Beliefs of the American Left

Someone recently sent me an email entitled, "American Enigmas." I am sure someone authored these "enigmas," but I don't know who did. If you were that person, I would be more than happy to give you the credit. I certainly did not come up with them, but I believe they accurately reflect the American Left. Disclaimer: I am not certain that each one of the implied claims is accurate, but I believe most of them are. I have not taken the time to "fact-check" them. Here they are only slightly edited:

(1) Isn’t it strange that in America, our flag and our culture offend so many people, but our benefits don’t?

(2) How can the federal government ask U.S. citizens to pay back student loans - when illegal aliens are receiving a free education?

(3) Only in America are legal citizens labeled “racists” and “Nazis,” but illegal aliens are called “Dreamers.”

(4) Liberals say, “If confiscating all guns saves just one life, it’s worth it.” Well, then, if deporting all illegals saves just one life, wouldn’t that be worth it?

(5) I can’t quite figure out how you can proudly wave the flag of another country, - but consider it punishment to be sent back there.

(6) The Constitution: It doesn’t need to be rewritten, - it needs to be reread. [How about followed?]

(7) William F. Buckley said: “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other points of view, and are then shocked and offended when they discover there are other points of view.”

(8) Joseph Sobran said: “‘Need’ now means wanting someone else’s money. ‘Greed’ means wanting to keep your own. ‘Compassion’ is when a politician arranges the transfer.”

(9) Florida has had 119 hurricanes since 1850, - but some people still insist the last one was due to climate change

How to Politicize Christmas

"Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday linked the Christmas nativity story to the plight of refugees, referencing "refugee babies in mangers" and their parents."

Her exact words: 

Joy to the World! Merry Christmas everyone - here’s to a holiday filled with happiness, family, and love for all people. (Including refugee babies in mangers + their parents.)

Let's get the facts straight. Mary and Joseph and Jesus were not refugees. They were citizens of the state of Israel under the domination of the Roman Empire. They had been commanded by Caesar Augustus to register, along with all the other citizens of the empire, for a census, probably for the purposes of taxation (Luke 2:1-3). 

They did not leave their own country. Joseph and Mary traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem to register there for the census because Joseph was a blood descendant of King David, whose home town was Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-5).

Because Bethlehem was so crowded, lodging was difficult to come by. Mary gave birth to her son and placed him in a manger because there was no room for them in the kataluma (2646), which probably refers to the guest room of a home. Most homes were divided into two – the living quarters and the animal quarters. The home in which they stayed had no guest room available in the living quarters, so Joseph and Mary and the baby Jesus spent the night in the animal quarters of their guest home (Luke 2:6-7).

To be sure, Jesus was born in exceedingly humble circumstances. But Joseph and Mary were not refugees. 

To use the Christmas Story to promote the global Marxist mantra of open borders in all countries is a completely dishonest perversion of the truth. But since when have Marxists been careful to tell the truth? 

If Marxism were true, all those Central American refugees would be high-tailing it to the south to live in Venezuela!

Fund the Wall!

Border Wall: AFP/Getty Images

Various members of the Senate were singing Christmas carols as they rolled out a stop-gap measure to fund the government for another three months. But one thing was missing. There was no funding included for a border wall.

Apparently the State Department has $10 billion to spare for foreign aid (translate foreign bribery) to Southern Mexico and Central America. But no one can find even a paltry $5 billion for a border wall to defend our own country. Truly amazing!

I don't know about you, but I do not want anyone breaking and entering my home. And I don't want anyone breaking and entering my country. With impunity and blessing and financial aid and promised citizenship!!!

If the truth were known the Democratic Party as a whole, and many non-conservative Republicans are frankly interested in a country and a world with no borders at all. If a nation cannot control its borders, it ceases to be a nation. 

And frankly, that is what the leftists want. They are Global Marxists. Their dream is for a utopia in which there is a world government with no borders, and one in which they have dictatorial control. There will be a "new normal" of just above subsistence level incomes with everything run by the all-powerful, all-wise state. And since these Global Marxists will be running the show, they will have all kinds of perquisites that the unwashed masses, Hillary's "Basket of Deporables," will never gain.

Donald Trump has promised, then wavered, and now promised again, not to sign the funding bill that the Senate has passed unless it includes $5 billion to fund the border wall. And if he doesn't sign the Senate's bill, the government will shut down. 

I say, "Fund the Wall - or shut down the government!"

US pushes for global capital reform

In an article in the online version of London's The Financial Times entitled, "US prepares to push for global capital rules," Tom Braithwaite wrote, "The US is preparing to pivot from domestic regulatory reform to a push for a tough new international capital regime after the weekend’s G20 and International Monetary Fund meetings glossed over differences between leading economies."

Candid Commentator (CC) is concerned that this is just another evidence of Obama's disdain for America's national sovereignty, and is a deliberate effort to subject America to international rules. This tendency, CC fears, will eventually lead our world to a global government.

In an effort to simplify the technical aspects of the article, CC called on guest writer Brian Bartsch (BB) to give his analysis of the developments.

CC: It almost sounds as though the US is pushing for banks to have a bigger capital reserve than they do now - 8% to 25%. That is a HUGE increase. What are your thoughts? What does the government stand to gain from this except more power through the regulatory door? (I don't trust the government.)

BB: Like you, I’m suspicious any time the government wants to increase regulation. I have a couple of thoughts:

First, if they raise the capital reserve requirement that much, there’s a progression that will be hard to stop:

• Banks will be forced to call in loans in order to generate the high amounts of capital needed to meet the new reserve requirement.

• The aggregate amount of liquidity will dry up as banks won’t have any money to lend.

• Interest rates will skyrocket as the demand for financing will drastically outpace supply.

• Businesses will be subjected to intense pressure financially; some will fail as they can’t afford their debt service and/or can’t find the financing they need to stay afloat.

• At best, growth will come to a screeching halt as the creation of new businesses and the expansion/growth of existing businesses are discouraged by the high cost of capital.

• The jobless rate will consistently edge upward as businesses tighten their belts and no new jobs are created.

• Without something to change this equation, a recession seems likely at best.

Second, the schism between the USA/UK coalition on the one hand (pushing for the higher reserve requirement) and the France/Germany coalition on the other hand (against the higher reserve requirement) was very telling. France and Germany don’t have a problem with using public funds as a safety net (read: government bailouts) or are for interventionist policies as a whole. This means they see no need to (additionally) reduce risk because the government will step in if a situation ever gets out of hand.

The USA and UK, on the other hand, are trying to move away from the government intervention we just saw under Bush/Obama. They want to avoid the need for governments to step in by mitigating risk in two ways: by removing the riskiest loans from the table (since banks who can’t lend as much will only keep their safest loans) and by creating the cushion necessary to handle future crises without bailouts.

I guess that of the two, I’m more for the US/UK option, since that is ultimately the option that lets market forces determine financial activity, whereas the idea that the government will always step in (as recently with Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac here in the US) ultimately props up inefficient business practices, leading to bubbles.

However, events like this ultimately drive me to realize that the need for increased regulation (as is true with either option) only exists because of people who attempt to take advantage of others in their drive to satiate themselves. That is, if people instead made an effort to look out for the needs of others in all the arenas of business (rather than just looking out for themselves), they would act not only in their own interests, but also in the interests of their managers, employees, customers, vendors and shareholders; doing so would obviate any need for new regulation as decision-makers (by acting more responsibly) would mitigate their own risk, which would in aggregate, reduce risk as a whole.

A corollary is that rules exist because of rule-breakers, and increased regulation is ultimately a response to increased exploitation. Put another way, legislating morality only works if the people in the system are moral; if immoral people make up a significant enough portion of the system, no amount of increase in the rules will fix the problem.

A second corollary is that rules designed to help fix problems only undermine the freedom of those who don’t need the rules anyway; exploiters will find a way to take advantage of people no matter what rules are in place.

A Thoughtful Dissent to the Global Warming Juggernaut

Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, has done a great deal of studying on the environment as it relates to global warming. He disagrees with the so-called consensus on the issue. His views were recently published in the Financial Times. Now he interacts with readers raising serious questions. Several of these interactions are published below unedited. Be certain to go to the main article for the complete list of questions and answers. The portions quoted below are hereby attributed to the article in the Financial Times.

Mr. Klaus, I believe, has asked the wrong question, and in doing so, is in danger of under-cutting his main point, which is the danger to personal freedom of a top-down, single-government approach to managing the problem of global warming. Instead of trying to ask, is global warming a REAL problem?, Mr Klaus should ask - and then provide his answer - the question: Assuming global warming is a REAL, global issue, how can we manage this problem on a global scale while also expanding personal freedom and economic welfare? I would be very interested in hearing his response to this question. Robert Bruegel, Denver, Colorado

Vaclav Klaus: I ask myself several questions. Let’s put them in the proper sequence:
• Is global warming a reality?
• If it is a reality, is it man-made?
• If it is a reality, is it a problem? Will the people in the world, and now I have to say “globally”, better-off or worse-off due to small increases of global temperature?
• If it is a reality, and if it is a problem, can men prevent it or stop it? Can any reasonable cost-benefit analysis justify anything – within the range of current proposals – to be done just now?
Surprisingly, we can say yes – with some degree of probability – only to the first question. To the remaining three my answer is no. And I am not alone in saying that. We are, however, still more or less the silent or silenced majority.

What is the financial and/or economic incentive for those governments and organisations who go along with, and even support environmentalism? Justin Kelly

Vaclav Klaus: There are huge material (very pecuniary) and even bigger psychological incentives for politicians and their bureaucratic fellow-travellers to support environmentalism. It gives them power. This is exactly what they are searching for. It gives them power to organise, regulate, manipulate the rest of us. There is nothing altruistic in their environmentalist stances.

There is no doubt that modern human society can adversely impact our living environment. This manifests itself from city air quality and industrial spills to deforestation and overfishing. Overwhelming evidence points to that when human beings find the condition too unpleasant to tolerate, the opportunity to stop or reverse the trend requires extreme action. How much evidence for environmental damage do you need to see before you are willing to advocate collective action in order to prevent the need for later extreme action? Oddi Aasheim, London

Vaclav Klaus: You ask how much environmental damage I need to see before I am willing to do anything? My problem is that I do not “see” sufficient and persuasive evidence for environmental damage you have – probably – in mind, and I wonder whether you see it yourself, or whether you just read about it.
Do you really “see” any damage caused by current warming? I do not. I would prefer more snow for skiing during this winter but we are – in Central Europe – enjoying warm evenings this May and June, which is very pleasant. Do you see meltdown of glaciers and icebergs? You may see some retreating of continental glaciers, but they represent only 0.6 per cent of the planet’s ice. There is no meltdown either in Greenland or the Antarctic just now.
When I study and analyse environmental indicators concerning my own country and when I compare them with the situation in the communist era, there is an incredible improvement. The improvement is not because of “collective action” you advocate (it existed in the communist era), but because of freedom and of free markets.
That’s my main message.