It Is S.A.D.- The Leftist Brain Exposed

by Rooster Bradford

  After High School it was Stanford University for 4 years, the Army for 2+ then Law School and the practice of law. In all of my schooling, no mentor showed up. No one teacher influenced my political beliefs. What I was----stayed and have remained to this moment in time. How is that? At Stanford, I joined the Young Republicans and became politically active in a political party for the first time. All we really did was distribute papers, go to meetings and show up at Conservative speaker events. We also discussed such matters and one Conservative student and I became good intellectual friends and remain so today. We joined the same fraternity, went our separate career ways and eventually came together again and are very good friends as I write this book.

  After the military service, I started studying for my law degree. I first went to Hastings Law School in San Francisco. This was a public funded school, a part of the University of California. There I found many opportunities to debate during school and after. I found debate to be a wonderful intellectual way to test my beliefs. There were many liberals and they wanted to gang up on me. It was fun. After the first year, I transferred to USC law school, and obtained my doctorate in law. On schedule I passed the State Bar and was admitted to practice in the State of California Courts and the Federal Courts (not the Supreme Court which is a different application.). Shortly after my graduation in 1961 Goldwater began the run for President. I found a hero in this Candidate. I remember the Cow Palace GOP convention of 1964, in San Francisco, and how his conservatism split the Republican Party. I knew I had to do a part to help out because so many Republicans in Name only (Not called RINOS then) refused to help. I even posted campaign posters in Watts, an entirely Black community in Los Angeles. You remember the one where the residences burned it down in 1965 because of a perceived race motivated impounding of the car of Marquette Frye. When the riots were over 34 were dead, 3032 injured and 3,952 arrested. Millions of dollars of property damage occurred as the rioters burned and pillaged the property of others. I hope my intrusion in 1964 had nothing to do with the heated tensions.

  Still there never was a mentor or person who influenced my beliefs. Law School made me even more certain I was right. (Did I say Right?) What I mean is that I became a devotee to the rule of law over a Judge and a stronger devotee to the Constitution and the writings of the Founders.

  In law practice, I was a trial lawyer and examined and cross examined just about every type of person and profession imaginable. I spent 5 years as a prosecutor and the rest in private practice. I continued to argue politics whenever I could. Even at Hastings, I found most liberals refused to debate. That has been my life experience. In fact I must say, the few I was able to debate always caved. That is they ended up abandoning logic and common sense, and used emotional cymbals (not symbols) to end their participation. Such as “You just don’t get it, or You are racists, or Capitalists are just plain stupid, etc.” Facts and logic seemed to be abandoned by the liberal debaters who stayed with me.

  In time, politics invited me into the mix and I ran for State office twice and, twice I came very close to the incumbent, but lost. My opponent was never found nude in a fountain with two lovely ladies. The incumbency factor did me in. In fact, it was a good thing, because I was a husband and father and quite poor. If I had won, I would still be poor. Honest men do not get rich in politics.

  The years rolled by and still I was outspoken and endeavored to win the minds and hearts of others to the Conservative view. Some call me a renaissance man. If that is true, no one should seek it. Keeps you very busy. Today, among many things, I write this book and have a Conservative talk show called “THE ROOSTER CROWS” (TheRoosterCrows.net.) I am still at it, trying to convince folks of the best form of government for we, the flawed.

  Finally, it is important to know my other interests. They may create a bias. Certainly political debate has always been a small part of my interests. First, I am compulsive about doing as many things as I can achieve physically. I went to school to learn all I could about farming and became a farmer. I still am farming avocados and lemons on my own ranch. I have spent over 30 years as a surfer, collect cars and restore them, love travel, started some 4 nonprofit companies and about the same number commercial ones. My wife and I run a company that’s involved with organic production. I play some 13 musical instruments. As a part of my musical interests I formed a large Swing Band which played in all of the really neat places in Southern California. I had and still have a New Orleans Jass band (No, it is spelled correctly.) In it I play cornet and trombone. Each morning I play the piano and sing as often as I can. I am an accomplished Scottish Bagpipe player and have played banjo and guitar. Most of it has been self-taught, after I was 44 years of age. In this busy life I have been married twice and had two children with each. My wife and life partner’s name is Susan. Along the way I have studied just about every subject I could. Jack of many and master of few. My critics will pick up on this admission. For example, I developed an extensive chronology of the development of Hominids (you and I). I wanted to prove there is no proof we evolved, came from God, or were dropped here by Aliens. The Chronology does that. I started it to argue against the liberal compulsion to adopt evolution as if it were a God. Trying to debate this issue clearly ran into a stone wall. I needed proof. So I now have it. You too can view this massive work as the last item in this book. I update it frequently and the most recent will be on my web page, theroostercrows.net

  Now you know a bit about me and will be in a better position to judge what I say and write.

  As always I have been a Conservative. I register as a Republican and when I ran for office, I did so as a Republican. When it comes to push or shove, I am through and through a defender of the Constitution as written and amended and opposed to centralization of power.

  CHAPTER 2

  (Capitolo 2-Italian)

  The inherent vice of Capitalism is the unequal

  sharing of the Blessings.

  The inherent blessing of Socialism is the

  equal sharing of its Misery

  Winston Churchill.

  LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE

  ISMS COMPARED

  You and I need to have a common understanding of these two concepts before we can really have a discussion. I will attempt to avoid the traditional cliché. As I thought about this important project it came clear we have to keep it simple. The subject is huge. We could easily get lost in the tangents. The main sign posts tell us to keep focused on political form. By this I mean, we must not get off on the merits of such things as racial tolerance, but stay on the track of political structure. Moreover, let us focus on liberals and Conservatives in the United States. If we try to incorporate politics of Britain or Iran, we will lose our way. Liberalism and Conservatism are the same everywhere, but the local flavor changes the discourse.

  Now in the United States Conservatism and Liberalism have different outlooks on the law. Conservatives want a strong written law and they begin with the Constitution. They want the judges and legislators to abide by the law as it has been set down. Liberals want a flexible law that can be moved about more easily. For example the Constitution spells out how it can be amended. Liberals want Judges and legislators to amend it. To them it is faster and more certain. After all a Constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 vote. Conservatives love the concepts set up in the Constitution. They absolutely believe in the fallibility of their neighbor and others, and do not want them to be able to change the law easily. They want it slow and deliberate. They fear centralization of power. Liberals do not and do not care for the checks and balances set up in the Constitution.

  I liken these differences, to the design of a gas motor. When engineers design a gas motor they have to consider a series of checks and balances. For example if the motor is to be dependable and last a long time, the tolerances, the compression ratio, the intake of fuel, the oil distribution system must be designed with a lot of checks and balances. If the design is for power there are other considerations. I
f it is for speed then, again the engineers will design it with less checks and balances. Conservatives want the motor to last a long time with just enough power to do the job. Liberals tend to want speed and power. Any motor designed for a lot of power or speed has built into the design its own early self-destruction. Compromises have had to be made to get to the outer limits. It is the law of nature. So it is with Socialism.

  Conservatives and Liberals have very different conclusions about what motivates and moves their fellow human beings. Liberals are much more trusting of their fellows than are Conservatives. It is a marked difference. It underlies their differences in the use of the power of government. In short, it is a common sense difference.

  Just looking at the collection of power we see marked strata between the two. Conservatives distrust power when it is human controlled. They believe it will be abused. Liberals are much more tolerant of powers use and feel that it will be used for the better and not the worse. In this context, I point out a strange comparison. Conservatives do not like dictators, kings, or power brokers in Politics, Unions or Gangs. Liberals do not see the danger, if any. They tend to adoration, such as “Camelot” with the Kennedy family, the willingness to allow FDR to seek a 4th term. Their flocking to the silver tongue of President Obama. It is as if the liberal is willing to turn over the travails of life to someone else in exchange for security. The Conservative distrust prevents a wiliness to become subjected to the whims of others. In this context then, the Liberal prefers a more flexible and movable government, and the Conservative wants one that moves very slowly and with difficulty.

  Liberals believe in Democracy. Conservatives do not. The latter believe in a representative democracy where the people do not make the decisions, but their elected representatives do. This is a check against wild emotional swings. Clearly the difference is based on trust. Liberals trust one for all and all for one, and Conservatives do not. People are too susceptible to emotion and too often it cripples their clear thinking. Democracy can be too fast. Conservatives want more deliberation and debate.

  So far I have used the word Liberal, but I fear it is too broad. In these times being a Liberal has lost definition. Conservative has pretty much stayed the course. I now want to use the word Leftist. Other writers have called them Statists, Socialist, or Communists. These are variations on the same theme. Leftist are people who want one government, world government, one justice system etc. They do not want the delay that debate provides. In fact they do not want debate. They are so convinced they are correct that any opposing view should be covered up like a cat finishing its morning constitutional. I once had a jass show on a Public University FM station for some 16 years. I was in the eye of the storm. The station was used as a Leftist gathering and information center. It was S.A.D. to see so many people unwilling to debate. Being unwilling to debate simply means you no longer want to think about the issue. It is settled.

  Another aspect of the definition of Liberal and Conservative revolves around their job choices. For example, Conservatives tend to select civilian solo type jobs and tough jobs like the Military. In the Military they are the preferred volunteer. By this I mean, a job where they have flexibility to go their own way. This is why so many private companies are created by and headed up by Conservatives. In the construction world it is hard to find a Leftist. Leftist are less independent and seek to join a group. For example, they like teaching, governmental jobs, or in the civil world joining up with large companies which function much like a governmental agency.

  Let’s look at choices between independent enterprise and governmental control. The Conservative wants freedom in enterprise. That is why they call it Free Enterprise. Liberals find such freedom worrisome. They prefer governmental control. They believe a level playing field is more fair and easier to live with. They do not like surprises. A good example would be the current health take over by President Obama and the Socialist Pelosi and Reid (Both have admitted it at one time or another.) Religion or the lack there of is another good example. Leftist are generally against classic religion. This is so because they adamantly believe in Darwin’s Theory (notice I say theory) of evolution. Believing in God and evolution at the same time is tough on the mindset. Here I am talking about those who think about politics and there are many who never go there. I am certain you know of many who attend church simply because it is a thing to do and an opportunity to say hello to neighbors. They may be liberal or Conservative, but they are not really thinking about it. Most Conservatives believe in God. They may believe in evolution as well, but they do not consider they are inconsistent. Any rational human being, who has ever faced death---looked it in the eye and came through to live again, believes in God. Why? Because in such a terrible time you need strength from without your puny frame, and God fills that need. Conservatives generally are not picky in which God. It is more of an acceptance of faith. A Leftist simply does not go there. Keep in mind in all of this discussion there are many exceptions. We are talking general overviews. A Leftist absolute acceptance that central power is benevolent is evidence of blind faith. It is akin to Classic Religion. In fact secularism is a faith which is threatened by an outer world God.

  Family worship. Here the Leftist is weak. It is because of their tattered belief in a God and the necessary life-controls, a religion provides. Not to steal, not to take another’s spouse, etc. A family obligation means no free love. Why? Because trust and faithfulness are a major part of family and their lack means family deterioration. The Leftist is content to have the life controls come from them and their followers through governmental (societal) controls. The Conservative would rather have such life guideline coming from an overlying religious belief because it allows more freedom. The Conservative finds family much more important than Government.

  In the arena of human motivation Conservatives and Leftist are starkly different. Conservatives believe all humans have to be motivated to take care of themselves. Leftist do not.

  Finally I want to talk about stealing. It should make no difference to you whether a man with a weapon takes your cash, or whether a man with a law does the same thing. Conservatives get upset when a legislator passes a law to take more than is necessary for the common defense and the common necessities of communal living. Leftist do not have such an aversion.

  CHAPTER 3

  (CHAPITRE 3--French)

  AGE AND DECEIT WILL ALWAYS

  OVERCOME YOUTH AND SKILL.

  Anon.

  SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF

  LEFT & RIGHT THINKING

  Guns; Life Style; Gender Preference; Governmental Aid;, Enemy Lists; Religious Tolerance; Free Enterprise; Spendthrift; Bad Commanders; Energy; Global Warming; Evolution vs. Creationism; Humor; Politically Correct; Discrimination; Abortion; Telling Others What To Do; Changing Names; Illegal Immigration; Health Care.

  Let us examine some unique differences in the thought process between a typical Leftist and a typical Conservative. Just to refresh your mind, a typical Leftist is one who favors Governmental control of most things. A typical Conservative is one who does not. We are not going to analyze the differences, but simply illustrate them and ask the question—Why? Other chapters will be devoted to answering the question.

  GUNS: Please understand the ownership of guns was supposed to be settled in our Constitution. The writing of the founders, without doubt, explains why citizens cannot have their guns taken away. The founders thought it so important they devoted a single amendment, “the second”, to the subject. Freedom of Speech, right to assemble, right of free press, freedom of religion, and the right to petition had to share a single amendment, the first. Not so with Guns. It was so important it stands alone.

  Second Amendment --US Constitution:

  “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the

  Security of a free State, the right to the people to

  keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

  A Conservative, who does not like guns, is afraid of guns, has
no interest in guns, simply avoids them. A Leftist dislike of guns is a fear. Fear is an emotion. Normally (Upps! an oxymoron) a Leftist fear is not of the gun, but what it can do to his or her course of conduct. A Leftist wants them banned. Actually they want to forcible take them away. In many places in America, where the Leftist can marshal the vote they pass all manner of laws to “infringe” (last word of the 2nd amendment) on the use of guns. The concealed weapon laws are the best example. Leftist restrict the places where guns can be carried, the kind of guns allowed, limit the amount of ammunition or the kind of ammunition and when they really have control, they outlaw them in spite of the Constitution. They recently did this in Washington D.C. and in Chicago. Remember the Supreme Court had to find both laws unconstitutional. As soon as the Supreme Court made its ruling in Chicago, the City Council, controlled by Leftists and their echoes, passed a new law limiting the possession and use to inside the house. One cannot even bring a gun on to a porch. Why do liberals want to destroy this right? Is it the noise? Is it the fact a gun can accidentally wound or kill? Is it because a gun can intentionally be used to change a course of conduct like the takeover of government?