Heads I Win - Tales You Lose (Liberals Come Up Winners But Leave Behind a Mess)
Author: Howard Jacobs

Barack Obama has made it a point to continually talk about
the "mess" he inherited from the Bush administration. In
August, he said "But I don't want the folks who created the
mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the
way so we can clean up the mess. I don't mind cleaning up
after them, but don't do a lot of talking."

Indeed, Barack Obama inherited an economy in freefall.
There are wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while terrorist
groups remain a constant threat. North Korea and Iran are
testing long range missiles in conjunction with the
development of nuclear weapons. It's worth noting that the
precarious state of the country is what got him elected in
the first place. If everything was going along swimmingly,
the country wouldn't have changed direction.

Liberals need a catastrophe to get elected. They use the
misfortune of others, a bad economy, a war, racial tension,
hurricanes, the Rachel Maddow show - anything and
everything to convince others that they and only they, can
come in on their white horses with shining armor to come to
the rescue and save the day. Their very existence as a
political force is predicated not on solving real problems
but on having problems to justify the need for their
policies.

It's a vicious circle. Without having to have to worry
about consequences, liberals can promote the most radical
policies the way that a gambler can go down double or
nothing, without ever having to worry about losing. They
are never held to account for their policies. No matter
what the facts say, it's always someone else's fault.
Hence they have a 'Heads I Win - Tales you lose' policy.
If the radical policy produces results, they are heroes; if
not, then there is justification for more of their policies.

Think this sounds crazy? In 1977, the Carter
administration passed the Community Reinvestment Act. The
goal was noble, as most liberal goals seem, but devoid of
logic, as most liberal plans are. The idea was to create a
situation where low income people would be able to buy
homes. Banks had to prove that a certain percentage of
loans went to these low income people and it forced them to
make loans to people who didn't qualify. In the 1990's, in
order to guarantee those loans, Freddie Mac and Fannie May
promised to buy 2 trillion dollars worth of those
mortgages. This took financial pressure off banks and they
were able to make more of these risky loans and show what
good 'corporate citizens' they were. The downfall was
inevitable.

Once all this was set in place, there was speculation and
trading on these loans to try to profit from it but none of
that would have happened if the irresponsible policies
weren't put into effect in 1977 and then increased in the
1990's. Before the inevitable collapse, President Bush
tried to point out that there would be problems if the
current policies continued. It was liberals such as Barney
Frank who assured everyone that Fannie and Freddy were
solvent. Bush didn't push the point as hard as he should
have, but at least he recognized the problem while liberal
democrats said there was no problem.

So Barack Obama is elected into office based on an economic
downturn that was created by exactly the kind of policies
that he wants to implement to solve the problem.
Incidentally, Social Security is another problem that
George Bush tried to deal with. They criticized him for
bringing up Social Security the same way they criticized
him for trying to deal with the mortgage crisis. When
Social Security blows up, liberals will no doubt use the
same policies that blew it up to try to fix it. At the
same time, they will blame republican and conservative
greed for causing it to fail even though conservatives were
the only ones who tried to head off the problems before
they became critical.

President Obama talks about those who 'created the mess'.
How many messes has the left created and how many of those
messes have they had to answer for? When you don't have to
answer to your failures, when you are, in fact, rewarded
for your failures, it doesn't provide any incentive to stop
failing. Liberals either don't understand or don't care
that there are consequences to their actions that go beyond
the immediate situation at hand.

One mess created by liberals is the banning of the chemical
DDT. Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring" created hysteria
around chemical pesticides. The manufacturers of DDT,
farmers, scientists, and others tried to assure people that
DDT was not harmful and had tremendous benefits. The anti
DDT campaign took on a life of its own and when a liberal
cause takes on that kind of momentum, there is no stopping
it (See Global Warming). So DDT was banned. Since 1972,
over 100 million people have died from malaria. This is a
disease that was on the verge of being eradicated in the
early 1960s. Millions of people died needlessly. This is
a catastrophic event of monumental proportions that few
people address and fewer take responsibility for. It's not
an exaggeration - 100 MILLION people have lost their lives
yet no one is asked to answer for this! Is it because
their heart was in the right place? Their intentions were
good? People continue to suffer, mostly in Africa, to this
very day and some are talking about re-introducing DDT - a
bit late for all those who died because of well-intentioned
people. For more information on Rachel Carson and the DDT
ban, a good article is "Rachel Carson's Ecological
Genocide" by Lisa Makson in FrontPageMagazine.com.

Another fine mess that liberals have never had to answer
for was when they pressured congress to withdraw all
funding from the war in Vietnam. When the US withdrew, it
did so under a treaty that it would go back in if the
situation got out of hand. There was so much pressure by
the left to get out of Vietnam, that they constantly blamed
the US and absolved the North Vietnamese or the Khmer Rouge
of any wrong doing. When it became obvious that mass
extermination was taking place in Cambodia, the left
continued to blame the US and make excuses for Pol Pot and
the Khmer Rouge. They placed all the blame on Richard
Nixon and Henry Kissinger as if, even if that were true, it
would absolve them of the responsibility of living up to a
treaty and saving the millions of people who were being
slaughtered.

The propaganda that took place then was similar to the
propaganda now and there was no FOX news, talk radio, or
the internet to present the other side. Movies such as
"The Killing Fields" made it seem as if everything the
Cambodians did was the result of the actions of the US.
Just as now with Islamic terrorism, it could never be that
there were purely evil people who had to be fought and
stopped. Nevertheless, regardless of the cause of the
Cambodian genocide, we had an obligation to stop it, not to
excuse the actions of mass murderers. Two million people
died in Cambodia. Not only did the left not want to stop
this genocide, they actually praised the people committing
the genocide! For a more complete telling of the true
story of the Khmer Rouge, see the chapter called "The
Bloodbath" in Mona Charen's book "Useful Idiots".

Whether it's as severe as mass extermination or a banking
crisis, schools that can't educate, a war on poverty that
creates more poverty, inner city programs that create
crumbling cities, rent control ideas that create a lack of
housing, ideas to stop crime by understanding criminal
behavior, rather than punishing it - thereby causing more
crime, welfare ideas that cause dependency instead of
personal growth, the messes created by liberal ideas are
endless. They are never held accountable for these
failures. It's either because they didn't do enough of
whatever their miserable idea was, or they didn't have
enough money to do it correctly. It never dawns on them
that maybe the ideas, themselves, are flawed.

So, we are now being forced to buy this bill of goods that
has failed so miserably in the past. Apparently, we have
no choice but to accept it. We're supposed to just "get
out of the way and stop talking", but we have to leave our
money behind of course -- they'll need that. Obama is like
a vacuum cleaner salesman who is going to pour some dirt
all over the floor to prove how great the vacuum cleaner
will work. It won't work and we shouldn't have to pay
$10,000,000,000,000 for a broken vacuum cleaner that will
leave a mess on the floor.


About the Author:

Howard Jacobs
MBA Marketing Pace University
I currently work for a large finacial institution.
I started the blog EndTheChange because I am outraged at
the direction our country is going in. People who feel this
way want to know "What can I do?" This blog is my little
way of trying to set the record straight on the upside-down
state of our country.
http://endthechange.blogspot.com