Leftist "Feelings" vs What Works

When I was way young and liked a book or movie, got all excited about it, I was often stunned that someone didn’t like it. I just couldn’t believe how misguided, uninformed, dumb etc. a person was that didn’t have my taste or belief. “What’s wrong with these people”?

Of course I’ve grown up and out of that. When people ask me about a book, movie, restaurant, I’m reluctant to say they’ll like it. I’ll critique, but not think to push the idea that the person asking will like it. The exception is if it’s a good friend of a long time and I know their tastes.

That’s what I see Leftists as; immature people that don’t understand that others don’t want to live in a Statist world, top down control of economics, class, culture.  They don’t understand or accept there are valid differences of taste and opinion. If one doesn’t think like them there is something wrong with the person that thinks differently.

I get frustrated and sometimes angered when Leftists are presented with cold hard facts and refuse to accept them. Show unemployment stats from the Labor Department that we don’t have 5% unemployment, it’s much higher…well, how can you possibly believe that? Published emails and leaked reports that “global warming” studies were modified to support the idea that we humans are raising the temperature of the planet don’t change their ‘feeling’ that there is global warming. When the false statement that religion is responsible for more deaths than any other entity, and one tallies those slaughtered by governments in just the 20^th century is proof positive of the lie, well, how could one believe that? It just doesn’t feel right.

That slaughter was brought about primarily in Europe. They love Statism there; the Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, Napoleonic domination by France, now the European Union. Centralized obedience to self-important knuckleheads that leak out of ivory towers with a lust for power and a rejection of those things that we know work. They reject what works for what makes them and their supporters feel good. So the Left here sees Europe as superior to the US since it ‘feels’ it is enlightened.

What ties that together is conformity. Groupthink. Europe is good despite its bringing us World Wars, Communism, Hitlerism, Nazism, Fascism, Stalinism, Socialism and all the rest of the Statist isms. All these claimed to be for the people, they’ll take care of them with universal health care, family leave, help the poor, and in fact they don’t. Claiming these perverse ideologies are feel good thoughts somehow make them superior to people desiring Liberty of thought and action. It feels good to support, top down, Statist conformity, to have socialized medicine, poverty programs and all the rest. No responsibility there, someone else is legislating that, so nothing personally has to be done.

Part of this is generational too. I came of age in the late 1960’s -1970’s. Marxist ideology ruled the day, along with sex, drugs, rock ‘n’ roll. Protest and speak against cops, corporations, capitalism, religion, and the rest. Most of us still ended up not only working for “the man” but becoming “the man”. That boomer ideology was brought into the institutions, weakening the things that created the most successful civilization in history.

We have ended up crony capitalism as bad as the day when railroads were stretching across America, or JP Morgan essentially bailing out the government…now the government bails out banks and financial institutions. Payoffs and payouts because a rejection of accountability, responsibility, rejection of Christianity and the embracing of Secularism, and the resulting top down Statism. Legislation is being passed, forced upon regular people that actually work and produce something. Legislation now is more about values and attitudes, enforcing intolerance and prejudices that produces conformity, rather than law that keeps people safe, structured and ordered.

Media, entertainment, education, government, business, even Church (both Protestant and Catholic) have devolved and embraced the Leftist “if it feels good do it” uniformity and conformity. Coming back around to my opening, all this conformity lends itself to groupthink, that differences are not to be tolerated, and speech must curtailed to fit the Leftist view of the world, in all human endeavors.

Like the immature young, how can you not like what we like? How can you not believe global warming is real, that Whites are all racist, that White cops are running around killing unarmed black men, that Christianity is evil, that government is good and the solution to the world’s ills? Thus the “safe zones” on university campuses that protect the literally young from any kind of different thought. It doesn’t feel good to have someone express a different idea. It doesn’t feel good to be criticized. It doesn’t feel good take responsibility for a mistake. It doesn’t feel good to be accountable.      

I was once a Marxist that actually read and wrote about Marxism, was a political and cultural Leftist, and believed in my mind of minds, heart of hearts, this was Truth. I was a practicing, church going Christian from childhood through teenage years. I left that, then I thought I was a free thinker. Then I realized that I only knew the world based on what people that thought like I did said. I knew politics only by what fellow Leftists said and wrote. I knew the “news” only by what Leftist journalists wrote. I knew Christianity only by what Leftist/Secularists said and wrote. I returned to Christianity in my 40’s, began to understand what works, and now because of that, I’m a free thinker. It set me free. Set my soul free, my heart and my mind free.

At this point I understand Leftists/contemporary Liberals can’t be convinced of anything, regardless of the realities of our world, with provable evidence and facts. They don’t believe in a free society, a people based republic, free thought, free expression. Liberalism is a secular religion that is being offered and accepted as a replacement for traditions that work, Christianity and the personal discipline, sacrifice and personal responsibility that comes with it.

With Liberalism/Leftists it’s what feels good, not what is real and works, that passes for thought.

"Austerity" Is Actually Government Growth and a Bunch of BS

Base line budgeting, only reduces the rate of growth. If last year the government increased spending by 10% and this year they only increase spending 8%, we are told that government spending is being cut cut cut, killing old people, causing starvation, poverty, babies are dying, pollution is getting worse, employment is being forced up....on and on it goes. Then we are told "austerity" measures are being used. What a bunch of BS.

Explanation of Right to Left Government and the Consequences

This is a good presentation of politics, the political spectrum (usually mischaracterized) and how it influences freedom and capital.

http://youtu.be/SBlCyeurT9Y

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” 
Thomas Jefferson 

Isn't There Just One Thing the Gov't Doesn't Stick Its Nose In?

These knuckleheads tell us what kind of light bulbs we can use, trying to tell us what kind of toilet paper we can use, and in California big screen TV's are getting legislated against. They're trying to tell us what kind of cars to drive. They're trying to get computers in our houses to control our temperature. Of course the big one, healthcare and insurance to link all the controls together. They got involved in major league baseball where they have no business. Turns out the NFL/Limbaugh kerfuffle had some politicos (Obama connections) involved. The latest attempt to control every aspect of our lives is college football; they want to force changes in the Bowl system.

Once again RINO's (Republican In Name Only) are involved, if not leading, namely Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) with one Dem. Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii). The Dem I expect. They are about control of the people. The core of the Republican Party is minimum gov't involvement, the gov't that governs least. grrrrrrr and good grief.

Lemonade Anyone?

Not that government has become too intrusive or overbearing or inflexible or controlling or anything. There was a little girl in Tulare, CA. Wanted to get a little cash for a trip to Disneyland. She set up a lemonade stand, fresh squeezed, 32 oz for 2 bucks. The city shut her down. No business licence.

I grew up in Southern California back when it was covered with citrus orchards, and all us kids sold lemonade or orange juice to supplement our allowances. We lived near Disneyland and Knotts Berry Farm, and had to get the 'E' ticket and Knotts' great pastries. Who knew? I started my life as criminal.

Quotable Quotes on Obama Taking Over Private Businesses

"At some point someone is going to file a suit in Federal court asking for clarity as to just where in the U.S. Constitution it is provided that the Executive Branch can buy a bankrupt car company." --political analyst Rich Galen

"So far, the Obama administration has yet to lay out its magical thinking on how the homegrown auto makers are to become 'viable' when required to subordinate every auto attribute that consumers find desirable in favor of achieving a passenger-car average of 39 miles per gallon by 2016. Nonetheless the answer has quietly seeped out: Taxpayers will write $5,000 or $7,000 rebate checks to other taxpayers to bribe them to buy hybrids and plug-ins at a price that lets Detroit claim it's earning a 'profit' on its Obamamobiles." --columnist Holman Jenkins Jr.

"The Obama administration is bent on becoming a major player in -- if not taking over entirely -- America's health-care, automobile and banking industries. Before that happens, it might be a good idea to look at the government's track record in running economic enterprises. It is terrible." --author John Steele Gordon

"Does anybody really believe that adding 50 million people to the public health-care rolls will not cost the government more money? About $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion more? At least. So let's be serious when evaluating President Obama's goal of universal health care, and the idea that it's a cost-cutter. Can't happen. Won't happen. Costs are going to explode." --economist Larry Kudlow

"Just how much government debt does a president have to endorse before he's labeled 'irresponsible'"? --columnist Robert Samuelson

"We live in an era in which conservatives have not effectively outlined the proper and limited role of government, and as a direct consequence of our failures, more and more of our citizens are turning to an ever-encroaching government in times of crisis. Yet to allow the balance of power in this nation to continue to shift further and further toward government and thus further and further from liberty is to surrender the very thing that makes America so historically unique." --South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford

From the Back Lot

GE/NBC threw all their resources behind getting Obama elected. They have been the most aggressive with their 'green' program. Including that stupid embarrassing Sunday night football show they did without lights or something. Everyone but Oberman must have been hugely embarrassed. So what's up with a news (hack hack cough cough) station/program doing something like this so blatantly? GE stock has dropped from fifty something bucks a share when Immelt took over to about fourteen dollars a share now. He still has a job. It all has to do with the green of being green. GE is lobbying to get bailout money. GE is pushing for cap and trade. Think your utility bills are high now? Wait until the government charges the utility companies whatever they want to meet cap and trade requirements. This carbon tax will be passed on to you. Can you say triple bill? GE also has huge investments in windmill technology and the manufacture of them. GE is using its support of Obama and the Dems through the use of NBC/MSNBC news to influence politics to get gigantic government contracts. Immelt does that successfully, he saves GE and NBC, and as corrupt and despicable as it is....

The other back lot story is the US Government, under the direction of our Dear Leader, is buying common stock in major corporations. The government is set to control 51 percent of GM, and along with the unions', read government, ownership, majority ownership belongs to the government. The new Chrysler deal gives the unions', read government, control of 55 percent ownership, through common stock. The government is buying common stock here too, but I'm unclear how much.

Do you think this just happened accidentally? Obama is a socialist, is following Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, and his purpose is to take over business and nationalize it all.

Anyone want to show me in the Constitution where it says the government can use taxpayer money to buy businesses and run them? WTF???? How much more of our money and liberty need to be stolen by the government, I don't care which party, before the American people wake up? Good Grief.

Quotable Quotes

"Government can do something for the people only in proportion as it can do something to the people." -- Thomas Jefferson

"That [tyrannical government] power is absolute, minute, regular, provident and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?" --French historian Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859)

"Most of us imagine the transformation of a free society to a tyrannical state in Hollywood terms, as a melodramatic act of violence like a military coup or an armed insurrection. [Alexis de] Tocqueville knows better. He foresees a slow death of freedom. The power of the centralized government will gradually expand, meddling in every area of our lives until, like a lobster in a slowly heated pot, we are cooked without ever realizing what has happened. The ultimate horror of Tocqueville's vision is that we will welcome it, and even convince ourselves that we control it. There is no single dramatic event in Tocqueville's scenario, no storming of the Bastille, no assault on the Winter Palace, no March on Rome, no Kristallnacht. We are to be immobilized, Gulliver-like, by myriad rules and regulations, annoying little restrictions that become more and more binding until they eventually paralyze us. ... Permitting the central government to assume our proper responsibilities is not merely a transfer of power from us to them; it does grave damage to our spirit. It subverts our national character. In Tocqueville's elegant construction, it 'renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself.' Once we go over the edge toward the pursuit of material wealth, our energies uncoil, and we become meek, quiescent and flaccid in the defense of freedom." --author Michael Ledeen

God's View of Government

“God’s view of government dictates that it carries out a specified and limited role in human affairs. The church and civil government are made necessary by the same thing (sin), but do not have identical responsibilities (Matthew 22:15-21). The humanist view of the role of government is to perfect mankind. The Scriptural view of the role of government is to protect mankind. Throughout Scripture, God is clear that civil government is charged with a limited responsibility and that good leaders decide to take a Scriptural view of government’s role. We also see in Scripture that God has a welfare plan—people are to look to the family, then the church, then the community (1 Timothy 5:3-16, Leviticus 19:9, 10, 23:22). The humanistic plan is publicly funded, coercive, and creates cycles of dependency. God’s plan is community-oriented, voluntary, and empowers people.” —Nathan Tabor

The Fiancial Mess...Some Truths

Congress Lies Low To Avoid Bailout Blame

By TERRY JONES
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, September 18, 2008 4:30 PM PT

Congress says it likely will adjourn this month having done nothing on the most important issue in America right now: the financial meltdown from the subprime lending crisis.

IBD Ongoing Series: Uncommon Knowledge

Can Congress just walk away from a problem it helped create? Maybe, maybe not.

There's now some talk of a grand deal between the Treasury, the Fed and Congress for a "permanent" solution: creating a government agency to buy up all the bad subprime debt, just like the Resolution Trust Corp. did with bad real estate in the 1980s and 1990s.

Already, the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to keep the subprime crisis from crashing the world economy. The collapse of twin mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with the failures of Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns and insurer AIG, expose taxpayers to more than $1 trillion in liabilities.

Until now, Congress has been surprisingly passive. As Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid put it, "no one knows what to do" right now.

Funny, since it was a Democrat-led Congress that helped cause the problems in the first place.

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently barked "no" at reporters for daring to ask if Democrats deserved any blame for the meltdown, you saw denial in action.

Pelosi and her followers would have you believe this all happened because of President Bush and his loyal Senate lapdog, John McCain. Or that big, bad predatory Wall Street banks deserve all the blame.

"The American people are not protected from the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions," Pelosi said recently, as she vowed congressional hearings.

Only one problem: It's untrue.

Yes, banks did overleverage and take risks they shouldn't have.

But the fact is, President Bush in 2003 tried desperately to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from metastasizing into the problem they have since become.

Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."

Bush tried to act. Who stopped him? Congress, especially Democrats with their deep financial and patronage ties to the two government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie and Freddie.

"These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Rep. Barney Frank, then ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

It's pretty clear who was on the right side of that debate.

As for presidential contender John McCain, just two years after Bush's plan, McCain also called for badly needed reforms to prevent a crisis like the one we're now in.

"If Congress does not act," McCain said in 2005, "American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."

Sounds like McCain was spot on.

But his warnings, too, were ignored by Congress.

To hear today's Democrats, you'd think all this started in the last couple years. But the crisis began much earlier. The Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, mostly in minority areas.

Age-old standards of banking prudence got thrown out the window. In their place came harsh new regulations requiring banks not only to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, but to do so on the basis of race.

These well-intended rules were supercharged in the early 1990s by President Clinton. Despite warnings from GOP members of Congress in 1992, Clinton pushed extensive changes to the rules requiring lenders to make questionable loans.

Lenders who refused would find themselves castigated publicly as racists. As noted this week in an IBD editorial, no fewer than four federal bank regulators scrutinized financial firms' books to make sure they were in compliance.

Failure to comply meant your bank might not be allowed to expand lending, add new branches or merge with other companies. Banks were given a so-called "CRA rating" that graded how diverse their lending portfolio was.

It was economic hardball.

"We have to use every means at our disposal to end discrimination and to end it as quickly as possible," Clinton's comptroller of the currency, Eugene Ludwig, told the Senate Banking Committee in 1993.

And they meant it.

In the name of diversity, banks began making huge numbers of loans that they previously would not have. They opened branches in poor areas to lift their CRA ratings.

Meanwhile, Congress gave Fannie and Freddie the go-ahead to finance it all by buying loans from banks, then repackaging and securitizing them for resale on the open market.

That's how the contagion began.

With those changes, the subprime market took off. From a mere $35 billion in loans in 1994, it soared to $1 trillion by 2008.

Wall Street eagerly sold the new mortgage-backed securities. Not only were they pooled investments, mixing good and bad, but they were backed with the implicit guarantee of government.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac grew to become monsters, accounting for nearly half of all U.S. mortgage loans. At the time of their bailouts this month, they held $5.4 trillion in loans on their books. About $1.4 trillion of those were subprime.

As they grew, Fannie and Freddie grew heavily involved in "community development," giving money to local housing rights groups and "empowering" the groups, such as ACORN, for whom Barack Obama once worked in Chicago.

Warning signals were everywhere. Yet at every turn, Democrats in Congress halted attempts to stop the madness. It happened in 1992, again in 2000, in 2003 and in 2005. It may happen this year, too.

Since 1989, Fannie and Freddie have spent an estimated $140 million on lobbying Washington. They contributed millions to politicians, mostly Democrats, including Senator Chris Dodd (No. 1 recipient) and Barack Obama (No. 3 recipient, despite only three years in office).

The Clinton White House used Fannie and Freddie as a patronage job bank. Former executives and board members read like a who's who of the Clinton-era Democratic Party, including Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Jim Johnson and current Rep. Rahm Emanuel.

Collectively, they and others made well more than $100 million from Fannie and Freddie, whose books were cooked Enron-style during the late 1990s and early 2000s to ensure executives got their massive bonuses.

They got the bonuses. You get the bill.