, Loughner became increasingly intrigued with “lucid dreaming,” and he grew convinced that he could control his dreams, according to Tierney. In a series of rambling videos posted to his YouTube page, dreams are a frequent topic. In a video posted on December 15, Loughner writes, “My favorite activity is conscience dreaming: the greatest inspiration for my political business information. Some of you don’t dream—sadly.” In another video, he writes, “The population of dreamers in the United States of America is less than 5%!” Later in the same video he says,  “I’m a sleepwalker—who turns off the alarm clock.”

Loughner believed that dreams could be a sort of alternative, Matrix-style reality, and “that when you realize you’re dreaming, you can do anything, you can create anything,” Tierney says. Loughner started his “dream journal” in an attempt to take more control of his dreams, his friend notes, and he kept this journal for over a year…

After Loughner apparently gave up drugs and booze, “his theories got worse,” Tierney says. “After he quit, he was just off the wall.” And Loughner started to drift away from his group of friends about a year ago. By early 2010, dreaming had become Loughner’s “waking life, his reality,” Tierney says. “He sort of drifted off, didn’t really care about hanging out with friends. He’d be sleeping a lot.” Loughner’s alternate reality was attractive, Tierney says. “He figured out he could fly.” Loughner, according to Tierney, told his friends, “I’m so into it because I can create things and fly. I’m everything I’m not in this world.”

But in this world, Loughner seemed ticked off by what he believed to be a pervasive authoritarianism. “The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar,” he wrote in one YouTube video. In another, Loughner complains that when he tried to join the military, he was handed a “mini-Bible.” That upset him: “I didn’t write a belief on my Army application and the recruiter wrote on the application: None,” he wrote on YouTube. In messages on MySpace last month, Loughner declared, “I’ll see you on National T.v.! This is foreshadow.” He also noted on the website, “I don’t feel good: I’m ready to kill a police officer! I can say it…”

Since hearing of the rampage, Tierney has been trying to figure out why Loughner did what he allegedly did. “More chaos, maybe,” he says. “I think the reason he did it was mainly to just promote chaos. He wanted the media to freak out about this whole thing. He wanted exactly what’s happening. He wants all of that.” Tierney thinks that Loughner’s mindset was like the Joker in the most recent Batman movie: “He fucks things up to fuck shit up, there’s no rhyme or reason, he wants to watch the world burn. He probably wanted to take everyone out of their monotonous lives: ‘Another Saturday, going to go get groceries’—to take people out of these norms that he thought society had trapped us in.”

It wasn’t Vitriol, it was Insanity

Well, he doesn’t sound like a Tea Party guy.  Or a fan of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman or FOX News.  He doesn’t sound like a religious guy.  He may have been anti-Semitic.  He felt superior to those around him.  He liked to dream and spend a lot of time in his imagination.  He may have liked the movie The Matrix.  Maybe even thought he was in a ‘Matrix‘ fantasyland.  He did drugs and drank at one time.  When he went sober, though, he seemed to go deeper into his imagination.  He was pretty certain that the government was controlling people with an insidious form of grammar.  And he wasn’t a fan of authority figures and thought killing a cop would cheer him up.

I don’t know, maybe it’s me, but I wouldn’t call this guy a conservative.  And I don’t think there was any vitriol egging him on.  I doubt any vitriol could compete with what was going on in his imagination.  This guy had serious mental issues.  He was unstable.  And dangerous.  And the only reason why he shot Representative Giffords is because she had the misfortune of being his representative.

So Representative Clyburn, and the far left, are wrong.  No one on the right is responsible for this tragedy in Arizona.  The shooter was just a nutcase.  Little solace for the victims’ families.  But it does say that we don’t need a Fairness Doctrine.  For it would NOT have altered what happened in Tucson, Arizona, this past Saturday.

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Kennedy Wrong on Kennedy, the Constitution, Catholicism and Abraham Lincoln

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 4th, 2010

There’s no Separation of Church and State in the Constitution

Sarah Palin wrote about JFK’s Houston speech in her new book America by Heart.  I haven’t read her book but, according to Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, she doesn’t get JFK or his speech. 

Ms. Kennedy says JFK took a lofty stand to separate church and state.  Palin said JFK dissed the Founding Fathers (see Sarah Palin is wrong about John F. Kennedy, religion and politics by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend posted 12/3/2010 on The Washington Post).

Palin’s argument seems to challenge a great American tradition, enshrined in the Constitution, stipulating that there be no religious test for public office.

I gotta side with Palin on this.  For I know history.  And a little about JFK.

A lot of people get this wrong.  Especially those on the Left.  They don’t know America’s history.  Or the Constitution.

Briefly, then, here is some American history.  The English founded British North America.  The Church of England is Protestant.  At the time of our founding, the English (and Protestants) hated Catholics.  Americans, then, had a deep-rooted hate of Catholics.  They left England because they felt the Church of England was getting too Catholic for their liking (pick up a history of the English Civil War for more on this).  So they came to America and founded new colonies.  Christian colonies.  Protestant, Christian colonies (except for Maryland which was a Catholic colony.  Go figure.).

All right, long story short, the American colonies were religious colonies.  They had established religions.  And they didn’t want any new fangled central government infringing on their established religions.  The so called wall between church and state in the Constitution has nothing to do about separating church from state.  It was all about keeping the federal government out of the states’ religious business. 

To get the states to ratify the Constitution, the new federal government had to agree not to interfere with the religious business of the individual states.  Hence the ‘shall not establish clause’.  Because the states already had established.  Religions.

Catholics didn’t Feel the Love for a Long Time in America

George Washington was perhaps the first to break down the walls between religions.  He had Protestants and Catholics fighting side by side in his army.  And he was trying to get Catholic French Canada to join the American cause.  So he forbade anti-Catholic demonstrations.  To help serve the army.  And his vision of the new nation.  But it took a long time for Protestant British Americans to warm up to Catholics.

When JFK ran for president, many Americans were still not ready for a Catholic president.  And this was a BIG problem for JFK.  People were worried that Rome would be calling the shots in America with a JFK presidency.  Ergo the Houston speech.

My uncle urged that religion be private, removed from politics, because he feared that making faith an arena for public contention would lead American politics into ill-disguised religious warfare, with candidates tempted to use faith to manipulate voters and demean their opponents.

Yes, he urged this.  Because he wanted to be elected president.  Not because he believed in it.  JFK was pragmatic.  He did/said what was necessary.  Whether he believed it or not. 

The Kennedys were Catholic in Name Only

You know, it might have been easier to stress that JFK wasn’t a ‘good’ Catholic.  He was an adulterer.  A good Catholic doesn’t use birth control or abortion.  They only have sex to make babies.  You know, according to Catholicism.  An adulterer, then, is obviously not having sex to make babies.  They’re having sex only for a bit of fun.  And that just ain’t good Catholicism.  According to Catholicism.

Apparently, Palin criticized Nancy Pelosi in her book.  Pelosi, pro-choice (i.e., pro-abortion), is a ‘Catholic’ who believes in something very un-Catholic.

For instance, she criticizes Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), a Democrat and a faithful Catholic, for “talking the (God) talk but not walking the walk.”

Who is Palin to say what God’s “walk” is? Who anointed her our grand inquisitor?

Palin criticized Teddy Kennedy, too.

Teddy Kennedy believed that his stands were at one with his faith. He did disagree with the Roman Catholic hierarchy at times. But as we have seen, the hierarchy’s positions can change, and in our church, we have an obligation to help bring about those changes.

The Catholics have the Pope.  And he is infallible.  So, unless the Pope reports that God changed his mind on the abortion issue, God hasn’t.  You can still be pro-choice if you want to be.  But not in the Catholic Church.

Abraham Lincoln Based his Morality in Religious Beliefs

Abraham Lincoln was a very religious man during the Civil War.  In fact, he thought that the war was God’s punishment for the sin of slavery.  He observed that both the North and the South prayed to the same God.  And that they both couldn’t be fighting on the side of God.

Lincoln’s original goal was to save the union with or without slavery.  That changed.  Because of his religious beliefs.  When once he said a house divided could not stand, he spoke of two options.  All slave.  Or all free.  His religious beliefs changed those two options.  He saw a nation all free.  Or he saw no nation.

Palin, for her part, argues that “morality itself cannot be sustained without the support of religious beliefs.” That statement amounts to a wholesale attack on countless Americans, and no study or reasonable argument I have seen or heard would support such a blanket condemnation. For a person who claims to admire Lincoln, Palin curiously ignores his injunction that Americans, even those engaged in a Civil War, show “malice toward none, with charity for all.”

Many historians say the Confederate ‘high tide’ of the Civil War was the Battle of Gettysburg.  (Many other historians, myself included, believe the Western Theater was where the war was decided.  But that’s another story for another time).   After three bloody days, General Meade telegraphed Lincoln that the Confederates were repulsed from Union territory.  Lincoln was infuriated (that Meade let a beaten army escape).  For it was all Union territory.

(In Meade’s defense, he was the last general commanding the Army of the Potomac.  General Grant found him one of his more capable general officers.  He put him in the company of General Tecumseh Sherman.  High praise indeed.)

The war would go on for another 2 years.  In all, some 600,000 Americans would die (total North and South).  The Union prevailed.  But the cost was devastating.  There were some who wanted revenge.  They wanted to punish the South.  Not Lincoln.  With the war over, he wanted to bring the South back into the Union as quickly as possible.   There were to be no reprisals.  No trials.  No executions.  He wanted to heal the nation’s wounds.  Put that bloody war behind them.

Thankfully, he imparted this to Generals Grant and Sherman before his assassination.  They followed his orders and granted very generous terms of surrender to Generals Lee and Johnston.  And they in turn helped keep the Civil War from degenerating into a protracted guerrilla war.

When Lincoln said

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan – to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

he wasn’t saying ‘judge not lest ye be judged’, he was saying we suffered enough as a nation.  He was saying the war was over.  The healing was to begin.  And that God would help us find our way.

Distorting History to Protect Family

I can understand protecting family.  But when you’re protecting family against presumed misunderstandings of history, one shouldn’t distort history even further to protect your particular version of the facts.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Brandy is Eliminated from Dancing with the Stars and some Blame the Tea Party

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 19th, 2010

It’s not Just Your Dancing that Advances you on Dancing with the Stars

Yes, I watch Dancing with the Stars (DWTS).  This is my second season.  I watched the previous season because of Evan Lysacek.  He had just won the gold in men’s figure skating in Vancouver at the 2010 Winter Olympics.  There was some controversy because he didn’t include a quad jump like the favored Russian, Evgeni Plushenk, did.  Throughout the whole thing, though, Lysacek was a class act.  Even to the favored Russian.  Who wasn’t.  So I wanted to watch him on DWTS.

He finished 2nd.  That was no great surprise.  Most knew who the final two would be.  Lysacek.  And Nicole Sherizinger.  Who won.  But there were some earlier eliminations that were a bit surprising.  And disappointing.  Shannen Doherty was eliminated first.  Before Buzz Aldrin.  Doherty out-danced Aldrin.  Scored higher.  But more viewers voted for Buzz Aldrin.  So he danced another week.  Poorly.  And it was painful to watch such a great American stink up the dance floor.  It almost felt that they included him on the show for the laughs.

But that’s the way DWTS works.  You don’t have to be the best to advance.  Ability only counts for half of your score.  The half from the judges.  The other half comes from the laypeople in the viewing audience.  Who may vote for any number of reasons.  And some of those reasons may have nothing to with a person’s dancing ability. 

Conspiracy?  Or just a Bunch of Conservatives Voting?

This season’s semifinals were this past Monday.  And Bristol Palin advanced to the finals.  Brandy did not.  The people cried foul.  And floated conspiracy theories. 

I thought for sure Brandy and Jennifer Grey would make it to the finals.  They’ve had the highest scores.  They’re beautiful.   And are just gorgeous to watch on the dance floor.  Palin is pretty good, too.  Though she is consistently near the bottom of the leader board, there often aren’t a lot of points between the top and the bottom.  She has good technique.  But she doesn’t make the emotional connection Brandy and Grey do.

But Bristol Palin is a teen advocate for abstinence (a conservative cause).  Her mother is Sarah Palin.  A Tea Party favorite.  And the Republicans just took back the House of Representatives.  The center-right America just emphasized the ‘right’ in ‘center-right’ this past midterm election.  So is it any surprise that a ‘conservative’ contestant would do well with the viewing (and voting) public?

More Republicans than Democrats Watch Dancing with the Stars

Not when you consider who is watching DWTS.  According to Experian Simmons, leading media-research company, Republicans watch DWTS more so than Democrats (see The Reign of Right-Wing Primetime by James Hibberd, Hollywood Reporter via Reuters, posted 11/10/2010 on Yahoo! TV Blog). 

They have lists showing the top 15 shows watched by Republicans and Democrats.  DWTS comes in at number 9 on the Republican list.  It’s not even one of the top 15 shows Democrats watch. 

Ergo, it’s no surprise that Bristol Palin has made the finals.  She is no doubt the contestant the viewers most likely connect to.  And like Maksim Chmerkovskiy (Brandy’s professional partner) said (see ‘DWTS’ results: Brandy is out, Bristol Palin on to finals by The Associated Press posted 11/17/2010 on azcentral):

“People vote and their voices count,” he said. “I love the fact that the show represents that. It represents the people’s choice.” 

That’s the way the show was set up.  The viewers have a say in who wins.  Despite what the judges say.

Brandy is Classy and Gracious in Defeat

Brandy really wanted to win.  She cried when the viewers eliminated her.  And when everyone has been attacking Bristol Palin and crying foul, I haven’t heard Brandy make a disparaging remark.  She’s showing class (see Brandy Was ‘Very Sad’ About ‘Dancing With The Stars’ Elimination by Jocelyn Vena posted 11/18/2010 on MTV).

“Well, I think Bristol did a great job. She has improved [and] one of the great things about ‘Dancing With the Stars’ is the fans can get behind you and vote,” she said when she stopped by “The View” on Thursday (November 18). “I was sad. I was very sad because we worked so hard and when you come into competition you want to go as far as you can.”

To be that gracious in defeat says a lot about this lady.  And I’m sure she’s being genuine.  That’s one of the things I like about DWTS.  It’s a competition.  But unlike competition on other reality television, there’s no trash talking.  No nasty barbs.  These contestants like each other.

May the Best and/or Most Popular Dancer Win

It’s like Kyle Massey said after making it to the finals.  You’re excited to move on.  But it sucks that someone has to go home.  We’re glad to see Grey, Palin and Massey move on to the finals.  But we miss those who didn’t make it.

Brandy was a thing of beauty to watch on the dance floor.  But seeing her go doesn’t hurt as much as it could.  Because with the way the voting works, anything can happen.  And the best dancer doesn’t necessarily win.  We know this going in.  So when something like this happens, we can at least take solace in knowing that the judging wasn’t rigged.

The finals are this Monday.  They’ll award the mirror ball trophy Tuesday.  And may the best and/or most popular dancer win.  All we ask for is that you tear up the dance floor one last time.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #38: “Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 2nd, 2010

If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit; even if O.J. Simpson did it.

A lie is a lie.  No matter how well you say it.  Or how often you say it.  O.J. Simpson has said over and over that he didn’t kill his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson.  Or her friend, Ronald Goldman.  Few believe him.  Even Oprah Winfrey told Mark Furman recently on her talk show that Simpson did it. And she’s no racist.  She even endorsed Barack Obama for president.  And he’s black.

But if you repeat the lie enough people will believe it.  The Simpson jury apparently believed it.  And they believed Furman was a racist and that he lied under oath.  But Furman is no more a racist than you are.  And although he was a pretty good detective, he actually forgot a thing or two he said in his past.  Like using the ‘n’ word during an interview with a writer who was working on a screenplay about cops.  A recording surfaced during the trial where Furman did in fact make some pretty nasty racial slurs.  But it was probably more bravado than racism.  A young cop trying to sound like a tough and gritty L.A. cop in front of a screenwriter.  Besides, Furman was a Marine.  And Marines aren’t racists.  ‘Nuff said.

Anyway, armed with that, the defense repeated the lie that racist mark Furman planted the infamous bloody glove that did not fit.  The shrunken leather glove that didn’t fit Simpson’s gloved hand.  “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”  And they did.  Simpson went free, though he’s in jail now for other crimes (armed robbery and kidnapping).  And Furman pleaded no contest to perjury.  The only criminal sentence in the Simpson/Goldman murders.  And very sad testament to the L.A. criminal law system.

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”  Anita Hill cried wolf.

President Bill Clinton looked into the camera and wagged his finger at America.  “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”  But the infamous blue dress begged to differ.  In some people’s world, playing with each other’s genitals and climaxing on someone may not be sexual relations.  But you’re not going to do any of that with a hooker unless you pay for it.  And what do hookers do?  They sell ‘sexual relations’.

Clinton did, in fact, lie.  Though to this day he still says what he said was not untrue.  He can say that all he wants but the Arkansas Supreme Court’s Committee on Professional Conduct says otherwise.  They suspended his license to practice law because they say he lied about Monica Lewinsky.  Makes one wonder about all those other denials about sexual misconduct with Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Sally Perdue, Dolly Kyle Browning, etc.  He denies the allegations.  But then again, he also denied the Lewinsky allegation. 

Then there was Clarence Thomas.  During his confirmation hearings, the Democrats brought in Anita Hill to testify.  She alleged inappropriate behavior.  Nothing illegal, but inappropriate.  And they gave him a full-blown public anal exam during his confirmation hearing.  Because Hill cried wolf.  There was no substantive proof.  Just some wild-ass allegations.  Of which he was all of a sudden guilty until proven innocent.  The feminist stood tall with Anita Hill.  But nary a one came to the defense of the Clinton women.  Even after the infamous blue dress.  They all stood by their man.  Bill Clinton.  Misogyny and all.  (And the allegations against Clarence Thomas were nowhere close to ‘blue dress’ level).

Pragmatist liberals lie to impose their liberal agenda because the ends justify the means.

Everybody lies.  It’s the degree of the lie, though, that matters.  And the reason.  Militant feminists, for example, will accept and perpetuate any lie to protect a ‘feminist’ man.  Any by a ‘feminist’ man I mean one who will be a staunch supporter of Roe vs. Wade and abortion in general (which they feared Clarence Thomas was not).  And lying in court is especially useful.  As the character Louie DePalma (played by Danny DeVito) illustrated so well in the TV show Taxi.  When Alex Rieger (played by Judd Hirsch) asked Louie if he knew what it meant to lie under oath in a court of law.  Louie replied, “Yeah, it means they gotta believe whatever you say.”

Some liars are just trying to stay out of trouble.  Or jail.  Others, though, are people who lie for another reason.  They’ll fabricate or sustain a lie for a ‘higher’ purpose.  We call these people pragmatists.  These people believe the ends justify the means.  And if the ‘ends’ are important enough, then any means employed are justified.  Liberals are pragmatists.  They have specific ends in mind.  They want legal abortion.  Universal health care.  More government.  Less free markets.  Etc.  And because only approximately 20% of Americans want the same thing, they have to tell a few lies to impose their liberal agenda.

Ronald Reagan was senile.  George W. Bush is stupid.  Sarah Palin is stupid and inexperienced.  Rush Limbaugh is a hate monger.  Glenn Beck is a fear monger.  Members of the Tea Party are a bunch of racists.  Business owners oppress their employees.  Republicans hate the poor.  And hate gays and lesbians.  Hate minorities.  Hate women.  And hate just about anyone liberals have a vested interest in.  Or so the liberal lies go.  Over and over and over again.

The 20% (liberal Democrats) try to rule the 80% (center-right America) with an able assist from the mainstream media, university professors, celebrities and activist judges.

America is a center-right country.  That means liberal Democrats are in the minority.  Which means they can’t impose their agenda at the voting booth.  They can’t legislate their liberal agenda.   So they lie to build a coalition.  To try to pull independents and moderates to their cause.  You know the lies.  Republicans will force women into back alleys for abortions.  Republicans want to defund Social Security.  Republicans will bring back Jim Crowe laws (which, ironically, Democrats put into law).  Republicans want to transfer the tax burden from the rich to the poor.  Etc.

And they have willing accomplices.  Though they are only 20% of the population, they are a very strategically located 20%.  They’re in the mainstream media.  They teach at our universities.  They star in our favorite movies and TV shows.  They perform our favorite music.  And they sit in our courts (what they can’t legislate in Congress, they legislate from the bench).  It’s a small 20%.  But they have a hell of a bully pulpit.  And they use that bully pulpit with extreme prejudice.

And then you have the politicians themselves.  Who will tell any lie.  Smear any character.  For they feel untouchable.  Because they write and enforce the laws.  They ARE the law.  And they think like Louis DePalma.  That the truth doesn’t matter.  Because the people gotta believe whatever they say.  Or should.  Because they are the law.  But we, the other 80%, know they lie.  The DePalma analogy still fits, though.  We see the typical liberal Democrat as a lying, corrupt, despicable scoundrel, lacking any vestiges of integrity who enrich themselves at the expense of the people they serve.  And who can’t see Louis DePalma in that?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Europeans Wonder why Americans Don’t Love Obama as Much as They Do

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 29th, 2010

Obama falls from grace because the American people have learned what the mainstream media wouldn’t tell them; the truth.

America, Europe, the Middle East, hell, the whole world had a love affair with Barrack Obama.  A man who did nothing but serve a partial term as a U.S. senator.  Before that?  Community organizer.  His resume had a lot of white space on it.  He is the most inexperienced person to ever become president.  Even Sarah Palin, who the Left disparages as stupid and experienced, has executive experience.  She was more qualified than Obama to be president.  Based on their experience.  Place their resumes side by side and no one can dispute this.  Yet Palin is stupid and inexperienced.  And Obama is the second coming of Christ.  And when the results of Obama’s policies reflect his experience, those infatuated express shock and disbelief (see Europe ‘dismayed’ as midterms highlight Obama’s struggles by Marian Smith, msnbc.com).

“They’re very confused as to how [Americans] could vote for Obama and then two years later turn around and vote for a completely different set of policies,” Sarah Oates, professor of political communication the University of Glasgow, told msnbc.com.

There’s a simple reason for this confusion.  The mainstream media was also infatuated with Obama.  They endorsed his candidacy.  But they never vetted him.  No one knew anything about Obama during the campaign.  They ignored his far-left associations with Reverend Wright and Bill Aires.  They didn’t discuss his criticism of the U.S. Constitution (it didn’t empower government enough).  Or his policy guide: Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky.  The mainstream media’s gross journalistic malfeasance hid the real man from the American voter.  The real Obama is not the Obama the American people voted for.  Hence his fall from grace.

Jimmy Carter handed off a worse economy than Bush.  But things got better when Ronald Reagan cut taxes.

Obama has told us ad nauseam that he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression.  Some would argue that the numbers were pretty bad when Ronald Reagan took office.  But he followed Democrat Jimmy Carter.  So they don’t like to bring up his atrocious economy.  Because the economy he handed down to Ronald Reagan was pretty atrocious.  I mean, they didn’t use words like ‘malaise’, ‘stagflation’ or ‘misery index’ during the Bush economy.  And they’re not using them during the Obama economy.  But you repeat the lie enough, people just accept it as fact.

However, Obama remains broadly well-liked and many Europeans think the disenchantment that many American voters have been expressing is unfair.

“What he inherited was so enormous that no American president could have fixed it,” Manfred Gortemaker, professor of modern history at Germany’s University of Potsdam, told msnbc.com.

The bad economy Obama inherited was a long time in the making.  Because the Democrats were in power for a long time.  And it was their passion that caused it.  Affordable housing.  Putting people into houses who couldn’t afford houses.  Ask anyone which party you think of when it comes to affordable housing and they’re not going to say Republican.  The American disenchantment is with Democrat Big Government.  And Obama believes in Big Government.  The bigger the better.  America just can’t afford it anymore.  There isn’t enough money left in the private sector to steal to pay for it.  And Obama just wants to spend more.  But spending doesn’t work.  It didn’t help Carter.  That’s why he lost to Reagan.  Reagan cut taxes.  And, you know what?  That worked.  The electorate wants more Reagan.  Less Obama.

It’s good t be king.  As long it’s not 1790 France.  Or 2010 America where the Tea Party is spoiling a good time for the ruling elite.

The French can’t figure out the Tea Party movement.

“In all the French newspapers and magazines, people are writing, trying to figure it out,” Bacharan said.

Michelle Obama stayed at a 5-star Spanish resort while Americans were suffering near 10% unemployment and seeing banks foreclose on their homes.  There have been other vacations at very expensive and exclusive resorts.  And a lot of golf outings.  Obama has played more golf in 2 years than George W. Bush has in his 8 years.  Then there’s the latest presidential vacation.  They’re going to India.  They’ll be taking 40 airplanes.  Three helicopters.  A bunch of armored cars.  And they’ll be staying at the 5-star Taj Mahal hotel.  And only them.  The Obama party has booked the whole place.  It’s good to be king.

Now, I’m poking a little fun at my French friends.  That ‘good to be king’ line comes from Mel Brooks History of the World Part One.  But it’s something the French should understand.  While the masses are suffering, the Obamas are living like royalty.  They are detached from ordinary America.  Cold and detached.  Sort of like King Louis XVI and his queen, Marie Antoinette.  We’re just waiting for Michelle Obama to say, “Let them eat cake.”  Of course, we have the right to vote.  Unlike the people did in 1790 France with their ruling elite.  And it’s that right that the Tea Party is exercising.  Because they feel the way the French felt in 1790.  (Without the famine, of course.)

The Tea Party are not Nazis; Obama is not Hitler.  But the Nazis were Big Government liberals

The mainstream media has been falsely reporting a ‘Nazi’ element within the Tea Party.  They repeat the lie so often that many accept it as fact.  Even the Germans, no doubt sensitive to anything Nazi, are writing about it.

“The Holocaust was the result of murderous ideological fanaticism of the kind not to be found in leaders forced to face re-election every four years,” [a Der Spiegel newspaper] editorial said. “It is hard to imagine even the most hard-bitten Tea Party activist sincerely believing that President Barack Obama wants to systematically murder over 6 million people like Adolf Hitler did. And that is necessarily the implication.”

The German people elected Adolf Hitler to office in free elections.  He did not campaign on the Holocaust, though.  He did adopt what would eventually be Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.  He identified, isolated and attacked his enemies.  The Jews.  Obama has identified, isolated and attacked his enemies.  The Tea Party.  George W. Bush.  And Republicans in general.  Hitler was an environmentalist.  Obama is an environmentalist.  Hitler expanded state power.  Obama wants to expand state power.  Hitler controlled state media.  Obama has a willing and complicit mainstream media.  Hitler nationalized industries.  Obama nationalized industries.  Take away the crazy, the Holocaust and the militarism, and Hitler was just another Big Government liberal.  Like Mussolini.  Like Stalin.  And FDR.  And as Big Government liberals, they lied to their electorate to get elected (well, except for Stalin).  Then people learned the truth.

That said, Obama is no Hitler.  He is not a Nazi.  Sure, some kooks on the fringe say stupid things.  Just like some on the Left said George W. Bush was another Hitler.  Called him a Nazi.  But we need to stop the crazy. On both sides.  Obama got a pass by the mainstream media during the campaign.  They worshipped and adored him.  Got the people to vote for him.  And now people have learned the truth.  And here’s why Obama is NOT Adolf Hitler.  We can fix our mistake in the voting booth. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

LESSONS LEARNED #19: “Philosophical debates can be effective but character assassination is more expedient, especially when no one agrees with your philosophy.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 24th, 2010

THOMAS JEFFERSON HATED Alexander Hamilton.  So much so he hired Philip Freneau as a translator in his State Department in George Washington’s administration.  You see, Jefferson did not like confrontation.  So he needed a way to slander Hamilton, his policies and the Washington administration without getting his own hands dirty.  And that was what Freneau was supposed to do with the money he earned while working in the State Department.  Publish a newspaper (National Gazette) and attack Hamilton, his policies and the Washington administration.  Papers then were partisan.  More so than today.  Then, lies and libel were tools of the trade.  And they knew how to dig up the dirt.  Or make it up. 

Another scandalmonger, James Callender, was slinging dirt for Jefferson.  And he hit pay dirt.  Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds of Philadelphia had a lucrative business.  They were blackmailing Alexander Hamilton.  Mr. Reynolds had his wife seduce Hamilton.  Which she did.  And did well.  They had an affair.  And Mr. Reynolds then blackmailed him.  Jefferson pounced.  Or, rather, Callender did.  To keep Jefferson’s hands clean.  Hamilton, Callender said, was using his position at the Treasury Department for personal gain.  He was using public funds to pay the blackmailer.  They found no proof of this.  And they did look for it.  Hard.  But when they came up empty, Jefferson said that it just proved what a good thief Hamilton was.  He was so good that he didn’t leave any traces of his treachery behind.

Of course, when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.  And Jefferson’s association with Callender would come back and bite him in the ass.  In a big way.  Upset because Jefferson didn’t appropriately compensate him for all his loyal dirt slinging (he wanted the postmaster’s job in Richmond), he publicized the Sally Hemings rumors.  And after breaking the true story of the Hamilton affair, many would believe this scoop.  That Jefferson was having an affair with one of his slaves.  It was a dark cloud that would forever hang over Jefferson.  And his legacy.

Hamilton admitted to his affair.  Jefferson admitted to no affair.  Hamilton would never hold public office again and would later die in a duel with Jefferson’s one-time toady, Aaron Burr.  This duel resulted because Hamilton was doing whatever he could to keep the amoral and unscrupulous Burr from public office (in this case, it was the governorship of New York).  When the election of 1800 resulted in a tie between Jefferson and Burr, Hamilton urged the House to vote for Jefferson, his archenemy.   Despite what had appeared in the press, Hamilton did have morals and scruples.  Unlike some.  Speaking of which, Jefferson would go on to serve 2 terms as president.  And all of that angst about Hamiltonian policies?  They all went out the window with the Louisiana Purchase (which was unconstitutional, Big Government and Big Finance).

RONALD REAGAN WAS routinely called old, senile and out of touch by the entertainment community, the media and his political foes.  But he bested Mikhail Gorbachev and the Soviet Union, something Jimmy Carter never did.  He said ‘no’ at Reykjavik because he told the American people that he wouldn’t give up the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).  He knew the Soviet Union was bleeding.  Communism was a farce.  It inhibited human capital.  And impoverished her people.  SDI may have been science fiction in the 1980s, but capitalism wasn’t.  It could do it all.  Including SDI.  The Soviet Union was on the ropes and Reagan would give no quarter.  The days of living in fear of the mushroom cloud were over.  And capitalism would deliver the knockout punch.

Reaganomics, of course, made this all possible.  Supply-side economics.  Which follows the Austrian school.  Say’s Law.  ‘Supply creates demand’.  You don’t stimulate the economy by taxing one group of people so another group can spend.  You stimulate it by creating incentives for risk takers to take risks.  And when they do, they create jobs.  And wealth.

Tax and spend is a failed Keynesian, zero-sum economic policy.  When you take from the earners and give to the non-earners, we just transfer purchasing power.  We don’t create it.  For some to spend more, others must spend less.  Hence, zero-sum.  The net some of goods and services people are purchasing remains the same.  Different people are just doing the purchasing.

When Apple invented the Macintosh personal computer (PC), few were demanding a PC with a graphical user interface (GUI).  But Apple was innovative.  They created something they thought the people would want.  And they did.  They took a risk.  And the Macintosh with its mouse and GUI took off.  Apple manufacturing increased and added jobs.  Retail outlets for the Macintosh expanded and created jobs.  Software firms hired more engineers to write code.  And other firms hired more people to engineer and manufacture PC accessories.  There was a net increase in jobs and wealth.  Just as Say’s Law predicts.  Supply-side economics works.

Of course, the Left hates Reagan and attacked Reaganomics with a vengeance.  They attacked Reagan for being pro-rich.  For not caring about the poor.  And they revised history.  They say the only thing the Reagan tax cuts gave us were record deficits.  Of course, what those tax cuts gave us were record tax receipts.  The government never collected more money.  The House of Representatives (who spends the money), awash in cash, just spent that money faster than the treasury collected it.  The record shows Reaganomics worked.  Lower tax rates spurred economic activity.  More activity generated more jobs and more personal wealth.  Which resulted in more people paying more taxes.  More people paying taxes at a lower rate equaled more tax revenue in the aggregate.  It works.  And it works every time people try it. 

Because Reaganomics worked and showed the Left’s policies were failures, they had to attack Reagan.  To discredit him.  They had to destroy the man.  Except when they’re running for elected office.  Then they strive to show how much more Reagan-like they are than their conservative opponents.  Because they know Reaganomics worked.  And they know that we know Reaganomics worked.

GEORGE W. BUSH was routinely called an ‘idiot’ by the entertainment community, the media and his political foes.  Yet this ‘idiot’ seems to have outwitted the elite of the liberal Left time and time again.  I mean, if their policies were winning, they would be no reason to have attacked Bush in the first place.  The Left hated him with such vitriol that they said he blew up the Twin Towers on 9/11 as a justification for invading Iraq for her oil.  It was Big Oil’s lust for profit, after all, that was driving this Texan’s Big Oil policies.  And taking Iraq’s oil would increase Big Oil’s sales and give her even more obscene profits.

If Bush was an idiot, he must have been an idiot genius to come up with a plan like that.  Then again, gasoline prices crept to $4/gallon following the Iraq War.  Had all that oil gone on the market according to plan, that wouldn’t have happened.  Unless the plan was to keep that oil OFF of the market, thus, by rules of supply and demand, the price of oil (and the gasoline we make from it) would go up thus enriching Big Oil through higher prices resulting from a lower sales volume.  My god, what evil genius.  For an idiot.  Of course, gas taxes, numerous summer gas blends (required by the government’s environmental policies), an aging and over-taxed pipeline infrastructure and insufficient refinery capacity (the government’s environmental policies make it too punishing even to consider building a new refinery) to meet increasing demand (soaring in India and China) had nothing to do with the rise in gas prices.

IS THE POLITICAL Left evil?  Probably not.  Just amoral.  They have an agenda.  They survive on political spoils and patronage.  Old time politics.  Enrich themselves through cronyism.  If tribute is paid they’ll extend favorable treatment.  If tribute is not paid, they will release their wrath via hostile regulation, litigation, Congressional investigation and punitive taxation.  Just like they did to Big Tobacco (and, no, it wasn’t about our health.  They could have just made tobacco illegal.  But they didn’t.  Why?  It just brings in way too much money to the government.  Via sin taxes.  And federal lawsuits.  And with it being addictive, it’s a frickin cash piñata for them.)

They know few agree with their philosophy.  But they don’t care.  It’s not about national prosperity.  It’s about power.  And they want it.  That’s why they can’t debate the issues.  They know they can’t win.  So they attack the messenger.  Not the message.  If you don’t believe that, you can ask Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and just about any other Republican.  Well, you can’t ask Lincoln or Reagan.  But you can guess what they would say.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries