Category: 2010 Election

AND THEN THERE IS GOVERNING

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Looks like the Obama inner circle of all powerful insiders havs slipped, stumbled, and fallen into a puddle of Chicago-style political muck. This time, the smartest of the smart have created a wholesomely negative issue, solely on their daft contrivance. Surely, given a few more days, the chief of staff, a sitting governor, a former president, and the presidential press secretary can huddle and blame this on Bush.

In spite of all the editorial dancing by enterprising novelist within and outside of the administration, the truth has raised its head above the chaos of politicking — and is biting into the Obama brand. Despite the solidly delivered Obama election pledge of a transparent above the political fray government, politics as usual have identified themselves within the Obama camp. Once again a principal politician feigned hopefulness when in pre-election mode — but delivered politics as usual in practice.

A citizen might call this an excellent example of fraudulent inducement. But then of course the media, the president’s lawyer, notable politicians, an array of appointed and once appointed would discount the charge of fraudulent inducement as “simply politics as usual”.

Of course the president has been under pressure. The North Koreans’ have decided to redefine their sea borders and in order to establish this new sector of sovereignty, their leadership decided to sink a South Korean vessel, killing 46 people. Naturally, Secretary Clinton voiced a complaint. She clearly was upset with the North; and as a consequence she articulated a no-nonsense response to Kim Jong Il’s aggression, which was globally broadcast and convincingly implied the cold sternness of Obama disappointment in the North Korean hostile action. This state department declaration was coupled to the notion that this act of violence could not go unattended. Sarcastically, that of course sent shivers down the spine of the martially aggressive North Koreans and certainly satisfied the concerns of the 46 South Korean families who had just lost loved-ones. This half-hearted, cowardly approach to a clear military provocation demonstrated the level of US resolve for the Chinese and focused the Japanese on the real-time risk of relying on America’s willingness to protect Japan.

For all intensive purposes, Iran will soon add the atomic bomb to its arsenal of weapons. The attaining of this weaponry will validate Iran within the geo-political sector. It will establish Iran as the premier terrorist support nation and bond Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as Lebanon into the Syria-Iran axis. As a collateral benefit to the madness of Iranian foreign policy, a policy that fits in perfectly with the Obama-Clinton ineptness and mind boggling disregard of the palpable, Obama offers weak disputatious of how the world should be. The discernable of what is offered amongst the midst of international diplomacy is the Obama policy of demonstrating American weakness at every opportunity. How many times does this nation state turn the other check and say (per TelePrompTer) “do it to me again, please”? This Obama-Clinton doctrine isolates Israel even more, negating even the fanciness of peacefulness.

But then, quite possibly, I might be too harsh. The president or ‘the enlightened one’ demands only one particular: that all nations, regardless of their varied and splintered Socio-religious-economic-political variables, simply inhale his elixir of Obama persuasion. If only these parts and pieces would adhere to the truth… the light and the way of Obama belief that the world will be nuclear free, Palestinians will gleefully enjoin with Israelites, Korea will unite, poverty will be stricken by the cheerfully given sharing of wealth, green energy will replace fossil, and Mexicans will stay in Mexico.

Offering the endorsement of a far flung network of liberal progressive intelligentsia, Obama is mystified as to the why-fore of any hesitation by his counter parties. After all, the UN stands at the ready — and according to Obama this is the forum for multilateral agreement. Additionally, he, the leader of the Western alliance, has personally pledged the tangible fact that George W is no longer president; plus he has assured the world that the US is no longer the cowboy unilateralist. Noticeably, the Russian and Chinese love the Obama Doctrine of “let’s all get along” by leading his department of state by the noose, whiles every now and then kicking him in his rear.

Well, there are these midterm elections…

LAND OF THE FREE, HOME OF THE BRAVE?

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Since the founding and constant (so it seems) re-establishing of this nation’s principles of political origin, the reliance of/on constitutional fidelity has always been tied to an actively interested citizenry. Nevertheless, from the very beginning only a portion of the population actively participates in the political process. If left to its own devises, government, as wet is to water, will by asexual copulations corrupt the ethos of lawful intent and the spirit of moral righteousness. Enabling its own regard, the politicians that govern will choose power over fidelity to original purpose.

When at the discretion of the proper authorities federal and state law is not enforced, or when a statutory law is violated and the media, administration, and politicians minimize its effect by saying that it is done all the time, politics as usual, this nation is in deep dodo.

When I look about, seeking an answer to the question of why citizens do not engage and declare, I surmise that possibly in the interest of facilitating peacefulness, a stress-free lifestyle, or to go with the flow, apathy is the accomplished preference of concern. The thinking here (so it seems) is not to burden oneself with over-thinking. Or, even better, as little thinking as possible is the derigueur of Zen-like disengagement. For minimalists, the protective shroud of ignorance is more than simply an excuse…it is a way of life. The citizens of common means (which the majority of citizens are) have abandoned the righteousness of moral indignation in favor of a variety of submissions. These submissions to a higher secular authority normally take the form of adherence to a governmental directive that is directly or indirectly applied. In other words, the common reasoning of the average citizen to any societal, cultural, or otherwise problem of our nation state is to seek the answer, or point the finger to government for the solution.

There is a psychological comfort in the mythology of believing that a higher secular authority is the answer to the metrics of problem solving. In unreal terms it actually matters little if this belief is truthful or not; the value to the believer is in the perception that government will find the solution. The basis for the believer’s positive perception that government is the super-hero is not founded on logic or deductive evidence; indeed, such analysis is not required. The only real requirement is faith. Remembering that faith is never hampered by insufficient facts. Nor is faith measured by a requirement for tangible results. Faith for the faithful will never debase in value because of the remiss of objectiveness; essentially, faith can subsists without reason, rational, or the clarification inherent in a process of deductive logic.

This nation’s financial success since WWII has prompted the common into an attitude of general permissiveness; the individual citizen has been seduced by governmental entitlements and without a doubt, the government gains strength of will every time a citizen, via the law of the land, takes another dime of a fellow citizen’s earnings. The once traditional American indulgence of prudence, sensibility, and personal discipline has been replaced by a citizen induced into a mentality of self-indulgence, wrong-headed delusion, and a woe-me state of mind.

Liberal progressives have steadfastly inflicted their political philosophy and ideals upon the nation’s constituents for over a hundred years. They have had a detrimental effect upon the spirit and ideal of American existentialism. Unless Obama’s democrats are soundly defeated in the next election, these socialists will damage every aspect of our American identification… the replacement will be as Europeans.

WE AMERICANS HAVE BEEN SO NAIVE

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

From about the turn of the 1900’s we Americans have taken upon ourselves to expend our blood and treasury in Cuba, Nicaragua, the Philippines, China, the Mexican border skirmishes, France, and Belgium. Now, fast-forward another twenty years and into the present to include Germany, Italy, North Africa, Korea, the Pacific islands, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other distant lands that five minutes of research could verify. Thousands upon thousands of Americans have died directly from battle wounds and thousands more from disease, shock, sorrow, and starvation as a consequence of their engagement.

I do believe that the two World Wars not only killed, murdered, and maimed millions of humans. But in fact, the devastation inflicted upon humankind by their fellow humans was/is to a large part caused by the naive, imprudent foreign policy, exercised by this nation’s leadership. The list of such naïve and imprudent policies initiated by former American presidents consists of certainly more than the two noted below.

However, Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt are perfect leadership models of this nation’s credulously unwise policies.

Wilson was an international idealist. A liberal progressive leader, serving as president before and during World War One. Franklin D. Roosevelt, a liberal progressive who grew to favor an oligarchic-socialist form of governing, he too was also president prior to and during the last World War.

Both leaders utilized the reason of present danger and economic emergency to dramatically enlarge the qualitative size of government power. Interestingly, in proportion to the enhancement of government in general, specifically, so grew the power of the executive branch. Irrespective of the growth of their domestic and international power, both of these leaders, Wilson as one of the victors of The Great War allowed the United States to be bullied and ostracized by his wartime allies. The other, with the atom bomb exclusively within his arsenal, the largest American Army ever station and at the ready in Europe, withstanding, Roosevelt does not protect the Europeans from Stalin. As if stymied, unable to comprehend the obvious and connect the dots. Ignoring the advice of Churchill, to the detriment of a democratic Europe, Roosevelt’s naive policies worked in favor of Soviet dominance; when challenged by a totalitarian regime, this American president faltered and failed to secure the peace. Roosevelt’s inaction serviced the Soviet Union as if the west was a Stalinist ally. In the grand game between a totalitarian dictatorship and a democratically elected republic, the good guys suffered an ignominious defeat. Roosevelt, the leader of the free world, ceded his Queen for fear of the opposition’s many pawns.

The Traité de Paix de Versailles and the Potsdamer Konferenz set the stage for future wars by creating (or allowing to be created) issues, concerns, and situations that preempted the next violent engagement. Versailles created draconian reparations upon Germany’s citizens; Potsdam ceded Eastern Europe to Stalin’s Russia. And if that was not enough, idiocy western leadership agreed on a divided Korea.

In 1912 Woodrow Wilson was elected president. In 1913, progressive income tax was legislated with the Revenue Act. This one law in short order would empower the federal government beyond the scope of the founder’s intent; this law debilitated state’s rights from its origin; this one law moved America from a republic to a government of and by federal mandate. This law was preceded and post-ceded by the Federal Reserve Act, Federal Trade Commission, Clayton Antitrust Act, and the Federal Farm Loan Act. This progressive president, with the enabling of a Democratic congress, was the original “change you can believe in”… Woodrow Wilson was the presidential precursor to Barrack Obama.

He narrowly won the reelection in 1916 with the promise of keeping America out of “that fracas” in Europe. Of course that lasted until Germany sank the ‘Lusitania’, and by 1917 American soldiers and marines were in France. Wilson proceeded to form the War Industries Board, promoted labor unions, took over railroads, and enacted the Lever Act. This Lever fellow was an elected representative, of course a Democrat, who, at the prodding of President Wilson, decided it would be a very good idea to control food and fuel — hence the Lever Act. Sounds familiar? This legislation empowered a “Food Administrator” to oversee the working of this new government agency. The act also banned the use of “distilled spirits” from any produce that was used for food — the agency even tried to set the price of wheat. I trust one can visualize the resemblance between the Wilson administration and Obama’s.

Right after the First World War, President Wilson’s vision to guarantee the prophesy of “war to end all wars,” was to engage the United States in a global community of nations, an entity named The League of Nations. Although congress rejected the membership, President Wilson won a Nobel Peace Prize for his outline of “Fourteen Points”, a formula to entice Germany’s surrender while blueprinting a world order after the war. Wilson, as with Obama, visualized the world as they wished it to be; they both fail(ed) to see the world for what it truly is.

Not unlike President Obama, President Wilson’s experience was either public service or academia; he lacked the understanding of a world wherein persuasion was not a matter of finding a podium to exercise his rhetorical sensibilities. He just could not grasp that persuasion in the world of nation states is a matter of martial power. Either the direct use of such power or the indirect threat of power; this was the world of England, France, and Italy, his allied partners. In the finality, Wilson’s foreign policy concepts died an ignominious death; retributions ruled the Treaty of Versailles and while still looking for the cheese, the spring on the mousetrap was set; the next war would be even more brutal than the last.

Wilson, Roosevelt, and Obama all attended Harvard; none of them ever ran a private enterprise. Interestingly, they all shared the oneness of socialistic economic principles, large governments, and the belief that they could, by the power of their intellect or the coercive power of government, bend spoons in midair. And if they failed at that — surely they could bend any person or institution to their will.

Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in 1932 and passed away April 1945, in office. When he died away, thousand wept. He had been president longer than anyone. Indeed, so long that after his death congress passed an amendment to the constitution prohibiting a president’s term of office past two terms.

This is the man that took the nation off of the gold standard, favored deficit financing, unprecedented concessions to labor, created Social Security, heavier taxes on the wealthy, and most outstanding, after his reign government could legally regulate the economy. We have all heard of his attempt to stack the Supreme Court and the invalidation of a few of his government’s programs.

Roosevelt is credited by many as saving the American people from the ravages of The Great Depression; of course there are those who feel FDR’s economic policies enabled the depression instead of abating its effect. But all will agree that he was a strong wartime leader. Of course this is also the president that detained Japanese Americans in internment camps for the duration of the war, deprived them of their property, liberty, and citizenry rights. This president was a liberal-progressive with strong socialist-like inclinations; he reminds me of President Obama’s political, economic, and social preferences.

I do believe that because this nation’s leadership decided to judge worldly events through the distortion of a liberal progressive’s naïve predeterminations, the continuum of violent conflict was and is a constant liability. Note that when this nation was confronted by a declaration of emergency, whether it is formed by domestic or foreign influence, government is enlarged and power-enriched to the few. Fear has been the wherewithal of liberal progressives to gain power and extend their ideological agenda.

In every instance of rule by an emergency agenda, personal liberty and individual freedom is being abated.

When will we Americans ever understand that weakness begets aggression? That peace is not a reasonable foreign policy goal? That the preservation of the ‘American Exception’ is in fact an intrinsic necessity, a value of worldwide priority? America cannot continue to win the war and lose the peace. The bona-fide relationship between the world’s nation states is founded on self-interest and without physical reality, omnipotent American power, Russia and China will fill the vacuum. The cost for liberty and freedom is always materialized into blood and gold; the fare is prohibitive. Leadership must reconcile the difference between the worlds as we wish it to be and as it truly is. This is no place for idealistic fantasies…

CONSERVATIVE AMERICANS, LET’S END THIS!

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Media and constituency! Do you not notice the obvious? Congress is legislating for political, ideological, and self-serving purpose…

As I have written in earlier blog’s: There has never been a corruption-free government, nor will there ever be such a governing body. Therefore, what constituents ought to require of government’s leadership, is a statutory definitive of governmental transparency and be adamant about its ubiquitous implementation. This measure should be joined with a principled, rigid adherence to the letter and spirit of checks and balances; and lastly, constituents as well as the media should insist on the ethics and morals of Caesar’s wife upon the elected, appointed, and staffed. Of course the issue with my preceding sentences is that, in the majority, the veracity of the particular government encumbered upon a nation reflects directly on the righteous qualities of its constituents. In simple terms, as stated by some sage years ago, we always get the government we deserve.

It stands to reason that the larger the size of government, the greater its power. Power enhances the opportunity for corruptive principles and practices to take seed and entangle. Government rendered to its own devises will run amok with copious bureaucracies; it will create an irresolute system of statutory ambiguity, treacherous bureaucrats, and regulators that pay more attention to political whims than independent judgment. A government cannot seem to function without the endorsement — indeed the fraternally incestuous relationship with, of, and for attorneys. At every opportunity, government will ask for more money — never for less.

The set-in-stone answer of government’s leaders to the task of governing, often at the price of exclusion or the forfeit of one segment, class, or demographic from the other, is to create entitlements. These entitlements are brazenly issued to favorites of government blessings. Favoritism is the utility of a corruptive government. The voters sell their vote to the candidate that promises them the most bang and favor for their vote. Obama promised those that pay no federal individual income taxes cash — so the majority of this segment voted for Obama. Of course favoritism has been used by both of our political parties to further their specific agenda. When the white team is in power, they, with fanfare, and super human purpose, make up for the favorites extended by the red team; as President Obama pointed out in many of his public remarks, to paraphrase, it is time that those wealthy Americans, you know the ones that benefited during the Bush presidency, pay the fiddler.

On one side of a politician’s mouth they speak of bipartisanism, on the other side of the same mouth they speak of political pay-back. Favoritism follows the power broker that bandies available favors extended from one administration to the other. Because of the majority control of congress by democrats, bipartisanism was sacrificed in favor of brute means; the tactic of any and all was employed by the Obama majority to satisfy their interpretive of social righteousness.

The American people need to end this bloated nonsense; we the people must stand up and deliver individual liberty; we must end this Obama drift toward socialism and the crony self-dealing of liberal progressives.

THE GOVERNMENT OF OBAMA

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

What has happened to our government? Is it that congress, pushed, pulled, and prodded by Liberal Progressives over the last hundred or so years, has successfully changed the ethos of American thought? Was the impact of FDR’s successful socialistic agenda far greater than realized? Has Jimmy Carter’s naiveté particularly on foreign policy been effectuating such fearfulness within this nation state that we refuse to accept our reality? And because of our inability to address Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah with military force, we pick a silly fight with Israel? Or is it that Americans have come to realize that America would be — and indeed is — a better place because the enlightened progressives have reshaped and remolded American society? That this new era of Americans has finally submitted to ‘the way of Obama’ and the progressives’ political ideal?

The liberal progressives of today have persistently proffered an America where a communalist definitive of social justice is the acceptance. The progressives believe public funded entitlements are an obligatory normative. They also enthusiastically endorse a tax policy that in practice, for those paying into it, is discriminative and egregious. A tax policy that in its finality, if successful, penalizes the risk takers for the privilege of taking the risk; and if the risk taker loses its cash, tough… Unless the entity in question is a “too big to fail” or government enterprise such as Fannie or Freddie. Progressives espouse the redistribution of wealth, coupled with a perverse interpretive of newly founded individual rights, such as healthcare, as an ipso facto.

The leadership of the liberal progressives has tried to eliminate existentialism as the philosophical raison d’être of American distinction. They want Americans to submit to a socialistically inclined republic wherein the wise does all the thinking for the less than wisest. In their sense of perfect, the common man’s fate is rendered to the providence of government; a government that offers life’s essentials to all, regardless of status or intelligence quotient. In other words, working is no longer required.

A progressive’s utopia is a land whose population is equal in all material measurement. A land of uncanny understanding, civil tolerance, functional equality; a land where such is within one’s grasp if only one would submit to the promise and providence of government sagacious. The American people (or at least a significant number of Americans) actually believe it is proper, even preferred, to take money fairly earned by one — utilizing the government as the intermediary — and give that money to another. The other is not required to be an American citizen. The other can be a country, a worthy or not so worthy cause. This give-away of taxpayers’ dollars can also take the form of arms, food, drugs, the International Monetary Funds, the United Nations, or even a variant of services such as abortions — all supported by US currency.

As expected, for the life of me, I do not understand the thinking of these liberal progressives; it is beyond my cognitive to submit to their promise of something or another — well, it is either a something or it is another. I do not understand the Obama-Holder-Pelosi-Reid message, other than it is utter nonsense.

As I have conservative, I have liberal-progressive associates; some of my conservative acquaintances think of me as too conservative and certainly all of my liberal-progressive comrades think of me as outlandishly right wing… I do not believe I could ever generate enough consensus to fill anything larger than a phone booth; nevertheless, I prod along. I do so by putting one foot in front of the other, presumably just as those who think quite differently; admittedly however, I am sometimes a bit more frustrated than at other times over the present Obama governing process. But then I still have November to reconcile my current angst with the new leaning conservative congress.

OBAMA’S RESIDUAL DAMAGE

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Although critically essential, my issue with the Obama government is not its spending, it’s not its insistence on favoring union over non-union, it is neither its ideological deception as expressed politically, nor its inherent socio-economic deceptiveness, and it isn’t even its Marxist-socialistic preference over private enterprise and capitalism. My problem with the Obama democrats is their means to achieve; their ends will effectually disable American power, debilitate the nation’s economic system, and establish a federal hyper-dysfunctional entrenched bureaucracy.

As evidenced over the broad swath of history, all economic systems founded on socialistic principles have produced, at worst, catastrophic results (i.e. Nazism, Fascism); at best, (the EU in general and Greece in particular) the results have been objectively ineffectual, a catalyst of ever-increasing dysfunction that by the weight of its incompetence promotes a continuum of unintended consequences, as well as a class of citizenry, comforted into a self-perpetuating scheme of personal entitlement.

In the eventual, the ideologically inspired concepts of liberal-progressivism, as with all brands of socialism, will fail. The liberal-progressives will lose their majority — but that is just one objective, one definitive that one can hold in one’s hand. Remembering, however, there was and is a number of liberal, somewhat progressive politicians within the Republican Party. During their spin at majority, they have spent like a sober-democrat, fashioned a repulsive immigration bill, voted for stupid on a number of occasions; currently, one of them has decided that Americans should fork out 15 cents more for a gallon of gasoline.

The legislative culprit that took an amendment to the constitution to implement is the federal taxation of individual persons’ earnings. That one act of congress abated liberty and individual rights more than any grievance charged within our Declaration of Independence to King George, his soldiers, or his governance. Imagine! Members of Congress, voted into the law of the land that thousands of men, women, and children died to fight.

One of the brothers within the family of liberal progressivism, a close relative of the heretofore mentioned culprit, is the so-called federally enforced progressive tax system; wherein forty to fifty percent of wage earners pay zero federal tax. In other terms, nothing invested, no concern. Therefore, the majority will always vote to take more from the minority. The democrats have a fortune on this progressive system of taxation. Obama gave my money to the deserving because he decided, along with the beneficiaries, that such was fair. Of course the deserving voted for the man who would give them my money — they’re no dummies.

Now all of these family members, regardless of party, reinforce their privilege of lifetime elective office as well as voting for salary increases, commensurate with more cash for expenses and staff.

Congress has gone mad with power, arrogance, and the unrelenting practice of stupid… it is time for notice and consequence.

THE OBAMA POLICY IS DOOMED TO FAILURE

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

There are historians of French governments that have suggested that the French Revolution of 1789 was significantly incited by its deficit financing of the American Revolution. If so, the persuasion of Misters Franklin and Adams cost King Louis XVI his head. Accordingly, President Obama’s majority has been persuaded to vote into place a federal deficit that even after the adjustment for inflation would make good King Louie’s financial underwriting of the American War of Independence a pittance.

Well, at least King Louis had a definitive foreign policy motive; England was a strategic rival. But for the liberal progressives, their motivation is not so clear-headed. Indeed, the progressives’ motive is concealed within an opaque of ideological complexities. Their attempt at explanation results in a continuum of ambiguities and stylistic themes embedded with popularism-like possibilities. Obama and company struggle to define the exact-meaningfulness of the very policies they parade.

In the finality, Obama rests his vision on the socialistic concept of fairness, equity, and the leveling of the playing field. Of course with America being a nation of laws, the implementation of his agenda of socialist-progressiveness requires actions by means legal and extra legal. Note the recent 51 instead of 60 votes in the Senate regarding health care legislation as an example of his methodology of application… The entire process was corruptive, yet doctored with the pretence of statutorily compliance.

Ideological fuel will enable super-events; nevertheless, just as gravity cannot be denied so to the limit of ideology when confronted with the real and practical. In the interest of what is called “social justice”, Obama has loaded — and is presently loading — the mule train of private enterprise with too many passengers for the number of mules. Sensibility deduces that somewhere along the journey, eventually, some of the passengers will need to walk instead of ride.

Respective of the obvious denying of empirical soundness, Obama and his progressives insist on taxing and regulating the very enterprises that purchase, monitor, and manage the mules. The only possible result of such counter productiveness is less mules and more passengers. As a consequence, regardless of the progressives’ prediction that the Obama brand is “change that we can believe in”, his interpretive is in fact nothing less than the establishment of oligarchic-socialism that will not survive economic nor social reality. In order for Obama to implement his agenda, he must violate the spirit and meaningfulness of this nation’s constitution.

These contrarians of American values and traditions must be voted into obscurity. In the next election, as Rome delivered to Carthage in the Third Punic War, we conservatives must deliver in-kind to these progressives.

HYPOCRISY UNCHAINED

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

I am sick and tired of being managed by the elected, their appointed and selected, as if I was a blithering idiot. Believability is an essential component of governing. The subordination of citizen to the law of the land can only be achieved if there is an unwritten morally founded understanding between those that govern and the governed. This Obama administration has lost and is losing the pieces and parts, the moral fabric, the very stitching that bonds citizen to government. There has been way too much bullshit spread around the byways of congress, the White House, and the offices of this administration’s leadership.

Our elected have an insatiable appetite for presenting spews of hypocrisies (to the American people); these hypocrisies are multi-faceted in content as well as process. The elected are overt when presenting their pretensions; without even the courtesy of clever deception they overtly contradict their once closely held convictions. Indeed they are steadfast in their duplicitous, blatantly obvious, two-facedness.

The elected, once empowered, prance, dance, and rhetorically wiggle their ideological nonsense with an arrogance that can only be described as oligarchic in comportment. The behavioral actions of the Democratic Party, enthusiastically demonstrated by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, consider the federal government as the omnipotent authority; as such, this authority has the right of omnipresence in the lives of every American citizen. Accordingly, the power of the federal government has no specific constitutional limits, less to serve the interest of the subjectively interpreted common good.

Contradictions in fact are exactly that… hell, we have them video taped. Documented videos of Democratic politicians taking positions when they were out of power, righteously pronouncing positions on policy, process, and substance that they now directly contradict. Although, it is now the Democrats captured in these outrageous contradictions; the Republicans were as culpable. Power is the seducer of sensibility, faith, hope, and charity.

A government — not just this American government — is by compulsion omnivorous; government left to its intrinsic proclivity will eat its young. Since the time of Ur, power enhanced and, embedded within, the few have suppressed, eradicated, and abused individual liberty and freedom. Do we really need to relearn the same lesson over and over again?

The Obama movement must be stopped; by the grace of good sense, we Americans must not be fooled by the promises of the utopian socialist dreams of heaven on earth. This administration is managed by a cadre of ideologically driven socialists… Let’s pay attention and vote them out of sight and hearing!

THERE ARE MATERIAL CONCERNS

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

I do believe that we of variant political prospective lose sight of the material concerns of and for Obama Care. Although cost is critical, it is not the financial cost to the nation, but the cost of liberty and freedom that creates the matter of material concern. There are others, such as Obama’s advocacy for ‘card-check’ laws which favor labor union expansion, the so-called “Green Energy Policy” coupled with the regulatory oversight of greenhouse gases and their investment expenditures. And then there is dealing with the swords-swirling in-hand Obama cavalry charge response toward any parapet of non-acceptance or contrary opinion. Clearly, bullying is the political tactic of the current administration; just as certain is Obama’s (media endorsed) unilateral disregard for the consequences of such bullying.

Of course there would be no bullying if the bully didn’t represent the majority on the playground of congress. Remembering, pushing and shoving begets pushing and shoving. Some fine day the majority will be the minority and like-same will be the declared causation of the tactics employed. One could point out that this strategy of common tactics is detrimental to the cohesiveness of working in the interest of the nation. But then, why do we cling to such objectives (such as cohesiveness) that are more mythic than objective?

Factually, once again in American history, the stakes are too high to compromise. In today’s political climate, one either is — or not; political prospective has come down to exactly that. Either one believes that utilizing government to spread the wealth is a moral virtue; or one believes that by authorizing (the enforcement of law) more government prerogatives as described is nothing less than simple federal empowerment that will result in the continuous abatement of individual liberty and freedom.

The liberal progressives could care less what the healthcare legislation costs and the conservatives consider any increase of taxpayer funds/monies into government an enrichment of federal governing power to the detriment of state sovereignty and a citizen’s lawful prerogatives. Conservatives believe that the ideological beliefs of liberal progressives negatively implicate every aspect of America’s being. In addition, conservatives believe that all political, social, economic, even cultural actions imposed by liberal progressives are designed to establish a socialistic society. Another material concern for conservatives is that the liberal progressives will impose a society wherein the federal government, by the empowerment granted by creeping institutionally delivered federal authority, in the eventual will effectually disable all individual thinking from cradle to grave in favor of what is in the interest of the collective. Such is to be determined by a governmental committee that establishes the order of common good.

For over a hundred years the Elephant and the Donkey have foot-worked their way around the ring; jabbing and thrusting at each other while seeking the opportunity to deliver a knock-out punch. Each dish-out expletives and fronts a politician to perjure and deceive; political parties exist to retain or attain governmental power and therefore, within their sphere, the factual or truthful are mere subordinates. Governmental apparatuses, bureaucracies, committees, boards, and the actions of leaders have been cheerfully purchased from the less than watchful citizenry by the metaphoric exchange of pretense, deception, and purposeful ambiguity.

Political corruption has not just survived but thrived. As a purposeful inducement to a continuance of voter apathy, a little less than 50% of Americans pay any federal taxes whatsoever as a consequence of having no skin in the game (purposefully enacted by politicians to buy votes); a malaise of disinterest has permeated every election, be it city, state, or national. In practical terms citizens’ oversight of governing wherefores is subject to the utility of very expensive lawyers, courts, and a judge’s interpretation of what is.

Well, what is now a law can be changed; we do have recourse but we must act. We conservatives must close ranks and elect conservatives to every elective vacancy; from city to federal, we need to capture, subdue, and cast out all officeholders of socialistic beliefs. There can be no quarter or compromise, Obama has made his intention very obvious: he is a socialist. In response, in the interest of protecting the ideals of our Constitution, we must gain super-majority control of congress.

THE ELECTION OF 2010

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

The fat lady sang. Despite populous efforts to the contrary and zero Republican votes, the process of reconciliation won the day for the socialist and their brethren of leftist ideologues. The liberal progressive enriched Congress has legislatively turned the ship of state onto a sharp 270 degrees to port; the Democrats have won a great victory. Of course these proponents of “change we can believe in” or in other words, the congressional majority, the very ones that have not read the ‘Healthcare Law of the Land.’ At best they can only guess at the unfolding of subsequent possibilities or the ramifications of unintended consequences; of course the only certainty is more government, hence more union employment and higher taxes.

If rescission of the healthcare law is the political focus of us conservatives and such is our “Remember the Alamo”, we have an almost impossible task. Withstanding the recently levied against the “feds’” multi-state lawsuits and the probability of a Supreme Court review, Obama has done his bane upon the efforts of conservatives. Repealing this legislation will be very, very difficult. Nevertheless, such is the sole recourse of counter-Obama opportunity; there is no other alternative but to throw all of these liberal progressives out of office. In other words, the majority control of congress is not sufficient; we will need a super majority to overcome the inevitable presidential veto.

Obama the centrist has finally been exposed to the American people as the liberal progressive socialist of unmitigated origin. With the 15 recess appointments that boldly define the favoritism of union appeal, ‘card check’ legislation so to enable union expansion by disabling the heretofore anonymous voting rights, and the clear appointment of persons’ of leftist credentials.

Obama has taken the glove and slapped the conservatives across the face. “Pistols or swords” is Obama’s offer. I think we should aim for the heart of their socialistic agenda and choose both, pistol AND sword. For the cause of conservative principles, inclusive of personal liberty and freedom, the winning of the forthcoming electoral duel is critical. In this 2010 voting event we must not simply gain a majority — we must demand a super-majority. Anything less than such is, for those of conservative principles, an unsustainable intolerable with political consequences of damning proportion.

Surely we can expect the Democrats to pull out all resources to thwart any and all efforts to replace their majority; and as a prelude to Obama’s reelection in 2012, liberal-media stunts will be the order of the 2010 election period. At stake is simply everything…