FT206: “If we got rid of Jim Crowe Laws we can get rid of another bad law like Obamacare.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 24th, 2014

Fundamental Truth

Colorado has allowed Recreational Use of Marijuana even though Federal Law prohibits its Sale and Use

Everyone on the left is saying it.  Those in the mainstream media are saying it.  Even some on the right are saying it.  Obamacare is the law of the land.  And it isn’t going away.  As no law ever goes away.  So get used to it.  And quit your bitching, conservatives.  Especially you radical Tea Party extremists.  With all of your Constitutional this and Constitutional that.  If you’re all about the rule of law then follow the rule of law.  And quit trying to repeal Obamacare.

Marijuana is a class one narcotic.  Federal law prohibits its sales and use.  Yet those on the left have tried long and hard to decriminalize it.  Comparing it to alcohol.  Which is not a class one narcotic.  For the left does not like the law criminalizing the sale and use of marijuana.  And have bitched so much about it that at first states have allowed medical marijuana.  And now Colorado has allowed recreational use of marijuana.  Washington, too.  Even though federal law prohibits the sale and use of this class one narcotic.

There are millions of illegal aliens in the United States.  Who are in the country illegally.  But those on the left want to change our laws so they aren’t here illegally.  They want to grant them amnesty.  Forgive their law-breaking.  And give them citizenship.  Because they are sure that if they do they will then thank those on the left (i.e., the Democrat Party) by voting Democrat.  Especially when they’re telling them that the only reason why they are illegal is that Republicans hate Hispanics.

The Supreme Court made Law the People or Congress would not by Decriminalizing Abortion

The Second Amendment to the Constitution grants the people the right to keep and bear arms.  The left doesn’t like guns.  And they especially don’t like people owning guns.  So the left hates the Second Amendment.  Have long campaigned to curb gun ownership.  And have used every opportunity to advance new gun control legislation.  Whenever a mentally troubled individual goes on a shooting spree they blame the gun and not the mentally troubled individual.  Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner and Seung-Hui Cho were all mentally troubled people.  Yet the discussion is always about taking guns away from law-abiding gun owners.  Not identifying these mentally troubled people before they hurt someone.  Which they could still do even if you take other people’s guns away.

Abortion was illegal everywhere in the United States.  The left did not like this.  So they campaigned long and hard to decriminalize abortion.  Which they could not do.  At least, in Congress.  Because the majority of the people opposed decriminalizing abortion.  And they never had the votes in Congress to pass a law allowing abortion.  Which is why there has never been an abortion debate in Congress.  Not liking their odds in Congress they turned to the courts.  On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court made law the people or Congress would not.  And decriminalized abortion.

The progressives in the early 20th century saw the people were just not smart enough to know what was best for them.  And drinking was not.  Husbands drank away their paychecks, came home drunk and beat their wives and gave them (and their unborn children) the syphilis they caught from prostitutes hanging out in saloons.  So the progressives got a new amendment added to the Constitution to prohibit the sale and transportation of alcohol.  The Eighteenth Amendment.  A law the people didn’t like.  And they repealed the Eighteenth Amendment with the Twenty-first Amendment.  The only Constitutional amendment to be repealed.

The Left tries to Change or Go Around via the Courts Laws they Don’t Like

During the 1950s and 1960s Jim Crowe laws kept America segregated.  Separate but equal went the mantra.  The Southern Democrats made it difficult for blacks to vote.  And treated them as second class citizens.  Giving us race riots in the Sixties.  And a civil rights movement.  From the Montgomery Bus Boycott to Martin Luther King’s I have a Dream speech in Washington the movement grew in intensity.  Leading to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Overturning the Jim Crowe laws and desegregating America.  Thanks to a united Republican Party that was able to overcome Democrat opposition in Congress to pass the bill.

The Southern Democrats did not lose the American Civil War well.  They did not like the Fifteenth Amendment allowing their former slaves to vote.  And they did not like the Thirteenth Amendment freeing their slaves.  So the planter elite and their fellow Southern Democrats created the KKK.  And began passing Jim Crowe laws to keep the defeated South racially segregated.  The way it was written into the U.S. Constitution.  The way it had to be written into the Constitution to get the Deep South to join the new United States of America.  As the planter elite made clear.  If there was no slavery there would be no United States.

We’ve had a lot of bad law in this country.  Laws that we’ve repealed.  Sometimes even over Democrat opposition.  In fact the Southern Democrats pulled the southern states out of the union and into civil war with the northern states to defend the planter elite’s right to own slaves.  Just as the planter elite forced those who wrote the Constitution to leave slavery alone if they expected their states to join the new union.  And we’ve had laws the left just doesn’t like.  Laws they’ve worked long and hard to change.  Such as criminalizing gun ownership and decriminalizing marijuana.  Or to get around them via the courts.  Such as abortion.  So the argument to just accept Obamacare because it’s the law of the land is a pretty weak argument.  And chastising Republicans for not accepting laws they don’t like is hypocritical to say the least.  We should be able to get rid of bad law.  And Obamacare is a bad law.  As it is doing the opposite of what it was supposed to do.  So why not repeal it?  I mean, if we were able to get rid of Jim Crowe Laws we should be able to get rid of another bad law like Obamacare.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Subjective Bipartisanship—2000 Election, Citizens United and Obamacare

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 26th, 2013

Politics 101

Democrats are like Petulant Children whenever they don’t Get their Way

Bipartisanship is a funny thing.  Subjective.  The Democrats are always demanding that the Republicans be bipartisan.  And stop being such extreme ideologues.  For after all they won the election.  And the Republicans lost.  So the Republicans should just give in and give the Democrats whatever they want.  And shut their pie holes.

The Democrats say the Republicans should cede defeat.  And quit fighting them.  Just like the Democrats do.  When they lose an election or a Supreme Court decisions they just go on their way, whistling a happy tune.  When Al Gore lost to George W. Bush in 2000 the Democrats said, “Gee whiz we sure wanted to win.  But, oh well, the Republicans just made a better case to the American people.  It’s obvious that the people want them.  Not us.  So congratulations, President Bush.  And Godspeed.  We look forward to working with you to give you whatever you want.  For after all, you won the election.”

You probably don’t remember that.  And for a good reason.  It never happened.  Because the Democrats are like petulant children whenever they don’t get their way.  Just look at them now.  The people who are supposed to be so tolerant are calling the Republicans terrorists, anarchists, fanatics, extremists, etc.  Saying things like they’re holding the American people hostage.  For ransom.  That they have a target on the middle class.  The kind of hate speech they say is responsible for gun crime.  The kind of speech they blamed the Tucson shooting on.  Even the mainstream media apologized for using a gun metaphor on air.  When it was all the rage to frown on that kind of speech.  But when it comes to attacking the Republicans the Democrats unload double-barrel shots of it.

Chief Justice Roberts changed the Individual Mandate in Obamacare to a Tax

Obamacare passed purely on partisan lines.  It was NOT bipartisan.  Only Democrats voted for it.  When they had control of the House, the Senate and the White House.  But even then they had to bribe some Democrats to vote for it because they knew their constituents were against it.  There was the Louisiana Purchase.  And the Cornhusker Kickback.  And they were right to be reluctant about voting for Obamacare.  For some lost their jobs because of it.  And the Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives.

The Republicans continue to oppose Obamacare.  As do the people.  As polls show the majority doesn’t want it. Then came the Supreme Court decision.  And Chief Justice Roberts.  Who said the individual mandate (the government forcing the people to buy something for the first time in U.S. history) was, in fact, a tax.  Despite President Obama and the Democrats insisting that it wasn’t a tax.  Because people did not want a massive new tax.  So instead of finding Obamacare unconstitutional (which it is) he said the government forcing Americans to buy something for the first time in U.S. history was constitutional because he changed the individual mandate to a tax.

So the Democrats say the Republicans should just drop their opposition to Obamacare.  And they should quit their attempts to defund Obamacare.  For the Supreme Court has settled the matter once and for all.  And the Republicans need to do as the Democrats do.  Respect the Court’s decision.   Just like they respected the Court’s decision to stop the endless recounting of ballots until the Democrats could find enough ballots to count to overturn the outcome of the 2000 presidential election.  And how they respected the Court’s decision in the Citizens United case that said corporations could make political donations just like people.  And unions.  That pours money into Democrat coffers for political action whether the union rank and file wants them to or not.

The Democrats had No Interest in being Bipartisan when George W. Bush was in Office

You probably don’t remember any of this either.  And for good reason.  It never happened.  Because the Democrats are like petulant children whenever they don’t get their way.  President Obama insulted the Supreme Court Justices during a State of the Union address following the Citizens United decision.  Which was unprecedented.  And childish.  They attack this decision to this day.  And vow to overturn it.  For it’s okay for them to disagree with the Supreme Court.  But not the Republicans.

They have attacked George W. Bush with a vengeance.  Called his presidency illegitimate following the 2000 election.  Yet when he won reelection in 2004 they didn’t stop being extreme ideologues.  They didn’t shut their pie holes.  They didn’t start supporting the War on Terror.  They didn’t stop trying to defund the Iraq War.  In fact, they stepped up their attacks on him.  Even though his reelection proved he was legitimate.  They called him an idiot.  A liar.  An embarrassment.  A crazy cowboy.  Late night television belittled him.  And the mainstream media played along.  The Democrats had no interest in being bipartisan when George W. Bush was in office.

The Democrats are petulant children.  When they don’t get their way it’s no holds barred.  As they do everything in their power to derail the opposition’s policies.  But when the Republicans stand firm with the American people in their opposition to Obamacare they are terrorists, anarchists, fanatics, extremists, etc.  For you see, there are two sets of rules.  One for the Democrats.  And one for the Republicans.  It’s a little like that saying about customers.  Rule number 1: The customer is always right.  Rule number 2: When the customer is wrong see rule number one.  Only with the Democrats it’s like this.  Rule number one: The Democrats should be in power and should be allowed to do whatever they want to do.  Rule number 2: When the Republicans are in power see rule number 1.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Canada’s Supreme Court ends Pfizer’s Viagra Patent Rights Early

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 25th, 2012

Week in Review

That little blue pill, Viagra, has been a great success.  Making a lot of men happy again.  And their wives.  Who are forever thankful that Pfizer created that little blue pill.  And were willing to pay anything for it.  To recapture the virility of their youth.  Even if it made Pfizer rich.  For the way these men looked at it Pfizer was doing God’s work.  Making the impossible possible.  And the thanks they get?  They lose their patent rights early (see Pfizer cuts Viagra price in Canada after court loss to generics 5 by Reuters posted 11/25/2012 on the Toronto Sun).

Pfizer Inc has cut the Canadian price of its Viagra erectile dysfunction drug after the Supreme Court of Canada opened the door to sales of generic versions of the drug, the company said on Thursday.

“We are lowering original Viagra’s price to be in line with generic versions because we are committed to ensuring that Viagra patients continue to have access to the original, made by Pfizer, and at a competitive price,” Scott Wilks from Pfizer’s Canadian subsidiary said in a statement.

The patent on Viagra had been due to expire in 2014 in Canada. The Supreme Court threw the door open to generics immediately on Nov. 8 when it ruled that Pfizer had not provided enough details when it filed its patent.

Why did Pfizer create Viagra?  Out of altruism?  Were they concerned that not enough men were having sex?  Did they want to make sure all husbands could satisfy their wives sexually?  No.  They did it for the money.  That’s why they spent a fortune to develop that pill.  And why they filed a patent to recover the money they poured into that pill.  To reap profits for all of their hard work.  That’s why Pfizer created Viagra.  And they wouldn’t have done it if they couldn’t have profited off of it.  Yes, the pills may have been expensive.  But if they weren’t allowed to charge those high prices after creating it they simply wouldn’t have created it.

This is how the pharmaceutical industry works.  There are no sure things when it comes to creating new drugs.  Only a lot of costly dead ends.  Which is why they have to profit greatly off of their successes.  To pay for those successes.  As well as to pay for all of those costly dead ends.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

2012 Endorsements: Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Joseph Stalin

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 30th, 2012

2012 Election

A Strong President and a Few Judges could defy Congress and the State Legislatures and Govern as They Please

Woodrow Wilson became president in 1913.  He was a progressive.  And didn’t much care for our Founding Fathers.  Or our Founding Documents.  The Declaration of Independence.  And the Constitution.  He referred to our inalienable rights as a “great deal of nonsense.”  Preferring to think of them as privileges granted by the government.  Like kings once did.  And as kings did not like limits on their power so did Wilson not like limits on his power.  For government was a living thing that could grow and do great things.  But to do great things it needed great men in leadership positions.  Like him.  Not hindered by the checks and balances of the Constitution.  Or state legislatures.  Or people clamoring about their inalienable rights.

This was the age of progressivism.  When smart people were in government.  Smarter than they ever were before.  People who graduated from the finest institutions of higher learning.  Or ran them.  Like Wilson.  Who was president of Princeton.  Progressives were smarter than the average American.  Who could take America to such great heights.  If they could only keep the dumb people from interfering with their vision.  And foolishly try to limit the power of the federal government.  So, as president, Wilson got a lot of legislation passed that helped make the federal government more powerful.  Such as creating the Federal Reserve System.  A central bank that could print money as the government needed it.  And enacting the first federal income tax since the American Civil War.  With this new found wealth the federal government only needed one other thing to take America to great heights.  Getting rid of the Constitution.

As much of what Wilson wanted to do exceeded his Constitutional authority he needed a way around that particular nuisance.  The checks and balances of the Constitution.  Especially after the Framers made it so difficult to add amendments.  Requiring a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of Congress.  And then ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures.  Not a promising way to make radical changes in the structure of the federal government.  So Wilson’s solution was not to amend the Constitution.  But to go around the Constitution.  With judicial activism.  The president should appoint federal judges who share his views of abandoning the intent of the Framers.  Thus consolidating power into fewer hands.  So they could do more of what they wanted and less what the people wanted.  A strong president and a few judges along the way could defy the Congress and the state legislatures and govern as they please.  Reshaping America into their vision.  Not the Founders’ vision.  A progressive vision.  Where these few enlightened and very smart individuals would do what was best for us.  Even if we didn’t know what that was.

The New Deal was a Revolution made not by Tanks and Machine Guns but acts of Congress and Decisions of the Supreme Court

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) saw things the way Wilson did.  FDR was all for radical change.  And breaking away from the constraints of our Founding Documents.  And his New Deal did just that.  A radical change and expansion of the federal government.  And to help get the people to embrace these changes in the long-term he introduced Social Security.  To get even more people dependent on the federal government.  A program so convoluted he reportedly said that it would be impossible to overturn.  He empowered unions.  He introduced payroll taxes to fund Social Security.  He raised income taxes.  Even tried to implement a heavy progressive tax that topped out at 100% for the very rich.  And he introduced the withholding tax.  As people’s tax bills were to grow so large there would have been push back had they had to write a check at the end of the year for the full amount.  But if you took a little bit each pay period the total tax bill didn’t seem so high.

In FDR’s 1944 State of the Union speech he proposed a Second Bill of Rights.  However, when talking about our Constitutional rights he called them “inalienable political rights.”  By inserting the word ‘political’ those God-given rights of the Declaration of Independence became privileges granted by the government.  Which was similar to the way Wilson saw those rights.  As privileges granted by government.  And privileges that government could take away.  Thus emphasizing the power of the federal government over the individual.  Making it easier to impose those new federal taxes.  So what were those new rights?  A good-paying job, adequate food and clothing, recreation, high farm prices for farmers, freedom from unfair competition, a decent home, medical care, a pension, unemployment insurance and a good education.  Sound familiar?  If you’re an old Soviet communist they do.

Chapter X of the 1936 Soviet constitution included a list of Fundamental Rights.  Which included a right to a good-paying job, adequate food and clothing, recreation, medical care, a pension, and a good education.  Among others.  No surprise, really.  As FDR was a fan of Joseph Stalin and what he was doing in the Soviet Union.  The same kind of things he wanted to do.  But he didn’t have the same freedoms Stalin had.  There were such similarities that Whittaker Chambers, a Soviet spy in the US during the time of the New Deal wrote in his book Witness “the New Deal was a genuine revolution, whose deepest purpose was not simply reform within existing traditions, but a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationship within the nation.  It was not a revolution of violence.  It was a revolution by bookkeeping and lawmaking…made not by tanks and machine guns, but acts of Congress and decisions of the Supreme Court…”  Just like Wilson envisioned.

If Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Joseph Stalin were Alive Today they would likely Endorse Barack Obama and Joe Biden

Alexander Hamilton believed in a strong central government.  Partly because he saw what a weak central government did to the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War.  And partly because he admired the greatness of the British Empire.  He wanted an American Empire.  Trusting that only men of virtue would serve in a republican government, he did not fear a federal government from overreaching, and abusing, their power.  Thomas Jefferson and James Madison thought Hamilton was mad.  And fought against him with every last fiber of their bodies.  Because they knew that they couldn’t trust future members of their republican government to be men of virtue.  As proven by Aaron Burr.  Who lived during the time of the Founding Fathers.

The modern Democrat Party traces its roots back to Woodrow Wilson and FDR.  Men hungry for power.  And having little virtue.  Today we call people like them Big Government liberal Democrats.  Who have continued to advance the growth and power of the federal government.  Approximately 20% of the population identifies themselves as liberals.  And yet the liberals have greatly advanced their agenda.  How?  In large part through judicial activism.  Using the courts to give them what the state legislatures or Congress won’t.  Such as when a state passes a referendum on a liberal issue, such as redefining gay marriage, the liberals use the courts to overturn that act of democracy.  Or any other that they disagree with.

Now that’s the kind of governing that Wilson and FDR would approve of.  Even Joseph Stalin.  More and more power centralized in the federal government.  The ability to overturn legislation you don’t like.  A revolution without violence.  It doesn’t get any better than that.  If Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Joseph Stalin were alive today they would likely endorse the Democrat candidates Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

2012 Endorsements: Abraham Lincoln

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 25th, 2012

2012 Election

The Slave Owners were the Social Elite and Holders of Political Power Similar to the Aristocracy in European Feudalism

General Motors (GM) required a government bailout and bankruptcy protection because of rising labor costs that prevented them from selling enough cars at a price to cover their costs while being profitable.  Their problem goes back to FDR.  During the Great Depression his government placed a ceiling on wages.  To encourage companies to hire more people.  By paying more people less money instead of fewer people more money.  So businesses had to do something else to attract the best employees.  And the employee benefit was born.  Pensions and health care benefits.  That were very generous when there was no competition and car companies could sell cars at whatever price they chose.  But that wasn’t the case in the 21st century.  Competition put great cost pressures on those companies with rising health care and pension costs.  And the job bank paying for workers who didn’t work.  Until they could be put back to work.  Adding a lot of costs to each car.  And sending GM into bankruptcy.

Slavery as an economic model had a similar problem.  High costs.  Which goes contrary to the public perception that slave labor was free labor.  George Washington wanted to sell his slaves and hire paid-laborers.  Because his slave families had grown so large.  So he had a growing slave population.  But they all weren’t working.  The young children could not do the work of a young man in his working prime.  Nor could the elderly.  Or the sick or infirmed.  (Who he couldn’t sell along with the healthier and stronger ones in their families.  So he kept his slaves, keeping those families together.  Freeing them upon the death of his wife.  And including provisions in his will to help them integrate into free society.  Giving them some job skills to help them find gainful employment so they could care for their young, elderly, sick and infirmed.)  Yet Washington was feeding them all.  While the growing amount of food they ate couldn’t go to market.  As the years passed his costs went up and his revenue fell.  Just like at GM.  For both had long-term labor commitments that became more inefficient over time.  Which is why slavery was a dying institution in the United States.  The industrial North was slave-free.  As they used more efficient paid-laborers.  Drawing a lot of immigrants to those northern factories.  And slavery was dying out in the South.  Until the cotton gin came along.  Allowing workers to comb (separating the seeds from the fiber) huge amounts of cotton at a time.  Greatly opening the market for that labor-intensive cotton crop.

The typical image of the South in 1860 is endless plantations each with hundreds of slaves working the fields.  Which is wrong.  Most people worked a small family farm.  In fact, most of the Confederate soldiers who fought in the American Civil War came from those small family farms and never owned a slave in their life.  The actual numbers of large slaveholders will probably surprise you.  Approximately 0.84% of the southern population owned at least 20 slaves.  Only 0.05% of the southern population owned at least 100 slaves.  And the number of big plantations owning at least 500 slaves?  Twelve.  So it was a very small population that had a vested interest in the institution of slavery.  Yet the South seceded from the union over the issue of slavery.  Why?  Because of who those slave owners were.  The social elite and holders of political power.  The Planter Elite.  People similar to the aristocracy in European feudalism.  An Old World nobility.  The very wealthy few who ruled the South.  And for awhile they ruled the United States thanks to an unfair advantage they had in the House of Representatives.  Where they determined their representation by not only counting the free population but by counting every slave as 3/5 a free person as well.  And this southern nobility was determined to maintain their aristocracy.

Popular Sovereignty created a Bloodbath in Kansas as ‘Free’ and ‘Slave’ People raced there to Settle the State

Which was easier said than done.  Because of that industrial growth in the north attracting so many immigrants that they swelled the northern population.  Transferring control of the House from the South to the North.  Which left only the Senate (and the presidency) for the South.  As each state got two senators the race was on to admit free and slave states to the union.  Which didn’t really solve anything.  It only made the differences between the North and the South greater.  And intensified the bad feelings between the North and the South.  The North was full of abolitionist busybodies trying to tell southerners how to live.  While the southerners were a bunch of immoral slaveholders.  Bringing shame to the nation that was supposedly a place where all men were created equal.   Words enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.  Words written incidentally by a southern slaveholder.  It was finally time to address the nation’s original sin.

Congress passed the Missouri Compromise (1820) after Thomas Jefferson bought the Louisiana Territory from the French.  Adding a lot of new land to form states from.  The compromise prohibited slavery north of the border between Arkansas and Missouri (except in the state of Missouri).  They added new states in pairs.  A free state.  And a slave state.  Maintaining the balance of power in Congress.  Then came Kansas and Nebraska.  Both above the Missouri Compromise line.  Well, that meant two new free states.  And a change in the balance of power.  Which the South couldn’t have.  So Senator Stephen Douglas introduced the Kansas-Nebraska Act.  And the idea of popular sovereignty.  The idea of letting the people in these new states decide for themselves if they should be a free state or a slave state.  Creating a bloodbath in Kansas as ‘free’ and ‘slave’ people raced there to settle the state.  Fighting and intimidating each other so they would be the ones to vote on making Kansas free or slave.  It was anarchy.

Abraham Lincoln had reentered politics in 1854 to campaign for fellow Whig Richard Yates.  Who opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act.  Democrat Stephen Douglas was making a series of speeches in Illinois.  In response to one of Stephens’ speeches Lincoln gave his Peoria speech.  In commenting on letting slavery into Nebraska and Kansas Lincoln said, “I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself.  I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world—enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites—causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty—criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.”

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

The fallout from the Kansas-Nebraska Act splintered existing political parties apart.  Created new ones that disappeared later.  And gave birth to the new Republican Party.  The party of George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln.  Who became the leading spokesman of the party.  The Republicans lost the 1856 presidential election but won majorities in most of the northern states.  Tipping the balance of power further away from the South.  When Lincoln won his party’s nomination to run for senator in 1858 he gave his ‘House Divided Speech’ saying, “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.”

When slave Dred Scott traveled to a free state with his owner his owner died.  Scott said he was then a free man.  The Supreme Court thought otherwise.  Saying that Scott was still a slave because neither Congress nor any territory legislature had the authority to change that.  Which meant no one could restrict the movement of slaves because no one had the right to restrict the movement of private property.  Thus opening all the new territories to slavery.  Making the South very happy.  While infuriating the North.  Who refused to enforce slave laws on the books like the Fugitive Slave Law.  A provision included in the Compromise of 1850 for the states’ rights South.  That called for the federal government to force northerners to return slaves or face arrest and penalties.  States’ legislatures in the North passed laws saying a slave living in a free state was a free man.  The Supreme Court struck down these laws.  Favoring southern states’ rights over northern states’ rights.  So the states just refused to help the federal government in any prosecution of a violation of the Fugitive Slave Law.  Then abolitionist John Brown’s failed slave revolt at Harper’s Ferry, Virginia, further angered the South.

Then came the 1860 presidential election.  That Abraham Lincoln won.  Which was the last straw.  The South lost both Congress and the presidency.  Worse, the new president, though not an outright abolitionist, opposed the expansion of slavery.  Leaving the South with one last option.  Secession.  Which they did.  Leading to the American Civil War.  Which the South lost because of everything they believed in.  For an Old World nobility just could not defeat a modern industrial power.  Lincoln won because he had modern factories building whatever he needed.  The northern economy was large and diverse providing war financing.  Railroads crisscrossed the North.  A large navy controlled the interior rivers and blockaded the southern ports.  Cutting off the South from the outside world and starving it.  When the South desperately pursued the British for recognition Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.  Making it impossible for Britain to ally itself with a nation fighting for the institution of slavery.

No president entered office with a heavier burden than President Lincoln.  Standing on principle he made the hard decisions.  Becoming the most hated sitting president of all time.  He did not look for an easy solution like every other politician had up to his time.  Only making the inevitable solution more costly.  And more painful.  He would do what had to be done.  Regardless the price he would pay.  Politically.  Or personally.  A cost so high that it made him a one term president thanks to an assassin’s bullet.  He didn’t base his decisions on the polls.  Or populist movements.  But on principles.  Drawn from the Constitution.  And the Declaration of Independence.  As well as the Bible.  So if he were alive today who would he endorse in the current election?  He would, of course, support his party.  Out of party loyalty.  And because it tends to stand on principle more than the Democrat Party.  Which often used an activist Supreme Court to get what they couldn’t get in the legislature.  Which tends to use populist movements and character assassination to advance their agenda.  Such as the so-called war on women to scare women into voting Democrat because they can’t persuade them to based on a successful track record in office.  Also, the Republicans are more pro-business and more pro-military.  Which gives you the ability to win civil wars.  And other wars.  As well as protecting US security interests around the world.  Maintaining peace through strength.  For anything was preferable to the hell he went through during the four long years of the Civil War.  And to have so much blood on his hands.  The war being so horrific because of a policy of continued failed diplomacy when there was simply no common ground.  He said that there was only one of two possible outcomes.  All free.  Or all slave.  And he was right.  But it took someone willing to be the most hated sitting president to have the courage to act to bring about the inevitable.  So if Lincoln were alive today he would likely endorse the Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.  Not the party that wants to delay the inevitable by refusing to address the systemic problems of Medicare and Social Security.  And a growing welfare state.  Systems a declining population growth rate can no longer fund.  Because aging populations bankrupt nations with expanding welfare programs.  Just like an aging workforce can bankrupt a car company like GM.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Floridians in General and Seniors in Particular want to Repeal Obamacare

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 15th, 2012

Week in Review

The fact that the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare doesn’t change some facts.  People don’t like it.  They don’t want it.  And they want to repeal it.  Especially the seniors (see Poll: Most Floridians disapprove of federal healthcare law, half want it repealed by Alex Leary, Tampa Bay Times, posted 7/12/2012 on The Miami Herald).

A majority of Florida voters oppose the national healthcare law and half want it repealed, a new Miami Herald/Tampa Bay Times/Bay News 9 poll shows two weeks after President Barack Obama’s signature achievement was largely upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Only 43 percent of voters statewide support the Affordable Care Act and 52 percent oppose it, with 5 percent undecided. With the exception of southeast Florida, more voters think the law will make the healthcare system worse.

More voters also favor the state opting out of provisions of the law, something Gov. Rick Scott has already said it would do…

In perhaps the most worrisome sign for Obama and Democrats, only 39 percent of voters 65 years or older support the law. Seniors make up about 30 percent of the overall state’s electorate…

The results mirror surveys in other states and show the same entrenched partisan feelings.

What is even more significant is that seniors are the largest consumers of health care services.  These aren’t ill-informed young adults who want free birth control and abortion on demand.  These are people whose very lives depend on quality health care.  And that’s the problem.  These informed consumers of health care services see Obamacare reducing the quality of their health care.  For they listen to the details.  Unlike healthy people in their twenties who have other pressing issues on their minds.  I refer you back to the part of Obamacare that interests them.  The free birth control and abortion on demand.

When Coke came out with New Coke the consumers of the original Coke did not like the change.  So they brought out Classic Coke.  And eventually dropped New Coke.  Because New Coke was a disaster with the people who consumed the vast majority of Coke.  The Coca Cola Company understood they had to please the people who consumed the vast majority of their product.  So they took actions to please the consumers of Coke.

The reaction of seniors to Obamacare is similar.  For the new health care system doesn’t benefit the largest consumer of health care services.  These seniors.  No.  These seniors will lose the most.  Obamacare will make huge cuts in Medicare spending which will hurt seniors.  Obamacare will reduce doctors’ Medicare reimbursements and cause many of them to drop Medicare patients.  Again, this will hurt seniors.  And Obamacare will prioritize the use of their limited health care resources.  Those who are younger and have more to live for (i.e., who can work longer and pay more taxes) will receive priority over a senior who no longer contributes to tax revenue while consuming enormous amounts of health care resources.  The phrase ‘death panels’ does not appear in the health care law but there will be government bureaucrats determining who will receive health care and who will not.  Which is a terrifying prospect to all seniors and the terminally ill.  As well as the chronically ill.

Coke listened to their consumers because they cherished them as customers.  The problem with Obamacare is that the government looks at the largest consumers of health care as a burden.  And they don’t like them.  As shown by the passage of a health care bill that is so hostile to them.  Seniors often voted Democrat because they benefited from growing government spending.  That spending will continue to grow under Obamacare.  Only they will pay for a lot of it with spending cuts on programs that serve seniors.  So it’s not likely that the seniors will vote Democrat in the 2012 election.  Especially when only 39 percent of voters 65 years or older support Obamacare.  Meaning 61% don’t.  In Florida as well as other states wherever seniors can be found.  No.  They will vote for those who will listen to them as the largest consumers of health care services.  And who don’t plan on fixing whatever problems we have in the health care system by trying to get seniors to die sooner.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Obamacare Architects are either Devious or Ignorant

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 14th, 2012

Week in Review

Now that the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare our health care will be everything we ever hoped it to be.  It will give us everything we want.  And it will be inexpensive.  Granted nothing else in the world works like this.  Where customers get more by paying less.  And no national health care system has ever been everything the planners said it would be.  Unless the architects of these plans said they were going to introduce high taxes, long wait times and rationing of health care services.  Which I kind of doubt.  Because people typically want the opposite of these things.  Yet this time it will be different.  The Americans will be able to provide that ever elusive health care utopia.  Why?  I can only think of two possible reasons (see Repealing the Affordable Care Act Will Soon Be Considered Absurd by Ron Pollack posted 7/10/2012 on U.S. News and World Report).

Under the law, it will be illegal for insurers to discriminate against women by charging higher premiums simply because of their gender. Nobody—male or female—will be denied coverage or charged higher premiums because of a pre-existing condition, like asthma or diabetes. No one will live in fear of their insurance being canceled. People will no longer be subject to arbitrary lifetime or annual caps in what insurers pay out, thereby denying coverage when it is needed the most.

The act also comes with much-needed direct help for middle class families. They will receive substantial subsidies to make health insurance premiums affordable. Seniors will no longer fall into the huge prescription drug coverage gap in Medicare euphemistically-named the “doughnut hole.” Comprehensive preventive care will be available at no cost for women, including mammograms and contraception.

So in other words insurers can no longer recover their costs.  They have to provide more benefits while at the same time charging less in premiums.  Sort of like forcing McDonald’s to replace the Big Mac combo meal with steak and lobster.  While at the same time forcing them to lower the price for that combo meal.  There’s a name for an economic formula like that.  Failure.

This cannot work.  Unless your goal is to put the private health insurers out of business.  If that is the goal than, yes, Obamacare will work very well.  For no business ever remained in business by selling their product or service for less than their costs.  That’s just not how business works.  So it is clear that they designed Obamacare to put the private health insurers out of business.  Unless those who wrote Obamacare into law are just very ignorant about things economic.

So there it is.  Take your pick.  Devious.  Or ignorant.  This is our government.  Whichever it is it doesn’t make a difference for the American people.  For unlike what the president promised us we won’t be able to keep our health insurance if we like it.  Because Obamacare will put all of the private health insurance businesses out of business.  By forcing them to sell their policies below their costs.  Guaranteeing that they will all fail.  And giving us high taxes, long wait times and a rationing of health care services.  Just like everybody else that tried national health care.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Life was Good for Women Entrepreneurs in Afghanistan but after the Americans Leave they may Emigrate to India

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 1st, 2012

Week in Review

The American Left attacks the Republicans for wanting to turn back the hands of time for women in America.  Ridiculous, really, considering the success of women in this country.  There are women CEOs.  Women governors.  Women cabinet members.  Women in Congress.  Women on the Supreme Court.  (The first woman justice of the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O’Connor, was nominated by the man the Left hates most.  Republican Ronald Reagan.)  Women in the military.  Something usually associated with the Right.  So if the Right really wanted to turn back the hands of time for women it would be doubtful they would allow them into the military.  So the argument is silly.  And sad. Considering how the hands of time may move back for some women in the world (see Afghan women entrepreneurs look to India for opportunities by Rama Lakshmi posted 6/27/2012 on The Washington Post).

They run fleets of trucks, supply construction material, design software programs and make furniture. Women entrepreneurs in war-torn Afghanistan have been breaking many cultural ceilings in the past decade…

“It will be a big challenge once the Americans and the others leave. The local market in Afghanistan has not progressed much,” said Masuma Rezaie, 24-year-old founder of the evocatively named company First Afghan Lady Logistics and Services. “But there is big money in the Indian market.”

To this end, Rezaie and other businesswomen came to New Delhi on Wednesday to seek deals, training and technology from Indian companies. The three-day business-to-business meetings, facilitated by USAID and the Consortium of Women Entrepreneurs of India, comes at a time when the impending withdrawal of the international forces from Afghanistan is also raising concerns about the future of women’s rights to study and work…

Another entrepreneur, Malika Qanih, wants to learn the process of manufacturing herbal medicines from Indians.

“Afghanistan is rich in undiscovered, untapped herbs. Big business potential,” said Malika Qanih, 60, chief executive of Sun Pharma. On Friday, she will visit a factory owned by Shahnaz Husain, czarina of Indian herbal cosmetics.

Qanih hopes that Afghan women will not have to go back to the past after 2014. “Many countries have signed strategic partnerships with Afghanistan. I hope they will not forget to protect us even after 2014,” she said.

President Obama always said the War in Afghanistan was the right war. To put the Taliban and al Qaeda on the defensive.  And take away their safe sanctuary.  While the Iraq War was just a distraction.  But the Left didn’t like the War in Afghanistan any more than they liked the Iraq War.  So to appeal to his liberal base in an election year the president announced a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces.  Even though it is likely that the Taliban and al Qaeda will return once the international forces leave.  Raising concerns about the future of women’s rights to study and work.  While in America the Left warns women that if Republicans get into office they’ll have to suffer the horrors of paying for birth control.  And enduring back-alley abortions.

At least if the Afghan women don’t have the support of the American Left they have a safe sanctuary in India.  Where free market capitalism still can flourish.  As do women’s rights.  India may not be perfect.  For no country is.  But it’s one of the BRICS economies so they’re doing something very well.  So India provides hope for Afghan women.  A place that will let them keep the freedoms they gained in Afghanistan.  For in India they’ll be able to breathe free.  Hope.  And pursue their entrepreneurial dreams.  Something they can’t quite do in Iran, Afghanistan (other than doing business with the international forces) or Pakistan (which the Afghani women will presumably pass through to get to India).

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT124: “Liberals use the courts to give them what the people won’t.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 29th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

Magna Carta led to Constitutional Monarchy and Representative Government

Medieval kings liked doing as they pleased.  From living well.  To expanding their kingdoms by force.  Or trying to.  As kingdoms got larger, though, this was more difficult to do.  Because the larger the kingdom got the more food they had to produce.  And kings didn’t feed their kingdoms from their castle vegetable gardens.  They needed the wealthy and powerful landowners.  Who owned the land.  Grew the food.  And provided the kingdom’s wealth.

These landowners made land valuable.  By growing food on it.  As famine was no stranger during the Middle Ages there was nothing more important than growing food.  Those who did became wealthy.  And their estates became mini kingdoms.  With lots of peasants working the fields.  And lots of soldiers to defend their land.  And to fight for their king in times of war.  Kings needed to maintain good relationships with these wealthy landowners.  To keep them supporting their kingdoms.  And to prevent any one of them from rising up and challenging the king for his throne.

King John of England was hurting his relationships with the wealthy landowners.  He fought a lot of expensive wars across the English Channel in France.  Which required high taxes on the English landowners.  The barons.  Worse, King John lost a lot of his battles in France.  Losing the barons some of their Normandy lands.  So the barons were becoming a little disgruntled with their king.  And they rebelled.  Eventually forcing the king to place his Great Seal on Magna Carta.  Limiting his powers.  It didn’t change things much at the time.  But it would lead to constitutional monarchy.  And representative government.

The Patriots of 1776 were none too keen on Creating a New Central Power

Kings don’t like limits on their power.  King John would go on to renounce Magna Carta.  And got the Pope’s approval to not honor the promises he made with the barons.  But these barons sowed the seeds of representative government in England.  And the Western World.  Greatly influencing the Founding Fathers in America.  Whose Constitution placed great limits on the government’s power.

The Americans were having some problems with their Articles of Confederation.  The sovereign states were taking care of themselves.  Sometimes at the expense of the other states.  Or the new nation.  And the new nation wasn’t making much progress in the international community.  A bit of a laughing stock to other nations.  Who were all sure it was only a matter of time before the American colonies would be British again.  For once the war was over there was little united about the states anymore.  So James Madison urged a meeting of the several states to revise the Articles of Confederation.  To help make a more perfect union.  And to move the new nation forward.  They met in Philadelphia in 1787.  And caused a firestorm.  For they didn’t revise the Articles.  They threw them away.  And wrote a brand new Constitution.

This inflamed a lot of the Patriots of 1776.  Who had voted to sever the bonds from a distant central power about a decade earlier.  And they were none too keen on creating a new central power to replace the one they just banished.  It took awhile but with the presence of George Washington and some words from Benjamin Franklin, two of the most trusted and experienced Americans who sacrificed a lot in securing their independence, they completed their task.  It wasn’t a perfect document.  But it was the best they were ever going to produce considering the sectional differences in the country.  And they sent it to the states for ratification.  James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay helped to secure ratification by writing a series of articles that we know today as the Federalist Papers.  Some of the finest Constitutional scholarship ever written.

As Few as Five People in Black Robes can Fundamentally Change the Nation

Key to the Constitution was the separation of powers that restricted the power of the new federal government that no one trusted.  There was a legislature to write law.  An executive branch to enforce law.  And a judicial branch to interpret law.  To make sure that the other two branches did not violate the Constitution.  Such a system would have really crimped King John’s style.  For the law was above all the people.  Including the executive.  He could only do the things the laws allowed him to do.  And the things the laws allowed him to do he could only do if the legislature agreed to pay for them.  It was a system of checks and balances that helped the nation to grow while maintaining personal liberty.

King John would have been particularly irked by the legislature.  Made up by representatives of the people.  Who enacted legislation that was in the best interest of the people.  Not him.  Fast forward to modern times and you find history littered with people who wanted to expand their power only to have that representative body of the people foil them.  Ruling elites.  Modern aristocrats.  Those who feel an entitlement due to a superior education.  A superior bloodline.  Or simply like-minded people who would rather have the days of unlimited power like they had in Medieval Europe.  Before the barons had to muck up the works with Magna Carta.

Over time they learned how to bring back some of the old ways.  The easiest way was just to get people to vote for them.  And they did this by giving them a lot of free stuff.  But there were some things that they just couldn’t bribe out of the people.  So they turned to the courts.  And did a little legislating with activist judges.  Sometimes bringing a suit all the way to the Supreme Court to create a law where there was no law.  Abortion is now legal even though there was never any federal legislation addressing it.  While there was plenty of state legislation forbidding it.  Until seven men in black robes overruled the will of the people in those states.

The Supreme Court is powerful.  For as few as five people in black robes can fundamentally change the nation.  Which is why presidential elections are so important.  Because presidents nominate judges to the Supreme Court.  And those on the Left depend on the timely deaths and/or retirements of Supreme Court judges so they can nominate activist judges.  To get a majority on the high court to rule in their favor on bad law.  Such as Obamacare.  An unpopular law.  A law the majority of the people want repealed.  A law that became law only with subterfuge (the mandate is not a tax).  A law that clearly violated the Constitution (forcing people to buy something).  Yet five people in black robes just fundamentally changed the nation by voting that Obamacare was Constitutional (the mandate is a tax).  Which just goes to show you that where there is a will there is a way.  A way to rule like a king.  Against the will of the people.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

New Poll shows the Majority of Americans still want Obamacare Repealed

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 24th, 2012

Week in Review

Americans are giving mixed signals.  First they say they want Obamacare repealed.  And then they say they like parts of Obamacare.  What could possibly explain this (see Most Americans oppose health law but like provisions by Patricia Zengerle posted 6/25/2012 on Reuters UK)?

Fifty-six percent of people are against the healthcare overhaul and 44 percent favor it, according to the online poll conducted from Tuesday through Saturday…

Strong majorities favor most of what is in the law.

A glaring exception to the popular provisions is the “individual mandate,” which requires most U.S. residents to own health insurance.

Sixty-one percent of Americans are against the mandate, the issue at the center of the Republicans’ contention that the law is unconstitutional, while 39 percent favor it…

Support for the provisions of the healthcare law was strong, with a full 82 percent of survey respondents, for example, favoring banning insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

Sixty-one percent are in favor of allowing children to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26 and 72 percent back requiring companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance for their employees.

Americans are strongly divided along partisan lines. Among Republicans, 86 percent oppose and 14 percent favor the law and Democrats back it by a 3-to-1 margin, 75 percent to 25 percent, the Reuters/Ipsos poll showed.

But in what could be a key indicator for the presidential contest, people who describe themselves as political independents oppose the law by 73 percent to 27 percent.

Oh, that.  They want all the benefits.  They just don’t want to pay for them.  Some things never change.

You could have guessed the responsible adults, the Republicans, who are always ready to rain on someone’s parade, would be against the law because of its cost and that part about violating the U.S. Constitution.  But what is amazing in this poll is that 73% of independents oppose it as well.  For the independents (and moderates) are more middle-of-the-road people.  So one would expect a split closer to 50-50 than such a large percentage against it.  Then again a lot of these people call themselves fiscally conservative but socially liberal.  So clearly the cost of Obamacare is more important to them than providing free birth control and access to abortion.

It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court will rule this week.  No doubt they will elate some people.  And devastate others.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries