Category: 2010 Election

SO FAR SO GOOD

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

We are getting closer to the November elections. Democrats are desperate for a cause to enable their constituents and disable the conservatives. The focus of concern for the Obama brand is on the independent voters. The liberal progressives need something better to rally the voters than “it could have been much worse.” The blame-it-on-Bush approach is wearing very thin and despite all of that good news, I am still very anxious. Things happen!

This midterm election is a definitive means test of the Obama administration; in fact, such test also applies to the constituents of conservative and independent ideals. Particularly for the conservatives, the task is all uphill. Deep inroads need to be made into a heretofore super majority of Democrats within in the House of Representatives. More Republicans are needed in the Senate. And for very sure, considering 2011 being a census year, there will be contesting over congressional seats; therefore, the governor races are of heightened concern.

The goal is clear: Stop the Reid reelection and stymie the Pelosi and Obama liberal progressive juggernaut by voting out their elected acolytes.

There are so many interesting developments brewing… Arizona’s immigration case is heading for appeal, the contesting in federal court over the healthcare mandate forcing individuals to purchase health insurance, the posiible extension of all or part of the Bush tax cut, offshore oil reinstatement or not, the tug-of-wills over the wars in the Middle East, Iran’s nuclear insistence, and N. Korea’s belligerence. How will the Obama administration field all of these issues of grave concern?

And of course the grand questions: How will the people of the United States electorally respond to the continuance of the liberal progressives’ policy agenda? Will the voters cast the Democratic majority out in favor of the Republicans or will the response to the Obama progressives be measured and mild? Will Nevada and Kentucky vote the Tea Party candidates in or not?

No matter what the results are of the November election, 2011 will be a volatile year. No matter what happens, Democrats are going to be displeased with the election. Unless the Republicans gain a significant voting percentage — if not the majority — they will be less than satisfied. And no matter the outcome of the election, there is still Obama in the White House… dissatisfaction will be ruling the year.

It will all heat up to a frenzy in September and October; today the Republicans seem to have the upper hand… but tomorrow is not November 2, so I am in my hopeful mode as I strive to cede hope into faith!

SOCIETAL PROGRESS OR PROGRESSIVE INDOCTRINATION?

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

In the beginning, before attorneys, respect was earned by savvy performance. A clan member’s credibility was inextricably tied to that person’s aptitude, physical skill, and sagacious conduct. The subjective and relative aspects of life were nonexistent or blatantly ignored in favor of attending to the undeniably difficult challenges of living. There was very little bullshit… remembering, it was before there were any attorneys. An individual earned their keep; family was the only, albeit limited of entitlements. One of the most prestigious of values was to attain – by individual merit – the respect of family and clan. All was brutal, but naturally bona fide by an inherent truthfulness of purpose.

My assumption is that one fine day the strongest of the clan decided that it was in his specific interest to improve his position. Gathering his acolytes, he plotted and planned. In the first cause he guilefully (indication that this was the first attorney) put forth the argument that enhancing his specific interest was actually an embrace of everyone’s interest. In the second cause he offered with clear disambiguation the certainty of coercive reprisal to anyone thinking anything other than conformity to his will. He noted, after preemptively eliminating those that might contest his will, that all members owe fidelity to his leadership. Indeed, his governess required obedience and such obedience was indistinguishable from fidelity to the clan.

Once assured of overwhelming power, he ordained a government and had that government declare that henceforth, a percentage of each clan member’s production and service would be pledged to the clan’s government or its designates. Everyone agreed — that is, until they disagreed. And from that period on, the governing of the clan by the ‘connected,’ supported by the utility of taxation and the omnipotence of coerciveness, has been a contestable factor of consternation.

Obviously, a robber baron (the government) would remain poor and ordinary if he robbed only from the economically disadvantageous. The objective of any robber baron is to rob from the wealthy. In order to rob from the wealthy (more than just once), the baron must devise a plan of/for complicit compliance. In other words, the wealthy must, by some agreement of understanding, be in general compliance to be robbed.

Initially the governed were willing to cede a portion of their monies for protection; of course the first payment of protection was paid to the robber baron. Once the ongoing payment percentage was agreed upon and the wealthy satisfied, persons and institutions within the wealthy lobbied the robber baron for exceptions and other considerations. The robber baron, recognizing the value, willful complicity, encouraged such exceptions and considerations; hence the invention of statutory corruption and need for political parties.

The wealthy, noting the constancy of economic change prompted by an ever changing world, looked to encumber by pecuniary means the not as wealthy, even the more than simply poor, to share in the payments to robber baron. Therefore, as the serf evolved from indentured to ownership, Gutenberg’s technology circulated, gun power applied, the bible translated into English, the steam engine having transformed transportation, and literacy booming, the not quite as wealthy grew from a few to a multitude. The peoples of Europe, as if flamed by a catalyst of kinetic energy, sprung into a society of skilled labor, guilds, merchants, traders, lawyers, and practitioners of government service. In short order they shared in the monetary burden of supporting the robber baron; indeed, many even unseated the robber baron for their own sake.

The contesting, the mix of various persuasions between and amongst the influential, the wealthy, the almost wealthy, and the less than wealthy from within and without, continues. The fight is over the general public’s heart, mind, and most importantly cash. However, in the dynamics of today, a person’s credibility versus the clan’s mores, a person is not inextricably tethered to sagacious conduct or to a willful tenacity for the individual to earn by performance the respect of society. In the politics of today the measure of dynamic, positive governing has more to do with money raised, the cajoling of required elements and supportive variables by means inclusive of extralegal; to many politicians, the winning includes a service to a political ideology irrespective of constitutional scofflaw or truthfulness.

For the many professional politicians, the paid executives of political parties and their cadre of non-elected, America is no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave. For these servitors of the robber baron, America is simply a contest between red and blue.

The robber baron has (per regulations, fees, and taxes) subjected the meaningful essence of private enterprise to the whim of his appointed hierarchy. Within the hubris of purposefully created government ambiguity, congress has outdone itself in the recently legislated documents that in its befuddlement rival the U.S. Tax Code. Elected representatives do not read the very legislation they vote on, contemplation of legislative effects is almost nonexistent, politicians willfully distort, the medium is bias, and attorneys have overrun congress… Only the people can change all of the above; the next two national elections maybe the most important in this nation’s history. Liberal progressivism must be soundly defeated if America was ever to be restored as the exception amongst nation states.

THE PLAIN AND SIMPLE OF IT

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Government is a tool; a utility composed of Byzantine arrangement wherein the reasoning of objectives and goal meanders between the original intent and the synthesis required for implementation. Forethought is not a legislative requirement of government, nor is prudence, deductive logic, or sensibility. What is compulsory of any government left unfettered is largeness over limited; that its representatives emit the rhetorically melodious explanation versus the plain and specific. And most importantly, by means variable and deliberate remain deceptive to one and all. Because government is captained by humans, it is inherently, by simply operating, resolved to conclude a significant portion of its conveyance of authority in ways and means corruptive. The result of such corruptive behavior, whether delivered within or outside of statutory compliance, breeds ineptness and such will always result, in some measurable way, to some unintentional consequence.

An excellent example of government inherent statutorily compliant corruption is the recent passing of the financial reform bill. Imagine passing ‘new laws’ and allowing Fannie and Freddie to remain intact? These two government sponsored enterprises have liabilities in excess of $5 trillion; they have already cost taxpayers nearly $150 billion, with no end in sight.

Another example is the $6 billion in federal subsidies to the Ethanol industry. According to the Wall Street Journal, it costs taxpayers $1.78 in ethanol incentives to reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by one gallon or nearly two-thirds of the current average retail gas price. This subsidy has been going on over four decades. What private company would continue to fund such a foolish use of cash, time, and resource?

Government is also, demonstrated by its coercive manner, decisively, omnipotent. Its behavior is often duplicitous, contradictory, and in the execution of its responsibilities and obligations costly of time and money. A common characteristic of government is its intrinsically insatiable requirement for more power. There are no exceptions to this definition of government.

Lincoln’s descriptive: “Of the people, by the people, and for the people” is a myth. The constitution is real enough but the interpretation is subject to persons of power. It is not institutions of power because institutions in the finality are managed, influenced, and dominated by persons. The only mitigation to the power of persons is not even the rule of law because that, too is subject to the persons of power. Hence, mitigation of government’s insatiable need for more power can only reside in the super active participation of citizens — and there is no such participation.

There has been no industrialized nation that has not been corrupted from within. Some of the time the corruption is uprooted or abated, sometimes it grows and blossoms under a different title or color; but in the eventual, by means legal or extralegal, the original design, usually in pieces and parts, is forsaken for the promise of better. Surely a rational person would conclude that the promise of better is a consideration of interest; but such a promise must be approached with prudence and certainty, or the penalty may include the everlasting loss of what was once so profoundly exceptional.

There is a moral consequence to government action; if such action is detrimental to the recipient, it matters not at all if the government is a republic or a totalitarian régime. Government has the capacity for moral sinfulness; such sinfulness would include a citizen’s loss of liberty, freedom, and most profoundly the citizen’s impairment of individual choice. All governments, regardless of type, have the innate capacity to deprive citizens of their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

I believe that the Obama government is pushing and pulling us citizens into a socialistic state wherein the law is some liberal progressive’s interpretation of social justice; wherein economic decisions and systems are constituted by some committee’s moral regard, and where the policies of individual liberty and freedom do not trump government incursion and ingress into the providence of societal governess.

AND THE DANCE CONTINUES

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Without the votes of three Republicans enjoined with Democrats, a senate filibuster would have blocked the newest of Obama’s remakes of American business; a legislative remake that must be handed off to 10 regulatory agencies with the discretion to write the rules managing the practice of finance. In other words, only in time will the details of the lawful legislation be known. Noticeably, this time line of agency discretion to write the rules will stretch over the next election wherein, if the Republicans are successful in the November election, the sun rises and sets as predicted (“if” has such an unsettling whimsicalness of a meaning) and insanity maybe rejected in favor of sensibility.

The cost and effect of ObamaCare is, day-by-day, stripping off its pretentiousness in favor of its actualities.  Soon the legislation, bare and obvious, will not be able to dance to the whim of Obama rhetoric. The process of implementation will uncover the loosely construed tenants and covenants of this voluminous, ill-defined contextual of a law — a law whose real world ramifications can no longer be disguised or falsities cleverly distorted. ObamaCare was instituted by legislative “hook and crook.” The policy was pushed and pulled but certainly not as a sensible, pragmatic attempt at solving certain health care reforms, but to facilitate the Obama goal of institutionalizing their brand of American Socialism.

The forthcoming election will define the merits and measure of their success. I predict that their heretofore façade of “In the public interest” will be exposed as simply another ideologically founded political maneuver of liberal progressive persuasion.

This country of ours has many very pressing problems, but definitely in competition for the number one spot is our economy. The Federal Reserve, according to those in the know, has been quantitatively managing the money supply while noting the sensitivity of not prompting uncontrollable inflation. As part of its strategy, until just recently, the Feds have been buying assets in the form of mortgage and U.S. government bonds, 1.5 trillion dollars worth. It does look like the economic outlook has deteriorated since the Feds’ last meeting. But in the meantime, the homebuyers tax credit has expired and the Feds, as they predicted months ago, stopped buying up excess mortgages.

The one item of grave concern, an underlying cause and effect of a humdrum economy, is the high unemployment rate. The Democrats can give away money by paying for current consumption in the form of extending unemployment benefits; they can increase government employment, support union agendas… but all they can do in the private sector is create uncertainty and increase taxes.

Mr. Bernanke has sworn that he will not monetize the debt. Hmm… that must mean he does. Monetizing the debt is an action by the Feds to convert debt into available currency. This can be achieved by issuing securities or simply printing money. For years, banana republics have been utilizing this fiscal policy as means by which the reconciliation of debit is satisfied. Since the central bank is not audited, no one really knows the monetary status of this nation — possibly, we have too many bananas in our republic.

All the professional guessers seem to align with their particular socio-political ideology in the first cause; then, in the second, they access and analyse the specifics of the issue. Hiding behind – and often within – their academic accreditations, they shield themselves from the pragmatic and common solutions. This does not protect them from the ‘just as accredited’ and their often unrelentingly mean spirited assaults on the veracity of their person or their merits. But it does lessen the number.

The layperson, lacking the sophistication of the few, the accredited, and the all-knowing… contemplates. The people uninhibited by the effects of Harvard, Princeton, and Yale wonk and therefore the resulting confusion of purposefully misdirected ambiguity, an ambiguity, perpetrated by ‘gnomes of the non sequitur’ posing as professors, is set aside in favor of seeking a practical solution. These taxpayers, these non-accredited laypersons of common education and common means, lacking a doctorate in economics, have written no books nor had their papers published in the haute culture of professional acceptance, are left to the simple measurement of the factual. Unsustainable public debt, current and future, the predictable heavy lifting of Obama healthcare encumbrances, the cost of administrating Obama’s bureaucratically enriched domestic policies, they count the number of unemployed, and they feel the incursion of the central government in the form of legislation, general unfairness, taxes, and fees.

And the Obama Democrats wonder why their hero’s poll numbers are dropping in favor of dissatisfied… well, soon, a little more than 3 months, we will all know the disposition of the electorate.

LIBERTY AND FREEDOM

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Since Presidents Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, administration of both political parties have step-by-furtiveness step increased the size, scope, and power of government. Proportionally and in unison with such expansion of federal power there has been an abatement of individual freedom. Furthermore, the country’s fifty states, as an intended consequence of the 16 th amendment and the seemingly ubiquitous application by congress of the “commerce clause”, an enumerated power listed in the constitution in article 1, Section 8, clause 3, are more like fiefdoms with a fealty for pecuniary dependence than sovereign entities. Presently, as an example of the “commerce clause” and its instinctive status of overreach, Obama Care mandates that every individual citizen must buy health insurance.

I suppose it is just a matter of time until congress takes the final step and regulates what and when we eat per meal plan and of course, what we pay for what we eat. Such an overreach will eventually instate mandatory exercise programs detailing time and location, and naturally, what one wears to exercise must be purchased from government licensed union stores.

Is it not so that the spirit and meaningfulness of the whole is nothing less, nor more, than the sum of its pieces and parts? If the spirit of Americanism represents the intangible value and meaningfulness the tangible, isn’t subsequently the measure of the tangible, with all of its meaningfulness, wholly dependent on the veracity of the intangible spirit? Therefore, if the spirit is effected, the long-tail result of such an effect will be that the meaningfulness of the particular tangible will disunite from its original intent, its veracity of purpose will diminish, and the theme of truthfulness distort? Is this not exactly what happened to the application of our nation’s constitution?

I suggest that one’s individual liberty as defined in the meaning of Americanism is the spirit and the definitive of meaningfulness is the constitution. These constitutional rights in the simplicity of the textual are to the common reader unambiguous and pointedly targeted to the political, social, and economic affairs of each and every American. These rights to liberty are, for each and every citizen, innately proprietary.

In symbiosis and lawfully enjoined to individual liberty is the freedom of and for personal sovereignty. Liberty cannot exist without the freedom. The a-priori meaningfulness of personal sovereignty (freedom) is conspicuous within the tangible of laws that restrict the power of government; conversely, where the natural liberty of the individual is limited by government, the impairment of personal sovereignty is imminent. Therefore, the operating objective of legislation, respective of any perception of needs, is to make no law that ingresses upon an individual citizen’s natural liberty and personal freedom.

An indicator of governing ingress on liberty and freedom is the following rule of thumb: The greater the ingress on individuals and businesses, the more porous, ill defined, and ambiguous its tax laws. For instance, if an individual is required to hire a professional in order to, with surety, accurately affirm one’s individual tax return, the governing power is, by matter of practicality, coercive. If one requires an attorney to tell the truth in court, then maybe attorneys should not represent clients in the courtroom. Besides, it is apparent that these representatives of the court in cooperation with judges, have complicated the process of litigating, simply to insure their profitable participation.

When the electorate voted for Obama and his progressive brethren, a new order of an old brand of governing principles was enacted. The populous traded values, from the bucolic American expressiveness emboldened within the existential spirit to the reliance on government programs, committees of experts, a belief that social collectivism is a solution and corporate capitalism is the problem. These resuscitated governing doctrines are an old brand of liberal progressivism, cousins of socialism, communism, and fascism.

Individual liberty and freedom trump any and all government entitlements, promises, or covenants of surety; a citizen, in the interest of being and staying a free person, must not ever trust any government, politician, elected representative, or any of its proclaimed intentions. Vigilance is the necessity as well as the obligation of citizenry.

Do vote conservative!

THE OBAMA-DODD-FRANK FIASKO

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Respective of my often made assertion that the Obama administration, along with the majority of Democrats in the House and Senate, is an ideologue of liberal progressive doctrine; noting my declarations that Obama is a socialist whose ideal is a plutocratic style to governing. I am still somewhat baffled by the actions and pleadings of his high-ranking supporters.

Do they so misjudge the cultural norms and existential integrity of the American people that they believe they can roughshod downright stupid legislation into law? Do they really believe they can do such things free of resistance? Do they think they can outrun the federal deficit or even the reality of the rising cost of ObamaCare??

The damage to business productivity incorporated within the Dodd-Frank financial fiasco (the title of a WSJ article dating July 1) is self-evident. Could this legislation possibly be enacted? Are we Americans actually going to allow legislation this counter-intuitive to commercial sensibility to become the law of the land? Realizing that the legislation, though written into the form and content of law, is wholly subjective, it purposefully allows the interpretation of the law’s meaningfulness to a committee of unelected regulators. And those are the regulators that will judge the sum of the law’s effect and result. What?! Are we crazy???

The very people that – by their own direct action – helped to bring about the so-called financial crisis are the authors of this new legislation? Who in their right mind would allow these big government advocates-anti-capitalist leftist the authority to write legislation that is so damming to the very business structure of this nation state? Well, I guess we know the answers…

The Obama administration is anti-business and anti-profit; hence they are anti-sensible. Obama declares many untruths at will, embellishing and misdirecting at his on discretion. He denies his own counter-to-economic viability transgressions by simply stating that it could have been worse. He calls out the Republicans as politicians while acting out his leftist political polemics, and at every given opportunity he blames Bush.

This Obama fellow is acting out his role as president but has run out of viable script. His director/writer must be on vacation because he is slipping in the polls. The producer of Obama the President is only interested in the election of 2010 and 12. The Democratic Party is nervous. But Obama, undaunted, seems to believe in his own mythic invulnerability — or he is lost in the wanderlust of his own quest? It might quite possibly be a combination of both….

There are three distinctively factual realities that if voided would impair American sovereignty, hence America’s leadership role. The first is this nation’s requirement to embrace a consistent policy of always maintaining unmatched military superiority. The second is as the largest most dynamic consumer market in the world. Because our nation buys more than any other in the world, we encourage – almost compel – the sellers to American consumers to buy our debt, invest in our infrastructure, purchase our bonds, real estate, and equities. Such international investment strengthens the business scope and veracity of this nation’s economic platform. The third is the fact that this nation is the most innovative, hard-working, and practical in application, direct to purpose and design business network that has ever existed. It is the American concept of implementing business maxims that has built what is known as the “American Dream”. American business is internationally represented by an amalgamation of sophisticated industries, all servicing the buy/sell needs of an ever more demanding world market.

The Obama administration, pushed and pulled by Dodd and Frank, does not enthusiastically encourage such factual realities; indeed, I adamantly believe that the liberal progressives ideologically founded disdain for profit making, as well as the traditional American expressions of liberty and freedom, restrict their mind-set to accept capitalism as the economic system of this country. Obama believes that capitalism confronts and erodes the power of an omnipotent central government and thus endangers the industry of entitlements.

Such conclusions declared above emphasize even more why these persons of leftist, liberal progressive, socialist persuasion must be detached from power…

IT MIGHT AS WELL BE LATIN

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

In the days of old, when wooden ships cleaved the brine and canvas sails captured the wind, a time when warriors, ruled by marital kings, crossed the moat, breached the safety of castle walls and with cold steel in hand challenged the dark unknown, the law rested with the mighty and the lawless were the usurpers. That is until usurpers became the mighty.

The presumption of that age was that the all powerful minority knew better than the common; and besides, most importantly it was understood that the minority would protect the majority against dragons known, unknown, or invented. Though the minority was ignorant, bane, and unintelligent, such assessment mattered little because the majority was even more so. Thus, the little less than totally ignorant ran roughshod over the totally ignorant. The guiding theory was that the majority of the people would submit their being to their corporal lord, their soul to God, and their labor to their betters.

During the Age of Enlightenment, technology stirred alternatives to the heretofore agrarian lifestyle that was solely supported on the rule of serfdom. The long-bow at Agincourt proved the equality of archer to knight; skilled labor built glorious artful edifices and merchants established a lucrative global trade. The real laggards in the abatement of ignorance in favor of intellectual illumination were leaders of kingdoms and the captains of religion.

Their means of suppressing inquisitive intellect was very simple: Script the law of the land and the bible in Latin. Of course these oppressors of reasonableness and sensibility, at the penalty of fire, also forbade the translation of Latin into English.

Today the majority still submits to the minority — but under certain terms and conditions. Instead of the ignorant being lead by the little less than ignorant, we have the common being confronted by the omnipotent intermediary of government. The government of the United States has over the last hundred years blossomed into a Byzantine bureaucracy of departments, agencies, and committees that are entrenched in cities, counties, districts, and state and federal groupings of political authority. This growth of government with all of its ambiguities, complications, and contradictory complexions was not and is not a result of necessity but a premeditated defense by the entrenched forces of this country’s liberal progressive plutocracy. It is these entrenched forces that act against the overtly definitive covenants intrinsic to this nation’s constitution.

These constitutional covenants were and are designed to limit the power of the central government. Such limitation is encapsulated within the citizens’ persistent covet for liberty and freedom.

The powerful no longer insert Latin to restrict interpretive understanding but instead the enigma of legalese; they purposefully elevate the non elected regulators to the status of statutory implementer of lawfulness. They write laws and vote on laws not even read because the purpose of the laws is to suppress liberty and individual freedom, supposedly in favor of the collective interest of the whole. The determination of what is in the interest of the many is proclaimed by a committee of the few.

Obama and his plutocrats must be stopped…

THE CONSTITUTION OF MARCH 4, 1789

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

America is a nation of laws. The foundation of these laws is integrated in the constitution; included — but not replacing, and always subordinate to Supreme Court review — are the historical precedents of judicial resolutions. With more than just a few exceptions, the three branches of this government have worked within the original separation of powers thesis incorporated within the constitutional system of checks and balances. The exceptions to original constitutional intent, though concerning, did not lastingly spike the power of one branch over the other. That is until the administrations of Wilson, both Roosevelt’s, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Bush the younger, and now Obama. In other words, for the greater part of this country’s recent history, the constitution of original form has been successfully assaulted and vectored to other than original interpretations.

Per constitutional amendments, legislation, ad hoc understandings, or executive orders, politicians have drastically changed not only the face of constitutional interpretation but substantively reconfigured the meaningfulness of the original ten amendments. I do understand the counter party reference to the idea of adaptation to new and unfolding events. That these new and unfolding events necessitate the need for change… yes, I got that message. My contention is that though change is a relevant factor of consideration, the process of initiating such change cannot be trusted. Hence, any change from the original must be subject to forces greater than trusting in congressional legislation, ad hoc understandings, or executive orders.

Although the Obama administration has, by means legislatively perverse (I speak of the recent healthcare initiative that is now law wherein the process called “reconciliation” was the means for the federal government to capture a significant portion of the nation’s economy), simply taken advantage of a legislative means that surely was not within the original constitutional intent, it matters little that the intent of this particular process was created for a different purpose. What matters is that the legislative body made this change from original constitutional intent. The consequence of that change, like so many other legislative enactments, did not anticipate the unintentional; nevertheless, the result worked counter to the interest of the populous and the original intent of the constitution.

Attitudes and mores change. These changes affect societal customs as well as the mind-set of individuals. This into perpetuity of constant transformation (of attitudes and mores) has a direct and effectual influence on the particulars of political systems, politicians, and politics in general.

Immanuel Kant contemplated a behavioral norm postulating that the beginning evolves to the exactness of its end: Thesis, antithesis, synthesis, and thesis.

For Kant, change is a constant; nonetheless, change seems to identify itself more as a circle than a straight line. In the dictum of Kant, it does not matter: if the line is discerned at the moment of measure, to be vertical or horizontal, the persistence of persuasion is for the line to bend back to its original thesis.

Subsequently, even if Kant’s theory was missing the exactness of truism, one must concede. A societal change of attitude and mores influences individual thought. Such change, much like style within the world of fashion, will triumph over substance and effectually change the original thesis. This factual of human behavior, though a normative inconsequential for fashion, is, as noted in the Obama healthcare process of reconciliation, an excellent example of legislative perversion.

The constitution was designed around the notions that power is an omnipotent elixir; that eventually all politicians and governmental pieces and parts, in the perception of self-service, will yield honesty, integrity, honor, even good sense to its overwhelming dominance. Conclusively, power and the powerful cannot ever be trusted. Thus the constitution, a document that purposefully limits power by dividing the federal government via a system of checks and balances, should never be altered by any process other than either a constitutional convention or the process provided for adding or deleting an amendment.

My presumption is that in the near term, conservative thought will not attain a veto proof majority. Thus the reality of convening a constitutional convention is small, tiny, infinitesimal, well, near impossible; but, maybe we conservatives can abate the perversion of the constitution’s original intent by electing more of like-same ideology. Maybe?

THROW THE BUMS OUT

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

The wise and all-knowing, the elitists of academia and affairs of state, the ones that dwell within a self-created dimension, a sublimity that stands apart from the every-day of reality, they engender the political principles of populism while actively debasing the meaningfulness of individual liberty and freedom. Plato’s government of perfection exampled by Marcus Aurelius would have hardily endorsed this Obama brand of liberal progressivism.

There is a battle cry. An almost vengeful emotion is emitting and forming into a gage or challenge. An election is on the horizon. A political measure of tolerance and acceptance of Obama policies is being offered to the electorate. The Democrats are scrambling to capture the hearts and minds of their fellow Americans — they wish for them to turn to the political left while the Republicans want the voters to turn to the conservative right.

The unions want more power and influence for such enrichment of power eliminates the need to compete for the workers’ fidelity within the marketplace of competitive ideas and options. The unions must resort to state induced statutory compulsion in order to survive; they must eliminate the righteousness of private business; hence capitalism as known in America’s tradition of knowing must be uprooted and replaced by a union favorable alternate.

Then, of course, there is Chris Mathews. He is an excellent exemplar of a media liberal who, by means intuitive and uncanny, can read the mind of conservative thought; he is entertainingly insightful. He is a pundit that deciphers the truth of any political matter without the need for source or evidentiary documentation. A truly remarkable Sunday morning feat.

The news media has become the entertainment media wherein script is provided hour-by-hour. In fact, the content is so voluminous and variant, the editor establishes the contextual personality of the network. The pretty faces and eloquent voices are just programmed talking-heads that smile and frown on queue. After all the elected with their compatriots, the attorneys have purposefully entangled the operations of governing into an ambiguous enigma. Therefore the media have taken on the persona of the one true analyst, jury of first cause and judge of lasting result.

Withstanding collateral influences, I do believe that this upcoming November election is the formative basis of this country’s political future. If the Democrats are not soundly defeated, conservative thought will not prevail and a synthesis of liberal progressivism will dominate politics in America. This upcoming election is the Obama trial by fire. If he should survive, conservative political ideology will be taught in academia as a mere reference to a once governing ideology of present abandonment. The essence of American exceptionalism will (to steal a materially edited phrase from the Lincoln delivered, Gettysburg address) “perish from this earth.”

As the last hundred years bear witness, liberal progressive politicians are not – despite their populous credo to the contrary – the political panacea for the poor and downtrodden. Their only effectiveness is to enlarge and ingratiate the Byzantine networks of layered bureaucracies. These progressives have turned government into a competing enterprise of unionized employees that for the most part is overpaid and underworked. The time has come to turn decidedly to the political right and throw the bums out of office!

THE CASE OF IDEOLOGICAL NONSENSE

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

The Democrats are desperately trying to put the evidentiary round into the politically advantageous square. For these liberal progressives, their much touted theoretical and conceptive principles of “change we can believe in” have, with a deliberately sounding smack, run into the tactical reality of actual governing.

Withstanding the excessive taxpayer borrowing prompted and enacted by the Bush government, this nation, under the Obama government, is scheduled to spend a trillion and half more than it receives. This Obama deficit however is traversing through the highways and byways of an economy with high unemployment and low tax harvesting. The alternative to the Obama plan of purposeful excessive spending as an economic cure is to cut spending, lower taxes, extend the Bush tax cut, eliminate regulatory overreach, and enable small business growth. Of course that conservative economic alternative to the Obama economic scheme is an ideological atheism to the liberal progressives. Their response to such a proposal would be that even if such an alternative worked, it should not be implemented because it is fundamentally unfair. They would elaborate that the unfairness rests with working families and union members, and benefit the rich over the poor — naturally in their world of the theoretical and conceptive, the rhetorical claim of unfairness is sufficient proof, thereby eliminating the time consuming madness of further investigative debate.

This great rich nation of ours creates a revenue cause for over a trillion dollars in taxes, fees, penalties, and other etcetera contrivances; nevertheless, congress whether flying the red or blue flag, continues to overspend. Clearly, congress has developed an uncontrollable spending habit and intervention by the American people is required.

Our government representatives cannot agree on a solution for Medicare and Social Security but they did vote in another entitlement with ObamaCare. Does any of that make sense at all? It isn’t as if the current and projected federal deficit is the only financial negative facing this country. All of the federal entitlement programs are broke or going broke. Federal, state, and private pensions are seriously underfunded. Then of course, there is all that oil in the Gulf.

The thesis of big government is under fire because it is not able to bridge the distance from promise to result. The promise, as more and more Americans comprehend, was no more than a ruse to retain or attain elected office. The problems have added up and the American people will not be hustled by any emptier campaign promises.

Now I am really going to stretch one’s imagination and suggest that the problem is 80% solved by passing a constitutional amendment for term limits. No more than two terms in any one office is the limit.

Within the grand scheme of political history, the many is lead by the few. The few, with even fewer exceptions, fight to remain in office. For serving politicians to join the ranks of the many after the taste, feel, and smell of power is (for the politicians) worse than going from first class to coach. The prestige of being in power is so intoxicating that relinquishing its ambiance of gravitas for the wholly and often boring mundane, reeks of distasteful acceptability.

Therefore, the career politician must be forced out of power; he or she will never withdraw on his or her own volition. The case for term limits if solely determined as an anti-corruption measure is sensible. Nevertheless, no matter how effectual the elected, it is an imperative of an honestly managed government to regularly turn over its elected. Time in office only engenders the means, negatively influences the legislative culture, and affords the opportunity for institutional corruption.

Of course, I wish we could devise a distribution system to eliminate global hunger…