Category: 2012 Election

I WILL TAX THE RICH VOTE FOR ME

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

So, according to Obama, if we increase the tax to those that earn $250,000 or more a year the deficit will notably abate. Of course Obama is not explicit in this presumption he only implies that taxing the rich “a little more” will notably abate the deficit. On-its-merits this Obama tax-a-little-more proposal is contentious and the conservatives do have a viable alternative. Just as one looks both ways when crossing the street, in the interest of prudence, contemplation is reasonable. Certainly, to endorse such a proposition, simply on the presumptive scaffold that taxing the rich will notably abate the deficit, requires more methodologically applied scrutiny than Obama’s campaign motivated rhetorical declarations.

Obama acts as if there was no viable counter-argument. Is it that the conservative’s emphasis on excessive government spending is actually on target?

I have noticed that whether the economy is good or bad, federal and state governments, waste taxpayer monies. With purposeful intent (motivated by trying to win office or to stay in office) politicians broaden old entitlements and at every opportunity creates new ones. The elected, mostly, Democratic pay explicit homage to unions; just take a peek at state pension obligations; I do believe that spending is the true basis of our deficit? Or is the Obama tax-the-rich proposal more an appeal to those who pay no federal income taxes to vote the status quo. Possibly this tax the rich scheme is nothing less than an offer to purchase votes in the upcoming 2012 election rather than a genuine proposal to decrease the deficit? Imagine a politician acting to better the odds of winning an election as a reason to act?

But then, one must appreciate that for Obama and his confederates within the progressive league, their real intention has nominal to do with deficit abatement and a great deal to do with servicing their agenda of social-justice. Indeed, once this tax-the-rich plan is implemented and thereafter (years later) analyzed for effectiveness even if the legislation had no effect on the deficit. The progressive ideal of fairness will have triumphed. And most importantly for Obama a progressive ideal has been in-placed.

The marketing of progressive persuasion is purposefully premised on invoking class-struggle onto the talking-points of electoral persuasion; the idea is to tie their political aspirations into an alignment with moral righteousness. After all (the Obama progressives deceptively preach) the poor and disenfranchised have no power; as Obama has pointed out they have no lobbyist to express their frustrations. It is therefore the obligation of Obama and his progressives to represent their interest. Now where have we heard this plea for the poor people before? Lenin comes to mind.

I do find it interesting that political leaders never advocate for the rich and the privileged although all of these leaders are rich and privileged. Inclusive to these pleas for those who have less every political leader throughout the 1900 hundreds up to the present have declared that the poor are poorer and the middle class is economically stymied. Naturally, what follows is the popular declaration that they will rectify this injustice as a matter of policy. This rectifying of injustice has been a politically enriched constant of Republican as well as Democratic leaders for a very long-time. Has no political party or political leader made progress in this endeavor to rectify this supposed clear injustice? Or is this rectifying of mostly economic injustice simply a popular campaign issue?

Obviously, withstanding whether this issue is real or imaginary, the politicians love the issue so much both political parties have used it. Of course Obama and his progressives have a particular infinity for the concept of the rich getting richer and the poor poorer. Without it they would have no social injustice to rectify. Hmm… that could drastically change their political crusade to emancipate the downtrodden from under the thumb of the rich and powerful.

Over the years I have heard the adage: We always get the government we deserve. I now believe this adage to be a truism. The forces of bonne chance aligned with the failures of President Bush’s administration, Secretary Paulson’s response to the financial crisis, the Bush endorsement to fund the car companies, as well as, their unions. And bingo President Obama was voted into power. The anemically pathetic campaign of the senator from Arizona also made a significant contribution to Obama’s victory.

Well, respective of the serendipitous outcome of the community organizer’s 2008 election, by November of 2011 the voters will truly understand the meaningfulness of what a vote for Obama means. If he wins this time, big government, ObamaCare, and most likely another liberal Supreme Court justice appointment is a definite. Conservatives will lose big time; we just cannot let that happen…

THIS POLITICAL CONFRONTATION IS SERIOUS

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

I do think that in the foreseeable future the likelihood-of-result favors a series of very nasty political confrontations between our competing political parties. Indeed, the 2012 election, regardless of the victor, will not settle the abrasively aggressive behavior of the contending political ideologies. The facts of the matter will not settle the political argument because facts (by the ideologues) are bent to satisfy the particulars of ideological predetermination. Such ardent predetermination (for the believers) is coupled with an unshakable belief in the righteousness of their cause; therefore stymieing any rational tendency for counter-party consideration.

Currently, for the White House, because of a looming election, Obama’s reelection is the single dominant interest. By a default of priority, the interest of the nation is secondary because the ideological ethos of each political party cannot rationalize the reasoning of the other. As a consequence, conservatives and liberal progressives will always fail to understand the economic, fiscal, political, or even practical sensibility of the others’ political agenda.

The nation’s budgetary and debt-limit argumentative is not in its core a matter of negotiating variant plans. This quarrel between the Republican Conservatives and the Democratic Liberal Progressives is an ideological confrontation; debate over the abatement of the deficit is an ideological cause to engage. There is much more at stake for this nation state than reducing federal government expenditures for the 2011 and 2012 budget. In bold-black, graphically clear penmanship, the current political fight is over the definitive understanding of what kind of an American government we are going to have in January of 2013. The grand question in simple terms: Is this government of ours to be small and limited in operational scope as the Conservative desire? Or is the government to be large and unlimited in operational scope as favored by the Liberal Progressives? This is the essence of our nation’s disagreement and the answer will be affirmatively declared, for one or the other, post the count of the November 2012 Electoral College vote.

With President Obama’s recent reelection announcement, political gamesmanship is formally afoot. The Republicans have put forth their fiscal remedy. The Democrats, instead of designing a detailed plan of their own, have decided to sit back and disdainfully criticize. These liberal progressives have decided that fiscal disciple and reforming entitlements, for the general population, is confusing. Inclusive with the confusing nature of the entitlement issue is the general unpopularity of reform. If one considers that abatement or elimination of ‘nanny state’ policies will have measurable consequences for those dependants of entitlement funding, such as illegals, as well as those that pay no federal income taxes, those that believe government owes them a free education, and a stipend for living expenses, one can understand who the opposition is. Remembering that for the Democratic Party, less the illegal element now that ACORN is busted, this is their voting constituency. So instead of servicing the clear and present danger for the nation by helping to clear up the confusion or explaining the non-sustainability of the present entitlement programs, liberal progressives have determined that winning the next election by endorsing a policy of abandonment and denial, and promising a continuance of the ‘nanny state’ is their strategy for election victory in 2012.

The forthcoming national election will prompt scurrilous attacks; personal meanness, noting the President’s recent remarks, will be part of the Obama believers’ daily talking points. Prudent discovery of facts will be set aside as unwarranted and for the progressive politicians, the mainstay of their rhetoric will, in the majority, contain misdirection and half-truths. Considering the context of the Democratic Party leadership, one can righteously ascertain that rhetorical gunmanship is valued over truthfulness. I do predict that the upcoming election will be 100% negative. I also believe that provocateurs from the political left instilled with bloodthirstiness for victory at any price will nullify the effectiveness of civil persuasion, and the nation’s institutions will be forced to decide if this is a nation of laws or of man. Tolerance and consideration will be ostracized into suspension. This electoral process will be evidenced as never before for its dishonesty, bombastic hype, and statutory non-compliance.

Beware! The Obama inspired liberal progressive machine whiles striving to implement a European-style socialist society with one side of the mouth, with the other he will say what needs to be said. Our President has proven to be very flexible when it comes to his word and words in general; he is unscrupulous as to concerns for their factualism. His money raising reelection show is steamrolling its way through America’s highways and byways. Machiavelli, sit up in your grave and standby to witness Chicago’s brand of the end justifying the means!

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

These fiscal battles being fought from sea to shining sea truly do define the dragon from the paladin; of course, because of differing ideological perspectives, the dragon and the paladin are exchangeable.

From my ideological perspective the dragon is without question the liberals and their progressive agenda. For example, in the interest of serving entrenched special interest, the Obama administration has created multiple fiscal machinations; these variable machinations are so intriguing, so fantastically written and delivered, that one could, depending upon viewpoint, easily contextualize either a melodrama or a comedy.

Though delivered as if nonfiction, these progressives actually live in a robustly ubiquitous fiction. Wherein, despite the federal monstrous deficit, the taxpayers should, out of a sort of noblesse oblige respect for liberalism, finance NPR. They behaviorally suggest that it’s just fine that state public employee union pension obligations are in the trillions. The remedy is obvious: Raise taxes on the wealthy. If this were part of the nation’s progressive taxation policy, more entitlements would be fiscally manageable. Harry Reid, a progressive leader, says unequivocally that social security, respective of evidence to the contrary, is financially sound.

Remember when Barney Frank told us Americans that Fannie and Freddie were just fine — that what conservatives were trying to do was ruin housing for the poor.

The distinct premise these progressives are trying to publically convey is founded on a supposition of the rational and reasonable. Their approach to the formulation of fiscal policy is striking the right balance; that there really is a distinction between spending and investing. They are broadcasting to all that will listen the proposal that no rational and reasoned elected representative of the liberal brand, particularly considering the present state of economic affairs, could possibly, consider simply dallying, dithering, as if they were obsessively eccentric ideologically motivated nincompoops. Oh no, these liberal Democrats are not thinking of 2012; they are not dancing so to eat up time so that this year’s budget will be muted by the arrival of end of the year…

Certainly, the Obama government has a living breathing snapshot of what the collapse of a welfare state looks like; surely, it is aware of California. A state that faces an immediate $26.6 billion dollar shortfall, an estimated half-a-trillion dollar public pension obligatory, and unemployment higher than Michigan. The reality is that California has 12% of the nation’s population and 1/3 of the national welfare cases. Now how in the world did all of the highly educated all-knowing wonks allow this counter-to-deductive-sensibility manifest? Well, here’s how: They borrowed and spent the people’s money as if state taxes and fees were on a guaranteed upward path. Naturally, in keeping with the stupidity of enacting and implementing a policy of wish, hope, and disbelieve in the empirically obvious, they were elected and reelected by promising more to those who have less and less to those who have more.

We ideological counter engagers are fighting for a period; we then retire to our corners, recalculate strategy, tactics, and venture out into the middle of the ring. Compromise has become (as it should be) a nasty possibility that neither engager contemplates as a solution. The Republicans are searching for a superhero to save the day… and the Democrats have their superhero.

UNIONS ARE ONE OF THE PROBLEMS

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Because of the behaviorally dysfunctional narrative that contextualizes American politics and the normative nature of human incongruity, legislation in outcome is often contrary to legislative intent. Indeed, often enough legislative effect is assigned the descriptive: “unintentional consequence.” As a consequence of legislators not reading or comprehending the laws considered for passage, the corollary of such daffy legislative actions are laws enacted wholly outside the reasoning or first cause of the original legislative intent.

Within the providence of politic’s influence is the currency of trade. The idea of pursuing one’s ideals or procedure is ancient. The provocateurs of influencing are artful persuaders. Indeed, regardless of one’s political ideology, the action of politics is founded on principles of persuasion wherein the objective is to garner positive consensus.

For example, public employee unions are interested in negotiating their contracting position with a friend of unions; hence, they spend an inordinate amount of their union dues on selecting and supporting Democratic politicians that espouse a liberal progressive belief. Does it really seem sensible for the taxpayers to have a union advocate representing their fiscal interest? The factor of concern for unions, business lobbyists, and consumer necessitates, as well as every other representative of advocacy, is to attain influence in the pursuit of their particular interest.

Machiavelli would be proud of the numerous elected representatives who play out the role of his prince. Liberal progressive governors have led the way in putting their state’s pension and benefit fund in the fiscal position of financial impairment. This came into being because the governors were beholding to union money and physical support.

Predominate in politics is the statutorily compliant corruptive practice of manipulating the process of law making so to gain a political advantage. There are many examples, one of which is the Obama administration’s granting of exceptions to ObamaCare. Another is this dance over the current budget.

Our constitutional originators understood this normative — and founded a written constitutional platform to navigate the bow of state through the dangerous waters of self-interest, corruptive influence, and re- or misinterpretation of original constitutional purpose. Nevertheless, despite the written constitution and regardless of the checks and balances inherent in the separation of powers, the effectual of the judicial branch and mandatory elections held every two and four years, the meaningfulness of this nation’s constitution, has been subject to distortions of original intent.

As the colloquial saying goes, “things happen;” indeed, things did happen and at this very moment things are happening. Wherein, instead of establishing an everlasting democratic-republic, we Americans are governed by an oligarchic governorship that operates in plain sight within the legislative and executive branches of government. Our economy is more socialist than capitalistic; the taxing system implemented by government is designed to redistribute wealth at the discretion of the federal bureaucracy and member states have ceded their historical sovereignty to the omnipotent power of the central authority. None of this enforces individual liberty and freedom; it seems the weight of the federal bureaucracy despite its obvious inefficiency, its monstrous cost to benefit ratio, federal power and bureaucracy have stymied the means and often the will to change.

The recent election did not go far enough; we now know that without a super-majority in both houses and control of the executive branch, the liberal progressive socialist will impede the conservative agenda to the point of ineffectiveness. The 2012 election seems the only real recourse to the course of Obama and his confederates.

WHAT ARE THESE DEMOCRATS DOING?

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

I really want to pick on these Democratic politicians who just cannot get it into their brain housing group that they are on the losing end of a very material issue.

The issue of material concern consists of two separates that have a symbiotic connection: The first is the excessive cost of governing; the other are the public employee unions and their utility of collective bargaining as such pertains to satisfying the requirements of a balanced budget.

The gross federal & state taxable revenue has recently taken a negative downturn; the result of which has been an unrestricted exposé, a pictorially delivered rendering as to the bona fide cost of governing for all to review. The sequence of such a review is the immediate conjecture that the day-to-day, year-to-year cost of governing exceeds tax and fee income. The audit deduction deduces the fact that union expenditures in the form of salaries, benefits, and pensions are not only unsustainable but illogical. The lawful utility of collective bargaining by unions has handicapped negotiating by local and state governments to the point where unions have actually usurped the meaningfulness of elections. They limited the sensible ability of state/local government to lower operational cost to a nonoperational degree. Unions have had the effect of disenfranchising the duly elected from the implementation of prudent governing willfulness. They have purposefully intervened in the affairs of governing to such an extent, impairment is a discussed recourse.

The camouflaging or concealment of governmental liabilities has been hidden from first sight by politicians of both parties rather efficiently. That is until the Obama administration’s insatiable spending appetite forced a second look. Reality is that it was Obama and his socialist tendencies coupled with his progressive political beliefs that provided the most significant contribution to the conservative cause of limited government. It is not to say that President Bush and his republican majority did not try to throw taxpayer funds into the fire of the outrageous and stupid; but, unlike Obama, Bush failed to incite the conservative base. President Obama did manage to agitate the public; of course, the outrage was prompted by trillions of (investments?) spending dollars into governmental silliness.

The single goal of leadership is to be right; President Obama and his acolytes were wrong on way too many policies. It was Obama’s team that predicated unemployment would not pass the 8% mark as a precondition to passing the stimulus bill.

For decades, federal, state, and county public employee unions have bullied, cajoled, and negatively impacted their (fellow citizen) employers; they have challenged the ‘right to work’ environment and lost the contest. In the election of 2008 they elected Obama and a whole host of liberal progressives; they captured an overwhelming majority in the legislative branch of government. Nevertheless, by 2010 they lost the House of Representatives to the conservatives; they were befuddled and regressed into the explanation that unemployment numbers were simply too high as the reasoning of their shellacking.

Well, unemployment numbers were and are high because their policies do not work. Now they are doubling up on endorsing public employee unions; even Obama traversed into the fray with his concern that public employee unions are being illegitimately assaulted by Governor Walker.

Here is the fact: Democrats are lost in the desert of “once upon a time.” They are searching for the progressive promised land. But not only is Obama not Moses; he is caught between the purgatory of supporting business and limiting the growth of government, a workable policy or advocating a liberal progressive agenda that he knows will not create jobs nor raise taxable revenue. If he wants a political future he must swing to the right… but he just can’t do it.

WHAT EXACTLY IS OUR PROBLEM?

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

We have an economy larger than China and Japan combined — and we still need to sell debt instruments to foreign entities in order to meet our spending requirements?

Let’s think about this self-imposed conundrum… This nation protects the trading interest, the physical properties, and lives of millions of people who reside within the “providence” of the Free World. We are a very real martial hesitation for any aggressor; in fact, we, along with Canada, England, and Australia are the only true deterrent to any overt military threat whatsoever.

We are the largest consumer nation that has ever existed and withstanding our fiscal issues and unsustainable national deficit, we are still the transactional envy of the world.

If all is as I describe, how did this nation put itself in the position that it finds itself in 2011? How could we have so tangible a resource and yet be so very dependent on foreign nations purchasing our debt? Presently our national debt is 1.6 trillion dollars. Imagine the interest payments! The people of this nation are consuming benefits by borrowing money from foreign sources. We are caught up in this fiasco of counter-intuitive intercourse because we lack the managerial wherewithal or fiscal discipline to reduce our spending while living within the means of our tax revenue.

The grand question is: How in the hell did this happen? Why is it that America lacks the managerial wherewithal and fiscal discipline to straighten out its mess?

Over the last hundred years we have allowed the illogical influence of socialists, progressives, liberals, Epicureans, sophists, academia recluses, and the ideologically naïve into convoluting the very ethos of American governing tradition. The result is a legislative approach that champions a doctrine that government knows best, a presumption wholly void of empirical evidence.

As a nation we have traded leadership for a benign-sort of followship. Wherein legislators blend, compromise, affiliate, and with purposeful intent have collectively deduced that it is much safer (reelection considerations) to hide within the majority of opinions than to step forward and be distinguished. Because there is a human empathy for the commonality of behavioral dysfunction, tragedy, financial inequality; a differing of social and cultural upbringing. Many of the elected, in the interest of buying votes, have decided that government should fund entitlements, grants, and loans as well as all sorts of social, educational, and economic development programs to right any and all wrongs that could possibly be attributed to anyone not born into a financially functional family.

Obama has just put forth his budget; he has chosen to follow instead of lead. Rather than addressing the issues of the day he is playing the political game of 2012 reelection. He is the quintessential follower posing as a leader — he is a spokesperson, a representative of a political ideology — nothing more. Leadership is a distinctive trait; one knows it when one sees it. A leader embodies confidence, takes all the responsibility, and knows he or she has just one obligation, and that is to be right. Obama and his confederates are lost in the ‘wilderness of wish-it-was-so;’ they are the weight around the ankles of self-determination, self-reliance, and values that aggregate to form American exceptionalism.

We do need to rid this nation of the Obamas of the world; the election right around the corner, opportunity is nearby… but conservative principled leadership is required!

TRUSTING IN GOVERNMENT IS NOT SENSIBLE

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

The citizens of this nation have a serious behavioral problem which has developed into an ever repeating, never resolved quandary. We learn, we forget, we relearn, and then we forget again. This pattern is particularly evident in the application of our principles of self-governing.

The framers of the constitution built in a system of checks and balances within the federal government for a reason. It is my presumption that they knew that when defining government, one is actually defining not so much the structure but the application — and the application of governing is implemented by persons; government is people-managed. Therefore, trustworthiness is counter-sensible. Trust is not an inherent tangible of governing… quite the contrary!

History validates that government, regardless of edifice and withstanding its constitutional means, will always feed itself first. Therefore and as a consequence of being people-managed (an intrinsic ever-present defect), government will always choose the enhancement of its own power at the fare or disregard of its citizens’ individual liberty and freedom. Although evidence of government’s steadfast encroachment on individual liberty and freedom is apparent, we Americans are always relearning the same lesson over and over again. We never seem to remember that the nature of government is to act omnipotent, repressive, and coercive. Crises, perceived or real, always result in the abatements of individual rights while government entrenches itself in depth and girth into American business and society.

I believe that humankind, from a behavioral perspective, since the beginning of record keeping has demonstrated that mankind has a predominant predisposition, a discernable fondness for the most bane of human distinctiveness. Indeed, certain specific actions of humankind could be classified as clinically dysfunctional, possibly psychotic. The conundrum created by my analysis of human behavior is formed in this question: How is it possible that any citizen could take at face value the words of any elected official?

Certainly, government will always be managed by people; I am not suggesting some newly developed software will replace people. I am stating that we must finally learn that these of the elected class must not ever be trusted. The wise has said that government is a necessary evil. Lord Acton, “all power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely,” I can rightfully suggest that any power managed by any government, including the Vatican, needs the constancy of distrustfulness and monitoring.

Presently, our president is acting like a centralist. He is saying positive things about private enterprise. Cutting the rising cost of government, seeking the means and ways to compromise with the Republicans, irritating his leftist brethren… this entire episodically designed New-Obama, is supposedly a translucent effort to… hmm — something do with some future thing.

With the election of 2012 looming, moderate Republicans are leaning right and left, leaning Democrats are leaning moderate. Whatever happened to mean what you say and say what you mean?

Now, what did I say about trusting government and their elected underlings? Oh yes, keep the pressure on, we conservatives must insist on the downsizing of government in scope and regulatory power, stop this constancy of impetuous federal spending, stop the collateralizing today of federal revenue into the foreseeable tomorrows, stop throwing away more taxpayer funds into ill-effective entitlements, encumber our elected representatives, find a solution to illegal Mexican immigration, secure our southern border, legislate an initiative to utilize our nation’s fossil fuel resources, and insure that the federal government understands our demand of laissez-faire.

OBAME THE CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

It seems Obama is turning conservative — or at the very, very, least he has abruptly right-faced so to appear within the political center. Obama abandons his leftist progressives in favor of a conservative agenda! Now that’s news… but has he actually done that? Hmm… could it be that the rascal is simply, in the interest of political survival, playing politics? Maybe, just possibly, our president wants to be reelected in 2012.

I think that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it is likely President Obama is that duck. Obviously the president has decided that tactics of guile, deceit, and deviousness is a much better alternative than being a one-term president. But of course, President Obama’s most recent ‘spin’ is not unusual. In fact, Obama’s cunning realignment of political opinion, even ideological principles, is common amongst the political class. The political class does not require the inducement or prompt of empirical evidence to flush a heretofore closely held belief. For politicians, including our President Obama, the goal is the retention of power and prestige, the means to it is discretionary and quite fluid.

I assume the question that remains to be answered is whether or not Obama will be successful in his political movement to the middle. Surely, after the last election he knows that displaying his political truthfulness to the electorate will not insure his election. Obama’s strategy of excessive taxation so to support permissive lending and imprudent spending is simply a loser policy. So is bashing business. Taking from those who have more, via government coerciveness, so to entitle those who have less, (despite the ruinous effects of progressives’ champions: Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR and Obama) is not an American ideal nor tenets of a democratic republic.

The exemplar of government intervention regardless of extraordinary resistance of the people is ObamaCare. This legislation was forced upon the people by legislative trickery, backroom deal making, and despicable political rankling. Republicans have pledged that this legislation in its present form will not stand.

So I gather our president will try to meander through the Republican House of Representatives by feigning middle-of-the-road governess and in so doing draw independent voters away from the conservative camp to his.

These next few months will be riddled with promises, promises, mingled in with some bull, a few distortions, lots of half-truths, and several timely placed lies.

THE PENDING CONFLICT

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

A clash is coming. This pending conflict over which opposing political ideal prevails is of paramount importance; the outcome will definitively define the operating meaningfulness of America. This forthcoming contretemps is as critical to the country’s future as the affirmation of the Declaration of Independence, ratification of the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution of the United States. The victor defines this nation’s character, ethos, and legislative values for generations to come.

Interestingly, for all of us engaged in this ‘struggle-imperative,’ unlike other conflicts, this pending clash is not open ended. We participants know the exact term as well as the “définitif real” of victory — we also understand that defeat means the end of limited government as a viable concept. The American fortitude of existentialism inclusive of the spirit of American exceptionalism will be discarded in favor of the collective common denominator.

The contesting of the electorate’s heart and mind will start on January 5, 2011 and end on November 2, 2012. The political ideas of liberal progressivism versus conservative limited government principles will be debated in every neighborhood’s nook and corner. From the board room to the halls of academia, from shore to shore, throughout the nation; from the kitchen table to gatherings within the various governing locals: the people of the United States will be asked to bend an attentive ear to a persistent political message. Doubtlessly, the following will occur: Motivated by political advertising and the need to enhance readership or viewership, all venues of media will be taking advantage of the pending bonanza. Unions with lots of cash will summon the faithful so to declare their perspective, the ideologically inspired from the left to right political perspective will pontificate, politicians motivated by the reality of counter-interest victory will lustfully enunciate, President Obama’s “bully pulpit” will typify a persuasion that has run amuck.

Obama’s banner of liberal progressive legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare will be assaulted by the Republicans; the Dodd-Frank legislation is another target of Republican interest. The question is, can the 112 Congress approach all federal government spending, line by line, department by department, which of course includes all programs that would not exist were it not for federal funding, and specifically hound federal departments that simply duplicate function or whose function is deemed unnecessary be shut down?

The Democrats know that their current legislation is in danger only if they lose the presidential election of 2012; so their task will be to thwart all Republican non-funding tactics or formal legislative challenges until that election. Naturally, at the same time the Democrats need to build a positive political consensus amongst the voters as well as successfully fight off Republican efforts to dismantle their accomplishments.

I do believe that if conservatives do not sweep the next election — indeed, the sweep must include a super-majority in the two legislative branches — a politically conservative America will be politically stymied by the liberal progressive minority. From a strictly domestic perspective, liberal progressive in the garb of Democrats is not our only concern. If we citizens are not careful with our votes we will end a nation managed by legal opinions. Wherein congress is set-aside in favor of judicial considerations.

Once this nation accepts the government as the prime mover in all things and items of material value, the core of this nation will soften, our intestinal fortitude will no longer chose the courage demanded of leadership. American leadership will drift and flounder and at the risk of an ever increasingly dangerous world this nation will NOT adhere to its worldwide responsibilities. Instead, America will position itself into a bureaucratic-mediocrity wherein the United Nations will assume the role of world leader.

These next two years leading up to the election of 2012, are critical for this nation and its destiny; at risk is the very meaning of America. Additionally, the futuristic interruptive of liberty, individual freedom, and a truly representative limited-government is hanging in suspension awaiting resolution.

CONGRESS 111…

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Chicanery seems to be the natural behavior of a congress full of politicians; nevertheless, this “Lame Duck” session, this of this particular congress, this one is audaciously emblematic for its arrogant disregard. In other words, these progressives are bound and determined to enact their agenda. In their world view, skipping over or enveloping the clear message delivered by the voters in the last election (the loss of 63 congressional seats) is not an obligatory consideration of concern. Instead this congress regards the recent electoral results as the actions of ignoramuses and as a consequence the Democratic shellacking should NOT apply to these elected politicians. These “Lame Duck” participants, progressives all, are two-thirds of the three monkeys, one is hearing-impaired, the other is blind to the obvious, and the last monkey just cannot keep form putting its foot in its mouth. This congress is the very essence; the exact definitive of a government managed by officialdoms whose purposeful intention is the development and application of chicaneries.

Noticeably, this congress has finalized the Obama compromise; President Bush must have had a giggle over that. Withstanding President Obama’s repeated declarations of unfairness as to the effect of the Bush tax cuts, his reluctance to embrace Bush policies has made an abrupt U-turn. Now it seems the populous will benefit and jobs will be created…

The ringing concerns of Obama the candidate has been geared down to the reality of Obama the governor of a federal administration. Thus, Obama’s U-turn has a continuum of energy that will bend the political left turn into a conservative right; the president has acknowledged that the left turn was an economic dead end.

Note the clutter of nonsense created by the liberal progressives: Guantanamo is still open despite the passionately delivered pre-as-well-as- post election proclamations as to its closing. This inability to close Guantanamo flies in the face of Democratic leadership’s decisive conclusion that the existence of Guantanamo was unequivocally aiding the world-wide recruitment of Bin Laden style terrorism. That conclusion has been sidelined into the waste-basket of formerly held, but now accepted, as mostly rhetorical nonsense. Bush era tax-cuts reinstated. Terrorist are still being flown by CIA operatives to autonomous destinations for enhanced interrogation. The Afghan war is still being waged by drone and infantry. All of these Obama policies persuade me to wonder if Bush actually won a third-term in the name of Obama.

History is full of dead ideals and idealist. Every once in a while there is a phoenix of socialistically inspired dictums. This affection for what has been previously abandoned is often incased within a moral premise of fairness. I.e. Obama’s first two years of governing. This naively emotive approach traversing a dynamic ever existing contest normally leaps over the requirement of empirical evidence in favor of addressing the detrimental treatment (prompted by the rich, the republicans, and all persons, institutions, or inhibitors of liberal progressive policies) of the poor, the disenfranchised, and of course, the favored of the modern day socialist evangelical: The ever dwindling in numbers & influence middle class. Obama and his liberal progressives ostensibly address all challenges of governance with one prerogative of evaluation: How does this particular policy safeguard the interest of the poor and middle class? After all these progressives understand how important it is to buy their vote with special promises of favoritism.

As with all proponents of autocratic governorships who by logical deduction is also inclined to espouse a preferential elitist mentality. Their narcissistic component presumes and deduces that Descartes’, “Cogito ergo sum,” was specifically meant for them and indeed is the perfect purpose of their raison d’être. Clearly, the liberal progressive movement considers that these words of Descartes were written to declare and define their intellectual superiority. This assumption therefore must mean that the others that populate the nation state do not think; or surely, do not think as well. As such is taken as a fact, it logically follows that this assumptive reasoning (by the liberal progressives) must also serve as the underlying principle or basis of and for their intellectual preeminence.

The elitist of liberal progressive ideology are by explicit definition few in numbers. The very meaning of the few possessing intellectual superiority requires that the many or the common to be intellectually inferior. Since the few manifest sublime intelligence and the many clearly do not it is incumbent upon the few to lead the many. The presumption of elitist must be that voters are similar to domesticated animals wherein the many and the common do not know enough to understand what is best for them. So as a matter of virtuous regard the elite must harbor and safeguard the common.

But sometimes, in keeping with the example of domesticated animals, the common are hesitant and at times down-right noncompliant; this reluctance to comply with what has been decided by the elite as to what is in their best interest forces coercive techniques. A perfect instance of where the common simply do not know what is best for them is ObamaCare.

Obama and his confederates are shameless practitioners of the Machiavellian doctrine, “the end justifies the means.” This dedication by the liberal progressives to their agenda is always going to be a real and present threat to our constitutional republic. There can be no compromise with those of such political-economic differing.

Well, the 111th Congress is on their way out. I am looking forward to the 112th.