Category: Blogroll

THE PRACTICE OF STATUTORILY COMPLIANT CORRUPTION

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Be it civil or criminal, we all understand the meaning and consequence of breaking the law. When one speaks of corruption, normally the word applies to governments, organizations, or some closed loop entity. But not many of us have considered the meaning or consequences of “statutorily compliant corruption” (or SCC) wherein the perpetrator has not violated any civil or criminal statute… nevertheless, an injustice or circumvention of societal concurrence has been committed.

When congress submits its approved annual budget and then spends billions of taxpayers’ monies in off-balance sheet-in-addition-to budget appropriation, is this an overt corruptive act?

When federal immigration laws are selectively enforced, is this not a corruptive manipulation of existing law?

When a politician is elected because of the promise not to raise taxes and then touts legislation that does exactly that — is this betrayal NOT a pure example of SCC?

Barney Frank told us that Fannie and Freddie were financially sound and critical to the government’s obligation to insure a parity of fairness. Is it not true that Senator Frank and Dodd, with the aid and assist of the now President Obama, insisted on the veracity of obligation in the concept of government residential subsidy? Additionally, I recall that with purposefulness and premeditation these politicians, along with a majority of Democrats, sang the praises of Fannie and Freddie as they fought off the Bush administration’s efforts to wind down these entities. Clearly, Fannie and Freddie are not now – nor were these entities then – financially sound. It would have been prudent to de-leverage, impair, and rescind the authority and function of these quasi-government entities. Is the conduct of these three senators simply a matter of ignorance? Is it that they were simply too stupid to analyse the going ons? Or were these senators simply garnishing support within their base, not thinking all of the consequences? Did their actions fall within the definition of SCC?

Often enough false pretense is the actual ethos of the act of SCC. The motivations for extending these lies vary in degree and type. However, the disseminations of outright falsehoods seem to have the one motivational commonality: The perceived benefit of political or pecuniary gain. The process of implementing SCC includes a state government’s issuance of bonds without full and transparent disclosure, to the traditional tactics of government and corporate misinformation and disinformation. There seems to be no shame as to the lengths of such corruptive behavior and from time to time there isn’t even a discernable, rational, reasonable aim of the practice. Obviously, in these cases, logic and deductive reasoning are deleted by the lustful passion of ideological inspiration wherein malice is the intent and mischievousness the means.

All of us could, by simply reading the newspaper, easily find other instances of SCC practices within our governing and corporate systems. Our society has become very tolerant of malfeasant behavior; not just from our sports heroes, celebrities, or family members, but, most disconcerting, from our elected and appointed government officials. I am concerned with the ease pundits accept the less than stellar behavior of our elected representatives. Frankly, I am bit perplexed as to the reasoning and readiness of forgiveness for our elected officials ethical shortcoming. Maybe that is because there is no reasoning, but only the expectation of less.

The infection of “statutorily compliant corruption” has penetrated unevenly into the varied demographics of our society. Is it simply about the money? Does power have such sway that one is willing to lose one’s honor over the trivial of fame and cash? Why does one, a graduate of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and other such notable institutions believe that skimming close to the line of illegal is acceptable?

Possibly, one could draw a parallel between the numbers of law school graduates, the proliferation of legalized gaming, the number of divorces, fatherless families, the glorification of the flourishing illicit profession of selling cocaine, marijuana, and heroin, the number of teenage pregnancies, the outrageous number of abortions, the largeness of all governments, the permissive thus imprudent conduct of governing leadership in relation to government’s fiscal status, the commonplace of government deficit spending, and the immense expansion of federal/state socio-economic entitlements.

The evil that erodes the goodness from this great nation is a process of piece-by-piece deterioration of our moral ethos. When the cultural mores of the nation’s professional class determines that the object of winning trumps the means, as long as those means do not breach criminal or civil statutory requirements, America the exceptional will blend into America that once was.

The behavior of “statutorily compliant corruption” is much more dangerous to the veracity of this nation’s lawfulness than an overt criminal act. America is the shining light; we must maintain its brilliance by never compromising the nation’s spirit or moral ethos.

OUR SHAMEFUL TAX & DISTRIBUTE SYSTEM

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

There are four reasons why I am against the current U.S. federal/state socio-economic-political philosophy that is incased within our progressive income tax system:

1. The federal and state (where applicable) policy of individual taxation purposefully excludes or minimizes to the extreme the participation of all citizens to pay income taxes.

2. The present system of distributing taxes collected by the federal government is by prima facie discriminative in application and process.

3. The federal government’s system of taking from one state of the union in order to give to another is (as documented) a model platform for legislative corruption, politician influence peddling, and the guidebook for wasteful spending.

4. Businesses are taxed on profits. The definition of profits is crafted within the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). My issue with that standard as it relates to tax policy is that only profitable businesses carry the entire burden of taxation — and all Obama and his brand of ideologues want to legislate is a higher tax on those profits.

The progressive tax system, by deliberate exclusion, denies at least 45% of this country’s individual income earners the right of participation in the most material aspects of citizenship: The duty of participating in one of the most critical aspects of citizenship, which should not be denied by the deceitful rhetoric of any politician or political party. After all, respective of the politician’s declaration of fairness or the farce of creating an even playing field as the cause to not tax 45% of the income earners, the real reason to exclude is always tied to gathering votes. In this republic every citizen is an obligated participant in the task of governing. One is not a participant if they have no cause for concern; and the most cause for concern is government spending. This duty of citizenship, once denied implies the disenfranchisement (by government) of a citizen’s premier responsibility which results in a marginalization of the individual’s motivation or cause to monitor governmental activities. Obviously, government wants to evade transparency, accountability, and oversight; by denying inclusion in the obligation of taxpaying to a large percentage of the citizenry, the cause to inquire simply vanishes and the politicians that endorse such a policy has gained a vote.

Those citizens who have from generation to generation enjoyed the entitlement of government’s pecuniary support have no cause to participate since they are only on the receiving end of the system. Politicians know that even though each one of these citizens has a vote, there are no conservatives within that demographic. Hence, politicians seeking an anchor electorate know how to keep the entitlements coming…

Further, politicians since and before Caesar attained governmental offices by coercion, the bargaining of influence, and the overt buying of votes. A method of buying votes is to give cash to those that have a vote and a need for the cash. Obama was the most recent – but far from the only – practitioner of giving cash to purchase votes; in fact, the purchasing of power by means legal and extralegal has been going on since the city of Ur.

Interestingly, I have never heard of an American politician citing his or her interest in making the rich richer; it is always rectifying the great wrong done to the poor. For Caesar it was to empower the plebeians with land and government influence to the contrary of Roman tradition as well as to the disadvantage of the ruling patricians. For President Obama it was to give money to those who pay no individual income tax. In both cases the objective was to garner emotional support and buy their vote.

The popular proclamation today amongst the liberal progressive movement is directed to the most exalted and beloved-the middle class. This class, according to the progressive leaders, consist of the the very ones who were tricked, duped by Republican skullduggery, or simply mislead by the just-about-evil rich demigods of the George W. Bush corporate class. Hence the Obama cause to level the playing field via the utility of taxation, taking from the more to give to the less. Or maybe the motivation of Obama was more direct…buying votes via the manipulation of tax policy.

Because we have no term limits, those elected representatives that have been in power the longest, have the most privileges. Therefore, they have the first cut of those monies distributed by the federal government. The process of federal tax distribution is flawed by the process employed, which is why a senator or congressperson of long standing redeems more tax dollars for his/her state than another state or in some cases actually enjoys a surplus of tax revenue — because they receive more than taxes paid in.

The entire system of distribution is fraught with corruptive practice. Millions upon millions of taxpayer monies are paid out for the dumbest of causes; this corruptive practice is known by everyone, but for reasons of political consideration and compromise, the practice is allowed to continue, even flourish. It is shameful.

Most businesses fail. Few businesses actually make a profit. Most small businesses are single proprietorships wherein there is no GAAP profit. Taxes are paid via the proprietor’s salaries. That is exactly why the Obama administration’s effort to aid and assist small business per tax deferment, abatement, or forgiveness is ludicrous; the small business has no profit to take advantage of. Corporate taxes are paid by the profitable and all the elected do is burden these companies more in taxes, as a penalty for the outrageousness of making a profit.

THE GAMES WE PLAY

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Everyday trillions of dollars are invested by millions of people in public traded corporate equities. For the most part the investments are made by the almost blind and the just about totally ignorant. These trades are administered by the somewhat less than totally ignorant for a fee and the whole industry of trading equities is overseen by a federally chartered agency, staffed by thousands of regulatory-type employees. Remembering that everyone, the investors, the traders, the regulators, and the governments (or their designators) all feed off of the trading volume. No volume – no feed…

In the majority, these buys and sells of equities are whimsically caused to be executed on a presumption that a particular or grouping of forecasts has merited viability. The trading action, be it buy or sell, creates the trading momentum; such momentum either validates the forecasters’ initial presumption or negates the heretofore judgment. Real time software programs are in place to gage the trading volume/price and to execute on the basis of such swings of momentum. In other words, respective of a company’s financial substance, be it judged strong or weak, trading momentum will not be denied its result; the stock rises or falls on the basis of volume sold or purchased, not some empirical truthfulness.

The reasoning of momentum trades are founded on one real fact: No one, in real time, can read a corporation’s balance sheet – and it is in real time that trades are executed. So a licensed trader may go through the motions of prudent discovery per the studying of financial statements, interviewing key persons within the corporation of investment interest, or some other institutionally considered methodology of pre-investment sensibility. But the truth is, no one with consistency can invest into the equity market with any meaningful degree of accuracy.

When one places a bet onto a crap game by throwing hued chips on the table, no observer considers such an action an investment. In fact, the observer defines it as gambling. Now gambling maybe considered by the generous of heart as entertainment; others adamantly declare gambling as the clear and simple example of avoidable risk. But if one directs ones cash to the purchase of equity in the secondary market (listed stock exchanges) even at the 100% risk of one’s principle, the definition of such an action changes dramatically. Indeed the action is defined by most as an investment and is considered an instance of prudent well reasoned behavior, wherein gambling is considered a foolish, even stupid act.

Nevertheless, gambling and investing have certain DNA commonalities; the differing from one act to the other is measured only by a chromosome or two in separation. Both actions require determination of forethought and such determinations, regardless of the particular strategy employed, require timing and cash management. In gambling the contest is (for the most part) about playing against or for the established odds; now of course, the odds in gambling as with the ever-changing factors pertinent to equity investing, are not static. In equity investing, stockbrokers, these licensed pseudo-harbingers of risk mitigation, ‘plot & plan’ with the standard and normative institutionally acceptable advisory: An assorted diversity of holdings, a spread of cash percentages within the variety of holdings, long term thinking that deduces into long-term expectations, coupled with the contemplation of and for more fair-efficient-tax related outcomes.

But after all the Brooks Brother suits and the casino bosses having cashed in their cut of the winnings, my contention is: There is little differing between gambling and investing in the equity market; this seems particularly true for the average Joe. Another interesting similarity between playing the casino games and the stock market is where the players decide to place their bets. In the games within a casino, most play is given to slot machines; with investing in the equity market, the greater percentage of players are vested with mutual funds. In both instances the reasoning for such particulars of behavior is its simplicity of action; neither the slot machine nor the mutual fund requires much thinking…

Equity investing has a wide differing of results as to returns for individual investors only because of one exacting, and that is timing. Timing is everything. Timing applies just as proportionately to successful gambling. Now if I am right and the one and only tangible of surety for making money when putting one’s monies at risk is to make the bet after the horses have run the race. And since no one would take such a bet it is reasonable to conclude that one needs to be a harbinger in order to successfully gamble or invest.

Clearly, investing in equities is arbitrary. Returns on investments are random in nature. There is no such thing as historical norm and all elements of measure subordinate to the power of chance.

Well then, why is it that the global equity market is so popular? How does it so successfully transact, for a fee of course, a win-loss result to millions of people in the trillions of equity investment dollars?

Because just like from gambling transactions, the governments of the world earn multi-millions of cash income from all of the people’s speculating; without the transactional revenue in both gambling and equities, there would be no fees or taxes earned. Unless the government earns fees as a result of its legislative interceding, its ingress into what in the majority is a private transaction, or by the invention of cause so to engage, government cannot gain its commission; no commission, hence no cash to feed its insatiable appetite for more power.

Government is the new all-powerful corporation. It is more powerful than the Standard Oil of old; the railroad dominance of Andrew Carnegie, and the banks of J.P. Morgan. The U.S. government is the largest single greatest monopolist of natural and synthetic resources in the world; it also controls the most lethal armed force since 1st century Rome. It is this very government that has won, by regulation, legislation, investments of other people’s money, and intimidation of litigation, a full-partnership in every aspect of this nation’s material assets.

Imagine that the Securities and Exchange Commission regulates the very entities that pay them a fee to be in business. If trusting business to operate free of monitoring is imprudent, why is it prudent to trust the SEC for such a function? After all, without transactions that generate revenues in the equity market, there would be no need for the monitorship.

Plus, who in their right state of mindfulness would trust congress?

I suppose, to varied degrees we are all gamesters. We participate by differing means because we must or because we love it; regardless of our motivation, we are all players – and then we die. The only real winners through it all are attorneys and the governments.

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.

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.

SENATUS POPULUSQUE ROMANUS

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

This government of ours is mimicking the financial-political chaos of ancient Rome. The unrelenting diatribe between those in power and those vying for power, the back and forth of charge and counter charge, coupled with a nuance or two, the at times juvenile explanations are broadcast 24/7. The amount of diverse ubiquitously disseminated information is voluminous as well as inimitable. Quantifying a differing viewpoint is an all consuming endeavor. Everyone has an opinion, none is ignored. Truthfulness is not a requirement of the disseminators. From political pundits, anonymous bloggers, to entertainers, the “free-for-all” of petty, many times truly scurrilous attacks seem comparatively unequal in their venomous intent. But then, if such mongering is not annoying enough, the antitheses, equal in appeal, will try one’s resolve. The ineffective and frankly implausible, often hypocritical, highfalutin bombast fabricated by politicians and their trainers, insincerely delivered with a wide smile solely for political satisfaction, is irritatingly shameful.

How could any of these mimickers of ancient Rome actually believe that the informed citizen (the ones that vote) could actually be influenced by the continuum of contrivance spewing out of the mouths of these politicians? Obviously, enough of the informed believe the politically motivated — otherwise, the tactic would change. I assume the objective is to create enough doubt that the voter will, once in the voting booth, decide to cast either a negative or skip that particular ballot.

Less the advance of technology Caesar would find kinship in the politics of today. As in Caesar’s time, one requires cash, pretty, catchy words and phrases, eager acolytes or at least the pretense of same; certainly, the press must be fastidiously dedicated against one’s opponent, a strong internet marketing presence, and the willingness for unabashed deception. Since Washington’s second term, for the sake of winning, in the name of compromise, the elite of political leadership has, with some worthy exceptions, steadily drifted into the malaise of personal character dilution. The result is less and less inclination for the ideals and virtues of Cincinnatus and more and more for the preference of Sulla. The symbolic Rubicon has been crossed so many times by congress and their brethren of schemers that all pretenses have been set aside until senators finally “pork-barreled” in a four-lane span-bridge.

Congresspersons, not all but many, spend a good deal of their time wings spread, feathers on display, doodle doing legislation, while plotting and planning means to hold their office until they die.

The concept of a “free-press” has been replaced by entertainers with smiles, news that are cut and pasted along the lines of ideological fondness and delivered by genders, in the most part with dashing good looks. These “talking-heads” are keen on hair, teeth, and clothes. All of the dressing for the part is to service viewer ratings; however, if ratings are not up to par, then the value shifts to the practical: All is passable, one can get by as long as they (the actors of the press playing journalist) posses at least the pretense of transcendent regard.

The unions are demanding, like unruly children, that their agenda is enacted and adhered. After all, they shout “we put Obama into power and we (the union) demand our pound of flesh”. For Caesar, the unions would represent paid-for gangs that would march the streets of Rome and beat up the opposition in favor of their candidate. For unions the only factor of consideration is power; the means to achieve that end is simply not relevant. Hmm they sound like some attorneys, crooks, the dastardly, outlaws, and many members of congress.

Truman’s rebuff of MacArthur’s tactical determination secured the future for the dictatorships of China and North Korea. North Korea has been gaining from our weakness since Eisenhower declared (during an election) that he would end the war instead of saying he would deliver victory over an aggressor. JFK did not invade Cuba ninety miles off our coast but initiated a protective umbrella for a corrupt regime, ten thousand miles away. And now Iran has decided that terrorism is a good investment. What is Obama to do?

Since Hadrian built his wall, history has proven over again that power, if not committed, is disabled by its very unwillingness. The President of the United States is stymied by indecision brought to form by conflicting possibilities; his perchance for conceptuality breeds contemplation which leads back to indecision. A leader must distinguish the illusion of dragons from the real. Obama, less his ideological beliefs, is embodied in a maelstrom of self-inflicted contemplation; all he really wants to do is run for office. For this man and his party, governing, as with the seafarer, is the albatross of ominous prospect.

The liberal progressive leadership of Obama’s Democratic Party is lost in the implementation of socialism. They have prioritized social justice as the cause and spreading the wealth as the means. In this particular endeavor Obama has made significant strides…

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…

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…