Saturday, October 13, 2012

Case study on Victimhood, trip to former USSR




If I did not know so many Ukrainians personally, learnt about your values, struggles and extraordinary difficulties, I would probably have the same attitude as most of the world seems to show for you as a Nation: indifference or flat-out disdain.   Admit it: which group of nations (I. e. EC, the Western World at large, etc.) wants to assimilate, incorporate or even closely relate to a country known by such deep corruption at all levels, unsafe because of tainted police and judiciary, and a population that learned work-ethics under the Russians under one form of oppression or another. Add to it the way Ukraine purportedly dealt with the ‘Jewish problem’, to complete a very unattractive (to put it mildly) definition of what Ukraine is, today, to the rest of the world.

But I know, befriend and work with many young Ukrainians, I learned (some) of this Country’s history and plight so I am not ready to discard Ukraine into the corner of the unredeemable, disposable and discarded group of nations that are hopeless.

If I understand it correctly, briefly put, this is a Nation that is not quite yet.  It is Ukraine, has a beautiful flag and some of the most aesthetically pleasant and elegant youth, found anywhere in the world.  At the same time, half your Country considers themselves something else before/besides Ukrainian, namely Russian.  In a sinister schizophrenic message, your are taught your own language at schools, you fly your own flag, but the underlying message is that your own literature, art, history and achievements are dim, as comparing with the larger, richer, assertive and brutal neighbor that dominated every aspect of your life during the past 500 years or so.

In the mind of many Ukrainians, a close relationship with Russia is a necessary evil. Ukraine is a serf to Russia, it always has been and will forever be, according to that misguided belief.  This is probably the most blatant example of Stockholm Syndrome, ever.  Until that ‘issue’ is resolved, I can’t imagine any semblance of true Freedom to take place in your magnificent land.

Ukraine is married to Russia. Not on even ground, not a Western Style marriage, but one of an overpowering and brutal husband and a complacent, abused wife (or mistress) that deep inside, believes she deserves to be abused and punished, and asks for more.  Ukraine needs to find a marriage counselor to guide it to a divorce, friendly or otherwise.   The problem with abusive husbands is that the abuse increases with time, is not stable.  As the police reports from any city will attest, in many cases the abused wife gets murdered.  Looking back in your common history, how many Ukrainians died from such abuse?  Holodomor (Stalin’s written orders to shot anyone in Ukraine found hiding food is public record), Chernovil, the invasion of Afghanistan with so many Ukrainian troops, the gulags…)   One could see that they were all victims of a ruthless, abusive, controlling ‘husband’.

To the credit of many in Ukraine, you recently attempted to divorce Russia and join the rest of the civilized world as an independent nation.  Utilizing Europe’s need for gas, Russia managed to frustrate your attempt of ascension to the EC.  Coward European governments turned their back on  you, and ‘delivered’ you back to Russia.  Obama did not help you either, as in their ‘Reset’ strategy with Russia, Obama sold you out to your former kingpin. Yes, you got screwed big time.   From the distance, reading about Ukraine based on statistics as for productivity, work-ethics, high incidence of HIV, you are a ‘playable pawn’, not worth of sharing tears about.  What does the rest of the world has to lose, while it could cool things down with the KGB Coronel now in charge of Russia?

But you are not just a pawn to be played, sacrificed and discarded.  From my personal experience (one that most people in the West DO NOT have), Ukraine is a hidden treasure with amazing people, suffering from centuries of oppression.   What the rest of the world does not know, is that Ukrainians at large have tremendous potential and riches. If what does not kill you makes you stronger, if Australia, USA, Japan, Brazil, and so many other nations are the result of tremendous pain and injustice, of bloody battles to fight injustice and claim independence, of embattled immigrants working against all odds (and powerful armies), to become some of the brightest success stories of all time; Ukraine has accumulated so much of that ‘adversity potential’, that once unleashed, could surprise the whole world, and themselves with unparallel success.

Nations do not prosper under ‘prosperity’, but as a reaction to, and with the tools learned though, adversity.  All that adversity, all that suffering, deposits ‘credits’ in the ‘adversity box’.  Eventually, you draw from that box to build your prosperity.  We don’t learn from success, we learn from failure. We don’t get energized by happiness as much as we get on fire,  motivated, decided by anger born out of frustration, pain, injustice.   Ukraine has its coffers full of it… Soon will be the time you can start drawing from it to build your own success.  

That is if you have not been beaten up to submission, lost hope, develop your ‘national character’ around embracing serfdom, complacency and the inner conviction that all resistance is futile.  Some of you did.  The Russians tried very hard to teach you ‘a lesson’ on submission (Stalin said it took 2 famines to teach you a lesson).  Did they succeed?   The recent unveiling of a statue in tribute to Stalin, would indicate that you gave up.  The ridiculous defense of a monument to another mass murdered that hurt you so much, Lenin, is still standing by Khreshiatik.  Those are not just reminders of people that hurt you, the message is: come on, do it again, not only we deserve it, but we like it!

After divorcing Russia, you will need some serious therapy.   The larger issue is Victimhood.  You are in a catch-22 situation: if you believe you are not a victim, you are under the mistaken idea that you deserved all the pain, suffering and genocide you endured.  If you believe you are victims, you are still attached to your victimizer, you perpetuate the idea that you are not responsible for your situation (caused by others) and that  you will probably (and maybe justifiably) remain a victim.  Hard situation to be on, but you need to break out from it, if you have any aspiration at freedom.

As long as you are a victim, you will not be assertive and you will not be able to deal with the rest of the world in an harmonious, friendly and even basis.  Truth is that nobody wants to deal with victims, as sooner or later, your partners will be recognized as victimizers (per your invitation).  That is not a good relationship to have.

One piece of good news is that the world, at large, have no idea who you are.  Contrary to the overwhelming opinion and sentiment of most Ukrainians, the world does not think little about you, does not consider you to be any inferior, your women are not thought of as prostitutes, your men are not known as drunks.  The truth is that the world has no idea of who or what you are.  There are a lot of very serious and important events going on in the world, several wars, potential for Iran to develop nuclear weapons, Muslim extremist planting bombs, world economic crisis, the raise of China that many see as a threat, etc. etc. etc. Nobody is paying attention to Ukraine.   The perception of Ukraine is virgin in the minds of most of the world.  In the aspect of international recognition or even cognition, you don’t start from minus zero, but from zero.  This is much better to what so many of you fear, as you appear to be overly concerned of what other people think about you.  They don’t think bad, or good.  They don’t think about you.  This should be good news.


Conversations with my liberal friend, 6


I agree, they wash each other out.  What is left then is the ideology that one prefers as the model for America.

Having first hand experience with Socialism and Capitalism, I chose the second before historically had shown more respect for individual rights and freedom, and they basically leave me alone 'more' to live my life as I decide.

The National Socialism Party (Nazi Party), the Soviets, and closer to home, California (with big differences but the same ideology of Social Engineering through redistribution, the concept that a few at the top should decide what is best for the many, all the regulation and intrusion in people's lives because "is for the common good and the compassionate thing to do" always, invariably, resulted in failures (California is broke, going the way of Greece) and many times in tyranny.

Fox has many different programs, some are hard news, others are commentary.  I would check on Factcheck if they caught any newscast of Fox telling lies.  Clearly Steward is not an impartial arbiter, so I don't see a point on relying on him to decide who is telling the truth.  In Fox I really watch only one program consistently, and that is Special Report with Bret Baier, especially the panel segment which always includes at least one liberal and I do listen to his/her points.  The best opinion there for me is that Charles Krauthammer who writes for the Washington Post, hardly a right-leaning paper.   Hard news in the morning, I watch while getting dressed a few minutes, is Fox and Friends.  

By far the source of information (and opinion) I rely on is the Wall Street Journal.  If you find anywhere proof that they tell lies, I would like to see that evidence because I would be very disappointed of that paper.

I understand that all States with Right to Work are improving year after year, while all the Union states are getting worst.  Democrats push for unionization, and it was JFK who allowed Federal Workers to unionize, and since then they have been in bed.  Unions are bankrupting us, not just California (4 cities already and soon the State in full).  Dems promote putting people on the public dough as dependents, as they honestly believe that big government is the solution.

Obama on a famous commencement speech said 'some of you chose to become -i think he said engineers, lawyers, doctors, but i could be wrong- but some of you heard a higher calling:  public service" Well, that is the essence of his speech, I can find it if you want.  The point here is that he truly believes that Government is the source of wealth and the solution.  When he talks about task cuts, he talks about 'giving' that money to the people, as if he owns all the money and they allow you to keep some of it, as a favor or sorts.  That is very telling and dramatic.  It is a concept that Socialists have, not Capitalists.   What sat America apart, allowing it to become the world leader, is Capitalism with smaller government.  He and the Dems want to destroy Capitalism in favor of Socialism, whether they know it or not.

Bob, Socialism is a great idea.  I was a Socialist for a decade.  If Socialism would work in the real wold, that would be great!   But it does not, I never did and to think that we 'know' better than all the previous experiments in Socialism, and that we are going to do it 'right' for the first time, is frankly delusional.  

Look a California, look at cities across America going broke because of dealing between Dems politicians and unions, look at Europe (with the exception of the least Socialist countries there: Germany, Sweden and Norway -floating on oil-).  Sweden was a Socialist paradise till about a decade ago when they were going broke and radically changed course.   It just does not work once we put the human factor on the mix.  WE are not build to contribute equally and receive equally.  When the common farm, etc. is proposed, we all take more and work less.  This was true with the first immigrants to America when starved to death by having common farms and animals.  Only after they divided the parcels into smaller, individual farms, they prospered and had enough product to trade to the indians, etc.   I can find you the historical chapter if you want.  We tried Socialism in these shores, that was the first form of social organization, and people eat the sole of their shoes before starving.

I don't think Obama and his friends are bad people, I think they honestly believe they found the way to a better, more just and compassionate society.  I also believe they refuse to learn from history and that they strongly believe that their cause is so just, so important that it justifies using whatever means are necessary to impose their ideology on the rest of us (and probably the rest of the world).  That is quite dangerous, as other similarly arrogant (and narcissists) social planners have done in the past.  Their cause is so important in their views that dissenters are dealt with severely.   Don't think it can't happen here, they all thought that way.

Just thoughts, and I appreciate and value different optics and discussion.  

It would probably by naïve not to believe that the PACs and the campaigns and spokespersons do not coordinate the messages, on both sides, in my opinion.  In the case of Mr. Soptic, page 4 of the article you made reference makes reference to the WH knowing about the fake story of Soptic, although later they claim ignorance.  That was a blatant lie.  When Reid (quite effectively) diverts the debate from the record of this President to the ‘evidence’ that Romney ‘did not pay taxes for 10 years’ because ‘somebody told him’, that is as low as it gets and (again IMHO) Romney does well not to accept to bring the political dialogue to whatever Reid happens to want.  When Pelosi later says it is a “fact’ that Romney did not pay taxes because ‘somebody told Reid’, it goes even lower.

For me, when somebody lies they lose credibility and I have no interest in further explanations or statements from them. First, because why waste time listening to a liar, and second because if they have a legitimate story to tell or something genuine to sell, why are they lying?

I found that through their campaign, the Democrats lied a lot, with the above being two examples.  I have not yet found a blatant, conclusive lie on the other side.  I will read now the two links you sent me, and if they show to me clearly that ‘this side’ is also lying, I will be very disappointed and frankly, stop trusting them too.

So far, I only read about half the opinion pages of the WSJ because I don’t have enough time to read more.  I found them to be very well written (I learn new words and ways to use them each time) and to be consistent with my existing understanding of what is going on.  I don’t find there cheap shots, like Reid’s claim above or other patently unsubstantiated allegations or gimmicks that defy logic.  I don’t read also NYT, Washington Post because… again, I don’t trust them and frankly I have a hard time reading through an article that I find is based on ideology and not facts.  NYT used to praise Stalin, Castro and Chaves, btw.  I can google those articles if you think that is unbelievable.  

OK, now I go read the articles you sent me and another you sent me a week or so ago and I had no time to read.  Thank you for sending them.


Conversations with my liberal friend 'Bob' 5


Fox has 24/7 programming including reporting (hard news) and opinion.  The editorial is the hard news, I think.  I don’t remember they telling as news any lie.  When it comes to opinion, that is different, but those are just opinions, not necessarily descriptions of things that happened, and the onus is on whomever says them.  Mind you that Fox pays for many people there who are open liberals, like Homs, Juan Williams, the fat guy at The 5, the daughter of Jesse Jackson and many more…  for sure they say things that may not be true, just like the conservative pundits do.  But I don’t think we can say that Fox lies because one or more of their contributors lies…

I would hold the hard news (Bret Baier, Fox and Friends, Shephard Smith, etc) speak for Fox.  If they tell a lie, it is Fox responsibility and credibility.  Makes sense?

I did not go over the claims of John Stewart because… he is a comedian. I can’t take him seriously, it would not make sense.  He can say anything and if proven wrong, he can always explain “what do you want, I am a comedian!”, so is probably not worth the time to analyze if a comedian is being truthfull.

As for the deficit, no, I can’t blame the 6 Trillion on Obama, but much of it yes (the money he gave the unions with different excuses like ‘saving’ 2 of the 3 US car makers –Ford took none-, ‘education’ –teachers’ bloated pensions plans-, ‘police and firefighters’ –their ridiculous pensions and retirement plans that are bankrupting cities across America-, solar energy companies like Solyndra that not only he have 500 million against the opinion of his own people, but he subordinated the government loan to that of the owners of Solyndra, who happened to be big bundlers on his political campaign.  This he did without any valid justification whatsoever, so his friends did not lose anything, but we did.  Things like that paint a character, in my opinion, and once they lose credibility, there is no reason to believe anything else they say.  This like when Clinton pardoned through Holder  a common criminal and a fugitive without even the attempt for a justification: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/opinion/22lardner.html?pagewanted=all Marc Rich who happened to make a huge donation to the Clinton Library…

For me, this is a culture of corruption and I can’t just ignore those issues because of ideology or any other pretext.  They call this Chicago Style politics, and there are examples all around that are hard to ignore.  The lawsuit to make it impossible for states to validate voters, when a voter ID card is free: why?  The exception to the Warn act, so defense contractors do not need to give pink slips right before the election (a law that was sponsored by Obama).  The prohibition for Boeing to open their plant in South Carolina (a right to work state) unless Boeing accepted (as they did) to keep employees on Union states, effectively negating the right of a company to work wherever they want (they could have taken the jobs to China, and I am surprised they didn’t).  Sure, Boeing and the NLRB came to an “agreement”, when Boeing finally capitulated under the gun and agreed to provide jobs in Washington State, after holding off staffing their SC plant for months.  (Although the liberals at Factchek forget to mention how Boeing was forced into that agreement http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/romney-hits-turbulence-with-boeing-case/ ).

For sure Obama received a very bad economy, I agree with you on that.  I saw those PBS episodes on the crisis, twice!  The problem is that those episodes do not say a word about the cause… yes.  The cause was the mortgages, as  derivatives were based on chunks of them as packaged by the banks.  If the mortgages were paid… the derivatives would have worked and the default swaps would not have been triggered.   Why the mortgage crisis?  Because the liberals in Congress forced banks to lend to those who could not afford them:

“To deal with the savings & loan fallout of the 1980s, Congress enacted the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act. In a move with ominous portent, FIRREA mandated public release of lender evaluations and performance ratings, resulting in added pressure on the banking industry. Such public oversight enabled bullying abuses of community organization groups like ACORN to further influence bank lending practices

With the mechanisms in place, the community organizing groups began developing directed strategies to exert more and more pressure on the lending industry in the cloak of complicity with CRA. Community organizer Barack Obama worked closely with ACORN activists. Employing the radical Alinsky intimidation tactics Obama had learned and was teaching -- "direct action" -- activists crowded bank lobbies, blocked drive-up teller lanes and demonstrated at the homes of bankers to browbeat risky lending in poor and minority communities. Those who resisted were accused of racism to the media and government officials.”  More of this at http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/what_really_happened_in_the_mo.html

Also, Mayor Bloomberg, who was a Democrat till 2001 when he switched to Republican to run for office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg ), tells us about the same: “ Mayor Michael Bloomberg said this morning that if there is anyone to blame for the mortgage crisis that led the collapse of the financial industry, it's not the "big banks," but Congress” http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2011/11/3971362/bloomberg-plain-and-simple-congress-caused-mortgage-crisis-not-bank/

Mind you that the House and Senate was in the hands of the Dems since 2006, when the crazy mortgages with zero down for people who did not have to qualify, show income, etc. happened.  When they could not pay the debt on their mortgages, all else fell.

As for laws that Obama passed that are Socialist, he did a lot more through regulation, legally or not.  Obamacare for sure is Socialist.  Every time you read ‘free’ for anyone old enough to earn it, you are talking Socialism.  For everything a person gets free, another person who earned it, is paying for it.  There is no spontaneous or government creation of wealth, only people do.  What one person gets for free, another person is paying for it.  Medical care is expensive and those earning the money will pay for those who do not.  That penalty for those who refuse to buy health insurance does not cover the cost.  Other people are covering the cost.

The successive stimulus packages are all socialists.  That money went to friends, political cronies (Solyndra and others) and unions.  Sure, those are not laws, but he did it.

For a President having absolute control of the majority in both chambers of Congress, he actually got very little done.  Of course all the rush to provide compassion for the immigrants comes right before the elections…  His job is to get re-elected, because what else good did he accomplish?

How about the WH leaks on security?  Fast and Furious?   Humongous loans to companies that his own advisors told him are not credit worth, and subordinating the Government to their debt… How can anyone get away with that?

His stacking of the National Labor Relations Board (the one that stopped Boeing from opening a finished plant in South Carolina) was stacked by Obama with a majority of pro-union members.  Mind you this board is supposed to be impartial arbiter of disputes between a corporation and labor.  The board almost immediately authorized the unionization of employees with as little as 10 days’ notice to the company, so they can’t campaign against it.   Mind you as well that if the Union and the Company do not agree during negotiations (bargaining), the Board is the sole arbiter and has the last word…   Why would companies want to hire?  Why would anyone want to open or keep a company on a Union state?

BTW “President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments in his two terms. President George W. Bush made 171 over eight years. Mr. Obama has now made 32 in just under three years in office.”   Means Clinton made 2.3 recess appointments per year, Bush did 2.1.  Obama made 10.6 per year, although he had full control of Congress for 24 months…

Many prefer to call Obama a Crony Capitalist, because of all the money he gave to his bundlers, his friends that are so rich, (the big banks, from where he got everyone of his business advisors and appointees in Economy) who overwhelmingly support the Dems (3 to 1) and who are doing now better than ever.  His tale is of a Socialist for ‘social justice’, but his game is more of a crony capitalist, I think.  ABC News appears to agree with that:  http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/obama-white-house-warned-solyndra-bad-reelection/story?id=14534542#.UC2DJ91lSgQ   Obama was warned NOT to give that money to Solyndra, but he did it anyway. But his bundler got his money http://www.iwatchnews.org/environment/energy/solyndra

Well, that is part of what I think, and I fully respect other points of view and opinions.

EVERYONE THINKS REPUBLICANS CAUSED THE MORTGAGE CRISIS…


EVERYONE THINKS REPUBLICANS CAUSED THE
MORTGAGE CRISIS…
Americans wondering who was responsible for the mortgage crisis should ask
themselves a question: is owning a home a privilege or a right?
Despite the meltdown in 2008, the seeds for the mortgage crisis were sown much
earlier by a Democrat Party long convinced homeownership was an entitlement.
As this chapter shows, once that basic premise became conventional wisdom, it
was all downhill from there.
I
f one listens to the mainstream media and many Democrats, the blame for
the mortgage crisis rests with the Republicans and the Bush administration. 
They’ve convinced the public that Democrats had nothing whatsoever to do
with our current financial woes. 
Precisely the opposite is true:  Democrats created the lax mortgage policies
that precipitated the crisis while simultaneously stifling Republican efforts to
prevent it. 
The history of the crisis started with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA),
signed into law by Democrat President Jimmy Carter in 1977.  The law was
designed to foster homeownership in low-income communities by pushing
banks to aggressively lend to low and moderate income people.  At first, it was
easy to comply with the CRA.  Banks merely had to demonstrate that they
did not discriminate in making loans in poor and black neighborhoods.


When Democrat Bill Clinton became President in 1992, he broadened the
Community Reinvestment Act in ways Congress had never intended.  In
1995, rather than submit legislation that the Republican-led Congress was
certain to reject, Clinton bypassed Congress entirely, ordering the Treasury
Department to rewrite the CRA rules.

44 CLEARING UP THE PAST:  ECONOMIC  INSECURITY
As a result, banks were forced to fulfill loan “quotas” in low income
neighborhoods.


That wasn’t the only problem.  CRA also allowed community activist groups
such as ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform
Now), for whom Barack Obama once worked in Chicago, and NACA
(Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America) to file complaints that
could affect a bank’s CRA rating.  Failure to comply with CRA or a bad rating
meant a bank might not be allowed to expand lending, add new branches or
merge with other companies.  Banks with poor CRA ratings were also hit
with stiff fines.


This rewrite of CRA gave activist groups like ACORN and NACA
unprecedented power.  Protests often held in bank lobbies or in front
of the homes of bank officials, coupled with threats of litigation, allowed
these groups to extort huge sums of money from financial institutions.


 In
response, financial institutions began allocating more funds to low-income,
high risk borrowers. 
Loans started being funded on the basis of race and often little else.


  CRA
became an excuse for lowering credit standards.  Many Democrats have
claimed that banks subject to the CRA represented few of the mortgages
that led to our current problems.  Not true.  Nearly 4 in 10 subprime loans
made between 2004 and 2007 were funded by CRA-covered banks such
as Washington Mutual and Indy Mac.


  Many other subprime lenders not
covered by the Act were, in effect, beholden to CRA mandates because they
were owned by banks that were subject to it.


Since CRA only covered banks, the Clinton administration created a separate
department at Housing and Urban Development to police “fair lending”
policies at other institutions such as Countrywide and lending behemoths,
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.


The result? Countrywide made more loans to minorities than any other
lender, and not surprisingly, was one of the first lenders overwhelmed by loan
defaults.

0
As groups like ACORN ran their intimidation campaigns against local
banks, they eventually hit a roadblock.  Banks told them they could afford to
reduce their credit standards by only a little – since Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac refused to buy up these risky loans for resale on the secondary market. 
ACORN realized that unless Fannie and Freddie were willing to relax their
credit standards as well, local banks wouldn’t make enough loans to individuals
with bad credit histories or with very little money for a down payment.



Democrats such as Barney Frank (D-MA), Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and
Maxine Waters (D-CA) allied with the Clinton administration to broaden
the acceptability of these risky mortgage loans.  When the Republicans
attempted to restore fiscal sanity by paring back the CRA, they were stymied
by Democrats — and by ACORN.



In 1995, an unrestrained Clinton administration announced a comprehensive
strategy to push homeownership in America to new heights – regardless of the
compromise in credit standards that this would require.  Fannie and Freddie
were given massive subprime lending quotas, which would increase to about
half of their total business by the end of the decade.



Then came the single most catastrophic decision leading to the housing
crisis:  Clinton legalized the securitization of these mortgages, which allowed
Fannie and Freddie to finance everything by buying loans from banks, then
repackaging and securitizing them for resale on the open market.



Thus began the meltdown.  In 1997, Bear Stearns handled the first
securitization of CRA loans — $385 million worth — all guaranteed by
Freddie Mac.



 Subsequently, a subprime market that had been a relatively
modest part of the mortgage business with $35 billion in loans in 1994 soared
to $1 trillion by 2008.



Regrettably, this massive bundling of subprime mortgages wound up
poisoning the entire mortgage industry.
Fannie and Freddie used their “affordable housing mission” to avoid
restrictions on their accumulation of mortgage portfolios.  They argued
that if they were constrained, they wouldn’t be able to adequately subsidize
affordable housing.  As a result, by 1997, Fannie was offering mortgages with
a down payment of only 3 percent.  By 2001, it was purchasing mortgages
with “no down payment at all.” 

CLEARING UP THE PAST:  ECONOMIC  INSECURITY
By 2007, Fannie and Freddie were required  by Housing and Urban
Development to show that 55 percent of their mortgage purchases were to
low and moderate income borrowers, and, within that goal, 38 percent of
all purchases were to come from underserved areas (usually inner cities).



Meeting these goals almost certainly required them to purchase loans with
low down payments and other deficiencies that would characterize them as
subprime or Alt-A.



The decline in lending standards was also facilitated by competition.  Fannie
and Freddie were now competing with private-label mortgage lenders
such as investment and commercial banks to fulfill the affordable housing
requirements imposed by Congress. 
The inevitable result?  Everyone was scraping the bottom of the mortgage
barrel in search of new borrowers. 
Once the looser lending standards were offered to low and middle income
buyers, it was naïve to believe that they wouldn’t lead to more relaxed standards
for higher-income and prime borrowers as well.   This spreading of looser
standards to the prime market greatly increased the availability of credit for
mortgages, and ultimately led to the bubble in housing prices.

0
Unsurprisingly, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were huge campaign
contributors to Congress, spending millions to ensure no reform would be
implemented to restrict them.   In all, 354 members of Congress received
funds.  The bulk of the money went to Democrats.



 Between 1989 and 2008,
the leading recipient of Fannie/Freddie campaign money was Connecticut
Democrat Chris Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee Chairman, who
collected more than $165,000.  Dodd opposed restrictions on Fannie and
Freddie and pushed hard for the continuance of subprime loans.  In second
place was then-Senator Barack Obama, who, in just three years in the U.S.
Senate, took in $126,000. Third, was Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry,
who received $110,000.



Since the 1990s, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been run by Democrats. 
From 1991 to 1998, Fannie Mae was led by James Johnson, a long-time aide to
former Democrat Vice President Walter Mondale.  Johnson made headlines in
2008 when Barack Obama picked him to chair his vice presidential selection
committee.  He had to resign in disgrace when it was revealed he had taken
out at least five below-market real estate loans totaling more than $7 million
from Countrywide Financial Corporation.



  
Johnson’s successor as head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines, had previously
served as a budget director to President Bill Clinton.  From 1995 to 2005,
Raines pocketed nearly $100 million in compensation before leaving because
of a scandal involving profit and loss reports manipulated to increase his
annual bonuses.



  
Another well-known Democrat, Jamie Gorelick, served as vice chair of Fannie
from 1998 to 2003.  Prior to that, she was Janet Reno’s Deputy Attorney
General during the Clinton years, when the Clinton Justice Department
was aggressively compelling banks to make subprime loans to unworthy
borrowers.



 And Rahm Emanuel, current White House Chief of Staff, also
served as a director at Freddie Mac.



  
Most Americans are not aware that Fannie and Freddie, while lining the
pockets of politicians, also funnels hundreds of millions of dollars to a host
of leftist groups and causes promoting the Democrat agenda.



  The grantmaking arms of Fannie and Freddie – specifically the Fannie Mae Foundation
and the Freddie Mac Foundation – gives tens of millions of dollars each year
to predominantly left-wing organizations such as the American Civil Liberties
Union;  the NAACP and National Urban League; the left-wing financier the
Tides Foundation; pro-illegal immigration groups like the Mexican American
Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the National Council of La Raza;
pro-Democrat community activist groups like ACORN; and former president
Jimmy Carter’s Carter Center.



The Republicans were not oblivious to Fannie and Freddie’s problems. 
Bush’s 2001 budget called runaway subprime lending a “potential problem”
and warned of “strong repercussions in financial markets.”



  In July 2003,
Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) and John Sununu
(R-NH) introduced legislation to address regulation of them.  The bill was
blocked by the Democrats.

0
  In September 2003 Bush’s Treasury Secretary,
John Snow, proposed what The New York Times called “the most significant
regulatory overhaul (of Fannie and Freddie) in the housing finance industry
since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.”

Did the Democrats in Congress welcome reform?  Here’s how Barney Frank 48 CLEARING UP THE PAST:  ECONOMIC  INSECURITY
(D-MA), the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee,
responded:
“I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis.  That is, in my view, the
two government sponsored entities we are talking about here, Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac, are not in crisis…. I do not think at this point there is a
problem with a threat to the Treasury….  I believe that we, as the Federal
Government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push
them to meet the goals of affordable housing and to set reasonable goals.”

In 2005, Republican Senators Hagel, Sununu, Dole, and later John McCain
reintroduced legislation to once again address regulation of Fannie and
Freddie.  In essence, the bill would have required Fannie and Freddie to
eliminate their investments in risky subprime loans.

  According to Kevin Hassett, writing in Bloomberg.com, “if that bill had become law, then the
world today would be different.”
But the legislation didn’t become law for a single reason:  Democrats opposed
it on a party-line vote in the Senate Banking Committee, signaling that this
would be a partisan issue.  Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democrat
opposition, couldn’t even get the Senate to vote on the bill.

Had the bill passed in 2005, the mortgage meltdown would have been far less
intense.  In 2005, 2006 and 2007, approximately $1 trillion of these terrible
mortgage loans were funded by Fannie and Freddie at a time when housing
prices were at their highest.  When housing prices fell dramatically, losses
from those mortgages turned out to be tremendous.
Bottom line: if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren’t buying these subprime
loans, the market for them would likely not have existed. 

Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) now admits Democrats were in error: 
“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues, I was too slow to appreciate the
recklessness of Fannie and Freddie.  I defended their efforts to encourage
affordable home ownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the
concerns raised by the regulator in 2004.  Frankly, I wish my Democratic
colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were
wrong.”

This is from a book by a (supposedly) life-long Democrat, Richard Bernstein: Duped America.


Conversation with my liberal friend 'Bob' 4


Thank you, I have to work too… I get carried away.  I have been fooled for 10+ years, I was one of those ‘useful idiots’, I gave them my time and the little money I had.  I took personal risks for them.  I demonstrated and was roughed up by police on horses and water-canons.  I swallowed the ‘social justice’ theories and like many others I knew then, I got very disappointed and frustrated when I learned the rest of the picture.  Bob, I learned from the same books Obama and his friends got their ideas, I know the script (still) by heart.  It takes one to recognize one…  I came to this Country not without sacrifice, and I learned of the amazing beauty the true American Spirit is Bob. Don’t take it for granted, this is not common, this does not happen by accident, there are no others like America.  This is a very risky experiment in Freedom, and we can lose it.

If America is gone, there is nowhere to run Bob.  I know… been there, done that.

You never heard a police stop you and ask you for ‘papers’ while just walking.  No never felt intimidated by ‘power’.  You never heard ‘who gave you the RIGHT to do that?”.  Did you?  Don’t think this is the norm, this is the exception, globally.

This is the first place in the history of the world that you already HAVE all the rights.  You start with all the rights, and you only lose those that the Constitution allows Government to take away from you, and they are very few.   Everywhere else in the world Bob, you start with zero rights, and you are allowed to do what it is written as a law.  They start from the opposite end.

Our Constitution starts with WE THE PEOPLE in capital letters, and not by accident.  All others enumerate the rights THEY give to you.  If they don’t give them to you… you don’t have them.  Default is no rights unless explicitly given to you.  Those who give, can take away…

We enumerate the rights you don’t have instead. Rights that have been limited because they infringe on the rights of others.  Ain’t that beautiful?

The difference is no subtle, but most American’s are clueless to that.

We think the world hates us.  You know what they actually do hate about us? This is a recent discovery for me and comes verbatim from the mouth of an Ukrainian:  they hate that having so many opportunities, so much freedom, we still manage to screw-up.  They hate to see us feeling sorry for ourselves, because we really DO NOT KNOW what hardship is.

As for America, the world at large loves America and if we cease to be what we are (before somebody ‘substantially changes’ it) they lose the hope that even for them, live can be good one day in their own countries or with a visa lottery, right here.

In the protests at Tiananmen Square, you remember what was the symbol of the demonstrators, protesting about the tyranny of Communism?  A replica of the Statue of Liberty…  I get my eyes wet when I think about it.  We are the beacon to the world, especially to those who suffer the most under the worst dictatorships.  We are so because of our traditions, what we accomplished, what this Country stands for.  If we are no longer the America (with ups and downs, but always Conservative, always Capitalist, always consequent with our traditions), even the hope for those people disappears.

The Socialists do want to bring America to its knees, they do want to … well, I have to work J (but I know, I was one of them for over a decade Bob, I can still tell you –don’t ask me to sing- the words of the International Socialist and the first and last lines of the Communist Manifesto).

Bob, how many Communist friends you have?  How many you met?  Because on this White House, you had 2 (Van Jones, Anita Dunn) working there and several more (Ayers, etc.) as frequent visitors.  Makes you wonder?

Conversations with my liberal friend 'Bob' 3





Hi Bob, I am in a plane without internet connection as i read this, so i can't download the rest of your letter, to which I will reply later.  I have half your letter (or less, I don't know how long it is) and I make some comments below. As you know, I am not a studious of each action, incident, etc. as to have all or most data available, and that would take time I don't have.  I guess the bottom line is that Obama is (in my view and as understand he admits on one of his books plus the friends he keeps) a full blown Socialist.  I had and have friends that are Socialists, I just understand based on my own experience under Socialism, my visiting Socialist countries and talking with people who live and lived under Socialism, plus my readings of both Socialist and Free Market Capitalists, after all that I find Socialism to be the opposite of the same identical values I cherished while I was a Socialist for some 14 years.  I believe based on all of the above, that Socialism (Social Planning by Government, enforced under the power of Government) destroys the human spirit, takes away your freedom, discourages independence and self reliance and ruins the economy.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the richest people are Socialists.  The Koch brothers put together don't have half the money that Soros has, and much less than Gates or Buffet, other Socialists. BTW, Koch made their money with Industry, creating things and jobs.  Soros is a speculator, like Buffet. like Rockefeller.

I think they turned the tables on us, and some of us did not noticed.  They stole the flag of 'social justice '  and the words liberal and progressive.   They are not liberal, progressive and definitely not proponents of social justice when they take away money from one group and the independence from the other by making them dependents of the State.  The same way unions secure for their bosses great benefits and pay, they ultimately hurt the workers by bankrupting the companies, cities, etc. where they work.  The teachers unions sacrificing generations of kids just for their own gain, are not the exception, they are the rule.   Who do unions support?

From what I read below, please note that the financial disaster that Obama 'inherited' was of his making, as I documented with a timeline on a previous.  He and his buddies forced Fanny and Freddy and even the banks to lend money to people who could not afford it.  This in fact destroyed our financial system, which is exactly what Saul Olensky (or something like that) wrote in the Rules for Radicals and Obama not just read and adopted, but he taught in class.

They created the conditions to take over the Government, and they succeeded.  Yes, there were many republicans who helped them, but the actions came from ACORN and others similar organizations and under President Clinton they abolished that Glass Eagle (or something like that) act that separated banks into lending and investing.  Remember, that was under Clinton.

I am not interested in defending every republican, in fact I disagree on many things they did and I think the war in Iraq was uncalled for. I agree that the prescription drug policy of Bush was a disaster, but if anything, a liberal should applaud it, not criticize it.

So as for the financial situation he faced when he took office, it was of his (and friends) own doing.  If banks would have continued to lend money only to people who could repay it, this would have not happened.  Find out why they violated that rule.

Now, even if he inherited that situation, what happened during the following 3.5 years?  At what point the President owns his economy?  After 8 years?  He himself said that he would be a one time president if he did not manage to bring unemployment to under x %, and like many other promises, he violated that one also.  He promised to bring the deficit to half after one term.  He called unpatriotic to raise the debt ceiling when Bush asked for it, and he raised it himself.

How about not a budget in 3 years, with two of them with complete control of power?  This means nothing either?  By Law he has to have a budget. 

How about all the other decisions he made through regulation which he could not get (or did not care to during the first 2 years) through a Law, like immigration amnesty?  That means nothing either?

When once has to overlook so many violations of the law, broken promises in order to support a person, something is wrong.  BTW, self-indulgence is also a Socialist prerogative, as while they know that so many of the things they do are either illegal, immoral and unfair, they find solace in the overall fundamentally honorable mission their doctrine demands.  In the name of social justice, millions have been slaughtered.  All is permissible to attain their extraordinarily important and just mission of compassion.  So they kill people, deprive them of their rights, confiscate what they won through their work, silence them, etc. in the name of compassion.  Interesting.  

The bottom line is that Social Planning ultimately can't tolerate dissent: they won't let some deranged people get on the way of such extraordinary mission, so there goes your individual rights, and there you go to Gulag, or worse.

About to land, so quickly: they stopped subsidizing banks on student loans?  they took that market over!!!  Instead of letting banks compete, they just took their business away.  How about they stop subsidizing supermarkets, car dealers, private medical practices, transportation, banking all together and just take it all over? Clearly that will benefit the people... no?  Then you have the perfect form of Socialism: Communism.  It never worked, but why not try again?

How taking over private business becomes a victory?

Bush had already declared the end of the war on Iraq... twice.  Troops were already planned to come back home.  Obama did not end the war in Afghanistan, we are still there but we may not be winning after he told the enemy to wait us out and he told the friends better to become friendly with the only force that will remain in place after we leave on a certain date.  That insured failure of the entire mission.

If you find that Obama and the unions don't support each other, please show me.  Until then, please accept that they are on the same side, as Dems and unions have always been.  Can you find anything unions are doing today that are good to your standards?  Can you find many examples of very bad things they are doing?   You don't see any story on that?  Should this association be dismissed as a coincidence, exception, immaterial  or aberration? 

He betrayed Poland and Czech republic on the defense agreements Bush had made with them.  He trusted Russia.  How well is that working out? 

China is taking over the entire China Seas and our weakened military won't be able to cope.


At the end of the day, the President is expected to be the Leader and the buck stops with him.  The President owns what happens under his watch and the rest are excuses.  Presidents and Governors have been able to work with legislatures of the opposite party, in many situations, and still did a good performance.  This guy that came as the unifier, divided us more than ever before and he owns the disaster we are living in.  At least that is my conclusion, for whatever is worth (Very little indeed).

I believe you mention in your letter you agree with the basic Social (ism?) ideas of Obama.  He is a Socialist, I don't think you are.  I can't change your mind, like nobody could change mine while I was a Socialist myself.  If anything, time, etc. may change your mind as I changed mine, or maybe I change mine again, but it won't be through these emails, that is for sure :)

It was interesting and a good exercise, but probably not very conductive.  If you want to talk sometimes about this or anything else, of course I am available, but the emails will probably stop because I enjoy them so I rather do this over the 'difficult and hard ' things that I should be doing instead :)     

Conversations with my liberal friend 'Bob' 2


Bob, do you like the America you were born into, more than you like other countries?

If you don't, then the rest of this letter makes no sense.

If you do, if you are proud of America, its achievements, the place of America in the world and how we are the envy and admiration of the world (and hope), what people do you think imagined and made this America?

People that have the ideals of Romney or Obama?   Do you think that Obama really likes America, that he is a patriot, proud to be an American?  Do you think he wants to just adjust some issues, that he is just pushing for some more fairness, or he wants to FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE AMERICA?

Would you like America to be fundamentally different?  His friends, favorite authors, priest, etc. scream for an America that you would not recognize. 

He had some reservations and stops because he  needed to run again, but as he said he will have more flexibility now as this is his last election.  Even more ruling without and against the laws that Congress passes and in open dispute with the Supreme Court (which is how our Democratic Republic operates for good or bad).

My impression is that he is a tyrant on the making.  He despises the limits put on him by the other branches, he is arrogant, narcissistic, messianic and inexperienced.  That scares the living stuff out of me.  He has a lot in common with other tragically famous people in history, I don't want this to the last beacon of hope in the world Bob.  That is where i am coming from, and that supersedes all other considerations. The rest are details.

Like him, his predecessors in that line of thinking used illiterate youth for propaganda and intimidation.  Like them, he does not respect restraints on his power. Like them, lies are allowed because their cause is so noble.  Yes, he scares me seriously.  I saw this movie before and it does not end well.

Conversations with my liberal friend "Bob"


Bob, once you determine that a person is corrupt, do you care for anything else that person says or does?  Do you still trust that person?

The below is from Liberal media The Washington Post about the current AG Eric Holder, close friend and confidant of Obama.  

Bob, in the face of the below events, how can you conclude that Holder and Clinton are not corrupt?   If one can't, how can someone overlook it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/01/AR2008120102403.html :
Soon after Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, the former president and I had a brief telephone conversation. I had been downright heated about the pardon, a lot angrier than I had ever been about Monica Lewinsky. Clinton implied that I had things historically backward. Long after the Rich pardon had been forgotten, he said, the Lewinsky scandal would remain a vivid memory. That day is yet to come. The Rich pardon is back
The vehicle for this lingering echo from 2001 is the choice of Eric Holder to be Barack Obama's attorney general. Holder was Clinton's deputy attorney general, and he played a significant role in the pardon. When asked by the White House what he thought about a pardon for Rich, Holder replied, "Neutral, leaning towards favorable." These four words have stalked him since.

Holder was not just an integral part of the pardon process, he provided the White House with cover by offering his go-ahead recommendation. No alarm seemed to sound for him. Not only had strings been pulled, but it was rare to pardon a fugitive -- someone who had avoided possible conviction by avoiding the inconvenience of a trial. The U.S. attorney's office in New York -- which, Holder had told the White House, would oppose any pardon -- was kept ignorant of what was going on. Afterward, it was furious.
Rich was a commodities trader who amassed both a fortune and some influential friends in the 1970s and '80s. Along with his partner, Pincus Green, he was indicted in 1983 on 65 counts of tax evasion and related matters. Before he could be prosecuted, however, he fled to Switzerland. There he remained, avoiding extradition and eventually arranging to be represented by Jack Quinn, a Washington lawyer and Clinton's onetime White House counsel -- in other words, a certified power broker. Quinn did an end run around the Justice Department's pardon office and went straight to Holder and the White House. With a stroke of a pen, justice was not done.

When I tell people that I am bothered by the choice of Holder for attorney general, they invariably say that everyone is entitled to a mistake. Yes, indeed. And I add for them that in almost every other way, Holder is a dream nominee. He has been U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, a judge and a well-regarded lawyer in private practice. Moreover, to my personal knowledge, he is charming and well liked by his subordinates. A better attorney general nominee you're not likely to find . . . the pardon excepted.
But the pardon cannot be excepted. It suggests that Holder, whatever his other qualifications, could not say no to power. The Rich pardon request had power written all over it -- the patronage of important Democratic fundraisers, for instance. Holder also said he was "really struck" by the backing of Rich by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the possibility of "foreign policy benefits that would be reaped by granting the pardon." This is an odd standard for American justice, but more than that, what was Holder thinking? That U.S.-Israeli relations would suffer? Holder does not sound naive. He sounds disingenuous.
Holder sounded just as disingenuous when he told a House committee that he did not "reflexively oppose" the pardon of a fugitive because "I had previously supported a successful pardon request for a fugitive, Preston King." King, a black civil rights activist,chose to be tried for draft evasion in 1961 rather than submit to what he considered racist treatment. After his conviction, he fled to Europe. The two cases are not in the least similar.

As noted, any person is entitled to make a mistake. But no one is entitled to be attorney general. That's a post that ought to be reserved for a lawyer who appreciates that while he reports to the president, he serves the people. This dual obligation was beyond the ken of George W. Bush's attorney general once removed, Alberto Gonzales, whose idea of telling truth to power came down to saying "Yes, sir. Yes, sir." On Guantanamo, domestic spying and Bush's "l'État c'est moi" view of the presidency, Gonzales was a cipher, and the damage of his tenure still needs to be repaired.

Holder was involved, passively or not, in just the sort of inside-the-Beltway influence peddling that Barack Obama was elected to end. He is not one of Obama's loathed lobbyists; he was merely their instrument -- a good man, certainly, who just as certainly did a bad thing. Maybe he deserves an administration job, just not the one he's getting.

Bob, Rich made a huge donation (through his wife, which confirms the crime because of the in-your-face attempt to hide it) to the Clinton Library right after the bribe that bought his Presidential pardon: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/t/story?id=121846&page=1  from ABC News, not Fox.

Will that destroy their credibility in your eyes?  If so, why would you consider anything else they want to tell you or offer you, from Government to President to anything else?  If they fool me once, shame on them...

Should one also overlook this as a small detail because of the very important mission they have to achieve 'social justice '  ?   Or 'social justice '  is the excuse they use to defraud us over and over?

The Liberal author of the Washington Post offers that Holder may have been involved 'passively or not '.  That is a cop out.  How you request a presidential pardon for a fugitive of justice, a common criminal on the run?   There is no precedent, legal or moral justification for such positive action, it can't be just an oversight.   And then they accepted the bribe, which perfected the original crime. 

If the thief leaves a coin at the church donation basket, is he no longer a thief?

In Praise of Obama




Few things define America more than the fierce defense of one’s individualism and independence.

Ingrained in our DNA is the admiration for our own individualism, and admiration for others who succeeded with their plans and achieved whatever they determined to achieve.  Success against odds is valued the most in direct relation to how much the odds were stacked against and the individual beat them all off and succeeded by sheer determination, effort, conviction and persistence.

Consider Obama. From nothing: black, poor, with a name including ‘Barack’ and “Hussein” plus an African last name sounding almost identical to America’s number one enemy, without a career of previous success in military, business or government, without major legislation passed by Congress that carries his name, without even rich friends at the time, he made it all the way to the highest position of power and prestige in the World, second only to God.

In its face, no one can deny that his man has amazing talents, skills, ambition and courage.  Is he a good actor, orator, strategist, propagandist and leader?   Obama has amazing control of his every word, facial and body expression and timing; all precisely adapted with impeccable intuition to the place, time and audience.  Whatever your ideology, he is undeniable all of that, which made him an exceptional politician. 

The art of a politician is to get elected, period.  More than that: after 4 years as President, the numbers in our economy, unemployment, debt and the list of countries that follow our lead are against him.  Once again: the numbers on the polls are also what they are and President Obama has an approval rating which may get him re-elected even with those added obstacles piled on top.  He is sailing into even stronger winds, beating even larger odds, to succeed again on the only measure that really counts when it comes to a politician: win elections.

While Obama is a living proof of one of the values Americans hold dearest, Individualism, what he sells is the exact opposite: collectivism in a national and international scale.  Such is his talent, determination, poise and smarts that he is actually succeeding on making us want what Americans traditionally despise.   While we admire his individual triumph, he makes us embrace the subordination of our individuality to embrace collectivism, the sharing of the wealth, the individual conceding to his model of social organization designed from the top.  One has to admit that anyone capable of such has extraordinary abilities.

Each obstacle Obama beats on his effort to sell himself to us, makes him even more admirable.  One has to admire his resiliency and self-confidence; this is a person who gets stronger with obstacles that would be fatal blows for most of us, like his decades old association with Reverent Wright.

Consider that Americans would probably never accepted a member of a group that has radical leftists (not the traditional American Democrats or liberals), but people who bombed American institutions like the Pentagon or Police precincts (Bill Ayers), a preacher of 20 years who is on the record screaming ‘God dam America!’ (Rev. Wright), avowed radicals like Van Jones, and the list goes on. 

Still in the vacuum, consider what would you make of a candidate (any candidate) with this added record of missing a large number of voting sessions in Congress, often arriving late when he did attend, voting a non-committal ‘present’ in numerous occasions, missing half the Intelligence Daily Briefings at the White House, every meeting with his own creation: the Presidential Jobs Task Force while finding time to play golf.  Imagine such Candidate also proposing to weaken one of our national treasures and source of pride: our mighty Military by effectively reducing the number of warheads to a third, and publicly announcing he intends to bring that number to zero.

Imagine that Candidate telling you that one of his first executive decisions if elected President will be to scorn American’s ‘Motherland’ and best friend, the United Kingdom, by rejecting and returning present: a bust of their national hero and America’s friend Winston Churchill out of its perch at the White House.

Top it up with the list of friends that Candidate like(d) to hang-up, who shaped his ideology: Saul Alinsky, Frank (Marsha Davis, a card-carrying member of the Communist Party) a group that the FBI would declare openly anti-American and outright dangerous could even make it to the gardens of the White House?  A person Inspired by Marxists professors in college and studious of Franz Fanon and other traditional enemies of America (from Dreams From my Father).

The disconnect, distance and dissonance between him and all previous American presidents put together (whose differences appear minimal when compared to this Candidate) are best highlighted by Peggy Noonan on her article The Stranger in the White House.

Well, such is the extraordinary talent of Mr. Obama that he is sitting in the Oval Office and may gain reelection.  Whatever your ideology, this is nothing short of admirable. Regardless of your political views, Obama already has a place in history as one of the shrewdest politicians of all times.

Arguments about whether he appeals to our primordial instincts, intellect, sympathy for underdog our white-guilt are immaterial. He appeals to what works and gets elected; he wins.  Consider that even now, while he is the most powerful man on earth and with exclusive use of the bully pulpit, topping the polls, Obama still manages to impress us as the benefit of the American tradition of supporting the underdog.  That is outright mastery!

If your ideology is aligned with President Obama, you should truly be ecstatic.  If not, you are truly in trouble because Obama on his own merits and by virtue of his own talent, determination and will power, is a very strong force to reckon with.

How about voting for outputs, outcomes?


Vote the Outputs, not the candidates.  Pass personalities and promises, all we get of presidents is their output, what they produce. A call to vote for the candidate that produced the kind of outputs the voter wants, makes sense and skips around all the circus and promises, histrionics, postures, etc.

 Both candidates' outputs are there for everyone to see: what they did in the past and what they failed to do.  Since they are likely to repeat past behavior, a look of what they did may help everyone select the right candidate for their own values.

 By focusing on the outputs, we make selection easy and immune to everything else, misleading as they are. 

Protecting the Obvious.




It becomes obvious that the obvious needs no protection: after all, is obvious!

The peregrines had a very different obvious: their environment allowed them little certainty other than the love of their families and faith in God.  All else had to be won at great effort and peril, from their basic food, protection from the elements, the indians and even the King.

As they toiled and fought for everything, the only obvious at the time was that they had nothing and were entitled to nothing.  Survival was the order of the day, and many did not.  This obvious needed not be protected, it was only natural and taken for granted, painful and difficult as it was.

Thanks to time, destiny, luck and great men, that initial rugged bunch became the grandest nation the world has ever seen.  Talent, ingenuity, risk-taking by pioneers, entrepreneurs and warriors transformed a very hostile reality into what we enjoy today.

Today our 'obvious' taken for granted is quite different, but the attitude is the same: there is no need to protect it.  Our obvious is the result of our Constitution and the Declaration.  Furthermore, as it often happens in human nature, we allow ourselves to include into our basic entitlements (supposedly limited to life, freedom and pursuit of happiness) claims of protection against anything that could potentially ruin your day: discrimination based on any grading system; actions, words or thoughts which even if well-meant could make someone feel bad according to their own standards; losing at a game; inclusion in a menu of foods that 'your people' do not happen to enjoy; free medical care to fix your moods; others paying for your 'right' to have sex without fear of pregnancy, and so forth almost endlessly.

But there is some other aspects included in our today's obvious that are even more comic or sinister and provide a portrait of the contemporary American in a worst light: the obvious understanding that we are so far superior to the rest of the world.  As it is often the case, at first view this characteristic shows up as the exact opposite: humbleness and compassion when in reality is unfettered arrogance,  petulance and hubris.

America got to the pinnacle of civilization because we fought for it, including many who died for it. We won't stay permanently or even temporarily in that envious position by act of God or nature, with the help of our competition (all other nations) or worst off: because we are SO MUCH BETTER than everybody else.  Irrational, unfair (and wrong) as it is, this is the new obvious of our entitled fellow Americans. 

Since it is obvious... we don't need to fight for it, or even protect it.  Quite the contrary, in their eyes, we should give it away, share it with the rest of the world, spread our riches with all for everybody's benefit.  Wouldn't that be FAIR after all?

This apparent generosity hides the understanding of a fake obvious: we can give it all away, waste-away our competitive advantages and optimistically expect with the comfort provided by certainty and superiority that we will keep the freedom, property, protection by the Rule of Law and the Constitution, standard of living and opportunities we manage to build and enjoy precisely because we had the exact opposite understanding: nothing of what we enjoy is either obvious, natural, birthright, an entitlement or a God-given right. 

If all (or any) other countries do not match our national context, is not because they are stupid and we are so far superior. Only incredible arrogance allows anyone to develop that false confidence.

Opulence does not come naturally to America or Americans (or anyone else, since we are not that different), it has to be earned, protected and enhanced as we compete with very driven and resolute nations that dream and plan on taking our place at the top, switching with them at or near the bottom (where they believe we 'obviously' belong). They are smart, very determined and unlike the contemporary American, they will stop at nothing to get themselves (and us) there, where they believe we both belong.

They work very hard at their plans.  We also work (although not as hard) often to help them win against us.   American's in our nobility always supported the underdog, even when that dog is under us, and chewing at our feet. We still sympathize with them, after all 'don't they deserve a fair chance' at taking us down and enjoy the view from the top for a while?  To feel otherwise would be unfair and un-American...

While we advocate for global income redistribution, we secretly believe in our delusion  that we will still be well and independent.  Some of us believe that we are so far superior, that we can give away our power, money, sovereignty deciding just among Americans our own future, and we will still enjoy 4 plentiful and clean meals a day, plenty of cheap energy, a decent job with decent pay, time off, vacations, etc.   That could only be achieved after so much spent, if we are truly supermen and all others are stupid.  How arrogant is that?

If we were add up all the world's personal income and divide it equally, each individuals portion of the total global wealth will not suffice to pay for the average American's jeans. Will that wardrobe suffice to our typical generous, compassionate, well-meaning liberal? Well, say goodbye to your triple late wet cappuccino costing more than the world's average daily spent on meals.

When a civilization reaches this point of arrogance, content, contempt for those who fought to propagate the Pax-Americana (to the point of apologizing for them), to insure respect for our overwhelming power, to make the Dollar the world de-facto currency, when we take all this for granted and relax, the collapse ensues.  Civilizations mostly commit suicide, they don't die by the hands of the enemy.  

One likely scenario which can be well underway, is we become property of those we are increasingly indebted as we borrow the money we gave them in the first place, as they sold us things we taught them how to build and produced with our ideas and money.  Funny, silly, elemental as it sounds, that is precisely what we are doing.  We are driving the train at 150 miles per hour into the sea, only to claim surprise and unfairness as we hit the bottom to drawn.

As a side note, with the money we continue to give them in exchange for all those shinny gadgets, they are building aircraft carriers to 'protect' their shores; or perhaps to attack their sworn enemies which by coincidence happen to be us.